Wwiii...
lol I read it as Ww Wii. What? A Wii game my grandkids don't have?
What...
You don't think it will become a video game? I couldn't get all caps... so.... Wii...
Who will a group of nations attack next, and when will a coalition of other respond back?
This attack on Libya was never right. It could become a world war.
I'm in no way excited or happy about what's going on in Libya, but it's not the coming of WW3.
I'm only pointing out it could. I am very uncomfortable that our president and the UN are so anxious to do this to Libya. There are so many other nations that as bad to their people. Why now, and will they stop at Libya? If this is the standard, then how soon before we start policing the world?
Did Gadhafi (sp) violate UN Sanctions? I forget.
Who didn't see land forces as inevitable? 1000 then next you know 20,000 boots are on the ground.
Cluster Cluster Cluster .
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011...-things-worse/A senior U.N. official warns conditions in Libya are continuing to deteriorate and life-saving assistance is urgently needed.As usual, a heavy-handed sanctions regime that was supposed to pressure the regime to capitulate to outside demands is hitting the civilian population first and doing far more damage to the population than to the regime. We now have a spectacle of a policy aimed at averting humanitarian disaster in one part of the country helping contribute to the worsening of a humanitarian crisis for the entire country. As long as hostilities continue, large-scale relief and evacuation efforts are essentially impossible, which means that the continuation of the Libyan war is harming the civilian population of the entire country for the sake of achieving the political success of one faction in a civil war.
In launching the appeal, U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Libya, Panos Moumtzis, says his main concern is for the western part of Libya where 80 percent of the population lives. “Our concern for the west is that the situation in the west due to the sanctions, with the low availability of medical supplies, of food supplies, the fuel embargo, the cash flow shortages-it is really like a time bomb ticking where the longer the crisis lasts, the more grave the humanitarian situation is,” said Moumtzis. ~Voice of America
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...bya/index.htmlWhen President Obama ordered the U.S. military to wage war in Libya without Congressional approval (even though, to use his words, it did "not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"), the administration and its defenders claimed he had legal authority to do so for two reasons: (1) the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR) authorizes the President to wage war for 60 days without Congress, and (2) the "time-limited, well defined and discrete" nature of the mission meant that it was not really a "war" under the Cons ution (Deputy NSA Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Obama OLC). Those claims were specious from the start, but are unquestionably inapplicable now.
From the start, the WPR provided no such authority. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's why Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman -- in an article in Foreign Policy en led "Obama's Uncons utional War" -- wrote when the war started that the "The War Powers Resolution doesn't authorize a single day of Libyan bombing" and that "in taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency."
Ackerman detailed why Obama's sweeping claims of war powers exceeded that even of past controversial precedents, such as Clinton's 1999 bombing of Kosovo, which at least had the excuse that Congress authorized funding for it: "but Obama can't even take advantage of this same desperate expedient, since Congress has appropriated no funds for the Libyan war." The Nation's John Nichols explained that Obama's unilateral decision "was a violation of the provision in the founding do ent that requires the executive to attain authorization from Congress before launching military adventures abroad." Put simply, as Daniel Larison concluded in an excellent analysis last week, "the war was illegal from the start."
But even for those who chose to cling to the fiction that the presidential war in Libya was authorized by the WPR, that fiction is now coming to a crashing end. Friday will mark the 60th day of the war without Congress, and there are no plans for authorization to be provided. By all appearances, the White House isn't even bothering to pretend to seek one. A handful of GOP Senators -- ones who of course showed no interest whatsoever during the Bush years in demanding presidential adherence to the law -- are now demanding a vote on Libya, but it's highly likely that the Democrats who control the Senate won't allow one. Instead, the law will simply be ignored by the President who declared, when bashing George Bush on the campaign trail to throngs of cheering progressives: "No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are."
Not that I know of. Maybe he did, but were any as grievous as those Saddam violated? How long was Saddam given before we attacked? How long was Gadhifi given?
Let me remind you all. I don't like him at all. I just find it appalling that we would act as we did under the cir stances.
Man, Larison is on a roll.
I find the whole thing worrysome for this reason. It is a worrysome precedent to set.A handful of GOP Senators -- ones who of course showed no interest whatsoever during the Bush years in demanding presidential adherence to the law -- are now demanding a vote on Libya, but it's highly likely that the Democrats who control the Senate won't allow one. Instead, the law will simply be ignored by the President who declared, when bashing George Bush on the campaign trail to throngs of cheering progressives: "No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are."
I don't know. Gadhafi was supposedly threatening genocide, which seems pretty grievous. And if those claims were valid, I doubt that the US would just let him sit there and kill a sufficient number of civilians in order to justify moving in.
Cmon people! We're at war with Eurasia!
I mean, Oceania! And we've ALWAYS been at war with Oceania!
That's right, be a good liberal and believe what they told you too.
Genocide...
Do you really believe that?
Gadhafi was never threatening genocide. People killed in a civil war are not necessarily victims of genocide.
First off, the fact that I said "supposedly" after that should be a pretty key indicator that I'm skeptical. The further sentence that said "AND IF" should have made it damn near obvious.
Second, did you believe the administration's claims about why it was vital to attack Iraq?
Or do you just think that going against UN sanctions is justification to go to war with a country, whether or not it poses a threat to us?
Disregarding the question of whether or not Gadhafi had the means/motivation/etc to kill all those people, if Gadhafi is the leader of a country, and allows/enables the murdering of hundreds/thousands/etc of people, I think that could be termed a genocide. I guess it all depends on how much power that the person in power has to stop it.
The precedent has already been set. Obama is making it customary.
Though, as Greenwald has pointed out many times, in some respects Obama goes far beyond the arrogance of Bush.
Viz., state secrets, prosecuting whistleblowers, reserving the right to assassinate American citizens without any due process.
Anyone have a count on the US GPS guided cruise missiles used to date?
Obama's to do list:
Kill Bin Laden - check
Take out Ghadafi - check
Dubya's list:
Win war in Iraq - fail
Eat a pretzel without ending up in the ER - fail
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
