Yet another war
Mar 23rd 2011 | 11:32 am
#46
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,678
From: San Francisco Bay Area
Re: Yet another war
Every since the no fly zone was established 4 days ago, all I've heard on cable news is that the president has not defined the purpose of the no fly zone, what is the strategy, what are the goals, and how was he going to achieve those goals.
However when George Bush Sr. set up a no fly zone over Iraq, no one asked him what was the purpose, what was his strategy, what were his goals, and how he was going to achieve those goals but we spent 12 years patrolling the no fly zone.
Also all those people calling for a no fly zone a month ago didn't state their goal other than to bomb Libya.
However when George Bush Sr. set up a no fly zone over Iraq, no one asked him what was the purpose, what was his strategy, what were his goals, and how he was going to achieve those goals but we spent 12 years patrolling the no fly zone.
Also all those people calling for a no fly zone a month ago didn't state their goal other than to bomb Libya.
Mar 24th 2011 | 7:10 am
#47
.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,933
From: Where bad things rarely happen in movies
Re: Yet another war
I just find it quite bizarre that forces have been committed from various countries, without first deciding a) who was going to take the lead/coordinate and b) what the objective is. How the hell can you expect to go to war on that basis???
Even within the UK govt there seemed to be confusion the other day with the general in charge saying Gadaffi was definitely not a target, Hague waffling on avoiding the question and implying he might be.
Even within the UK govt there seemed to be confusion the other day with the general in charge saying Gadaffi was definitely not a target, Hague waffling on avoiding the question and implying he might be.
Mar 24th 2011 | 8:11 am
#48
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,517
Re: Yet another war
I just find it quite bizarre that forces have been committed from various countries, without first deciding a) who was going to take the lead/coordinate and b) what the objective is. How the hell can you expect to go to war on that basis???
Even within the UK govt there seemed to be confusion the other day with the general in charge saying Gadaffi was definitely not a target, Hague waffling on avoiding the question and implying he might be.
Even within the UK govt there seemed to be confusion the other day with the general in charge saying Gadaffi was definitely not a target, Hague waffling on avoiding the question and implying he might be.
Mar 24th 2011 | 9:14 am
#49
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 49,598
From: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Mar 24th 2011 | 9:17 am
#51
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 49,598
From: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Mar 24th 2011 | 9:48 am
#52
.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,933
From: Where bad things rarely happen in movies
Mar 24th 2011 | 10:58 am
#53
Septic Sprout
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,002
From: Shanghai
Re: Yet another war
The whole thing reeks of cucumber... 
Mar 26th 2011 | 5:42 am
#54
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 156
Re: Yet another war
The intertesting part is that The Annointed One may have to impeach himself over this...
Oops... You'd think he would have remembered something like that...
Obama's Libya Actions Called "Impeachable,"
Conflict With Then-Senator Obama's Own Words
Just days ago, President Obama ordered U.S. military action in Libya, based in part on the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the recommendations of senior advisors including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the National Security Council's Samantha Power, and Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, all of whom were pressing for military action based on humanitarian concerns.
The President chose not to consult Congress, instead sending a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) telling them of the strikes on Libya under his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief -- well AFTER the initial attacks.
Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle agree the President should have consulted Congress BEFORE any action was taken. For example, in one of several long and intense interviews concerning his outrage over President Obama's unilateral decision to authorize military action in Libya, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) called the President's action "impeachable."
Consider Vice President Joe Biden's words referring to proposed actions of then-President George W. Bush:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war... unless we are attacked or he has proof that we are about to be attacked... If he does, I would move to impeach him..."
And President Obama's actions are in direct conflict with then-Senator Obama's position:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation...
--Senator Barack H. Obama, December 20, 2007
Conflict With Then-Senator Obama's Own Words
Just days ago, President Obama ordered U.S. military action in Libya, based in part on the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the recommendations of senior advisors including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the National Security Council's Samantha Power, and Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, all of whom were pressing for military action based on humanitarian concerns.
The President chose not to consult Congress, instead sending a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) telling them of the strikes on Libya under his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief -- well AFTER the initial attacks.
Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle agree the President should have consulted Congress BEFORE any action was taken. For example, in one of several long and intense interviews concerning his outrage over President Obama's unilateral decision to authorize military action in Libya, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) called the President's action "impeachable."
Consider Vice President Joe Biden's words referring to proposed actions of then-President George W. Bush:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war... unless we are attacked or he has proof that we are about to be attacked... If he does, I would move to impeach him..."
And President Obama's actions are in direct conflict with then-Senator Obama's position:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation...
--Senator Barack H. Obama, December 20, 2007
Oops... You'd think he would have remembered something like that...
Mar 26th 2011 | 6:41 am
#55
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Yet another war
FYI, I discarded all credibility to the item after reading "The Annointed One". Civil conversation will probably help you make your point more strongly in the future. Quips like that will end up with the thread tossed to TIO.
Apr 5th 2011 | 8:01 am
#58
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,678
From: San Francisco Bay Area
Re: Yet another war
To indicate how poorly NATO is armed without US assistance, on Monday the US was supposed to suspend military combat missions over Libya (except in special cases) and NATO was supposed to take over that function but the current need is for slow low flying heavily armoured gunships which no NATO country outside the US has enough to support the Libyan campaign (very few of those in other NATO countries). They are needed for support in urban areas to knock out tanks and other heavy weapons without causing a large amount of collateral damage. Now the US will be flying combat missions until next Monday allowing NATO to figure out how they will support the mission.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...e-tactic-libya
This is not the first time that something like that has happened. In Afghanistan the French were assigned an area to patrol but they didn't have any helicopters that could fly high enough to get above the mountains in their assigned area.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...e-tactic-libya
This is not the first time that something like that has happened. In Afghanistan the French were assigned an area to patrol but they didn't have any helicopters that could fly high enough to get above the mountains in their assigned area.
