skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The NYT reports:
Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi advanced rapidly on Wednesday, seizing towns they ceded just days ago after intense allied airstrikes and hounding rebel fighters into a chaotic retreat....
There were few signs of the punishing airstrikes that reversed the loyalists’ first push.
Did God not hear
Thomas Friedman's prayer?!
I am proud of my president, really worried about him, and just praying that he’s lucky...
I hope Qaddafi’s regime collapses like a sand castle, that the Libyan opposition turns out to be decent and united and that they require just a bare minimum of international help to get on their feet. Then U.S. prestige will be enhanced and this humanitarian mission will have both saved lives and helped to lock another Arab state into the democratic camp.
Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky.
Posts
210 comments:
1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»Did he pray like that when Bush sent U.S. forces into Iraq?
Why not?
Praying for luck? What an interesting, complicated, and contradictory approach.
We pray for blessings, we hope for luck.
And we work hard for success.
Trey
There was the little radio speech Obama made before his TV address. It was a very ill advised victory speech. I too pray that Obama will be lucky in this matter. He's been lucky all along, but everyone's luck runs out sooner or later.
"Did he pray like that when Bush sent U.S. forces into Iraq?"
Bush did not need to rely solely on luck. He had a plan, and the early parts of the plan worked out extremely well.
Luck is always a factor, but it's never a plan.
He's already President based on the slimmest record imaginable. How much luckier can one man get?
T.L. Friedman's "The World Is Flatuelence" still sits in the unloved, unfinished books portion of my bookcase.
"Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi advanced rapidly on Wednesday, seizing towns they ceded just days ago after intense allied airstrikes and hounding rebel fighters into a chaotic retreat...."
Has anyone mentioned Vietnam yet?
Sorry, God's too busy talking to Hilary. "God, what the f**k am I doing with these amateur retards?"
They say God protects fools and children. So He's already got to be pretty busy with this administration.
It seems that Thomas Friedman has realized what a haphazard venture attacking Libya was.
Can any of BO's flacks in the MSM make a more cringe-worthy statement than Friedman's? I think not.
Dear Lord,
After Hillary unleashes C-130's and A-10 to decimate everything that moves on the once peaceful cities of Sirte and Tripoli, I pray the survivors who are identified by the rebels...er....citizens as Qahdaffi sympathizers are lucky to just get a bullet in the head, instead of tortured first.
maybe God will answer, but in terms of luck, one ought to look to Occam's Razor and ask which of these events is more likely to happen and which side do we need to occur to make this Friedman fantasy come to pass:
1. I hope Qaddafi’s regime collapses like a sand castle,
2. that the Libyan opposition turns out to be decent and united
3. and that they require just a bare minimum of international help to get on their feet.
My bet is that none of those things are going to be true. If any one of them turns out false, Obama is going to look stupid or naive.
Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky.
Why have a god if you're stuck hoping for luck?
Pro-Qaddafi Forces Push Al Qaeda Rebels Into Chaotic Retreat.
FIFY
But don't worry, the CIC is on the verge of arming them, so there's that.
Bush did not need to rely solely on luck. He had a plan, and the early parts of the plan worked out extremely well.
God and luck are on the side that are well prepared (and who have back-up plans) cuz:
- No plan survives contact with the enemy, alternately
- The enemy has a plan and a vote also :)
When has Friedman been close to being on target....ever? How some of these types rose to their positions among the chattering class is dreadfully astounding.
True, Sarge.
You bomb it, you own it.
True dat, however at odds with our present course of action it is. The problem for our administration is that if the good colonel remains in power and, worse, commits pogroms against the rebels even after our "days, not weeks" are over, we're going to look horribly foolish.
Add to that the fact that the justifications for this action lower the bar to include other ongoing humanitarian outrages (Ivory Coast, Darfur, etc), which will in all likelihood continue unabated, and on top of looking foolish, we'll look weak.
I don't know how many in China celebrate Christmas, but we're setting them up for a big morning.
They vote for Bush III. But more spending, bigger tax cuts and a third war.
David,
If Bush's plan was so well thought out, why do we still have 50,000 troops still there?
If Bush's plan was so well thought out, why do we still have 50,000 troops still there?
I suppose you could ask the same thing of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, MacArthur, etc.
Praying for luck is not prayer, its a wish. "The World is Flatuelence" sits unread on my bookshelf as well, my sister bats about 75% on good books as gifts, but that was a strike out looking.
My favorite part of the article:American military spokesman said that coalition warplanes resumed bombing the pro-Qaddafi units on Wednesday, without specifying the timing or locations.
so much for the fig leaf that either this was a no-fly zone, or transitioned to NATO, or bombing to keep Gaddafi from blowing up cities.
They are fighting in the middle of the desert between major towns, there are no civilians endangered, just fighters on both sides. Our side and his side. Our side is losing... Want to bet how many hours (under 100) before we start going after Command and Control sites in Tripoli?
That is political speak for "putting a JDAM down Gaddafi's chminey"
If I were the EU, I'd step up airport security before you lose another 747. Gaddafi has got to be pissed that you EU guys didnt stay bought.
God, please don't let the nameless, faceless rebels that we're supporting turn out to be ruthless killers that want to slaughter their enemies too.
If Eisenhower's plan was so well thought out, why do we still heve 50,000 troops in Germany?
Has anyone ever noticed we've got no evidence whatsoever of Charlie Sheen and Muammar al-Gaddafi being in the same place at the same time?
Coincidence?
Scott M. We have no tropps in VN because democrats mandated cut and run which led to murders, torture and concentration camps. Plus holocaust in Cambodia. Another reason Kerry was refudiated in 04.
Libya may be more of the same.
Does NATO have its own planes?
Scott M,
"I suppose you could ask the same thing of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, MacArthur, etc."
Regarding WW II which we had valid reasons to enter and won in four years?
The noose is tightening.
"We pray for blessings, we hope for luck."
I've known hardcore evangelicals who thought it was terrible to use the word "luck."
They said the word was a shorthand way of asking Lucifer for help. As they saw it LUCifer and LUCK were the same thing.
I never bothered to check the accuracy of this claim.
Oclarki,
Well originally to contain the Sovit Union. Now to support our operations in areas like the Middle East and Africa. All thought I think we can maybe draw down some of that infrastructure if and whenever we get out the Middle East.
You can't compare WWII and Iraq unless you are willing to allow wholesale carpet-bombing and relax the ROE down to anything that fucking moves in the battle area. We could have won Iraq in less than four years easy under those circumstances.
Non Sequitur.
Qadaffi's prayer
Scott M,
My comparison between WW II and Iraq was on reasons for entering. We did "win" in Iraq in less that four years didn't we?
I admit it. If barred from the NYT, I WILL miss Friedman's columns. Where else can you find such consistent nonsense?
If my recollection is correct, he was for the invasion of Iraq, before he was against it.
Maybe by praying for luck instead of blessings, Friedman incurred God's wrath
Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky
And, you notice, zero concern for the lives and limbs of those American military people that they want to sacrifice to make Obama lucky.
The military means nothing to them. Just pawns in a big game of power grab and one up-manship.
Same thing with our economic melt down and enormous deficit that is going to enslave our children and grandchildren for generations......as long as the Liberals 'win' and keep their power, they don't care what happens to the rest of us.
The lack of compassion for others and sheer souless evil greed of these people knows no bounds.
Dear Lord, please make US lucky and get rid of these liberals who plague us.
God is always on the side of the big battalions.
Voltaire
36fsfiend,
We had valid reasons for entering Iraq. Read the AUMF. Read the UN resolutions.
And, you notice, zero concern for the lives and limbs of those American military people that they want to sacrifice to make Obama lucky.
Excellent point. One hopes he gets pummeled in his own comments section for the complete omission of our troops.
You can't compare WWII and Iraq unless you are willing to allow wholesale carpet-bombing and relax the ROE down to anything that fucking moves in the battle area.
I can't emphasize enough to people that it's a good thing that there wasn't 24 hours cable news back in 1941 because we would have called it quits after Operation Torch.
For the uninformed, Operation Torch was our first invasion which occured after Japan attacked us and we invaded Algeria and the first combatants we killed were French troops.
True story.
They were fleeing, Hoosier. Anyone could have made that mistake.
Help Supreme Court Justice David Prosser get re-elected. Follow the link at Legal Insurrection to donate and piss off FLS, Garage, and others.
Friedman wrote: "There is an old saying in the Middle East that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee."
If there is such a saying in the Middle East, it came from the west. That statement came from a western wag commenting on how organizations work.
Is Friedman always so loopy?
"Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky."
Those of us who actually believe in God have been praying that Obama will become rational, intelligent and just.
However, it appears that God had an object lesson in mind when He sanctioned the election of this jackass in 2008 -- the perils of electing an unknown, untried, glib media darling to run the country.
At least 40% of our people appear still to be too dim to get the message.
DBQ said...And, you notice, zero concern for the lives and limbs of those American military people that they want to sacrifice to make Obama lucky.
The Albright school of diplomacy:
"What’s the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can't use it?"
My fighter squadron was down in Tripoli from the UK for bomb & gunnery practice at old Wheelus AFB the night of the revolution when Quaddifi overthrew old King Indrus and kicked us out. We launched out approx 0230 local. I STILL have my key to my room at the BOQ (complete w. pre-electronic card Holiday-Inn type plastic tag) as a souvenir.
I never thought I'd root for the guy who authorized the death of the Americans in the Pan-Am bombing, but my loathing of Obama and his Stalinist approach to governing is such I just might. Besides, it's only now beginning to occur to some people that what follows might be just as bad or even worse. At least the colorful costume-designer was a known quantity. Besides, he's really France & Italy's problem..
Scott M said...
You can't compare WWII and Iraq unless you are willing to allow wholesale carpet-bombing and relax the ROE down to anything that fucking moves in the battle area. We could have won Iraq in less than four years easy under those circumstances.
Besides carpet bombing and relaxing the ROE, add in a willingness to suffer losses that would be completely intolerable in today's media/political climate. I forget the exact numbers, but our casualties after a decade in Iraq are roughly equivalent to Allied casualties on a single day: June 6, 1944. Today's media (and today's Democrats) would've declared the war lost on D-Day.
Martin L. Shoemaker,
Were not the reasons given that there were WMDs, Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and consequently was in someway responsible for the Sept 11 attacks?
I know there were UN resolutions for sanctions and no-fly zones but I didn't think there was a UN resolution passed for the invasion of Iraq.
They were fleeing, Hoosier. Anyone could have made that mistake.
Ha!
that the Libyan opposition turns out to be decent and united and that they require just a bare minimum of international help to get on their feet.
This alone shows how stupid Friedman is. Decency is a rarity in the Middle East. Without significant international help of some sort, be it from international terrorist groups or civilized nations, these groups have no weapons, etc.
Lucky shouldn't play a role. This isn't a game of craps. Win the war. Fight the war.
virgil xenophon,
What squadron were you with? What were you flying?
Were not the reasons given that there were WMDs, Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and consequently was in someway responsible for the Sept 11 attacks?
I'm sure thats what opponents of the invasion thought but not according to the Congressional resolution authorizing military force.
Speaking of not getting it, does this seem familiar?
36fsfiend said...
Were not the reasons given that there were WMDs, Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and consequently was in someway responsible for the Sept 11 attacks?
No. This is why I advised you to read the AUMF. You're misinformed. It's not your fault, but it's really easy for you to fix.
I know there were UN resolutions for sanctions and no-fly zones but I didn't think there was a UN resolution passed for the invasion of Iraq.
No such resolution was needed. Saddam Hussein was already in violation of resolutions and a cease fire. We went in to enforce those.
Read the AUMF. You'll learn something.
Decency is a rarity in the Middle East.
And given the posts and commentary on this website, also in the Middle West.
Martin L. Shoemaker,
I'll take another look at the AUMF but I'm still waiting to see those WMDs that the Bush Administration claimed we needed to destroy. As Rumsfeld once stated "...we know he has them and we know were they are."
36fsfiend wrote: Were not the reasons given that there were WMDs, Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and consequently was in someway responsible for the Sept 11 attacks?
Are you the lady I linked to at 12:52?
The good part of this is that a lot of ragheads are going to die--
the bad part of this is that Mr Q will be alive and in charge when its all over
And our jug eared douchenozzle president will still be president
and a 14 year old girl was lashed to death in bangladeshb by proponents of the religion of piece
Perhaps Mr Friedman would substitute himself for the girl that died.
Rag heads suck
I'll take another look at the AUMF but I'm still waiting to see those WMDs that the Bush Administration claimed we needed to destroy.
Wasn't President Obama supposed to pull our troops out of there? I mean he kept promising me that during the campaign. Its been over 2 years now...
36fsfiend said...
I'll take another look at the AUMF but I'm still waiting to see those WMDs that the Bush Administration claimed we needed to destroy. As Rumsfeld once stated "...we know he has them and we know were they are."
Not just the Bush Administration claimed that. Pretty much every prominent Democrat claimed that, as well as most western intelligence agencies. Either the WMDs were there, or Saddam did a great job of pretending they were there.
Read the AUMF. You're in for some surprises.
hombre,
Sound system on he old computer OOS right now. Not sure what your video is about.
Friedman is hoping for the traditional protection of drunks and Irishmen.
As usual, the media is totally in the tank for the Usurper and protect him at every turn. They are committing treason. The Usurper (his father was never a citizen and Obama 2 was born British, so he is not a natural born Citizen) is giving illegal orders to our troops.
Here 36fsfiend, let me help ya out:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Hehe Roger,
tell us how you really feel :)
@ Mick.
Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?
franglo bleated: "Decency is a rarity in the Middle East."
And given the posts and commentary on this website, also in the Middle West.
I think the original "decency" reference had to do with something other than agreeing with the lunacy of the left and the absurdity of this President's foreign policy.
It is, however, representative of your contribution here to suggest that the atrocities of the middle east are morally equivalent to the political observations of those with whom you disagree.
Drill--I cleaned that up. I could have used the british term for our islamic arabs--:)
I spent a year working the sand n****gers in Saudi Arabia--ate goat guts with the bedouins--The world would be better off with the lot of them
Martin L. Shoemaker,
Rafid al-Janabi is now saying chem mobile labs and other facilities never existed. All were lies.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iraqi-defector-al-janabi-codenamed-curveball-admits-wmd/story?id=12922213
Was our Intel community really that incompetent? I don't think so.
Buried in that speech of Obama's on Monday night, there were more extensive claims for Presidential war powers than I have ever heard George Bush claim.
Tom Spaulding,
Thanks. I take a look at it.
"Decency is a rarity in the Middle East."
And given the posts and commentary on this website, also in the Middle West.
I got a chuckle out of your comment.
But, it's worth pointing out Obama's treatment of the most decent country in the Middle East, Isreal. He's insulted, abandon and belittled them at every opportunity.
36fsfiend said...
Was our Intel community really that incompetent? I don't think so.
I'm quite sure you will continue to believe whatever rationalization is necessary to support your preferred narrative. But that rationalization would be more believable to the rest of us if it included an explanation why multiple western intelligence agencies reached the same conclusions.
Ah the SANG?
Don't have much respect for the concept of PMCS do they?
Best thing about paying for oil with advanced weapons systems is that you know that after 5 years, they'll need to buy again, because they have broken everything due to lack of maintenance.
back to the Libyians. So has Samantha Powers figured out what to do about the bloodbath that's going to happen when "our rebels" take power and start butchering Gaddafi's tribes?
Or is that planning to far in advance?
"Was our Intel community really that incompetent? I don't think so."
What special knowledge do you have in support of that assertion?
Just curious.
...more extensive claims for Presidential war powers than I have ever heard George Bush claim.
A god-man like Obama should be able to exercise whatever powers he wants. Who are we mere mortals to object?
36fsfiend wrote: Sound system on he old computer OOS right now. Not sure what your video is about.
It's about Obots.
Just a small historical correction.
Operation Torch may have been the first landing in Europe. It started November 8, 1942. However there was at least one US landing/invasion in WW2 before that. The marines landed on Guadacanal Agust 7, 1942.
Drill--so how did you I know I worked with the SANG :)
ahhhh--you know about Vinnell corp dont you
actually the Beds were far better than the city saudis--women actually drove in the desert and were, in my judgment better off.
In Riyadh--not so much--
hombre,
Ok, thanks. Not an Obot. Just someone with skin in the game.
If Sarah Palin actually did refer to the "kinetic military action" in Libya as a "squirmish," she may have another winner.
Was our Intel community really that incompetent? I don't think so.
My brother, an Army specops team member at the time of the invasion, was on site and saw where these weapons had been warehoused. He told me about it around six-month after the fact when he came home on leave. It was my cynical suspicion at the time, based on what he told me and had heard/seen with other teams in the same area, that the Bush administration was going to let the left clamor up until the election then hit them with the proof. When that didn't happen, I was and am at a complete loss as to why what my brother saw was never made public.
TF says: "I hope Qaddafi’s regime collapses like a sand castle"
As my wife is fond of saying to various novice business execs, Hope is not a Plan.
I think I just lost what last few shreds of respect I had for Mr. TF.
WV: weerying - (no really, I swear!)
Ok, thanks. Not an Obot. Just someone with skin in the game.
Are you posting from Libya?
James said...
" @ Mick.
Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?"
Probably. His parents were in the US for 12 years prior to Marco's birth. When you consider the preferential treatment that Cubans get regarding naturalization, I would think that they were naturalized US Citizens before Marco was born in Fl. That would need to be absolutely verified.
As for Bobby Jindal, definitely not. His parents were Indian Resident aliens (in the country for 6 mos.) when Bobby was born in Louisiana. Since his parents were not US citizens when Jindal was born, he is not a natural born Citizen.
Scott M,
I don't know. My understanding is that we were watching Iraq more closely then any country. The no-fly zones allowed excellent coverage for out airborne assets. So I'm still at a lose as to why we were told there were WMDs and none were discovered.
Dear Lord,
I pray that people cannot discuss a current war without re-fighting past wars.
Hey, looks like I just got Lucky!
Was our Intel community really that incompetent? I don't think so.
I find your faith disturbing.
But I suppose a decade of no-fly zone violations, shooting at aircraft enforcng the UN approved no-fly zone doesn't rise to the level of casus belli as a soveriegn leader trying to put down an internal rebellion against his lawful rule.
Seriously am I the only one who finds it hysterical that this is the guy that was given a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and now the UN is passing resolutions authorizing air strikes in the hope insurgents take him down.
You seriously cannot make this stuff up.
hombre,
No not from Libya. I'm referring to family who were/are in the service. Not keen on committing our forces under false pretenses.
I was for the Iraq war initially because I believed President Bush, who I had voted for, at the time. Now, not so much.
"I find your faith disturbing."
I'm not sure I follow. I was referring to the situation regarding Rafid al-Janabi.
36fsfiend,
You might want to consider the difference between "false", "faulty", and "arguably faulty". If you continue to think WMDs were the only justification for the invasion, that still doesn't prove false pretenses.
And no, they weren't the only justification. Read the AUMF.
"I find your faith disturbing."
I'm not sure I follow.
Not a Star Wars fan, huh? I don't blame you after the last three abominations. This quote, however, did come from the first.
The basic problem here is that this war is not being commanded by warriors; instead it's being commanded by amateurs who have never seen a war and don't believe victory in war is a desirable outcome. It's a clusterfuck.
Not a Star Wars fan, huh?
At least I know I can count on you to appreciate my paraphrasing of obscure movie quotes.
Maybe Obama needs a Ripley as his military advisor. You know, to tell him to nuke the site from orbit. Just to be sure.
Martin L. Shoemaker,
Yes, I will read the AUMF. I understand that there were factors to justify the use of force against Iraq. To me, and I believe to many others, the centerpiece was the argument of WMDs and how Iraq could threaten us and his neighbors with them. Without this factor I don't believe we would have invaded.
And given that the ISG found Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991, that there was no evidence of efforts to restart the program and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991, I'm more confused with what happened with our Intel.
So I'm still at a lose as to why we were told there were WMDs and none were discovered.
So you don't believe that Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds and the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq wars. You don't believe that the intelligence agencies worldwide thought he had WMDs and that Bush was entitled to take their word for that. You don't believe the Wikileak[ed] reports that our troops found the remnants of WMDs and labs throughout Iraq. You don't believe the National Ground Intelligence Center report citing the finding of hundreds of munitions containing degraded mustard and sarin gases.
Instead you believe that the negative, "Saddam had no WMDs," has been proved?
Interesting.
Hoos
Whoa, I forgot about that whole human rights thingy. That is funny. I mean, not in a ha ha way, but in that other way.
Hey, my Dad taught me that the harder you work, the luckier you get. So, Obama, he declares war (or something), then goes to Rio. Hmmm. I guess he mighta got lucky in Rio.
Man,
the lie spin machine is in full force. The proper term would be Libyan government forces.
But do not let lies and unethical journalistic standards interfere with the message.
The rebels fleeing is good luck. The best situation here is for both sides to wear each other down to hopefully kill off most of the real nutballs on both sides. If the Eastern forces really are Salafist too, we can expect the suicide bombings to start up as both sides go for the throat. That would be a pretty good tip off that we should stay away from either side in this mess.
Today on the BBC they were reporting that the rebels are starting to have infighting over their poor combat command. The implication was that they (the rebels) were going to roll Qaddafi all the way back to Tripoli. When the rebels hit the professional core of the remaining army, they got their butts kicked. I guess they were figuring that NATO would be bombing to "reduce civilian causalities". So much for planning.
Hey did I just hear right? Obama calling for drill baby, drill? Surreal.
traditionalguy said...
The basic problem here is that this war is not being commanded by warriors; instead it's being commanded by amateurs who have never seen a war and don't believe victory in war is a desirable outcome. It's a clusterfuck.
Classic democratic WH micro-management. They think they can measure out violence with a teaspoon and send messages with harpoons.
Johnson picking targets
Carter changing the Chain of Command for the Desert Rescue
Clinton not wanting to send tanks to Mogadishu because it would looke warlike (or something)
Obama, well A-stan and Libya
There is a lot to be said for shock and awe. Very few military operations have failed due to too many troops :)
I'm more confused with what happened with our Intel.
I agree. I mean we can go on the justifiable assumption that Bush made the whole thing up out of whole cloth just so he could steal their oil. Then again we have that whole Congressional oversight on Intel and they were supposedly briefed on what we were gathering. Heck you have Hillary, Kennedy, Kerry et al, pretty much parroting the WMD scare stories in front of the Senate.
And then there was Operation Desert Fox (No relation to Erwin Rommel) that Clinton launched in the late 1990s that were supposedly destroying these WMD sites that obviously didn't exist.
So it was either 1) a big lie that idiot-moron Bush made up and convinced really smart people like Hillary and John Kerry or 2) our Intel operations couldn't win a game of Clue or 3) Saddam actually had them and had oodles of time to stash them away somewhere while we chinwagged at the UN.
hombre,
ISG Findings:
- Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. Found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.
- Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.
- Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.
- Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, which was essentially destroyed in 1991, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Hey did I just hear right? Obama calling for drill baby, drill? Surreal.
No. He said it was a gimmicky slogan, if memory serves.
"In a swipe at Republican leaders, Obama said the 2008 GOP rallying cry of "drill baby drill" -- a reference to the push for more domestic oil drilling -- would do little to provide short-term price relief."
Remember when Clinton said the same thing? Wasn't that, oh, 15 years ago?
36fsfiend: Were not the reasons given that there were WMDs, Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and consequently was in someway responsible for the Sept 11 attacks?
No. See Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act. And this:
"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal" President Clinton ~ 1998
I know there were UN resolutions for sanctions and no-fly zones but I didn't think there was a UN resolution passed for the invasion of Iraq.
Your other ignorant comments about warfare aside, you really don't understand the basic material wrt the liberation of Iraq.
Why are you surprised. Qaddafi's focres consolidated and the rebels overextended. Think WWII with Rommel and British. The strategists in this admin (the three Amazonian women) saw victory just 24 hours ago. Unless we go in deeper (boots on ground) this is stalemate. Now we can buy boots (mercs or contractors) but the idea this would be clean and quick has encountered reality.
36fsfiend/
Sorry--was called away for a while and then blogger ate my reply. Was the D-model F-4 out of the 78thTFS, 81stTFW RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge (twin bases north of Ipswitch--the other two at Bentwaters--91st/92nd--had the C-model when I was there) on the Woody base.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." See Darth in action.
When the spooks are prevented from using HUMINT and must rely on SIGINT, when they can't see the cards, they have to take the bluff at face value. We called and Saddam folded. -CP
wv: squiree: squirrel in a blender.
Fen,
Please provide me the link with Bush's proclamation that WMDs were discovered in Iraq. If I recall his exit interviews correctly, he admitted we did not find them. He also admitted in an interview with the BBC that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until after we invaded.
"Your other ignorant comments about warfare aside..."
Which ones? Are you a student of warfare?
like Bob said, it looks like the seesaw that was North Africa 41-43.
One side attacks, over extends its supplies, as the defender falls back on his supply bases, who in turn counterattacks routing the original attackers.
Look at Hereford and see if the SAS Mobility Troops have disappeared. These are the successors to the Long Range Desert Group of WWII.
Equipped for cross desert operations, they would be used to designate for JDAM strikes.
virgil xenophon,
Cool. I've got about 780 hrs in the F-4E. Clark AB and Osan AB.
"36fsfiend" is for the 36th Fighter Squadron "Flying Fiends" at Osan who now fly the F-16C Block 40.
PS: Oh how the mighty have fallen! The 81st is now a ground electronics tng Wing at Biloxi and my old venerable 78th "Bushmasters" are now naught but cheeto-eating "reconnaissance" UAV drivers sitting in the Barco-jet cockpit out of Ft Worth in the 10th AF. (Don't know if they've borrowed any old Navy air-sea rescue orange flt-suits to hide the Cheeto dust tho..)
Look at Hereford and see if the SAS Mobility Troops have disappeared. These are the successors to the Long Range Desert Group of WWII.
Spec ops teams were ordered to roll call last Thursday in Germany and told to start growing their beards. No boots on the ground? Bullshit.
cold pizza,
Copy, thanks. Understand about HUMINT and SIGINT that's why I'm surprised about the al-Janabi revelations.
virgil xenophon,
Are you talking about the 78th out of Shaw who had the python for a mascot?
@Scott M: I see a quagmire coming ...
A few corrections:
First landing in Europe was at Dieppe - 8/19/42: Mostly Canadian, but 50 US Rangers. Intended to test ideas for Marshall's cross-channel invasion, it was a bloody failure.
Second, Bob is right about Rommel. No ragtag militia is going to win there without a logistical tail and overwhelming firepower. This is what Montgomery understood.
Third, Iraq '03 was the brainchild of State and the CIA. Rumsfeld, feeling A-stan was more than enough, thought it was a bad idea.
WMDs were found, mostly chemical weapons (WikiLeaks), and the Duelfer report highlighted the fact Saddam was prepared to restart his nuclear program after the coast was clear.
franglo said...
Decency is a rarity in the Middle East.
And given the posts and commentary on this website, also in the Middle West.
Only when the Lefty trolls are involved. The Lefties have proven themselves absolute hypocrites who don't give a damn about the lives of American servicemen and women.
"Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky."
Oh good grief
Classic democratic WH micro-management. They think they can measure out violence with a teaspoon and send messages with harpoons.
Johnson picking targets
Carter changing the Chain of Command for the Desert Rescue
Clinton not wanting to send tanks to Mogadishu because it would looke warlike (or something)
Obama, well A-stan and Libya
There is a lot to be said for shock and awe. Very few military operations have failed due to too many troops :)
This. I'm consistently amazed by people that seem to think warfare is a game of canasta and not a bunch of people trying to kill each other. Hit them as hard as you can, hopefully when they're not expecting it, and keep hitting until they give up or no longer pose a threat.
Early in the Iraq war there was a british embed who was apparently dismayed that Marines had dropped Mark 77s on the fortified position on the far side of a bridge. The Marine officer pointed out that it was a horrible way for a few people to die, but saved lives on both sides, as the Marines didn't have to make a forced crossing and most of the Iraqi forces who had seen their comrades die that way decided they didn't want to join them.
Has anyone mentioned Vietnam yet?
This is nothing like Vietnam. This time, we're following the lead of the French.
36fsfiend/
My only SEA experience was right out of plt tng/RTU pipeline to the 390thTFS, 366thTFW at DaNang, then st to Woodbridge. You ought to join the active/ret crowd at Neptunus Lex. Run by a ret Navy O-6 FA-18 type. Mainly Navy/Marine but a goodly number of AF/Army types are "tolerated." (LOL) Lots of assoc civilian "friends of military" and flying in gen plus good Aus/Nz and UK pilot )and otherwise) crowd It's a GREAT place. Check it out! We zoomies are always on the look-out for add wingmen over there, :)
(Everything from flying to politics
--service AND civilian--to the culture wars to plane POrn. PS: Thers's an E-model driver from your Korean outfit (ex) who posts there under call-sign "juvat" that you might know)
Obama's foreign policy:
Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky.
Or in other words "Big Money, big money big money! No whammies!"
Perhaps this fight could use a little shock and awe. (And a little less hanging with al-Qaeda.)
"This is nothing like Vietnam. This time, we're following the lead of the French."
Riiiight.
Are they still mad about Operation Torch?
virgil xenophon,
Thanks for the info on Neptunus Lex. I'll check it out.
So, like I said....
"Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels"
Now, who exactly are the rebels?
36fsfiend: Please provide me the link with Bush's proclamation that WMDs were discovered in Iraq.
When you're finished stroking that strawman, do your own research. You pretend that Bush "lied" because we didn't find a warehouse full of Sarin or VX. But the fact remains that Saddam had WMD programs, that he had outsourced his nuclear research to Libya, that he intended to restart production of WMDs once the sanctions were lifted.
Look it up. Or remain an ignorant partisan fool.
Your other ignorant comments about warfare aside...
Which ones?
For starters, your childish presumption that nation building is a microwavable event. It took days to oust Saddam, years to put something stable in his place. That you conflate the two to score cheap political shots only proves that nothing you say on the topic should be taken seriously.
Well, now you can no longer find the receipts of billions and billions and billions in bank transfers to Sarkozy. Q-Daffy warned him to stay bought!
Q-Daffy no longer has the paperwork.
By the way, Obama's numbers are down to 42% approval. 48% disapproving. So? No bounce. No catnip. But no worries for Hillary Clinton et. al.
And, you bet! Q-Daffy better keep those billions coming (or is it going), deep into Sarkozy's, Tony Blair's, and the Clinton's pockets.
If the republicans lose in 2012, there will be a clear indication they can't pick nominees. (Though, ya know? I wouldn't mind seeing Trump getting it. He'd bring the battle TO Obama. (As Rush said, that's all that's gonna count.) Just in case you didn't notice there was something wrong with the selection of the gigolo McCain.
lol. The Shaw people transmorgified the beast. It's actually the BUSHMASTER snake out of Panama--the world's 3rd most deadly snake. When I was at Woody (69-71) we had a a live Bushmaster shipped in from Panama couple of yers prior, had it stuffed and mounted coiled around length of a chromed old blue practice 25 pounder (w. head and fangs arched leaping from tail vanes and nose of bomb entering a wooden shield plaque @ 45 degree angle and mounted above the bar at the Woody O-Club--which was an old WWII Quonset-hut complex, LOL) PS: Our patch was MUCH cooler.. :)
36fsfiend wrote: hombre,
ISG Findings: ....
No WMDs? Really? Here's an analysis of the ISG findings coupled with other evidence relating to the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
It is important to distinguish between evidence and what has been proved. Clearly, there is ample evidence to support Bush's position. What reason, other than politics, is there to assume that the contrary has been proved?
BTW, 36fsfiend, what do WMDs in Iraq have to do with this current nonsense being sponsored by Obama and pimped by the Obots?
The most interesting thing, to me anyway, for the justification for armed intervention in this case is how ridiculously low the administration has set the bar for the US military to begin air strikes against someone.
Buy stock in General Dynamics, quick, as their sales of guided missiles to the DoD is probably going to skyrocket.
Fen,
My initial post on this thread was in response to the comment:
"Bush did not need to rely solely on luck. He had a plan, and the early parts of the plan worked out extremely well."
Prior to the Iraq war, we were told by the administration that we would be greeted as liberators, the war would be over in 6 months and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war. How did that work out for us?
"For starters, your childish presumption that nation building is a microwavable event."
I didn't realize nation building was our goal in Iraq. I thought we invaded because Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and us with his WMDs. Bush stated prior to the Afghanistan invasion "...before 9/11 we believed we could contain him (Saddam), that all changed after 9/11”.
I'll go back and review his exit interviews, but I'm pretty sure he admitted that the intelligence was wrong on Iraq about WMDs. As a matter of fact Larry Kind asked him if he would have invaded if the intelligence was correct (i.e., that Iraq did not have WMDs). Bush stated he wasn't sure. I also recall that during the WH Correspondence Dinner in 2004, Bush did a skit and joked about not finding WMDs. Not very classy when we had troops over there dying looking for those WMDs.
I thought we invaded because Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and us with his WMDs.
Again, you don't even understand the prerequisite course material. Its like trying to teach Calculus to someone who hasn't mastered Algebra. And thats assuming the student is making a good faith attempt to learn, which you are not.
Hey DHOTUS,
When you're done with your NCAA brackets, you might want to tell the rebels that they are going the wrong way.
If its not too much trouble.
hombre,
Thanks for the link.
"BTW, 36fsfiend, what do WMDs in Iraq have to do with this current nonsense being sponsored by Obama and pimped by the Obots?"
I initially responded to a comment from David who wrote:
"Bush did not need to rely solely on luck. He had a plan, and the early parts of the plan worked out extremely well."
I responded with a comment about the Iraq war and the issue of WMDs subsequently came up.
As I responded to Fen:
"Prior to the Iraq war, we were told by the administration that we would be greeted as liberators, the war would be over in 6 months and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war."
Given that we lost over 4,400 troops and over 32,000 were injured I think it was significantly off plan.
virgil xenophon,
When I was with the 22nd FS, we deployed out of Spang to Aviano and shared a Tab V that served as an ops facility with the 78th during Allied Force. The 78th had a live python, about 2 ft long, that they would take up on missions. They would place him on the instrument panel shroud were he would curl up to stay warm. I think they flew him on 20 combat missions so he received an Air Medal.
36,
I'm not sure what your stand is in specific regards to Libya. Many of us were quite critical of Bush, the over-emphasis on WMDs and the over-optimistic time lines presented. (Afghanistan has proved even worse in this regard, though that hasn't been a surprise to many of us.)
Given that Iraq and Afghanistan and just about every war ever fought didn't come close to following the original projections, do you believe that Libya is any different?
Bush and many other laid out a case that there were WMDs. Where is the evidence for Obama's claim that there was about to me a massacre? Do you accept Obama's claims on face value?
Finally, are the reasons Obama gave sufficient constitutional and/or moral reasons for the US to go to war?
Fen,
"Again, you don't even understand the prerequisite course material. Its like trying to teach Calculus to someone who hasn't mastered Algebra. And thats assuming the student is making a good faith attempt to learn, which you are not."
I'll take your comment under advisement. BTW, I did pretty well in the six courses of calculus I took for aero engineering.
Where is the evidence for Obama's claim that there was about to me a massacre? Do you accept Obama's claims on face value?
More to the point, what is the argument that we should be trying to prevent the massacre? One can easily think of hundreds of massacres we haven't done a darn thing to prevent. Why this one in particular? I'm not saying there isn't a good argument for it -- just that we haven't heard it yet.
Instead, what we heard is that America has a duty to prevent massacres. Says who?
Joe,
I understand that wars do not go as plan and that Libya will be no different as we are seeing with the events of today. Hence my initial comment on this thread that was in response to the comment “Bush did not need to rely solely on luck. He had a plan, and the early parts of the plan worked out extremely well."
Regarding the evidence for Obama's claim that there was about to a massacre, I have to assume that our and the other NATO Intelligence agencies were seeing the indicators to warrant our intervention. So in that case I do have to take Obama at his word just as we did with Bush for the invasion of Iraq.
As far as providing sufficient constitutional and/or moral reasons for the US to go to war, I feel that if we are seeing a humanitarian crisis we are oblige to act just as we did when we saw the genocide being carried out in Kosovo.
So in that case I do have to take Obama at his word just as we did with Bush for the invasion of Iraq.
But we didn't take Bush at his word; he and other intelligence agencies laid out the evidence they had at the time. Moreover, we had a debate in the Congress, which ended up authorizing the US to go to war.
Obama has laid out nothing. He simply made a claim.
A more important point is that this wouldn't have been a genocide by any definition. Whether you support the rebel cause or not they are still armed revolutionaries and as such lose the claim of being civilians.
What we have is a civil war with a poorly trained, poorly armed army on one side fighting a well trained, well equipped army.
Does the Obama doctrine mean that we must side with the more poorly armed/equipped side?
I feel that if we are seeing a humanitarian crisis we are oblige to act
So, why aren't we acting in North Korea?
As far as providing sufficient constitutional and/or moral reasons for the US to go to war, I feel that if we are seeing a humanitarian crisis we are oblige to act just as we did when we saw the genocide being carried out in Kosovo.
If we are at war then Obama is acting in violation of the Constitution. His orders only pass constitutional muster if (a) this isn't actually a war, but some sort of military action that falls short of war, or (b) we are under foreign attack. It clearly isn't (b), so the only question is if (a) applies.
Secondly, if by "if we are seeing a humanitarian crisis we are oblige to act just as we did when we saw the genocide being carried out in Kosovo" you mean we are MORALLY obligated to act then you are quite entitled to that belief. You can vote for senators and representatives who agree with it, and encourage them to authorize such interventions.
But if you mean we are legally obligated to intervene then you are wrong. In fact, not only are we NOT so obligated, we are in fact legally obligated to NOT intervene -- not until Congress passes a law authorizing the intervention.
This is all moot, of course. The reality is that Presidents can pretty much go to war whenever they feel like it; Congress never bothers to call them on it when they do.
What we have is a civil war with a poorly trained, poorly armed army on one side fighting a well trained, well equipped army.
By no stretch of the imagination could the Libyan military be described as "well trained". :)
36fsfiend/
20msn for an air medal? The big kids must have thought it was a no-sweat "benign environment" deal--it was 10 msns in SEA for counters up North--each msn the proverbial "1/10th of an air medal", lol. Guess they didn't/don't want too many "heroes" walking around to compete..
Granted; "better trained than the other side"
If anyone can get that lucky, Obama is The One.
Joe,
“So, why aren't we acting in North Korea?”
I know this may sound cynical but I believe its oil. The first Iraq war was about oil (that’s the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait). I think oil play a factor in the second Iraq war and I think it’s a factor in Libya. Let us be honest that since the supply of oil is a national interest for us, the countries of NATO, Japan and our other allies we will respond when supplies are threatened.
Oil companies from France, Spain, Italy, Australia, the UK and the US all have investments and interests in Libya. There are no U.S. or other foreign owned oil companies in North Korea. Also, North Korea holds the Greater Metropolitan Seoul Area with its 20 plus million people with over 15K pieces of long range artillery and rockets that are in very hardened sites and difficult to target and destroy. If we attacked North Korea preemptively, they would turn the Seoul area into a caldron of fire. South Korea is not willing to accept that situation.
virgil xenophon,
I stand corrected, it was 10 missions for an air medal.
"I feel that if we are seeing a humanitarian crisis we are oblige to act
So, why aren't we acting in North Korea?"
Simple: there is zero chance of that coming out anywhere near what is at least possible in Libya. It may be a long shot but it is at least possible, and I assume the President's advisers thought so. The last thing any of them want is for this to go wrong. It could be stupid, but it's not crazy.
Joe,
"But we didn't take Bush at his word; he and other intelligence agencies laid out the evidence they had at the time. Moreover, we had a debate in the Congress, which ended up authorizing the US to go to war.
"Obama has laid out nothing. He simply made a claim."
I believe both were acting on information provided by our intelligence community.
I know this may sound cynical but I believe its oil.
No.
The reason we don't act in N Korea is China.
The "blood for oil" meme is the lone hammmer in your toolbox.
Revenant,
"If we are at war then Obama is acting in violation of the Constitution. His orders only pass constitutional muster if (a) this isn't actually a war, but some sort of military action that falls short of war, or (b) we are under foreign attack. It clearly isn't (b), so the only question is if (a) applies."
He is acting in accordance with the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 which allows the President to commit forces without congressional approval if the U.N. Security Council votes to authorize a military response to a crises in accordance with Article 42 of the U.N. Charter.
Fen,
Yes, also China and the fact North Korea also has real nukes.
fen said
The reason we don't act in N Korea is China.
Yes. 36fsfiend probably doesn't even realize that the Korean War was our first proxy war with China (and the USSR).
World conflicts need to come labeled with "Real Parties At Interest"
chickelit,
I believe we employed gunboat diplomacy with our Yangtze Patrol in China between 1854 and 1945. Although I guess that's not proxy be direct intervention.
He is acting in accordance with the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 which allows the President to commit forces without congressional approval if the U.N. Security Council votes to authorize a military response to a crises in accordance with Article 42 of the U.N. Charter.
The UN Participation Act was overridden by the War Powers Act of 1973, which restricted the President to sending troops into combat only if (a) Congress authorized it or (b) we were attacked.
So even if the UNPA was constitutional -- which it probably wasn't, since Congress may not grant its enumerated powers to other branches of government via act of Congress -- it doesn't apply here.
FWIW, those wondering in the thread last Sunday who it was in the Administration or Congress that called Baby Assad a 'reformer', turns out it was our esteemed Secretary of State.
Original Mike said...
"This is nothing like Vietnam. This time, we're following the lead of the French."
Riiiight.
Are they still mad about Operation Torch?
The Vichyites are, probably. Their big reason for fighting, they said, was to protect their pensions. Shipping the Jews off to Auschwitz must have been a fringe benefit.
36,
I know this may sound cynical but I believe its oil.
You stated that "humanitarian reasons oblige us" to engage in war, but that is clearly untrue, so why do you keep arguing that point?
Moreover, while Obama did not use the word "obligation", he said there were moral reasons and surely what is happening in Syria and North Korea qualifies. Therefore, we can only assume Obama isn't actually serious about the moral part and is just using that as an ex post facto excuse for engaging in War.
Second, we debated entering into war with Iraq, including the intelligence claims. This simply DID NOT HAPPEN with Obama and Libya. Obama isn't even offering up nonsense intelligence.
The American air war over Libya is now taking on the video game pictures that were prevalent in the bombing of Baghdad early in the Iraq invasion. Citing Aviation Week, Wretchard at BC notes that the plan has been to electronically monitor the movements of the Libyan army with the inadequately armed rebels serving as bait to draw them into the open. When the Duck's forces are exposed, the coalition air force cuts them down.
That is changing now, however, since the Libyans have pretty-much parked their heavy vehicles and are now riding in converted civilian vehicles exactly as the rebels do, so now our electronic surveillance has become less effective as shown by the recent turn in who is winning the battles.
Is it any wonder then that Hillary and teh one are now talking about arming the rebels (which would take another UN resolution)? With covert ops already on the ground, how long until we have a whole army of boots in the sand?
Revenant,
Can you provide a link that shows the War Powers Resolution of 1973 rescinds the U.N. Participation Act of 1945? This link does not discuss that:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp
"...With covert ops already on the ground,..."
If we are blogging about it here it's not covert.
"...since the Libyans have pretty-much parked their heavy vehicles and are now riding in converted civilian vehicles exactly as the rebels do, so now our electronic surveillance has become less effective as shown by the recent turn in who is winning the battles..."
Hence the 'covert operations' guys.
They will be doing target acquisition for the peeps driving the bomb buses and arranging for the resupply of our new BFsF.
With covert ops already on the ground, how long until we have a whole army of boots in the sand?
Not long....but...Gee won't that be lucky for Obama.
Tough shit for the soldiers who will die or be maimed for life in this war about, whatever. It's all about Obama.
It is like this "Kinetic Military Action" was devised by the Underpants Gnomes. It makes just about as much sense.
Joe,
"You stated that "humanitarian reasons oblige us" to engage in war, but that is clearly untrue, so why do you keep arguing that point?"
NATO's Operation Allied Force was carried out for humanitarian reasons. So we do engage in conflicts for humanitarian reasons. However, in that case it was because NATO couldn't tolerate genocide being carried out in it's back yard.
Yes, there are humanitarian issues in Syria and North Korea. Also the Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Somalia, Yemen and other countries. What is missing from these situations? Oil maybe?
Revenant,
Here's a link regarding the U.N. Participation Act of 1945:
http://jenkinsear.com/2011/03/19/a-legal-war-the-united-nations-participation-act-and-libya/
"What is missing from these situations? Oil maybe?"
For the sake of argument, let's assume this is the motive. What difference does it make which side wins? Why intervene? The oil interests are best served by the status quo.
As a fairly hardcore fundamentalist I don't think Luck has anything to do with Lucifer. The "issue" with luck is that it's illusionary. First, people don't want to stay on the 13th floor in Vegas because it's "bad luck" but who cares in order for me to be lucky I need the Casino to be unlucky. Undirected "luck" is meaningless.
Worse yet "luck" denies the sovereignty of God. The Bible is clear God is sovereign "the lot (or die) is cast into the lap but its every result is of the Lord. Praying to Hod for Luck is a non-sequitur if God depends on luck he is not God. Luck is...
Nevertheless use of the word luck is not bad as it is a convenient shorthand to refer to those thing that appear from a human perspective to have a chance perspective. However God is Lord of all chance!
LarsPorsena,
"For the sake of argument, let's assume this is the motive. What difference does it make which side wins? Why intervene? The oil interests are best served by the status quo."
The side that wins may not be favorable to our national interests maybe?
"The side that wins may not be favorable to our national interests maybe?"
What are our national interests in this case? To my mind there are absolutely none. What will change if the regime changes?
Can you provide a link that shows the War Powers Resolution of 1973 rescinds the U.N. Participation Act of 1945? This link does not discuss that:
The War Powers Act explicitly restricted the President's ability to commit troops to combat. This implicitly rescinds all earlier grants of power to the President allowing him to send troops into combat, unless specifically exempted by the War Powers Act. There was no such exemption.
As it turns out, however, this doesn't matter. If you read the UN Participation Act (section 6), you'll find that the President's ability to order troops into combat under UN security council resolution only ever applied to troops which Congress had already appropriated for UN peacekeeping operations.
So as it turns out, Obama's action wouldn't have been legal even before the War Powers Act was implemented -- he has committed military forces that weren't authorized for UN service.
LarsPorsena,
Gaddafi has been a dictator and a supporter of terrorism for 42 years. Yet, as late as March 2009 we were looking at selling him military equipment:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/06/us-libya-usa-arms-idUSTRE5256H720090306
Now that his actions are threatening the stability of North Africa and the investments/interests of our and NATO oil industries we feel compelled to engage in military action against him. That's the national interest involved. I'm assuming a regime change will now be favorable to us hence this news:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html#ixzz1I7hegyQv
Revenant,
OK, I think I see what your saying. However would not the War Powers Resolution SEC. 2 (c)(2)Specific Statutory Authorization (in this case the U.N. Charter which we have signed and ratified)apply in this case?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp
"..Now that his actions are threatening the stability of North Africa.."
How is Q threatening the stability of North Africa? ...Keep digging;-)
LarsPorsena,
Without having the benefit of classified DoD, CIA, DIA and State Department information, I have to take the word of Obama, who obviously has this information, that Tunisia and Egypt may have to deal with a refugee crisis if Gaddafi is unchecked.
36,
"You stated that "humanitarian reasons oblige us" to engage in war, but that is clearly untrue, so why do you keep arguing that point?"
Oblige
1. to require or constrain, as by law, command, conscience, or force of necessity.
2. to bind morally or legally, as by a promise or contract.
If you are obligated to intervene for humanitarian reasons, you can't choose not to else it's not an obligation.
Either drop the argument or change it, but don't keep preaching about moral obligations that aren't.
36fsfiend Factcheck.org says you rely on leftist falsehoods. LINK
http://www.factcheck.org
/article349.html
Joe,
"If you are obligated to intervene for humanitarian reasons, you can't choose not to else it's not an obligation."
As I stated, we did this in the case of Operation Allied Force. NATO, including the US as the leading force, engaged in a four month air campaign for humanitarian reasons - to stop the genocide being carried out by Serbia against the Muslim population in Kosovo.
PaulV,
From that link on nuclear weapons:
"Rumsfeld, May 30, 2003: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Rumsfeld is claiming we new were the WMDs were. How is that inconsistent with what I stated?
Also, has that war been paid with funds from Iraqi oil? That would certainly help our deficit problem.
Without having the benefit of classified DoD, CIA, DIA and State Department information, I have to take the word of Obama, who obviously has this information, that Tunisia and Egypt may have to deal with a refugee crisis if Gaddafi is unchecked
Well, that's too bad for Tunisia and Egypt but I don't see why it's our problem.
PaulV,
From the Larry King exit interview with Bush on Jan 14, 2009:
http://warisacrime.org/node/38987
KING: But when there were no weapons of mass destruction...
G. BUSH: I was discouraged.
KING: Were you angry at the people who told you there were? I mean, you didn't go inspect. You didn't...
G. BUSH: I didn't -- I was unhappy. And they're -- but rather than sitting around being unhappy, I decided to do something about it and to -- had a full investigation of why things went wrong. And then we reformed our intelligence services.
Why didn’t Bush say anything about finding WMDs during this interview?
36,
In all seriousness, are you illiterate? If we are obligated to intervene militarily in countries for humanitarian reasons, we are obligated to intervene in North Korea, Myanmar, Somalia, Syria, Iran. Need I go on?
You simply cannot say we are morally obligated to go to war for humanitarian reasons and limit that action to a single country that isn't the worse on the list.
(Concerning Kosovo, surely you know that the vast majority of atrocities in the former Yugoslavia already happened while the US and Europe stood by. Right? You do know that. Or do you? And where was this vaunted humanitarian concern with Rwanda? Zimbabwe? Sudan? How about China?)
36, you ignore fact that WMDs were found, just not as many as SH told his own people. It seems that you would support invasion of Iraq to save those Iraqis that SH was killing, raping and maiming. SOS Albright state that 500,000 Iraqi children died because of UN sanction. No one ever said Iraqi Oil would pay US for the military action, but that Iraq would use if to pay for its reconstruction of its intrastructure when had deterioated under Saddan. Did you understand that your the lies you repeat that have been told about Bush have been exposed as fraud
36, you realize that Rumsfeld statement you refer to was made after the invasion and not before as you falsely implied
Maguro,
Like I stated earlier, I think that one of the unmentioned reasons is our national interest in respect to the investments of the oil companies from the U.S., UK, France, Spain, Italy and Australia that are in Libya.
Again, look at all the other countries like the Ivory Coast, Rwanda and Yemen that have humanitarian issues that we do not address with military action. I have no idea what level of diplomatic or other non-military action we may be using in these countries.
36fsfiend wrote: Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and consequently was in someway responsible for the Sept 11 attacks?
Neither Bush nor anyone in his administration ever made that claim.
Joe,
I used the term "obligated" in response to your original comment "I'm not sure what your stand is in specific regards to Libya."
That is MY opinion of what our response should be which, as I have been trying to explain, is not necessarily always US policy.
"Concerning Kosovo, surely you know that the vast majority of atrocities in the former Yugoslavia already happened while the US and Europe stood by."
So I guess the feeling of NATO/US was better late than never. Right? Again, US policy, not my policy.
PaulV,
"36, you ignore fact that WMDs were found"
Bush had a great opportunity to make this statement during his interview with King.
"On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified his "rough recollection" was: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
If we break we own it - our costs. Part of the effort was going be rebuilding the country like we're doing in Afghanistan.
PaulV,
"36, you realize that Rumsfeld statement you refer to was made after the invasion and not before as you falsely implied"
So in other words we didn't know were the WMDs were before invading Iraq? Interesting.
Quaestor,
"Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by some U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service. In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States, basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."
Read about Cheney's claims being untrue:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1yak3FgMBa8J:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm+bbc+bush+interview+al+qaeda&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
How in God's name did this appalling man ever get a job writing columns for a newspaper?
Quaestor,
"Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and consequently was in someway responsible for the Sept 11 attacks?"
"Neither Bush nor anyone in his administration ever made that claim."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm
36 said,
Yes, CIA had deterioated under the previous administration. When W asked for information on AQ & OBL the only thing he got in the PDB was stale intell from 1998 on which Clinton had taken no action.
This uncertainty and SH public actions were sufficient reasons to take SH out and to liberate the Iraqis that SH was killing. Just as we did not have good intel on OBL and AQ, the intel on Saddam was bad. If someone poses a threat why not take him at his word and record?
Dearest 36,
Have you ever read the Constitution?
Only Congress can authorize war.
So, it doesn't matter what any law or treaty says, the Constitution is the Supreme Law.
And, yes, we are engaged in war in Libya.
We are using our military to target Libya's military.
What else can you call that?
While I am touched that Tom Friedman has, for the first time in this millennium, been moved to ask for divine assistance for the President, I fear his prayers for good fortune have not been granted. Because, unfortunately for Obama, "Luck favors the prepared". Alas, it does not cheer Obama that luck might also be said to favor: the strong; the competent; the rational; the brave; those with a goal; those with a coherent plan; those who endure; those who have been to war before; those who....
Re. weapons of mass destruction - perhaps all those trucks that departed Iraq for Syria shortly before the commencement of Desert Storm have something to do with the Obama administration's lack of humanitarian angst over Assad's slaughter of his rowdy and disruptive citizens.
Re. our moral obligation to prevent the slaughter of innocents - that resonates with me. I am disgusted, however, with the partisan nit-picking that makes Clinton's illegal war in Kosovo and Obama's in Libya the cat's meow, but continues to pretend that it had no knowledge of what Pol Pot was up to, or that Saddam attempted genocide on Marsh Arabs and Kurds.
Post a Comment