| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2011 03:09:11 PM · #51 |
The main problem I see right now is that other countries such as Yemen and Bahrain are now also calling for help and want international intervention.
But sending troops to several countries at the same time and causing conflicts that will involve troops for an unlimited amount of time seems like a really really bad idea. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:23:07 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
The main problem I see right now is that other countries such as Yemen and Bahrain are now also calling for help and want international intervention.
But sending troops to several countries at the same time and causing conflicts that will involve troops for an unlimited amount of time seems like a really really bad idea. |
The Saudi's are involved in Bahrain. It's likely that the Iranians are too, not that they'll admit to it. Could be really messy if Bahrain turns into a proxy war between those two and even messier if it escalates to open Saudi/Iranian conflict. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:28:39 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Gadaffi made the mistake of having his country sitting on a lake of oil. If not for this he could have got away with any atrocity he liked, as is the way with any number of long-serving African despots. Human rights record of many middle-eastern countries is very poor but as long as they trade oil with the west, they're ok. |
Tell me what I missed in your statement.
1. Libya has oil. True, they sit right between the UK and Kazakhstan as an exporter.
2. The UN does not involve itself in conflict that are not in oil rich nations. Might be true as long as you ignore Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia/Eritrea or about a dozen other UN actions in Africa in countries that do not have oil.
3.Quaddafi could have done whatever he liked as long as he continued to trade oil with the west. Quaddafi needs oil money to stay in power and his best customers are Europe, to whom he has been sending the majority of the 1,550,000 barrels per day Lybia produces. This has not changed for years until a few weeks ago when the rebels took over the oil fields. If your premise was true, we would be bombing the rebels to get oil flowing again.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:58:52 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
In other words, he was wrong in 2007. |
If you can quote complex constitutional and treaty law and then tease out any single sentence, you will find you can make anyone out to be a liar. Do you know what the context for Mr Obama's statement was? Do you suppose his intent was to break every mutual support treaty we have with our allies? Or do you think he was swearing off lone cowboy unilateral attacks on other nations? I'm guessing the latter.
It turns out, after a bit of looking, he was talking about bombing Iran. Now he might have said that bombing Iran was covered under the "any and all actions" resolution that Mr Bush got to into Afghanistan, which he then stretched to go into Iraq, and was talking about using to bomb Iran. Mr Obama said he would not use the very long leash that congress gave Mr Bush.
Originally posted by Spork99:
Anyway, the U.S.'s "allies" participate or not in other actions seemingly at their whim or at least to satisfy the moods of their public. |
You really seem to hate our allies at least as much as our enemies. I'm guessing you don't care for treaties or the UN?
Originally posted by Spork99:
The Saudi's are involved in Bahrain. It's likely that the Iranians are too, not that they'll admit to it. Could be really messy if Bahrain turns into a proxy war between those two and even messier if it escalates to open Saudi/Iranian conflict. |
Now there I'm afraid I agree with you completely. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 04:39:44 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Anyway, the U.S.'s "allies" participate or not in other actions seemingly at their whim or at least to satisfy the moods of their public. |
You really seem to hate our allies at least as much as our enemies. I'm guessing you don't care for treaties or the UN?
|
With some exceptions, our UN "allies" seem to be mostly fair weather friends that stand around with their hand out for some aid from the US while holding a knife to stick us (metaphorically or actually) at the first chance they get. Our enemies, at least have the honesty to come out and say "Fuck You America, take your aid and stick it", so in some ways, I hold the enemies in higher regard.
Why didn't the UN enact a resolution to strike China when they were violently suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations, running over unarmed students with tanks? The UN made some rumbling noises of disapproval and went back to doing nothing.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 16:40:29. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 04:46:39 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
In other words, he was wrong in 2007. |
If you can quote complex constitutional and treaty law and then tease out any single sentence, you will find you can make anyone out to be a liar. Do you know what the context for Mr Obama's statement was? Do you suppose his intent was to break every mutual support treaty we have with our allies? Or do you think he was swearing off lone cowboy unilateral attacks on other nations? I'm guessing the latter.
It turns out, after a bit of looking, he was talking about bombing Iran. Now he might have said that bombing Iran was covered under the "any and all actions" resolution that Mr Bush got to into Afghanistan, which he then stretched to go into Iraq, and was talking about using to bomb Iran. Mr Obama said he would not use the very long leash that congress gave Mr Bush.
|
I only know what he said. It's a pretty simple statement.
To paraphrase: The president can't just make the decision to pull the trigger on his own.
Yet, that's exactly what happened. He could have sought congressional support for blowing the shit out of Libyan air defenses to support our "allies" but he didn't. He went cowboy. I'm not saying that's wrong, but his actions conflict with his earlier statements.
He could have said, "We'll stay out of your way while you blow the hell out of Libya." That's still "supporting our allies".
He could have agreed to provide logistical support. That's still "supporting our allies".
But, nope, he had to blow up some stuff acting on his own, without asking.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 16:50:00. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 04:51:37 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Why didn't the UN enact a resolution to strike China when they were violently suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations, running over unarmed students with tanks? |
As China is a member of the UN security council and has veto right, I guess you can figure out that one yourself. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 04:55:59 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I only know what he said. It's a pretty simple statement.
To paraphrase: The president can't just make the decision to pull the trigger on his own.
Yet, that's exactly what happened. He could have sought congressional support for blowing the shit out of Libyan air defenses to support our "allies" but he didn't. He went cowboy. I'm not saying that's wrong, but his actions conflict with his earlier statements.
He could have said, "We'll stay out of your way while you blow the hell out of Libya." That's still "supporting our allies".
He could have agreed to provide logistical support. That's still "supporting our allies".
But, nope, he had to blow up some stuff acting on his own, without asking. |
I am NOT an authority on the Constitutional and Procedural laws of the USA, but I do believe that in this instance there existed absolutely not requirement whatsoever to seek the approval of anyone.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 16:56:37. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 04:58:47 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Why didn't the UN enact a resolution to strike China when they were violently suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations, running over unarmed students with tanks? |
As China is a member of the UN security council and has veto right, I guess you can figure out that one yourself. |
Exactly.
China's allowed to be a bully, to butcher it's citizens and the UN won't do squat.
The UN hypocritically condones such things unless it's one of the "lesser" countries doing it. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:13:30 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by :
Originally posted by Spork99:
Why didn't the UN enact a resolution to strike China when they were violently suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations, running over unarmed students with tanks? |
As China is a member of the UN security council and has veto right, I guess you can figure out that one yourself. |
Exactly.
China's allowed to be a bully, to butcher it's citizens and the UN won't do squat.
The UN hypocritically condones such things unless it's one of the "lesser" countries doing it. |
Perhaps you didn't read the comments made by  MistyMucky...China has a VETO... and when something is vetoed it simply does NOT pass.. END OF DISCUSSION.
We may not like it, but those are the rules. Similar rules exist in the USA... the President can veto certain things.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:15:35 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I only know what he said. It's a pretty simple statement. |
Yanking a single quote out of context is useless. This quote, out of context is all over the conservative blogoshpere as those who dislike our president chatter back and forth to each other. There is no context, the whole of what he said is not in any of the articles. The internet and television are powerful tools to spread information, but much of that information is so narrow casted that it can become an echo chamber repeating to us what we like to hear, never asking questions that might expand our understanding, parsing down complex situations into simple statements, drawing up cardboard cutouts and knocking them down. You hear what you wish to hear, taking a partial answer to a question that you never heard, and make it into the only thing that you need to hear. Pretty simple indeed. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:22:26 PM · #62 |
One has to put this attack in the general context of the Arabic revolution. What happened in Tunisia and Egypt is amazing, they have now a chance to become a democracy and that without major bloodshed and without islamic fundamentalist getting into power (fingers crossed). The young generation there is really full of optimism and I wish them good luck. The same kind of hope was shattered in Libya, because Gaddafi turned out to be a sociopath who prefers dying than just saving his gold like Mubarak and Ben Ali.
Now my point: what should western democracies to do? Past wars in the middle east have been justified by bringing democracy to the region. IMO the only decent thing is to intervene in Libya and show that it was not just hypocrisy and not just about oil. It's a major opportunity to earn back some good will from the people there. A lot can go wrong, but what are are the alternatives? Sit back and watch the massacre like in Rwanda? |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:28:55 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This quote, out of context is all over the conservative blogoshpere as those who dislike our president chatter back and forth to each other. |
Conservative blogger? |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:30:41 PM · #64 |
I dont pretend to know all the ins and outs of the politics(backstabbing) of the Middle East, but I do know that the US and coalition forces always get the shit end of the stick. THey get asked to help and then when they do help those same people that asked for help, turn around and say "they impose their ways on us and its wrong!" Happens every time.
ETA: THe propoganda from the "bad guys" of the coalition bombing civilians is more of the same rhetoric.
When are we going to learn that we are fighting a losing battle. Unrest in that region has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue til the end of time!
Religion and greed will kill us all!
I wish Canada would just stay out of those areas and concentrate on the shit inside its borders.( Ya ya I know UN obligations, blah,blah,blah!)
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 17:33:58. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:40:19 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This quote, out of context is all over the conservative blogoshpere as those who dislike our president chatter back and forth to each other. |
Conservative blogger? |
I listened to the gentleman and wondered to myself, what was the eminent threat that made the USA invade Grenada, and send troops to Iraq. He also made a comment on the cost of weapons... guess who is the largest supplier of arms in the world today.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:41:37 PM · #66 |
There are a few possible outcomes to this - putting aside the he's-murdering-his-own-people propaganda nonsense for a moment.
What we're talking about is a good old-fashioned civil war with a bit of interventionist oil-grabbing thrown in for good measure.
The rebels in the east, i.e. the national transitional council, want to oust Gadaffi so they can return to power - Their main backers are the Libyan royal family who've been in exile for about 40 years. And in Gadaffi's half of the country we've got the Jamahiriya party.
So it's not like we're going to see some major shift towards democracy and free elections. It's one or the other; the monarchists from the east will be installed, or Gadaffi's crowd will stay on.
Whoever gets into power, there will be some section of Libyan society disenfranchised and oppressed. In a similar way to the Shia/Sunni mess in Iraq.
If the two sides can't get on, then there's the Balkans option: Split the country down the middle into it's pre-1963 borders, let the National Transitional Council keep their half, and Gadaffi can slip quietly away into hiding while one of his deputies takes over the Tripoli province.
The advantage with this approach is that the oil in Libya is split almost 50/50 down the middle. Okay, the guys in the east are left with the more valuable sweet crude wells, but Gadaffi's gang should be happy they got off so lightly.
(c) JH - Solving the world's political problems since 1969. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:44:11 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by LVicari:
I dont pretend to know all the ins and outs of the politics(backstabbing) of the Middle East, but I do know that the US and coalition forces always get the shit end of the stick. THey get asked to help and then when they do help those same people that asked for help, turn around and say "they impose their ways on us and its wrong!" Happens every time.
When are we going to learn that we are fighting a losing battle. Unrest in that region has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue til the end of time!
Religion and greed will kill us all!
I wish Canada would just stay out of those areas and concentrate on the shit inside its borders.( Ya ya I know UN obligations, blah,blah,blah!) |
I think most Brits would agree with you! Why do we have to be involved in yet another Middle East conflict? We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of these men and women are risking their lives daily to aid some long lost cause. More depressing is the fact that these same troops are going to be made redundant at the end of the year. Until then tho, it is okay for them to be killed or maimed!
With huge cutbacks in UK military costs we soon won't be able to assist any UN actions in the future because we won't have the resources. It okay for  Spork99 to whine and whinge about so called 'allies' and how they all depend of the USA to save the world for humanity. Perhaps the often wrongly assumed facts that the US won WWII should be re-examined. US forces are not the be all and end all of military might, history holds a different view to this, without dragging up old encounters! As to just how capable 'allied' forces are, just read up on the Falkland War?? Desert Storm?? etc |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:44:25 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by JH:
(c) JH - Solving the world's political problems since 1969. |
JH is wise. And pretty much has a grasp of the situation i'd say. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:52:25 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This quote, out of context is all over the conservative blogoshpere as those who dislike our president chatter back and forth to each other. |
Conservative blogger? |
Heck Barbara Lee is talking impeachment, left is pretty pissed too. Funny seeing the far left an the far right agreeing on anything. Of course if we hadn't gone in the same folks would be attacking him.
Originally posted by LVicari:
When are we going to learn that we are fighting a losing battle. Unrest in that region has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue til the end of time! |
I'll bet it happens as soon as the oil gets used up. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 06:29:06 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This quote, out of context is all over the conservative blogoshpere as those who dislike our president chatter back and forth to each other. |
Conservative blogger? |
Heck Barbara Lee is talking impeachment, left is pretty pissed too. Funny seeing the far left an the far right agreeing on anything. Of course if we hadn't gone in the same folks would be attacking him.
Originally posted by LVicari:
When are we going to learn that we are fighting a losing battle. Unrest in that region has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue til the end of time! |
I'll bet it happens as soon as the oil gets used up. |
Don't count on it ending after the oil is used up, they will still have their religion.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2011 08:01:40 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by :
Originally posted by Spork99:
Why didn't the UN enact a resolution to strike China when they were violently suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations, running over unarmed students with tanks? |
As China is a member of the UN security council and has veto right, I guess you can figure out that one yourself. |
Exactly.
China's allowed to be a bully, to butcher it's citizens and the UN won't do squat.
The UN hypocritically condones such things unless it's one of the "lesser" countries doing it. |
Perhaps you didn't read the comments made by MistyMucky...China has a VETO... and when something is vetoed it simply does NOT pass.. END OF DISCUSSION.
We may not like it, but those are the rules. Similar rules exist in the USA... the President can veto certain things.
Ray |
Of course I understand what veto means.
Why does China have a veto? Certainly not because they're one of the "good guys". The Chinese government is no better than Ghaddafi's when it comes to respecting human rights. They're part of the UN and have a permanent seat on the SC because they own the US and other UN countries.
The point is that the UN is hypocritical when they condemn one countries actions but do nothing when one of the member countries does as bad or worse.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2011 08:07:49 PM · #72 |
| Unfortunately, I'm getting very cynical. I'd believe in the "we're doing it for the good of the people" if we'd step into other countries that are having problems, not just the ones in the middle east. What about the ivory coast? Something about a democratically elected government and the old government not wanting to leave. bloodshed, cruelty, where are we? |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 08:17:09 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Why does China have a veto? |
because they have nuclear weapons, and are thus on the security council...unless i am mistaken.
it doesn't mean the un's actions aren't hypocritical, i would agree that they are. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 08:18:20 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I only know what he said. It's a pretty simple statement. |
Yanking a single quote out of context is useless. This quote, out of context is all over the conservative blogoshpere as those who dislike our president chatter back and forth to each other. There is no context, the whole of what he said is not in any of the articles. The internet and television are powerful tools to spread information, but much of that information is so narrow casted that it can become an echo chamber repeating to us what we like to hear, never asking questions that might expand our understanding, parsing down complex situations into simple statements, drawing up cardboard cutouts and knocking them down. You hear what you wish to hear, taking a partial answer to a question that you never heard, and make it into the only thing that you need to hear. Pretty simple indeed. |
Which is exactly what you've been doing to my posts.
In any event, this is the question from the Boston Globe that then Senator Obama was asked along with his response:
Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: 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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that âany offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.â
Sure enough, the question is specifically about bombing Iran, yet Obama's response isn't specific to Iran, he doesn't even mention Iran until he mentions his pet resolution, SJ Res 23. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 09:43:08 PM · #75 |
|
