Reply With Quote
What does that have to do with the "Obama Kucinich" doctrine?
Also, how have those countries decided that they have no obligation to enforce a UN mandate?
Please. If Russia, China and Germany get to decide that they don't have an obligation as a member of the general assembly to carry out a mandate from the U.N. then we can too. the U.N.
What does that have to do with the "Obama Kucinich" doctrine?
Also, how have those countries decided that they have no obligation to enforce a UN mandate?
You tell me. You're the one who apparantely thinks that a U.N. mandate trumps "obama kucinich".
Well, we're dropping bombs on Libya and they're not. Why do you think that is?Also, how have those countries decided that they have no obligation to enforce a UN mandate?
You should ask Yoni that question - he made the doctrine up.
Because we voted to do so.
I understand the concept behind Yoni's made up doctrine. I don't understand why you think the US has an obligation to enforce UN mandates when other countries do not.
Right. We did, and Russia, China and Germany didn't. Now we have a UN mandate with Russia, China and Germany deciding that they don't have an obligation to enforce it.Because we voted to do so.
Then explain this doctrine; specifically, why the US would not be obligated to enforce UN mandates that it votes for.
And we have an obligation to enforce said mandate given that we voted for it along with other permanent members of the UNSC. What's your point?
There's not a facepalm big enough.
OK, someone please explain what the we hope to accomplish by bombing the crap out of Libya and then leaving?
If regime change wasn't the goal, what WAS the goal?
Who said we were leaving?
Who said we were staying?
Exactly.
So what is the point?
Enforcing a UN mandated no-fly zone that Quadafi has violated.
What would be accomplished by giving an arbitrary deadline?
No, Chump, I mean WTF are we doing there?
Pretty much facilitating the rebellion in the east so they can consolidate their holdings and/or advance. Couldn't tell you the extent of any coordination between the coalition forces and the rebels, but if Afghanistan and Iraq provide any kind of template, it is occurring. Probably more like Afghanistan, where the US did little of the initial fighting.
Like Afghanistan...Oh Ok...Thats reassuring.
But with oil.
Oh...even better. And as my memory serves me the oil in Libya is in the eastern half of the country...the part with the rebels...uh huh.
Now you're getting it.
My point is that there is no such thing as an obligation to the UN to enforce their mandates. We're bombing Libya because our president wants us to be bombing Libya. Not because we're in any way required to do so over some stupid UN mandate. We didn't have to support the mandate. We wanted to. We were not obligated to.
What we hope to accomplish is to weaken Gaddafi's forces enough to where the rebels can take him out. If rebels get in trouble again, the no-fly zone will suddenly become "inadequate" and the coalition will start targeting pro-Gaddafi ground forces, under the cloak of doing it to protect civilians.
Goal #1 is regime change. Goal #2 is making it look like the rebels deserve all the credit and we were just there to protect the innocents.
That presupposes a lot. Why aren't we obligated to enforce UN mandates? We're a permanent member of the security counsel, aren't we? We supposedly take the international rule of law seriously, don't we? We support the UN as an ins ution, right?
In any event, what's the point in entertaining scenarios that didn't happen? We voted for the no-fly zone, didn't we? Do you think we didn't become obligated to enforce the mandate we voted for?
There wouldn't have been a UN mandate if we hadn't voted to intercede.
Can someone explain to me what's so controversial about being obligated to enforce the UN mandates that we voted for?
Absolutely. Too bad that's not what happened.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
