You are evidently not my countryman, so it's natural that you bear no loyalty to the United States and the Constitution thereof. I don't hold you accountable for the illegal actions of my government. That wouldn't be fair.
The odd thing is the U.N, is pretty much an American creation, but I agree that its your constitution that defines when and how your country is supposed to go to war.
All that said I find it hard to really blame Obama in this mess (though he will get the blame if things get messy here). He had to be pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into this by his allies. In particular it looks like Britain especially, but a number of other western states as well, just started cashing in I.O.U's. Britain has been a very good dance partner for America on the world stage for the last 10 years and now they want America to return the favour.
That's the bind Obama is in here. The US needs to participate and be seen to participate in order to remain in good standing with important allies (especially Britain) but the American Public would much rather this be handled by anyone but them.
All that said I'm no fan of this no fly zone thingy - it does not really resolve anything. If we are going to poke are nose into this then we should go all the friggen way and just invade, knock down the Qaddafi regime chase him and his supporters away - hand the whole thing over to whoever on the rebel side makes the best argument for being their leader and get the hell out while shouting 'good luck' over our shoulders.
Dutch, Darkjoy?
I'm coming to visit the Netherlands this summer. ;)
Well, someone finally clicked on the profile ;>
Good for you! Hope you find better places than Amsterdam to hang out.
LOL, my friend Josine lives in Amsterdam!
I want to go across the country to see the Dutch Water Line.
Visiting the old fort's eh? OK, never been to one, driven past them a lot.
Amsterdam is not that bad, just good to see that you are not there to hit the bong / coffeeshops / red light district.
Old forts rule!
On reflection: I was thinking about this line, I have visited the old fort at Naarden. Enjoy your stay.
|
You are evidently not my countryman, so it's natural that you bear no loyalty to the United States and the Constitution thereof. I don't hold you accountable for the illegal actions of my government. That wouldn't be fair.The odd thing is the U.N, is pretty much an American creation, but I agree that its your constitution that defines when and how your country is supposed to go to war.
All that said I find it hard to really blame Obama in this mess (though he will get the blame if things get messy here). He had to be pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into this by his allies. In particular it looks like Britain especially, but a number of other western states as well, just started cashing in I.O.U's. Britain has been a very good dance partner for America on the world stage for the last 10 years and now they want America to return the favour.
That's the bind Obama is in here. The US needs to participate and be seen to participate in order to remain in good standing with important allies (especially Britain) but the American Public would much rather this be handled by anyone but them.
Obama is at fault for not consulting Congress. He should have asked for a declaration of war. Knowing that he wouldn't get such, or even likely a quasi legal 'authorization' he decided to simply ingore the law and do this on his own. He's very much at fault. Congress will be at fault if they do not restrain him from his illegal course of action.
Obama has NO RIGHT to commit us to a war we never voted for, and it's that simple.
There have been no formal "wars" since 1945. Plenty of security actions under the eagis of the UN, but no wars. I'm no expert on the US constitution but if membership of the UN, and compliance with its resolutions, was genuinely unconstitutional I would have expected it to be challenged by now.
I always liked that twilight zone episode where we had a small talent for war
I think the people of Libiya actually don't care all that much about the US Constitution, so let's get back on topic.
The rebels, as far as I've seen on TV footage, look like a complete bunch of amateurs. They all shoot their guns, in the air mostly, wasting their bullets and yesterdag I saw a guy being interviewed, rifle over his shoulder, barrel pointing at a vast crowd and he had his finger on the trigger! Khadaffi doesn't need to fear these rebels, the rebels should fear themselves.
The footage showing how they cheered after shooting down their own plane was EPIC!
|
The rebels, as far as I've seen on TV footage, look like a complete bunch of amateurs. They all shoot their guns, in the air mostly, wasting their bullets and yesterdag I saw a guy being interviewed, rifle over his shoulder, barrel pointing at a vast crowd and he had his finger on the trigger! Khadaffi doesn't need to fear these rebels, the rebels should fear themselves.
The footage showing how they cheered after shooting down their own plane was EPIC!
I read somewhere that a percentage of the rebels do have military training, but only a small percentage. Certainly, Gaddafi's loyalist forces are better trained, and better equipped.
Removed some posts and their replies. Stop attacking other posters and their opinions.
So, how 'bout that NPR video?
You are evidently not my countryman, so it's natural that you bear no loyalty to the United States and the Constitution thereof. I don't hold you accountable for the illegal actions of my government. That wouldn't be fair.The odd thing is the U.N, is pretty much an American creation, but I agree that its your constitution that defines when and how your country is supposed to go to war.
All that said I find it hard to really blame Obama in this mess (though he will get the blame if things get messy here). He had to be pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into this by his allies. In particular it looks like Britain especially, but a number of other western states as well, just started cashing in I.O.U's. Britain has been a very good dance partner for America on the world stage for the last 10 years and now they want America to return the favour.
That's the bind Obama is in here. The US needs to participate and be seen to participate in order to remain in good standing with important allies (especially Britain) but the American Public would much rather this be handled by anyone but them.
All that said I'm no fan of this no fly zone thingy - it does not really resolve anything. If we are going to poke are nose into this then we should go all the friggen way and just invade, knock down the Qaddafi regime chase him and his supporters away - hand the whole thing over to whoever on the rebel side makes the best argument for being their leader and get the hell out while shouting 'good luck' over our shoulders.
The US can provide non-combat support. Refueling stations/planes, aircraft carriers for allies to land and refuel at. But the US doesn't have to have an active role.
The US is part of the UN, but so are China and Russia (the two next superpowers), if they are not actively participating then can we truly say it is a UN action?
Yes, I agree with all of this..
I'll add another point of criticism; the airstrikes and no-fly zone are blatant acts of war against a sovereign power, undertaken without a declaration of war by Congress. Gaddafi's actions are horrible- but they are not directed against us. We have just intervened in someone else's civil war.
When are we going to hear from all those Obama supporters who love to call George Bush a warmonger? I'd be very interested to see how they react to this. Will they hold their man to the same standards, or was all that 'anti-war' talk nothing but talk?
Here's where I stand on this as an "Obama supporter":
First I think it is completely unfair and incorrect of you to call this "Obama's war." Now I don't call Afghanistan "Bush's War" because it wasn't something he just up and did -- I do feel he had justification for being there and doing what the USA did -- I don't think he did it right, but that's a different argument.
I do feel that the invasion of Iraq was "Bush's War" -- he stirred it up, and entered it completely on his own (with token support from some of our allies) and actually caused the whole thing.
However to call the action in Libya "Obama's War" is insulting to the rebels that started the fighting, and the Gaddafi's soldiers that are fighting the rebels -- this war was not started by Obama, it wasn't caused by Obama's actions, and he has tried to stay completely out of it.
I honestly feel that we probably should have gotten involved sooner but largely agree there was no way to do so without it being a mess or legally/morally correct.
In accordance with our treaties and with the "blank check to action" that congress has given the president with that treaty and the bills/laws that congress passed after 9/11 they gave the president a whole lot of room to take military action against many types of targets without consulting them.
So while it may make the congressmen uncomfortable, and we might not like the fact that Obama has sent our aircraft and missiles into Libya it is as much Congress's folly as anyone else for allowing terms and conditions into treaties and laws that they passed themselves that bypass the president's need to consult them as much as they would like.
For some reason, I don't think the Congress is too full of people that are going to have a big problem with this action at the moment.
So I guess he's got 60 days to dismantle Libya's air defenses and then go tell Congress what he done.
"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission....." and all that.
So while it may make the congressmen uncomfortable, and we might not like the fact that...The Constitution makes no such allowance. Congress cannot lawfully give him a sweeping 'blank check to action.' That's an unconstitutional transfer of powers.
I agree with you that the nincompoops on Capitol Hill are much to blame- and that includes memebrs of both parties.
Still, Obama got us into this war on his own- he had no mandate from Congress. Abusing their trust is ot the same as gaining their consent.
That's why I call this 'Obama's War.'
In Iraq, misguided as he may have been, Bush sought and obtained approval from Congress. Of couse, that was not the proper declaration of war that should have been issued. The mission was to invade a soveriegn state, overthrow its government, and occupy it. That's a pretty big war agianst an actual state, not a 'police action' against pirates or terrorists.
As ever, YMMV
I'll agree that the Iraq war should have been called just that -- a war, for exactly the reasons you highlighted.
However with the Libya action what has been done has all happened under the current legal documents in question.
IF you doubt those documents legality as to their ability to give the president the ability to use our troops (at his discretion as commander in chief) in other people's troubles at the request of our allies I would suggest that any mutual protection treaty we enter into is illegal even if approved by congress since it gives the president the authority to use our troops without congress' permission.
And I'm not seeing anything that stops congress from giving permission to the president to do something before they actually want him to do it -- from what I can see there is no line that prevents them from saying "you can do this in the future if so and so asks, or if such and such happens or if case z were to come into effect."
Without such a line Congress can set up limited scoop perimeters to allow the president to act freely with those perimeters.
Which he currently is doing.
Of course if you don't think they are legal challenge them in court -- if the supreme court agrees with you then the bills/laws in question will be overturned.
|
|
You are evidently not my countryman, so it's natural that you bear no loyalty to the United States and the Constitution thereof. I don't hold you accountable for the illegal actions of my government. That wouldn't be fair.The odd thing is the U.N, is pretty much an American creation, but I agree that its your constitution that defines when and how your country is supposed to go to war.
All that said I find it hard to really blame Obama in this mess (though he will get the blame if things get messy here). He had to be pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into this by his allies. In particular it looks like Britain especially, but a number of other western states as well, just started cashing in I.O.U's. Britain has been a very good dance partner for America on the world stage for the last 10 years and now they want America to return the favour.
That's the bind Obama is in here. The US needs to participate and be seen to participate in order to remain in good standing with important allies (especially Britain) but the American Public would much rather this be handled by anyone but them.
Obama is at fault for not consulting Congress. He should have asked for a declaration of war. Knowing that he wouldn't get such, or even likely a quasi legal 'authorization' he decided to simply ingore the law and do this on his own. He's very much at fault. Congress will be at fault if they do not restrain him from his illegal course of action.
Obama has NO RIGHT to commit us to a war we never voted for, and it's that simple.
It is nowhere nearly this simplistic.
Since my last post things have heated up somewhat, according to the arab league things have gotten too hot! LOL!
It seems Qatar is on board with the coalition, so we have our token arab nation, but in truth it still 'the West' doing the intervention....
And even the mass-media is now starting to ask questions like: why are we doing this?
Regime change all over again..........IMHO
Wrote this yesterday morning, and to my surprise they proved me right only 12 hours later by coming out and saying that removing Khadaffi is one of the goals......
Not that the resolution mentions it but hey, we are bombing anyway so let's get some mileage out of it.
It is going to be bad!
The US can provide non-combat support. Refueling stations/planes, aircraft carriers for allies to land and refuel at. But the US doesn't have to have an active role.
The US is part of the UN, but so are China and Russia (the two next superpowers), if they are not actively participating then can we truly say it is a UN action?
Well the UN has been enforced only by member states that actually liked where things where headed almost from the beginning. Certainly since The Korea War.
All that said this is not about the UN, its about America's Alliance with Britain. Just providing back up logistics support does not really fulfill what is expected, after all Britain participated in the Iraq War and that was widely unpopular among their population.
Hence America must be seen to be actively participating in order to maintain its relationship with Britain, though it appears that this participation is going to be fairly minimal - only a handful of US strike craft are assigned to this and another handful of missile cruisers and nuclear subs - this is a very tiny fraction of America's military arsenal - With the French dispatching carriers to the region its becoming clear that the real heavy lifting will be done by Britain and France.
Reports seem to indicate that America plans to continue its air defence suppression mission using mainly tomahawk missiles for a few more days and then hand this over to Europe. In fact I read that France and Britain are debating with each other over which of them will actually command this.
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.
Compared to Iraq, Libya's antiaircraft ability seems to be null, I distinctly remember the AA light up over Baghdad during the first and second Iraq war. Libya does not seem to have the same capability.
The fact that the coalition could hit all the fixed SAM sites, even though they had more than 24 hours advanced warning (from the passing of the resolution), seems rather amateurish.
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.
Compared to Iraq, Libya's antiaircraft ability seems to be null, I distinctly remember the AA light up over Baghdad during the first and second Iraq war. Libya does not seem to have the same capability.
The fact that the coalition could hit all the fixed SAM sites, even though they had more than 24 hours advanced warning (from the passing of the resolution), seems rather amateurish.
Iraq had been at war with Iran for around a decade which meant lots of AA when the Americans came along.
Their not able to hit all the sites because the amount of military force being deployed is much smaller then what we are used to when the West goes to war.
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.
Compared to Iraq, Libya's antiaircraft ability seems to be null, I distinctly remember the AA light up over Baghdad during the first and second Iraq war. Libya does not seem to have the same capability.
The fact that the coalition could hit all the fixed SAM sites, even though they had more than 24 hours advanced warning (from the passing of the resolution), seems rather amateurish.
Could be that they simply knew they weren't going to be able to stop the strikes at fixed installations and simply saved the manpower for other tasks.
Even if you don't think this is a "goodness of his heart thing" it does make sense from a tactical position -- if you know you are going to loss an asset you don't throw other assets after it if you can help it.
Gadafi knew he couldn't defend those SAM sites so he saves the manpower to fight on the ground where he can.
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.
Compared to Iraq, Libya's antiaircraft ability seems to be null, I distinctly remember the AA light up over Baghdad during the first and second Iraq war. Libya does not seem to have the same capability.
The fact that the coalition could hit all the fixed SAM sites, even though they had more than 24 hours advanced warning (from the passing of the resolution), seems rather amateurish.
Could be that they simply knew they weren't going to be able to stop the strikes at fixed installations and simply saved the manpower for other tasks.
Even if you don't think this is a "goodness of his heart thing" it does make sense from a tactical position -- if you know you are going to loss an asset you don't throw other assets after it if you can help it.
Gadafi knew he couldn't defend those SAM sites so he saves the manpower to fight on the ground where he can.
I was reading up on SAM sites and came across this article about this Serb commander who shot down a F117 during the Kosovo intervention. He had his guys move around a lot like 100k km during the conflict. Breaking up and tearing down his SAM site almost every day. I believe Khadaffi does have some Serb advisers/mercenaries so I sort of assumed that the military community knows of the strategy. But I guess not.
I should ofcourse factor in that initiative will be frowned upon in Libya, that is only one step away from insurrection and Khadaffi can't have that.
|
|
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.
Compared to Iraq, Libya's antiaircraft ability seems to be null, I distinctly remember the AA light up over Baghdad during the first and second Iraq war. Libya does not seem to have the same capability.
The fact that the coalition could hit all the fixed SAM sites, even though they had more than 24 hours advanced warning (from the passing of the resolution), seems rather amateurish.
Could be that they simply knew they weren't going to be able to stop the strikes at fixed installations and simply saved the manpower for other tasks.
Even if you don't think this is a "goodness of his heart thing" it does make sense from a tactical position -- if you know you are going to loss an asset you don't throw other assets after it if you can help it.
Gadafi knew he couldn't defend those SAM sites so he saves the manpower to fight on the ground where he can.
I was reading up on SAM sites and came across this article about this Serb commander who shot down a F117 during the Kosovo intervention. He had his guys move around a lot like 100k km during the conflict. Breaking up and tearing down his SAM site almost every day. I believe Khadaffi does have some Serb advisers/mercenaries so I sort of assumed that the military community knows of the strategy. But I guess not.
I should ofcourse factor in that initiative will be frowned upon in Libya, that is only one step away from insurrection and Khadaffi can't have that.
In this kind of conflict you would want to be very mobile - and because satellites use both night vision and regular vision - your best time to be in launch mode is Pre to Post Dawn, and Pre to Post Sunset. This means the Sat regular vision is too dark, and the Night Vision is getting Sunlight interference.
But you want to have a second Launcher - one that is designed to draw an airstrike - Saddam used to have fake Scuds that used the Heating Element from Stoves as the Rocket Motor Heating up...to mess with the IR Sats and Missile Guidance.
But you want to have a second Launcher - one that is designed to draw an airstrike - Saddam used to have fake Scuds that used...
I am amazed that the above, drawing an airstrike, so that you can retailiate with manpads and mobile SAM's hasn't happened yet. Yesterday's NFZ violotion and subsequent downing of a jet, to me at least, seems like a good ruse to get a fighter close so you can pounce.
Maybe as a GM, thinking nasty thoughts just comes easier?
Removed a post. This is a second time I've had to do this in this thread. Please refrain from making inflammatory statements.
Who are the rebels? Well, some of them are quite familiar
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.
Really this is going to come down to the French and British. If they choose to send in ground forces that should be that fairly fast. The French seem open to the idea but have not yet managed to get any support for it.
Technically speaking, the commander in chief (President of US) can go anywhere and do anything he likes with his military he wants, for up to 90 days, without congressional approval of funding.
This is USUALLY done with special operations troops on a limited basis, and not on front page news. But the rules dont change.
This means one of two things: A) Obamma doesn't plan on any actions that will extend past 90 days or B) He's assuming once he's in there and invested, that this will pressure congress to continue operations in libya.
I think only Obamma and his advisors know which one, and it may be a combination of the two.
Who are the rebels? Well, some of them are quite familiar
This is good evidence from what I've said from the beginning. Orcs can fight goblins, doesn't mean you should help the goblins defend themselves.
Evil fights evil all the time.This has happened before, oh I dunno, Afghanistan? The US helped out the TALIBAN when they were rebelling against the Russians.
Dictatorship is simply a 'kind' of government, which to tell you the truth is no different than a monarchy. 'Freedom' is a relative term, defined only by the person it applies to.
Democracy isn't "the only good government" and the US is a good example of a corrupted Democracy that severely limits freedom.
Libya is NOT a poor or impoverished state, compared to any other government or living situation, and is only feeling the crunch in global economy that is affecting everyone.
Gaddafhi has been in power for quite some time and has not done anything "new" or more cruel than he has done in the past. The motivation for rebellion is ill-placed and literally (in my eyes) unjustified.
the Rebels have access to, and are using lethal partisan tactics to include military weaponry and vehicles. It is full blown civil war and I have seen no evidence (albeit limited access that I have) on TV of Gaddafhi attacking "civilians", You cannot attack military personnel and government installations using military weapons and vehicles and use the "civilian" title.
Other governments and world agencies have no right to be intervening, there are no (from what I have seen) human rights violations (such as gas attacks or starving the populace, or mass abduction of civilians by secret police fro internment and execution)
'true' civilians will always be killed as collateral damage when there is fighting in city limits. What military action has NOT killed civilians?
Possibly some older wars when you had to stab the guy in front of you as the only way of killing, once you start using tactics or devices (fire, catapults etc) or anything beyond that, some unintended targets will be killed.
what good dictator really wants to kill people? there are less people to tax!
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.
Compared to Iraq, Libya's antiaircraft ability seems to be null, I distinctly remember the AA light up over Baghdad during the first and second Iraq war. Libya does not seem to have the same capability.
The fact that the coalition could hit all the fixed SAM sites, even though they had more than 24 hours advanced warning (from the passing of the resolution), seems rather amateurish.
Could be that they simply knew they weren't going to be able to stop the strikes at fixed installations and simply saved the manpower for other tasks.
Even if you don't think this is a "goodness of his heart thing" it does make sense from a tactical position -- if you know you are going to loss an asset you don't throw other assets after it if you can help it.
Gadafi knew he couldn't defend those SAM sites so he saves the manpower to fight on the ground where he can.
I was reading up on SAM sites and came across this article about this Serb commander who shot down a F117 during the Kosovo intervention. He had his guys move around a lot like 100k km during the conflict. Breaking up and tearing down his SAM site almost every day. I believe Khadaffi does have some Serb advisers/mercenaries so I sort of assumed that the military community knows of the strategy. But I guess not.
I should ofcourse factor in that initiative will be frowned upon in Libya, that is only one step away from insurrection and Khadaffi can't have that.
that F117 was not downed by a SAM. that is quite literally as impossible as a SAM shooting down a swallow.
What happened was actually a fluke.Old technology.
There were two f117s, The first one came in and dropped ordinance, scaring the people on the ground, who used a flak gun (essentially ww2 technology used to shoot down slow movers like b 17s) to shoot in the sky, kind of silly if you think about it because the intended target was already gone.
The fluke is there was a second plane inbound, that literally flew into the flak (which doesnt rely on guiding technology) which was already being fired at the first plane which was gone. Similar to leading a duck or a clay pigeon with a shot gun blast.
They were shooting blindly and accidentally hit a plane they couldnt see and didnt know was there.
Just as likely as if i opened my window and shot a shotgun out it right now, if someone happened to be walking by I would hit them.
The Serbs claimed to have shot down the plane that had bombed them, which as I said was impossible, they did in fact drop an invisible haystack out of the sky with a needle.
Had the pilot been flying an a10 instead, he would have laughed at the flak, but then the SAM would have got him.
Apparently, combining the old flak gun (mounted on a zsu-32 tracked vehicle) is effective in tandem with a mobile SAM launcher.
How effective? We don't know as the combinations of situations leading to the incident have only happened once.
that F117 was not downed by a SAM. that is quite literally as impossible as a SAM shooting down a swallow.
What happened was actually a fluke.Old technology.
There were two f117s, The first one came in and dropped ordinance, scaring the people on the ground, who used a flak gun (essentially ww2 technology used to shoot down slow movers like b 17s) to shoot in the sky, kind of silly if you think about it because the intended target...
Really? Your version differs from several different accounts, care to provide links for your version of what happened?
I base my story on this and some other articles floating around the web.
ETA: In the F117's pilot own words: Missiles
Perception beats Stealth ;->
The stalemate is developing nicely, as predicted earlier.Really this is going to come down to the French and British. If they choose to send in ground forces that should be that fairly fast. The French seem open to the idea but have not yet managed to get any support for it.
It goed back and forth, rebels have been routed (again). Wailing for more bombing runs. It seems likely that they will get their wish.
I found it funny that the arms embargo only applies to Ghadaffi, not the rebels. There is some disagreement about this between the US and NATO.
