Libya

[Walsingham]

The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the bombardment.

 

His comments are significant because the Arab League's backing for the plan was a key factor in getting UN Security Council backing for the resolution authorising the move.

 

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

 

Said this would happen, in response to Krez earlier. Never seriously expected this so soon.

 

All that anyone seems to want is enough military action so we can say we're being tough, irrespective of the fact it won't do the rebels any bloody good.

[Volourn]

I think people just aren't aware of what a 'no fly zone' is. It's not just about shooting down planes.

 

I also fine that certain characters that abstained from the vote are now whining about it even though if they have voted no the UN wouldn't be able to act. I'm looking at YOU Russia.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm pretty squemish about this. Not sure what the end game will be. Edit: Gates said we would have to bomb if no-fly zone was imposed a long time before the UN vote, don't see why they're acting so surprised.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

They aren't surprised, they knew the west wanted regime change and would ignore the text and theoretical intent of the resolution to achieve that aim. I can't imagine anyone involved in politics is so naive as to not realise that was the tacit aim and result.

 

The reason for their complaints are standard posturing for domestic consumption. They know that so long as they toe the line there'll be no "no fly zone" preventing them from shooting actually unarmed demonstrators (as opposed to armed rebels; deeply ironic senses of timing from the Saudis Bahrainis and Yemenis) with impunity but want to try and minimise any adverse effects in terms of their own stability.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Zoraptor

[213374U]

Funny how the Arabs asked for it, the Europeans enacted it, and the US ended up doing the heavy lifting anyway. And now that the no-fly zone is a reality... what is next? Do they really expect Qaddafi to quit simply by grounding his air force?

Edited March 21, 2011 by 213374U

[pmp10]

Do they really expect Qaddafi to quit simply by grounding his air force?

Actually right now they seek to enforce cease-fire.

Unless those destroyed tanks found a way to fly.

[213374U]

Are they? And here I thought that the idea of beating a country into submission by airpower alone was rendered obsolete in, like, 1944. That only worked in Yugoslavia after the Dayton Agreement, only here the scene and actors make something like that unlikely to happen. And even in that case a massive land-based peacekeeping force still had to be deployed to ensure compliance.

 

So, who's going to cough up the troops to fight Qaddafi's loyalists in their own turf, after the US have declared that they have no intention of getting involved in another land war for the time being? The Europeans? Hahaha... that'll be the day.

Edited March 21, 2011 by 213374U

[Zoraptor]

They are probably hoping that someone in the army will step in and remove Ghadafi for them, else it's the equally unpalateable options of observing the resolution and not bombing except to the extent it is necessary to enforce the nfz/ stop civilians being attacked (tacit victory for Ghadafi) or having to even more flagrantly ignore the resolution up to the point opinion turns and hope that Ghadafi goes before that point; if he doesn't victory for Ghadafi.

 

The rebels could probably deal with a random general/ regime insider as up to a few weeks ago most of their leaders would have been classified that way themselves.

[obyknven]

[Walsingham]

I love obyknven. She's like an agitprop otter, all twisty and clearly a bit beastly, yet somehow playful at the same time.

[obyknven]

Another aspect of the war in Libya.

 

Obama and his globalist puppet masters have deep and undivided contempt for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American people.

 

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution reads: “Congress shall have power to … declare War.” Congress did not declare war on Libya. The globalist sock puppet Obama did.

 

Speaking from Brasilia, Obama said that he had authorized “limited military action in Libya.”

 

He does not have the authority to call for military action against other countries. The executive branch of the United States government, however, has engaged in this sort of unlawful and flagrant violation of the Constitution since the end of the Second World War.

 

Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution. Congress passed the the War Powers Resolution in 1973 after Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia.

 

The War Powers Resolution became totally irrelevant when Congress passed the Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 following the flag attack of September 11.

Edited March 21, 2011 by obyknven

[pmp10]

Obama and his globalist puppet masters

I'll probably regret asking but can't help myself.

Who are those puppet masters and what is their agenda?

[Monte Carlo]

I love obyknven. She's like an agitprop otter, all twisty and clearly a bit beastly, yet somehow playful at the same time.

 

Yes, with a strange dash of Lord of Flies methinks.

[Monte Carlo]

Hat-tip to newsbiscuit...

 

RAF bomb Tripoli KFC after misunderstanding orders to

[213374U]

I love obyknven. She's like an agitprop otter, all twisty and clearly a bit beastly, yet somehow playful at the same time.

 

Yes, with a strange dash of Lord of Flies methinks.

Possibly. But ad hominems are ever so convenient.

 

I'm very curious to see how this is going to turn out. If as Zor suggests a mass defection and/or the killing of Qaddafi are achieved, the regime change part of this business may be completed. However, the West's record on the subject of foreign political reconfiguration is rather unimpressive, and at any rate it rests mostly on the tacit, ever-present threat of literally awesome military force being brought to bear on them should things deviate too much from the plans laid out for (read: imposed on) them. We are already seeing the ability of the American military to project power being questioned, and the not-so-good economic juncture certainly won't help. And that is an optimistic prediction.

 

If, on the other hand, foreign military intervention galvanizes Qaddafi's supporters and/or we fail to kill him quickly, things could get much uglier as the opportunistic leaders of this coalition start to feel the political heat derived from their failure to achieve their objectives in a timely fashion, and their already battered popularities take another hammering with elections around the corner. I'm specifically looking at Sarko, and to a lesser extent Obama. I have trouble imagining where this would go, but one thing is certain: we won't like footing the bill for their foolhardy grab for glory.

 

In any case, I think the deployment of a sizable land force is unavoidable now and somebody will have to get around to it at some point. Unless we're happy with Libya becoming the next Somalia, but given its location in Europe's backyard and the energy thing, I very much doubt that.

 

The undisputed winner in the game so far and for the foreseeable future is clearly Putin. If only because his rivals are so astonishingly incompetent and weak.

Edited March 21, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

He does not have the authority to call for military action against other countries. The executive branch of the United States government, however, has engaged in this sort of unlawful and flagrant violation of the Constitution since the end of the Second World War.

 

I don't know why I'm bothering to point this out, but he does:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_..._affairs_powers

 

A country which had to wait for its legislature to decide on action in the event of threats to its security would last about as long as it took for its neighbours to cease laughing hysterically.

 

BTW, when you say sock puppet, are we talking a home made one, or a fancy Sesame Street one?

 

EDIT: A colleague informs me that a good example of what happens when a state relies on its legislature to make war is early Poland in its era as a republic.

 

You may not have heard of this before, which is probably attributable to early Poland being systematically minced by its neighbours.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Walsingham

[Enoch]

Well, there is a fairly big "what next" question. Qaddafi has been a mostly harmless autocrat ever since the mid-80s, when a cruise missile blew up his tent while he happened to be out taking a leak. He has followed the basic petro-dictator pattern: take the vig from the country's oil production, use it to buy internal stability by putting most of the country on the dole, and keep whatever is left. But there has been a big problem with this pattern lately in a lot of oil states-- very high population growth rates make buying stability increasingly expensive.

 

Absent the central influence of the Qaddafi regime, the people of Libya are largely of tribal mindset. (I mean this in a modern context-- the people feel their first loyalty is to whichever non-governmental, quasi-familial association they were born into.) Which makes the nature of what government is to come a big question. Democracy bolted onto a largely tribalist population doesn't have a great track record. (See, e.g., Pakistan.)

 

Qaddafi, for his part, has no incentive to compromise at all. He and his top lieutenants have long since crossed the line that would make them a target of the International Criminal Court. Since ICC forbearance requires annual UN votes to be maintained, nobody can offer them any kind of stable sanctuary. So Q fights on to the bitter end.

[obyknven]

BREAKING NEWS!!!

 

The war criminals are back at it again. Hours after the attacks, sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities.

 

Al-Tajura Hospital was hit as was Saladin Hospital in Ain Zara.

 

 

You know what was the only nation in the world that targeted hospitals or shoot everything in sight? Nazi Germany.

 

http://top.rbc.ru/special/21/03/2011/563161.shtml

[Monte Carlo]

^ Poster invokes Godwin's Law and wins. Close thread now plz.

[Walsingham]

I'd have thought that by now most foaming loons would have learned to avoid the tautological inefficiency of calling America 'Nazi', and just adopted the word 'american' as meaning something worse than Nazi. Pro-tip there, loons.

[213374U]

A country which had to wait for its legislature to decide on action in the event of threats to its security would last about as long as it took for its neighbours to cease laughing hysterically.

 

BTW, when you say sock puppet, are we talking a home made one, or a fancy Sesame Street one?

 

EDIT: A colleague informs me that a good example of what happens when a state relies on its legislature to make war is early Poland in its era as a republic.

 

You may not have heard of this before, which is probably attributable to early Poland being systematically minced by its neighbours.

Because, clearly, the Libyan state is in a position to threaten US national security. The power to declare war is a prerogative exclusive to Congress. Arguably, the Prez could act to prevent something like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, but authorizing airstrikes on Libya, even if it's to protect Libyan (as opposed to American) civilians is hardly the same. Maybe simply the whole concept of DOW is obsolete but that doesn't change the fact that simply deferring to the decision of an international forum -largely an instrument of the powerful anyway- doesn't give a President, PM or whatever powers above and beyond what's ordinarily invested on him.

 

You know that you and I see eye to eye more often than not, but... really?

 

edit: me suck at engrish. D:

Edited March 21, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I can see where you're coming from Numbers, but I'm not budging just yet.

 

Libya may not have a capability to lob missiles at Florida, but it has the ability to attack shipping and aviation in the mediterranean, and a proven willingness to sponsor international terrorism. Although arguably the latter may have only increased in likelihood thanks to the attacks.

 

The notion that attacks on aviation, where US citizens are at risk, constitute a clear and present danger dates at least as far back as the 1989 avianca bombing. Which lead to the deployment of US special forces and secret surveillance equipment into Colombia.

 

EDIT: Jacob Zuma is now calling for regime change to be ruled out, and an end to attacks which might harm civilians. Which essentially means no attacks on ground targets.

 

Again, this is precisely what I predicted. The international community is quite content for this to turn into a civil war provided the 'holy' concept of non intervention is obeyed.

 

Although to be fair, one wonders if this isn't a good thing as someone might ask why we don't do something about the war in DR Congo.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Walsingham

[213374U]

Libya may not have a capability to lob missiles at Florida, but it has the ability to attack shipping and aviation in the mediterranean, and a proven willingness to sponsor international terrorism. Although arguably the latter may have only increased in likelihood thanks to the attacks.

 

The notion that attacks on aviation, where US citizens are at risk, constitute a clear and present danger dates at least as far back as the 1989 avianca bombing. Which lead to the deployment of US special forces and secret surveillance equipment into Colombia.

Well, if you are going to base your argument on the ability and willingness of countries to target US citizens in the past and completely going to ignore present geopolitical realities, then I hope that, for the sake of coherence, your follow-up will be an endorsement of airstrikes against the PRC and Russia. Because, before the attacks begun, Libya was even less of a threat to the US than Iraq in 2003.

[Volourn]

"Who are those puppet masters and what is their agenda?"

 

Jews of course. Or their secret name: The Illumanti.

 

R00fles!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Congress has the power to declare war, but the President as the Commander in Chief has the constitutional power to deploy the armed forces as he sees fit. Further, Congress has the power to cut off funding for any military operation, this is not in dispute.