navwin » Discussion » Feelings » Obama (Superman)
Feelings
Post A Reply Post New Topic Obama (Superman) Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356


0 posted 2011-03-18 06:10 AM


Just to say I really think that Obama's performance recently over Libya has been exemplary.  The intelligence and political acumen of the guy is phenomenal.  He could have waded in with all guns blazing (as his predecessor would have done) and got everyone's backs up (because after all, let's face it, after Bush's performance the US wasn't ever going to win the Miss World Tactful Competition).  

Instead of which he hung back, worked behind the scenes, and now lo and behold we have an unopposed UN Security Council resolution to kick that vicious thug Gaddafi's ass.  

The man is simply awesome, and I love him to bits.

© Copyright 2011 moonbeam - All Rights Reserved
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

1 posted 2011-03-18 11:15 PM


I think I have trust issues.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

2 posted 2011-03-19 05:11 AM


Of course you have trust issues.

Let's face it, you would be foolish not to have trust issues.

Any set of people in a weaker position than any other set of people (human nature being what it is) would be foolish not to be wary.

But then, as Balladeer pointed out "the proof is in the pudding" - and so far the pudding is wayy better than that served up by other recent incumbents imho.



Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

3 posted 2011-03-19 09:10 AM


Obama has gone down in my estimation.

Interfering in the internal conflicts in Libya is a mistake in my view but even if Obama believes it's the right thing to do he still loses points for inconsistency.

I can understand doing nothing, I can even understand doing something but I can't understand doing nothing in the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and something in Libya - where's the consistency?

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

4 posted 2011-03-19 03:40 PM




     When I was a kid, I used to think my parents were all powerful.  I must admit, they tried their best to be.  They were limited by money, among other things.  I used to think my country was all powerful as well, but I have an understanding at this point that we are limited by, among other things, money as well.  Not to mention that having the power to destroy something, which we do have, is not the same as having the power to make everything right.

     We have only a limited understanding of what is right, in many cases, though we may believe we know more than that.  And our ability to guide the world there is fragile.  We argue with others about this all the time.

     Why would we be able to adopt or even afford Uncas' list of interventions in the world?  And who says that the attempt wouldn't destroy the world instead of saving it?  I have my own silly list, and so did George Bush.  Everybody has a list.  Why is your list better? Puh-leez, Louise!

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
5 posted 2011-03-19 03:53 PM


I think the resolution is right in every way.  I admire Obama and Sarkozy for leading and helping put it forth so strongly.   Hesitation and words can't continue forever when you are dealing with someone that is murdering his own people.  
Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

6 posted 2011-03-19 03:53 PM



My list is very short - in fact there's only one country on it - my own.


Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

7 posted 2011-03-19 04:53 PM



The rebels are doing their fair share of murdering too Ess, there are confirmed reports that the rebels are targeting black Africans as well as any government supporters  they happen to come across.

But it gets worse. Everyone's now talking about arming the rebels and reducing the capability of the government forces in a bid to encourage a rebel push towards Tripoli where they can eradicate any pro-government supporters and ultimately topple the government. I may be wrong but that sounds way beyond a peacekeeping role to me.

Presumably, rebels' killing Libyan civilians is ok.

In the next 24-48 hours I believe that US ships will launch cruise missiles to take out Libyan air defence positions situated in heavily built up areas, there will obviously be unavoidable civilian casualties.

Presumably, the US killing Libyan civilians is ok too.

All this to protect the rebels from east Libya, the enemy of my enemy and all that stuff, well there's a slight issue with that notion. Did you know that the rebel strongholds in east Libya account for one in five of every foreign fighter currently operating in Iraq? They would be the same foreign fighters who are busily killing American soldiers. It's only a guess but what are the chances that they may turn out to be worse than the devil we know?


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

8 posted 2011-03-19 06:20 PM


I was jumping around the channels for the evening news--I like to compare p.o.v.--and I landed on BBC news.

Unlike here in the States, their lead story was Tunisia.

Blame it on Tunisia. Attidude is contagious.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

9 posted 2011-03-19 06:35 PM


Serenity - wayy to go!  The good old BBC, can't better it.  Ummmmm ...

I don't often disagree with Uncas, but really, "consistency" in foreign policy!!!??  You ARE joking aren't you?  Anyway I always agree with William Hague, and it was his idea to go in in the first place.  But seriously, as someone said on the Today prog this morning, how do you NOT intervene when you have a more or less unopposed international mandate to do so?  

Is that the case with all the other instances you cite?

Anyway Gaddafi is a horrible man.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

10 posted 2011-03-19 07:01 PM



I've got a pretty much unopposed mandate to paint my new garage luminous green, the kids don't care and usually don't vote and the wife has promised not to veto any colour as long as I paint the darn thing tomorrow.

I'm not going to do it though - because:

A -  it's a stupid idea
And
B - I know I'll regret it later.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

11 posted 2011-03-19 07:52 PM


Agreeing with Uncas here. The rebels we are encouraging and facilitating are some of the ones from East Libya who were responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq. And they are Islamists. In all the photos I have seen of the insurgents they are all waving the Islamic Crescent flag.

My previous suspicions are being strenghtened. If the rebels/insurgents/protestors are Islamists we are on their side against their secular dictators/rulers, as in Egypt. If they are secular protestors rising up against their Islamist dictators/rulers, as in Iran, we don't offer them encouragement or support...we let them be slaughtered and say we can't involve ourselves in the affairs of a sovereign nation.

smh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
12 posted 2011-03-20 04:26 AM


quote:
Just to say I really think that Obama's performance recently over Libya has been exemplary.  The intelligence and political acumen of the guy is phenomenal.


I agree, MB.

Yet, I also think Denise's suspicions are something to be taken very seriously.  I don't know enough about the people there to be certain of anything at the moment nor do I think morality or consistency (except as a tactic) should be the guiding forces in any country's foreign policy.  All country's should follow their own national interest.  It's easier to predict things that way.

Is this in America's national self interest?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

13 posted 2011-03-20 07:52 AM


Also, I thought Congress was supposed to vote yeah or nay on any U.S. military involvement.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

14 posted 2011-03-20 11:10 AM


Point taken Uncas - though the parallels are a little dubious.  But I wasn't so much commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the action per se at the start of the thread, as Obama's good judgement in not "doing a Rumsfeld" and charging in, all guns blazing.  

Even now, I wouldn't presume to judge whether it is going to make matters worse or better for the majority of Libyans to go in there and dismantle the regime, I simply don't know enough.  However, it does seem evident to me that having achieved a relatively universal consensus that some action is needed, then some action should be taken.  To do otherwise kind of casts doubt on the value of  the UN and international cooperation; even more doubt than there already is I mean!

....................

On another point.  What is this fixation with using the word "Islamist" as if it is interchangeable with the word "Enemy" (you might just as well say that all Christians are the Enemy).

It's very disparaging to Islam, which is the second largest religion in the world, and one that should, I think, be respected.    

As for "Islamists" taking over the country (deja vu from the Egypt thread in the Alley where it was the Muslim Brotherhood) I just don't see what is productive about an attitude that constantly opposes change from a bad situation simply out of fear of a worse alternative.

In addition, there is a certain segment of society that hankers for the good old days of the bogey man - the "reds under the bed" syndrome.  The need to reinforce a way of life by constantly warning of the dangers of departing from tradition, precedent and the ways of our fathers.  Now that blaming the "reds" for all evils has become patently even more absurd than before, the new monsters to frighten our kids with are the "socialists in the sauna", the "liberals in the library", the "gays in the garret", and of course the "Islamists under the ivy".

It's so destructive to pigeonhole  people into a particular group or religion or sexual orientation, and then label them "bad" simply for being in that grouping.  Recognising that there are always bad and good people (and groups of people) within any set is much more constructive.

So, for instance, of course there have been reports of the rebels killing people and torturing them.  So what?

There will be bad rebels who take advantage of a volatile situation just as there are bad Christian clergy who abuse young children.  It doesn't mean that it's accurate to label all rebels with a derogatory "Islamist", or all Christian clergy "Paedophiles".

..........................

Hi Brad.  Following national interest?  Humm.  Clearly as a matter of principle, a dubious course to chart.  But, yes, as a matter of practical expediency in the continuing chaos that is the world, perhaps the wisest way to proceed.  It's like a soccer game perhaps, where the cleanest and most boring game is produced when all the players know each other well and can predict each other's personal game, passing and tackling with precision because of it.  Thus when you do get a maverick player who is unpredictable, it allows the rest of the players some chance of a "coordinated" response, even if the coordination arises from a perverse kind of self interest.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

15 posted 2011-03-20 11:57 AM


Islamist is the definition of Muslims who believe in and work toward government domination through Sharia Law, ultimately throughout the world, through peacful or violent means, whatever is deemed appropriate in each situation. It isn't just a religion. Religion is just one facet of their system.

I wouldn't be so easily offended on their behalf either. They wouldn't return the favor. Our very existence offends them and they don't respect our values, religious beliefs or way of life.

Islamists are the enemy inasmuch as they want to destroy every other form of government, belief system and way of life worldwide. They are not tolerant and I don't believe it is wise to be tolerant of such an ideology as theirs.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
16 posted 2011-03-20 01:08 PM


Uncas

In my opinion, the wrongs you mention are also a very strong reason WHY they need help.  They need to be helped so they are not as desperate.  The more desperate people are the more likely they may resort to any/every last resort they can, using the worst of things imaginable.   If our countries can help them be less overpowered by a dictator and be less desperate when fighting for something we all deserve, freedom, and they support our help, then I think it is right that we at least do something to try to help them.  
  

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

17 posted 2011-03-20 02:25 PM


Fine Ess, you think we should help the oppressed people overthrow dictators who are committing atrocities against innocent civilians. It's a very noble ideal.

When do we invade China, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran Russia etc. etc?

There's an odd smell of hypocrisy when the US tries to claim the moral high ground while only taking action against leaders they don't like in countries that contain oil.

MB

I thought it was a little ironic that some commentators were demonising the Libyan government and painting them as anti-American to justify the attacks when the rebels are, if anything, about as anti-American as you can get.

Islamists?

If the people of Libya suddenly decide to start worshiping Beelzebub, it really isn't any of my business and, quite frankly, I don't care. I also don't care if one group of Libyans decide to kick lumps out of another group of Libyans either, it'll sort itself out eventually, it has in the past and it will in the future. Will some non-combatants get killed in the crossfire? Sure, and that's unfortunate, but the likelihood is  there'll be a heck of a lot more killed now that the "shock and awe"  brigade are involved. What's the score so far? 48 dead and 150 injured in the missile strikes on day one?

Here's a question for you:

Will the US fire on the rebels if they make aggressive moves towards the Libyan army positions?

I doubt it.

I predict a long drawn out civil war in Libya that forces the US/UN to put troops on the ground and an increase in terrorist activities outside Libya against the nations who are taking part.

Iraq all over again.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

18 posted 2011-03-20 03:50 PM


Obama bypassed Congress in doing this, which is unconstitutional. This won't bode well for him in the U.S. It will just highlight his disdain for the Constitutional constraints on government officials.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

19 posted 2011-03-20 06:46 PM


quote:
There is a catch: The Security Council is powerless to “authorize” the U.S. military to do a damned thing. The validity of American combat operations is a matter of American law, and that means Congress must authorize them.

Our Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war. That authority cannot be delegated to an international tribunal that lacks political accountability to the American people. The decision to go to war is the most significant one a body politic can make. Thus the Framers designed our system to make certain that the responsible officials are answerable to the people whose lives are at stake and who are expected to foot the bills.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262547/unwise-and-illegitimate-andrew-c-m ccarthy?page=1

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
20 posted 2011-03-20 08:23 PM


I find it interesting that anyone who opposed going into Iraq supports our participation in Libya.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Sen. Barack Obama speaking about George Bush's military actions in Iraq.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

21 posted 2011-03-20 08:54 PM


He left out the part that Bush obtained the permission from Congress to go into Iraq. Isn't that when Kerry voted for it before he voted against it, or vice-versa? So, yeah, he did have the authority under the Constitution to do it, unilaterally, or otherwise. There were several allies, though, so it wasn't a unilateral action.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

22 posted 2011-03-21 10:33 PM




     I think that if you're trying to frame the discussion in these terms, you have a point.  The President should have congressional approval.  The legal fine-points, I'm not sure about, but I'm inclined to think he should have congressional approval no matter what, and no matter whom the President may be.

     I believe the point in question may turn on either declaration of war or commitment of troops, but I'm will to admit that I don't know, and that I believe that pretty much no matter what, the President should be required to have congressional approval.  That's a personal opinion.

     I would like to point out that there is a difference between this case and the case with President Bush.  President Bush fabricated the case for war pretty much out of the whole cloth.  He knew there was no actual connection between Iraq and the 9/11 bombings from the start and he later admitted that there had been no connection.  He fabricated a case for phony nuclear weapons and used it to drum up war hysteria in this country, and he used his congressional majority to arm-twist the democrats remaining in congress at that time to either sign on or be labeled traitors to the national interest.

     I'm sad to see that my right wing friends appear to believe that the rest of us have acquired amnesia or that they would be willing to refight battles that the country itself seems to have lost because of the sad mistakes that previous Republican administrations led us into.  I would rather not refight them, myself, especially since I view active military intervention into Libya now as something of a mistake, worthy of its own critique.

     My right-wing friends are being somewhat inconsistent in their critique here, however, since the Republican position since at least President Nixon has been an attempt to expand Presidential power and to take power away from the Congress.  Witness the position the Republicans as a whole took on "signing Statements" when the president attempted to veto laws that he disagreed with or signed into law bills that he did not intend to comply with as written.  Consider Vice-President Cheney's support of such positions.

     President Obama's move in that direction is pale in comparison.  I disagree with it, even so.

     Why my Republican friends do so I can only explain by imagining that it is a Democrat that is doing it.  When President Reagan bombed Libya, the Republicans cheered; when he invaded Panama, they thought he was wonderful; and when he attempted the same sort of thing in other countries they named an aircraft carrier after him and suggested he won the cold war.

     Personally, I believe that it's all extra-constitutional; and that President Obama is having another episode of Republican Lite policy.  It may have fewer calories and it may be less filling, but it still leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

     None of them should try to get around congressional approval.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2011-03-21 10:36 PM


Nader: Impeach Obama for 'war crimes'
By Jordan Fabian - 03/20/11 03:47 PM ET

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader says President Obama should be impeached for committing "war crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed "war crimes" on the same level as President Bush.

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Nader's comments came before the U.S. on Saturday launched military strikes into Libya, but they are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.

The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which more than 100 protesters were arrested.

The U.S. sought the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution and commitments from European and Arab nations before taking action in Libya to thwart the country's leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, from killing civilians amidst a rebellion against his regime.

Nader's comments, however, were mainly directed at Obama's prosecution of the Afghanistan war. Some liberal activists have objected to Obama's decision to escalate the war and are unhappy with government's treatment of Bradley Manning, the Army private accused of leaking classified documents to the organization WikiLeaks.

"[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," Nader said. "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law."

Obama appears to be facing growing resistance from the left over his administration's foreign policy.

Anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore sharply criticized the president's authorization of military strikes in Libya and a cadre of liberal House Democrats are questioning the constitutionality of the Libya operation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/150907-nader-obama-should-be-impeached-for-war-crimes

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
24 posted 2011-03-22 07:31 AM


When a democrat gets criticized by Michael Moore, the end of the world seems a little bit closer.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

25 posted 2011-03-22 09:27 AM


"Obama penned a letter to Congress on Monday, explaining he had the authority to launch the strikes under his constitutional role as commander in chief. That came after members of Congress in both parties, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), complained that the president had not adequately explained the U.S. mission to Congress and the public.

"The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya," Obama wrote. "United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.""
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/151167-top-dem-rejects-calls-for-obama-impeachment-over-libya

So that's ok then!

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

26 posted 2011-03-22 09:30 AM


"Everybody has a list.  Why is your list better? Puh-leez, Louise!"

Yes, but not everyone has a list which is passed by an uncontested vote at the UN, Bob.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

27 posted 2011-03-22 09:57 AM


The truth is, we can all argue ad infinitum about the wrongness or rightness of this policy or that course of action, and of whether this politician or that senator has a valid criticism.  In fact, we do not have access to the information necessary to make an informed judgement.  

At the end of the day though, what really matters surely is whether we believe that our leader(s) are honest and principled.  If we do, then we have to try and have faith in the decisions they make, even if we do not fully understand them, or even agree with them.  If we don't believe that about them, then we ain't going to like anything they do, and we'll go around digging until we find stuff to denegrate them.

I happen to think that, in contrast to Clinton who was driven by his private parts and the morals of an ferret, and Bush who was driven by "God" (unfortunately the God of War), Obama is an intelligent, rational being, with as few partisan agendas as you can reasonably expect in a leader appointed by a democratic system.

I believe!

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

28 posted 2011-03-22 12:01 PM


Denise

I didn't suggest that Islamism (Islamist) is a religion.  The religion is Islam.  "Islamism" is a word used (and abused, especially by those outside Islam) to denote that Islam should be used to guide, not just religious life, but all aspects of life, political and social too.  

There is nothing inherently wrong with this.  After all plenty of other religions encourage their followers to apply the tenets of the religion in all aspects of their lives.  

As with all movements based on religion there are elements within the movement which vary from mild and tolerant right through to extreme and violent.  Few westerners (few rational people in fact)  can agree with or condone the extreme elements in the Muslim world.  But then neither would they agree with the extremes of Catholicism and Protestantism exhibited in N.Ireland and Glasgow.  

None of the people who employ the means that you abhor, whether they be catholics, protestants, jews or muslims are worthy of being given a title which includes the name of their religion - they are simply extremists, always with an agenda that does not mirror the true tenets of the religion they supposedly espouse.

To label all Islamists as bad is as ridiculous and damaging to relations as to label all Evangelists (Christian variety) bad.  It's unhelpful, simplistic and doesn't recognise that great majority of people in these movements who do not have global domination at the heart of their agenda.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
29 posted 2011-03-22 12:15 PM


What makes it right is the fact that Libya, its civilians, and its freedomfighters were being destroyed by a massmurdering leader and government who promises no mercy.  We are there to help save lives and help them fight for freedom.   Fighting against murder and oppression, to save lives, and help win freedom, more than justifies going to Libya.  Nothing can make going there in the cause of those things wrong.  Inevitably there will be losses, as there are in any war, but if we cherish the freedom we have from being terrorized by someone like Qadhafi we ought to respect and support trying to help acheive it for those in Libya, so they as well can have at least have the ability and right to stand up for rights and freedoms without being murdered.  I believe we should fight unambiguously on the side of the civilians and freedomfighters, until they can make Qadhafi surrender.  His regime no longer deserves any place in Libya or anywhere on earth, not as long as there are still human rights and morals among people.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-23-2011 07:34 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

30 posted 2011-03-22 12:49 PM




     While I believe that Essorant is correct, I also believe that no American President has the power to declare war and open hostilities on his or her own.  While the President may command the troops, the President may not declare war; that power is reserved for the Congress.  The congress, for the past week has occupied itself debating whether or not to spend five million dollars to fund National Public Radio, a very important topic indeed, but quite possibly a dodge to avoid discussion of involvement in Libya, which Great Britain managed to debate and resolve rapidly.

     Newt Gingrich did not find it necessary to criticize them for not getting involved enough and for acting in far too restrained a fashion.  Nor did our local Right Wing folk find it necessary to criticize them for getting over-involved.  I believe that we are the poorer for not yet having had that congressional debate, and I suspect it will be unlikely that we will have it.  The Democratic Congressman from Cleveland, whom I tend generally to support, suggests that The President's actions are impeachable, and Mr. Kucinich may be correct, though I hate to think so.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

31 posted 2011-03-22 02:54 PM



quote:
What makes it right is the fact that Libya, its civilians, and its freedomfighters were being destroyed by a massmurdering leader and government who promises no mercy.


One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Exactly how many unarmed Libyan civilians did the Libyan government forces kill while combating the armed rebels Ess? The UN supposedly launched their attacks because unarmed civilians were being killed, right? Surely there's some evidence of such a large scale slaughter, I haven't seen any, but I'm presuming the evidence exists.

.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

32 posted 2011-03-22 03:57 PM


To be fair Uncas,oppressive and murdering regimes do have a pretty impressive record of covering up the inconvenient evidence of mass slaughter.  

It has to be, er, extrapolated!  Yet I suppose that one would have to admit that sometimes the extrapolation goes a bit awry - as in Bush and Blair extrapolating WMD.

What to do, what to do ...

By the way, this:

"I almost forgot.

To give a  bit of perspective regarding the safety record of nuclear plants and the comparison of the number of nuclear accidents per nuclear plant. If you applied that same ratio to commercial airline flights, you'd expect 1072 crashes per day.

Does that sound safe?"

was brilliant.  I would have said so in the right place at the right time, but regrettably my posting rights dans le Allée have been, suspended, removed, cancelled - I am not sure which, as I wasn't informed.  I'm not sure why I was banished either - possibly because I was rude to Denise or Mike, or, dare I say it, Karen?  Anyway c'est la vie.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

33 posted 2011-03-22 04:42 PM


Rob, calling an Islamist an Islamist would be like calling an Evangelist an Evangelist, not bad.

The commander in chief only has the power to act without the prior approval of Congress when American lives are imminently in danger or when Americans have been killed, as when Reagan bombed Quadhafi after he bombed a nightclub in Germany that killed U.S. service personnel. That wasn't the case here, and pointing to Lockerbie from 20+ years ago, as I have heard from some talking heads, doesn't cut it for this current involvement.

Sending a letter informing Congress of his actions, after the fact, isn't sufficient to comply with the Constitutional requirement.

Bob, I wouldn't stress over his being impeached over it. There aren't enough people in Congress with the spine to stand up to him about anything, let alone facilitate impeachment. They have only themselves to blame that Obama has made them irrelevant.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

34 posted 2011-03-22 05:56 PM


quote:
The commander in chief only has the power to act without the prior approval of Congress when American lives are imminently in danger or when Americans have been killed


Actually, that's not quite correct.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the President the power to send US forces into action without prior approval of Congress.

quote:
Sending a letter informing Congress of his actions, after the fact, isn't sufficient to comply with the Constitutional requirement.


Unfortunately that isn't true either.

The War Powers Resolution states that the President must "notify Congress" within 48 hours of committing US forces. The method of notification isn't specified.

quote:
I wouldn't stress over his being impeached over it.


I wouldn't either, the War Powers Resolution doesn't contain any method or means of redress for a President that fails to notify Congress.

If it wasn't for the War Powers Resolution, which ironically was implemented to curtail Presidents from undertaking military actions, Obama wouldn't, in my opinion, have a constitutional leg to stand on.

Another example of badly framed legislation - no wonder Nixon vetoed it.




moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

35 posted 2011-03-22 06:22 PM


Well then thank God for the War Powers Resolution - I mean, decision by committee is sooooo tedious.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2011-03-22 07:23 PM


"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. "

Which one of those two conditions were met?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2011-03-22 07:29 PM


Ess, in your post 29, change the name of the country and leader and you have justified Iraq.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

38 posted 2011-03-22 07:44 PM


I just think that if we're going to drop bombs on a country to displace their leadership we oughtta at least know how to spell the guy's name. (What's up with that? He's been a pain in the arse for how many decades, now?)



Kaddhaffi, Gadaffi, Gadhafi, Kadhafi...)


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

39 posted 2011-03-22 07:49 PM



     Richard Engels reported that about one out of five of the folks in the anti-kadafi camp that he spoke with the other day were convinced that Kadafi was a Jew, and that was their reason for picking up a gun.  People have all sorts of crazy politics everywhere.  Is that notably more crazy than some of the views in this country or in Turkey or in Germany or in France?

     Certainly these folks think of themselves as Freedom fighters, but I'd ask you to consider that almost everybody in any sort of revolutionary movement thinks the same thing of themselves, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, no matter what ideology the espouse.  At one point, Kadafi thought of himself that way, and for all I know, he may still.

     There may be, theoretically, people who fight fiercely for things they believe in their hearts are wrong, but on the whole, I suspect they tend to surrender as soon as they can.  Not believing in your cause tends to take the heart out of you, doesn't it?

    

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

40 posted 2011-03-22 07:50 PM


Oh, and Mike? I suspected Michael Moore was working for Libyan Television--yesterday morning they'd televised Ghadafi waving a rifle in victory--while riding a horse.

?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

41 posted 2011-03-22 11:17 PM


That's how I understand the War Resolutions Act, too, Michael. Since we weren't under attack or serious threat then prior approval from Congress in needed, and that the 48 hours notification to Congress comes in to play when military action is committed to by the President when there is a current attack or serious threat. And absent subsequent Congressional approval of the President's actions or an official declaration of war, the President is required to remove any forces within 60 days, (with an additional 30 day withdrawal period granted to facilitate the withdrawal process). But absent a current attack or imminent threat, prior Congressional approval is required.    

Karen, we could just call him the Madman of Libya!  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

42 posted 2011-03-22 11:54 PM


It looks like the alliance is falling apart:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
43 posted 2011-03-23 03:25 AM


Nice pic of Obama and the wife. Cheers...
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

44 posted 2011-03-23 05:19 AM


Good point Karen. Just to "clarify", lol.

From Wiki:

"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME magazine, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera.[204] The Associated Press, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News use "Moammar Gadhafi". The Library of Congress uses "Qaddafi, Muammar" as the primary name. The Edinburgh Middle East Report uses "Mu'ammar Qaddafi" and the U.S. Department of State uses "Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi", although the White House chooses to use "Muammar el-Qaddafi".[205] The Xinhua News Agency uses "Muammar Khaddafi" in its English reports.[206] The New York Times uses "Muammar el-Qaddafi". The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times of Tribune Company use "Moammar Kadafi".[207][208]

In 1986, Gaddafi reportedly responded to a Minnesota school's letter in English using the spelling "Moammar El-Gadhafi".[209] The title of the homepage of algathafi.org reads "Welcome to the official site of Muammar Al Gathafi"

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

45 posted 2011-03-23 05:27 AM


Denise

I can't believe you just did that?  A link from the Daily Mail!  Are you serious?  You should know that the Mail is the rag of choice of the blue rinse middle class right wing lady of a certain age who makes apple pies and holds coffee mornings.  Politics and facts do not feature.  You are reading the respectable face of ignorance ... it's just not you!   

Actually though, I'm fairly hard pressed to think of any UK newspaper I would take seriously .


Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

46 posted 2011-03-23 02:58 PM


quote:
That's how I understand the War Resolutions Act, too, Michael.


I believe that the War Powers Resolution doesn't restrict the President to only committing armed forces in situations where the US is under attack:

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress  before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the  circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in  hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

From the text of the resolution - emphasis added.

.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

47 posted 2011-03-23 04:09 PM


... and after all (as Mike is so determined to expose "double standards" ) let's face it, if Bush had bothered to "consult" anyone we'd never have got Saddam hanged.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

48 posted 2011-03-23 05:20 PM


What in Section 3 leads you to believe that it is referring to instances other than a current attack or an imminent threat to American lives, Uncas?


Bush obtained Congressional approval prior to Afghanastan and Iraq, Rob.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

49 posted 2011-03-23 06:06 PM




     President Bush did not obtain a declaration of war, Denise.  He lied and arm-twisted to obtain what he did.  He divided the country in the process and ruined its international standing.  

     In doing so, it seems he followed a bipartisan tradition going back to the end of World War Two, the last war that I know of that we entered into with a formal declaration of war.

     Given the fact that there may not be the chance for a formal declaration of war following a nuclear exchange, none of the conflicts we have involved ourselves in since that time have actually been nuclear.  In the case of 9/11/01, the declaration of war was against a target that was likely initially ill chosen, since they offered to turn over Osama Bin Ladin over for trial to a neutral third party.

     We rejected that offer.

     Then we proceeded to invade a country which had nothing at all to do with 9/11, and which we knew at that time had nothing at all to do with 9/11.

     Muscling permission to do that out of congress seems to me to be an attempt to avoid thousands of murder charges more than anything else.  President Obama, in refusing to order an investigation into that piece of behavior, seems to me to have earned himself a role as unindicted co-conspirator as much as anything else, Denise.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
50 posted 2011-03-23 06:21 PM


"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress  before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the  circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in  hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

Is it your contention then, Uncas, that involvement in hostilities was so imminent that Obama had no chance to discuss it with congress? WHy, then, are so many democratic congressmen against his action of not bringing it up? One possibility is that it might have interfered with his vacation, since he left the same day he committed our troops. I would consider that to be fairly unbelievable with any other president, but not Obama. It's more than possible. Another possibility is that he didn't know  what to ask for. There seems to be no clear-cut plan of action defined.

I had always thought that Bush had the biggest ego to ever sit in  the Oval office. Obama makes him look like an amateur. During his term, he has shown complete disregard for what the people think, what republicans think and what congress thinks. If he feel like doing something, he just does it....and he doesn't let it interfere with his golf game or vacation.

He and Biden are now stating the exact opposite of what they said as senators concerning Bush and his actions. If Biden were to stand by his previous statements, he would want to indict Obama. If Obama were to stand by his previous statements, he would have to indict himself.

Obama didn't contact Congress because he didn't want to.....period.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

51 posted 2011-03-23 06:55 PM


Well the fact that it doesn't actually mention an attack on the US is a fairly large clue Denise.



The War Powers Resolution basically says that it'd be nice if the President would let congress know when they were going to commit armed forces into situations that would result in hostilities or at least mention it within a couple of days of doing so.

So what's the punishment if the President decides not to inform Congress? According to the War Powers Resolution, the answer is absolutely nothing - it doesn't contain any redress for non-compliance.

Don't get me wrong, I think the President is definitely acting contrary to the intentions of the US Constitution, as did a whole bunch of Presidents before him, unfortunately they, like him,  have the ill- conceived and badly written War Powers Resolution to hide behind.

One interesting fact is that every President since its introduction has contested the constitutional legitimacy of the resolution itself. Their argument? That it adds unnecessary constraints to the constitutional power of the President.



quote:
Is it your contention then, Uncas, that involvement in hostilities was so imminent that Obama had no chance to discuss it with congress?


Nope,

It's my contention that the War Powers resolution is badly written and contains holes in it big enough for any President to drive several tanks through.

quote:
Obama didn't contact Congress because he didn't want to.....period.


That's incorrect Mike, he did contact members of Congress and in doing so fulfilled all the requirements laid out in the War Powers Resolution.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/18/obama-to-confer-with-congress-on-libya/

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
52 posted 2011-03-23 07:36 PM


Your link refers to a meeting he planned to have on Friday.

On Friday, during this meeting, he said

In the face of this injustice, the United States and the international community moved swiftly.  

...which means he  had initiated action before holding the meeting with them.

His reasoning for action?

Now, here is why this matters to us.  Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people.  Many thousands could die.  A humanitarian crisis would ensue.  The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.  The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered.  The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.  Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

And that’s why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations.  Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable.


You may inject thee name of several other countries in there to get that same valid statement....even Iraq, while under control of Saddam Hussein.

So, whenever there is a country whose civilians are in jeaopardy by a murderous regime,  Obama may immediately send firepower to stop it to protect the civilians, without notifying  congress first? No wonder Rangel is trying to re-enact the draft!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

53 posted 2011-03-23 08:03 PM


There hasn't been a declaration of war since WWII, Bob. My only point was that Bush obtained the prior approval of Congress before he committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, since it seemed that Rob was unaware of that fact.

No doubt, Uncas, that Congress is very adept at creating badly written legislation. And yet any loopholes, real or imagined, can be dispelled when viewed through the lens of the policy behind the law as the foundation in a correct interpretation:

The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

And specifically as regards the limitations on the authority of the President:

c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

Therefore, absent a declaration of war by Congress, or Congressional authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, the President cannot legally commit armed forces to a military conflict.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

54 posted 2011-03-24 03:33 AM





     Denise, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote.  I said that there had not been a declaration of war by us since world war II.  Perhaps you missed that.

     I also said that both parties had committed troops as though that was all right, and as though their power as commander in chief extended that far when in fact it does not.  In fact, the power to declare war is explicitly assigned to congress, and a committment of troops without a declaration of war is beyond the intention of the founders.  That has not stopped Presidents from both parties from doing so.  In fact, it didn't stop Roosevelt from doing so, and in effect fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the Nazis for close to two years before Pearl harbor using our Merchant Marine and using destroyers from our navy as escorts for the convoys to England during that time.  We lost a lot of ships and men.

     Pearl Harbor provided an acceptable Causus Belli, and the Germans declared war on us, followed shortly thereafter by our declaration of war on them.

     I was not suggesting that the flaw was exclusively Republican.  Though I certainly like to believe that the Republicans are the cause of all evil, I actually know that this is not the case, and that there are a large number of unthinking Democrats as well, and that thoughtlessness is close to the top of my list of the causes of evil in this world.  Greed is high up there on my list as well.

     Your thoughtful list about the flaws in President Obama's approach to his plans for Libya could easily be paralleled by an equally thoughtful list about President Bush's approach to Iraq, yet was not.

     President Bush's adventure was and remains a multi-trillion dollar Fiasco based on lies that has led to the bankruptcy of the the American government and quite possibly the American dream.  I am certainly angry at President Obama, and I have said so.  I think he is a sweetheart compared to the mess we are still trying to comprehend let alone clean up left over from the previous administration.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

55 posted 2011-03-24 04:55 AM


No I wasn't unaware of it Denise, it's all in the word "consult".

No time now, back later.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

56 posted 2011-03-24 06:05 AM


Bob, Bush obtained prior Congressional approval, as defined in the War Powers Act. BHO did not.

Rob, consulting with is not the same as obtaining the required prior approval of the House and Senate via voting on the issue after discussions.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

57 posted 2011-03-24 07:09 AM


From today's lead in the CS Monitor:

"“The president reminded us that we'd move forward in this action with the support of the Arab League,” Senator Durbin said in a conference call on Wednesday. “It may have taken a few extra days, but I think most would agree – I certainly would – that I think that was a very prudent course of action for the president and for our nation.”

He predicted that the White House will find bipartisan support for the Libya mission when the Senate returns next week."

Actually Denise I am not saying that either President was wrong in the actions they took at the time they went to war.

If you've ever tried to "consult" in a Parish Council meeting on a Planning Application then you'll know that one thing consulting does is cause delay and vacillation.  How much more impossible is the situation when you want to go to war.

Sure Bush "consulted", he concocted a case (possible based partly on "evidence" he knew to be shaky) that he could push through. Let's face it, a leader makes up his or her mind they are going to war, and then they try to do whatever it takes to get there. One would hope that nowadays a modern day Hiter would be stopped,but even that I'm not sure about.

So basically what I'm saying is that maybe neither Bush nor Obama are totally innocent of working the system for their own ends, but that's not really the important issue (which is why it's fairly futile to ramble on about "double standards").  The issue goes back to motive, morality and principles.

I totally believe Obama is working with the grain of world and Arab opinion in helping to deal with Gadaffi in line with the UN resolution, and any other agenda he may have is not paramount.

In contrast, in retrospect especially, Bush's motives for hitting Iraq were probably much more about a personal vendetta against Saddam than anything else.  The guy was, I think, fixated by revenge.  It certainly looks that way given the fact that very little prior thought was devoted to the aftermath of the war except to singlemindedly pursue Saddam spending millions on special forces operations to "get him" long after the war was won.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

58 posted 2011-03-24 07:30 AM


Again, Rob, the issue is not "consulting". A vote is required in the Congress on the issue of the use of military force prior to deployment of miitary force absent a current attack against the U.S., for or against the use of military force, on the record. That's a higher level than merely consulting, as difficult as merely consulting can be.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

59 posted 2011-03-24 10:29 AM


But I'm not debating mechanisms Denise - as Uncas here, and countless other threads in the Alley have shown, arguing about whether laws, statute, precedent etc have or have not been breached is fun, but usually circular, and a waste of time.  The leaders of our nations have access to unlimited funds and unlimited high level legal advice, and they aren't about to do anything that's going to land them in jail.  

What does it really matter if Bush or Obama took advantage of lax drafting to get their way.  Last time I checked Thatcher, Blair, Bush, Obama, even Clinton for God's sake, were all still at large, none of them arrested.  What matters surely, is, as I said before motive, morality, principle - the character of the leader, whether he/she is big enough to place national and world interest above self, etc etc.

Measured like that,I still think Obama ranks very high in the parade of recent world leaders.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
60 posted 2011-03-24 11:26 AM


"“The president reminded us that we'd move forward in this action with the support of the Arab League"

And that support is where, exactly??


By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Richard Lardner, Associated Press – 1 hr 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON – As America's NATO allies shoulder a greater share of the mission in Libya, the Arab countries that urged the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone are missing from the action.

Except for the small Persian Gulf nation of Qatar, which is expected to start flying air patrols over Libya by this weekend, no other members of the 22-member Arab League so far have publicly committed to taking an active role. The U.S. has sold many of these countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, billions of dollars in sophisticated military gear over the past decade to help counter Iran's power in the region.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110324/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya

"He predicted that the White House will find bipartisan support for the Libya mission when the Senate returns next week."

Whether they do or not, it will have been done. I'm reminded of Pelosi saying, "People will like the health bill when they find out what's in it."

"arguing about whether laws, statute, precedent etc have or have not been breached is fun, but usually circular, and a waste of time. "

When arguing about laws being breached is a waste of time, we are in real trouble.

"It certainly looks that way given the fact that very little prior thought was devoted to the aftermath of the war "

I couldn't agree more. That was my biggest complaint with going into Iraq. In this case, however, there was not only a no-exit strategy, there was not even a no-entrance strategy. Congress and even member of the administration did not even know why were were going in or what we were going to do when we did or what the main objective was. They heard Obama and Clinton bounce back and forthe between, "Quadaffi must go", to "Our objective is to not go after Quadaffi" several times over the past week. Even to this day, after many million dollar missiles have been spent, along  with a multi-million dollar fighter lost, no one still knows...and Obama is not giving specifics yet.

Yes, we all know Obama has no experience in either leadership or military, but it would be wise for him to listen to those who do instead of just jumping in without thinking things through, as he has done with Gitmo, the Patriot Act, health care and the stimulus program. He gives the impression that he could care less what others think, regardless of their expertise and his lack of same. WHen he feels congress amy disagree with him, he simply bypasses congress. These are not the characteristics of an able president.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

61 posted 2011-03-24 01:00 PM


Neither are they indicative of a person imbued with morality, character and principles.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

62 posted 2011-03-24 01:31 PM


"He gives the impression that he could care less what others think,"

I agree, he not only gives that impression, his actions show he does too.

"WHen he feels congress amy disagree with him, he simply bypasses congress. These are not the characteristics of an able president."

Oh I don't know, I think they are the actions of a leader confident in himself and in his ability to deliver what his people and the world want.  

""“The president reminded us that we'd move forward in this action with the support of the Arab League"

And that support is where, exactly??"


You forgot the UN vote already Mike?

"arguing about whether laws, statute, precedent etc have or have not been breached is fun, but usually circular, and a waste of time. "

When arguing about laws being breached is a waste of time, we are in real trouble."


No - we are in the Alley!

[Edited - Discuss the post, please, not the posters. You're actually NOT in the Alley, MB, and in large part that's because you still appear to be trolling for combative reactions. Please stop. - Ron

"It certainly looks that way given the fact that very little prior thought was devoted to the aftermath of the war "

I couldn't agree more."


We agree on something!    

[This message has been edited by Ron (03-24-2011 04:31 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

63 posted 2011-03-24 09:21 PM


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=279061
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
64 posted 2011-03-24 11:40 PM



I admire this lady.  She always speaks about things clearly and intelligently.    

 




"ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, DEAN, WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY:

Well, I'm afraid, much as I like Richard, I disagree on just about every point.

Let's look at it in terms of where we were a week ago, where we had -- really a week ago, we didn't even have a U.N. resolution. Then we get a U.N. resolution that is supported by a remarkable coalition of countries, including Lebanon, and Colombia and Nigeria, other countries. Then Saturday, the first troops are -- the first planes are in the air. That's only three-and-a-half days ago. In three-and- a-half days, we have stopped Gadhafi in his tracks, we have prevented a massacre in Benghazi.

We are making progress and enabling the rebels to make progress outside other towns, as we just heard. In Tripoli, people are starting once again to make clear that they really don't support Gadhafi, that they're emerging from the blanket of fear.

And what we're hearing now, in only three-and-a-half days with nine nations in the coalition, we're hearing that members of Gadhafi's inner circle are reaching out to lots of governments, which is exactly consistent with the strategy we have been following. So I think three-and-a-half days in, that's not a bad track record.


COOPER: Anne-Marie, it does seem what that we're looking for ultimately is a political solution to this, meaning a political outcome, Gadhafi leaving or being taken out. Is a military -- is the military force really the best way to get a political outcome; in the past, does that work?

SLAUGHTER: Well, I think we're combing force with diplomacy and each has a distinct mission.

The use of force is designed to protect civilians, and it is succeeding in that goal, remarkably, in a short period of time. We are protecting civilians. We're basically forcing Gadhafi to fight much more fairly rather than invading cities and taking retribution.

At the same time, we have a diplomatic strategy of isolation and pressure to try to force Gadhafi out. Now, the military strategy has leveled the playing field. At the same time, we're working in many different ways, economic sanctions, political pressure, to change the calculations at least of the people around Gadhafi and it looks like that may be working as well.

So it's never one or the other. It's never just force or just diplomacy. Real statecraft is using them both in ways that reinforce each other. And I think there really are -- there are two missions here, but they do reinforce each other.

COOPER: Anne-Marie, just finally, do you agree with Richard Haass that we have now taken sides in a civil war? And if that is true, do you have a problem with that?

SLAUGHTER: I don't. I think that's exactly what Colonel Gadhafi wants us to believe. He wants us to see this as a civil war. But if it's a civil war, why is he having to pay foreign mercenaries to attack his own people?

As far as I'm concerned, there's very little evidence that this is not a popular uprising, and the minute you give people the ability to actually express their views free of fear, they are opposed to him. Indeed, even tribes that have been with him for a long time, you're seeing lots of fissures.

So I'm not saying there's nobody in Libya who supports him, but it is much closer to a popular uprising against a tyrant whose ruled for 42 years than a civil war.

[ http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/23/acd.01.html  ]

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-25-2011 03:19 AM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

65 posted 2011-03-25 06:18 AM


Wow what a contrast between the thoughtful constructive interview posted by Ess, and your link to the over-blown emotive rubbish from Diana West, Denise (can you really take a site with the headline ad "How to Hide your Guns from Criminals" seriously!?)

No conflict is good, and all conflict causes division and argument, but so far this seems to have more on the side of positive than negative imo.  Long may it last.

(Ron, I am not sure whether you are deliberately misunderstanding me, but you are.  Which is a pity.  But I haven't got the time or energy to explain myself any more.)


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

66 posted 2011-03-25 07:53 AM


I suppose like love, rubbish is in the eye of the beholder, Rob.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
67 posted 2011-03-25 08:35 AM


I agree, Denise. People will shoot messengers when points they can't refute are presented...nothing new.

People will also paint things any way they want. Bush had twice as many countries behind him when going into Iraq and the backing of congress. Obama sent troops without contacting congress and then went on vacation. The press blasted Bush and are giving Obama a pass. Posters here on the left side do the same.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

68 posted 2011-03-25 09:23 AM


Very true Denise, as always, jmho.

What Blair and Bush did had implications for the world Mike, whether he had Congress behind him or not was largely immaterial from that point of view.  Did he have an unopposed UN resolution?  I seem to remember Blair and Bush and Spain's leader were pretty much lone voices at the critical point, and there was a lot of heavyweight hostility to the action, as well as major public demonstrations all over the world.

Apples and pears imo.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
69 posted 2011-03-25 09:56 AM


actually, having congress behind him was not immaterial at all....and he had 30 countries behind him and participating, more than Obama has with regards to Libya.

I believe Obama knew he would run into congressional opposition so he just did and end run, acted and took off on vacation,  out of the country. Harping on the same double standard, if a republican president had done that, he would be tarred and feathered by both the democratic party and the mainstream media. They are both trying very hard to give Obama a pass, but even they are finding  that a little more difficult, day by day.

It IS easier to see how Obama got elected, however, McCain is an idiot.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

70 posted 2011-03-25 11:47 AM


It occurs to lil ole me that if that War Powers Resolution thingie was/is a wide loophole for our current President and others before him, then congress should be working toward legislation to tighten that up a bit.

All they seem to want to do is talk, though.

What's done is done, but I would sure feel better about whatever (whomever) the future might hold for the United States if such carte blanche was not a "wild card" option for say--a President Trump or President Palin or...



I wish more were being done about Japan, though. Hmmm.

I wonder if the Japanese would be interested in relocating their Toyota and Sony corporations to Detroit. Michipan? Japagin?

We still have a lot of housing available in New Orleans East, too.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

71 posted 2011-03-25 12:34 PM


Fox News is now reporting that U.S. Marines are on the ground in Libya.

What happened to the claim that no ground forces would be deployed, that we were only doing a limited time fly-over and that command and control would shortly be handed over to NATO?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

72 posted 2011-03-25 12:49 PM


A quick zip through my news channels got me...zip.

They're talking about air traffic control right now.

*confused* The news ticker reported "troops" firing on crowds in Syria--CNN reported at least 15 protesters killed, but placed the responsibility on the protest-protesters.

It is all very confusing.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

73 posted 2011-03-25 01:06 PM


*frown*

According to Huffington post, the troops that opened fire on Syrians, were indeed, Syrian.

Fox loses yet another notch for adding to confusion.   --CNN just confirmed Huffington.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

74 posted 2011-03-25 01:15 PM


They are in Libya, Karen, not Syria. 2200 Marines on the ground in Libya with more on the way.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1316884

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

75 posted 2011-03-25 01:26 PM


I need more than one source--because? It's nothing personal but I don't trust any ONE news source. I found this link in your link:
http://www.marines.mil/unit/22ndMEU/Pages/CE/CO_Update.aspx

The last paragraph of that notice from the 22d Marine Expedition states:

"Please remember, all official and factual information regarding the 22d MEU’s movements, activities, and operations will come directly from me via the Family Readiness Officer, the MEU website or the MEU hotline.  Remember, other sources of information may be misleading or incorrect."

It's dated March 7. That was some time ago for no other news agency to have missed that...not that I don't trust you.  

I just have trust issues.  

Since I'm begging for clarity, I should also point out the MEU also states that the location in question is the Mediterranean Sea.

OH. Here's something now--though. From Canada's embassy...

  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

76 posted 2011-03-25 01:41 PM


I couldn't find anything at the Fox News website and the link I provided earlier from a local TV Fox affilitate was the only thing I could find.

Someone reported earlier that they heard it on Fox News. Hopefully it isn't true.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

77 posted 2011-03-25 01:45 PM


I just check the map, Karen. Libya is on the Mediterranean Sea.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

78 posted 2011-03-25 01:55 PM


I know where Libya is. *chuckle*

And please don't take my questioning attitude as a poke atcha. Libya shares a coast bordering the Mediterranean along with a lot of other countries.

Like...Italy.

But technically, there were "boots on the ground" for sure when those two pilots were rescued.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

79 posted 2011-03-25 03:30 PM


I don't take it as a poke, Karen. Not at all. It's always good to have verification.

My friend swears that he heard it at about
1 pm on the National Fox News Channel. Hopefully he misheard.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

80 posted 2011-03-25 03:51 PM


Ground troops wouldn't surprise me. I watched a news report in horror as a reporter was in the midst of a ...report, and one of the Libyan rebels pushed him to the ground as shots were fired at them. I was all the more horrified (along with the reporter) to learn that one of those young men was actually carrying a plastic toy gun!

Do I think they need assistance? Yes, I do.

Do I think it should be OUR assistance?

To an extent. I do understand that he is "the devil we know"--but I think that we'll be looking for a new ally anyhow, given the revolutionary climate. And he would have done as he vowed--gone from door to door.

So no ma'am, ground troops would not have surprised me at all--what would have surprised me would be that it was missed by so many news organizations.

There is so much going on at once--but I don't know what it is about Ghadafi.

I just don't like his face.   It would look good on a stick, though.

(quick edit before Moonbeam could tease me about my typo )

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (03-25-2011 05:06 PM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

81 posted 2011-03-25 04:47 PM


Can I just interrupt the Karen and Denise show for a moment ...

(No marines btw)

Actually Mike I didn't say a congressional authority was immaterial - I said it was immaterial so far as the rest of the world was concerned.  And you didn't answer my question about whether Bush had an unopposed madate from the UN. Also having France Germany Russian and China all vociferously against you is somewhat more compelling than having 29 tin-pot states half heartedly with you - plus a deluded Blair.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

82 posted 2011-03-25 05:02 PM


Did you mean "mandate"?



*laughing*

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

83 posted 2011-03-25 06:32 PM


Very funny Karen, lol.  I never make typos - it was kinda cool appropriate tho, no?

I blame it on Ron - it makes me nervous having him stalking me to see if I'm gonna offend those sensitive feelings of yours!! (Am I even allowed to write that?!)

Now tell me all about your typo please, heh.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

84 posted 2011-03-25 06:58 PM


It wasn't an actual typo. My wires get crossed in my head. (surprise)

If I like the mistakes though, I leave them. Like...attidude. I considered that a happy accident. (Sometimes I type habby--stuff like that.)

And yeah, we're looking into that.

ouch.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

85 posted 2011-03-25 07:10 PM



     The pie is falling!  The pie is falling!

     Insert your favorite flavor here.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

86 posted 2011-03-25 07:42 PM


aphasia

or..abhasia?



Some days are petter than others.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
87 posted 2011-03-25 07:43 PM


what would have surprised me would be that it was missed by so many news organizations.

That's the one thing that shouldn't surprise you, Karen. Don't be fooled into thinking it was missed. If there's a chance it puts Obama in an unfavorable light, it's not going to see the light of day.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
88 posted 2011-03-25 07:50 PM


Oh I don't know, I think they are the actions of a leader confident in himself and in his ability to deliver what his people and the world want.

Those are your thoughts on Obama. They must be your thoughts on Bush, also, going into Iraq.

...but I doubt it.


Those 29 tin-pot states, like Canada, Austrailia and the like may not appreciate your description of them.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

89 posted 2011-03-26 06:21 AM


"Oh I don't know, I think they are the actions of a leader confident in himself and in his ability to deliver what his people and the world want.

Those are your thoughts on Obama. They must be your thoughts on Bush, also, going into Iraq.

...but I doubt it"


Mike, they were precisely my thoughts on Bush and Blair going into Iraq.  I thought they were heros standing up to the world.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing though.

Well zinc plated states then, lol. BUT you STILL didn't answer my question regarding the UN and Bush and Blair.  Can you be taken seriously when you discuss double standards, when you employ them yourself? (Am I allowed to write that?  Mike, I don't mean to offend by that last comment, I'm not sure how to express what I want to say in any other way - it's not meant as a personal attack on you, I'm just trying to point out the inconsistency of approach - if Ron deletes the comment I'm happy to continue in e-mail - peace     )

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

90 posted 2011-03-26 09:46 AM


quote:

Second, even assuming that Libya is an important "adventure" and conceding that multilateral action may be preferable, multilateralism is not worthwhile when it delays action, which if taken quickly can change the balance of power, save lives and also be effective. President George W. Bush made this mistake with Iraq, when for at least nine months he waited to remove Saddam Hussein and asked for United Nation approval and support, but got none. In the end, his dithering and waiting likely gave Hussein time to hide or destroy his weapons of mass destruction and Bush – to save face when none were then found – sought to disingenuously justify the costly war as an effort to create democracy in this essentially autocratic and factionalized state, run in large part by Muslim terrorist militias in the wake of Saddam's removal. To date, nine years later, there is no real democracy in Iraq; only mostly radical Shiite factions loyal to the mullahs in Iran, not the United States. These factions themselves are on the verge of yet another civil war in the Middle East.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=279521

I don't think that most conservative Americans hold the U.N. in high esteem, and they most certainly consider Congressional authorization for military action of far greater importance for a President to seek.

Bush certainly didn't go off half-cocked into Iraq, as is the perception in the liberal psyche. He wasted nine months in attempting to seek U.N. approval. That may have been a huge mistake as the article referenced above indicates.  Bush did, however, gain a Congressional Resolution prior to deploying troops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

And yet liberals perceive Bush as a rabid warmonger.

Obama, on the other hand, didn't even seek Congressional authorization at all, but did rush into military action in Libya at the behest of the U.N. only, in what, less than a matter of weeks? And yet liberals view him as the cool, deliberative, reluctant warrior.

Go figure.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

91 posted 2011-03-26 12:59 PM


So it's true. We are now protecting, fighting with, and enabling our enemies in order to topple the government in Libya.

I can't even imagine the level of angst caused to our armed services personnel in being ordered to engage in this. Hopefully most are not aware of this. But even if they aren't, they will find out when all is said and done. I don't envy them when they do.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

92 posted 2011-03-26 03:10 PM


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=279125
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
93 posted 2011-03-26 04:28 PM


I'm assuming that the question you keep referring to is whether or not Bush had an unopposed UN resolution. My answer would  be no.....but so what? Is there some kind of rule that says unopposed resolutions are mandatory? As Denise pointed out, Bush spent almost a year trying to work with the UN to get them to enforce the resolutions they imposed on Iraq. He then went to congress. If you have issues with that, then I have no idea what your stance is, especially when you say "if Bush had bothered to "consult" anyone we'd never have got Saddam hanged."


You refer to Blair as being deluded. You refer to the countries joining the US and England as being "tin-pot" and then you follow that with "Mike, they were precisely my thoughts on Bush and Blair going into Iraq.  I thought they were heros standing up to the world."

You seem to applaud Obama going in for "humanitarian" reasons. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraquis. Iraq was littered with secret prisons, complete with torture devices, from which people interred were never seen again. He murdered thousands of Kurds by gassing entire villages. Thousands of children under the age of 5 died of starvations every year. That is why I made the statement that I cannot understand how someone could support Libya action and not support Iraq decisions.

As far as whether or not I can be taken seriously, that's a matter of choice. If you choose not to, I can live with that.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

94 posted 2011-03-26 04:48 PM


I thought Bush's reasoning for military action against Iraq was that they had weapons of mass destruction?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
95 posted 2011-03-26 05:10 PM


Doesn't matter. There were huge atrocities being committed against Iraqis. That should satisfy anyone applauding actions in Libya.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
96 posted 2011-03-26 05:58 PM


Karen said:

quote:
It occurs to lil ole me that if that War Powers Resolution thingie was/is a wide loophole for our current President and others before him, then congress should be working toward legislation to tighten that up a bit.


Yep.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
97 posted 2011-03-26 06:09 PM


Yep.

Personally I'd like to see their time spent on the budget, unemployment and spending curbs first.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

98 posted 2011-03-27 12:37 PM





     Actually, I believe it may matter.

     Bush justified the war before the congress as a war of self defense.  Later he ran through a series of other justifications, like the old SNL Landshark routine, trying to get folks behind him and later to keep folks behind him.  Candygram, Girl Scout cookies, Magazine Subscriptions and Plumber didn't work, so he just kept going down the list.  Saving Iraqis from Saddam was one that seemed popular for a while.

     Bush pretty much lied or mis-represented all of them.

     I am unhappy about President Obama taking us into Tripoli even in this limited fashion without prior authorization from from congress.  I think he's in the wrong.

     President Obama being in the wrong doesn't justify re-writing history or sanitizing the events of the Bush administration.  Pretending there's no difference is not the same thing as there being no difference in actuality, either.  I think Serenity is very much on target here, and it feels like a mistake to treat her dismissively.  Or what feels to me, at least, as dismissively.  I felt she was being thoughtful, whether you agree with her or not.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
99 posted 2011-03-27 12:58 PM


I see no one who has dismissed Karen, Bob. If you are stating that to begin a personal rift, you are out of line.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

100 posted 2011-03-27 01:03 AM


Thank you, Bob.

I have had many a temper tantrum because I felt 'dismissed'--and I can thank Pip for a lesson learned as I've learned that temper tantrums only contribute to reason to dismiss me.

I do like to think that Mike and I are not so far apart. I, too, had hopes that President Obama would address the infrastructure needs of our nation, first. Congress, though, also needs to get on board. Since the ballyhoo about the War Resolution is so prevalent, I do maintain that since the two parties have finally found something they agree on, they should move fast and furious to make sure that it never happens again.

It's like...medicine, triage style.

Then I would hope that our elected leaders would agree to address and prioritize what happens next--and in my book that would be the energy crisis which is now undeniably coupled with environmental issues.

We don't need a superman. We need to strive toward being a nation of supermen and women.

And I don't think Mike nor Brad holds me in disregard. I have great love and admiration for them both.

I take responsibility for my actions that made my reputation, and a reputation is a hard thing to overcome. But I do thank you for your kindness.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

101 posted 2011-03-27 04:33 AM


I'm assuming that the question you keep referring to is whether or not Bush had an unopposed UN resolution. My answer would  be no.....but so what? Is there some kind of rule that says unopposed resolutions are mandatory?

Of course not, but I mentioned this because of your "double standards" thread in the Alley.  It's a bit much for you to bemoan the fact that Obama does what the heck he likes and the press just let him get away with it, while at the same time ignoring the fact that Bush's/Blair's "transgressions" were a zillion times more heinous in the eyes of the objective world.

The point I was making is that much of the rest of the world probably couldn't care a toss whether Bush had Congressional approval or not - the internal workings of a sausage machine aren't of much interest to the consumer of a hotdog.

The UN, on the other hand, although it may be an irrelevance to the more arrogant of your intelligentsia, does matter to the remainder of the world in varying degrees.

As Denise pointed out, Bush spent almost a year trying to work with the UN to get them to enforce the resolutions they imposed on Iraq. He then went to congress. If you have issues with that, then I have no idea what your stance is, especially when you say "if Bush had bothered to "consult" anyone we'd never have got Saddam hanged."

I love the phrase "work with" - bulldoze would be more appropriate!  On the eve of what most of the world considered was an illegal war this was the position of the security council members (Wiki):

    * United States - The U.S. maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The U.S. felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total unilateral disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not, in its view, disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.
    * United Kingdom - Within the Security Council, the UK was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly and vigorously supported U.S. policy on Iraq, and portrayed himself as exerting a moderating influence on Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50 percent to 30 percent by March.
    * France - On 20 January 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the US or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the Security Council on the 14 February 2003, after Hans Blix presented his detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace", words which proved to be very prescient. He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during World War II. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", reported the BBC's Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Britain and the US sharply criticized France for this position in March 2003.[citation needed]
    * Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US-led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with his speech against the war.[citation needed]
    * China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.[citation needed]
    * Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac, said that he and Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security Council.
    * Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.
    * Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.
    * Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.
    * Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
    * Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
    * Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and hinted that it would support a US-led military campaign if it were backed by the UN. The country also hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started and Mexican diplomats described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government whose people were overwhelmingly opposed to the war with Iraq. (USA Today)
    * Pakistan - Pakistan supported continued inspections.
    * Syria - Syria felt that Iraq was cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would have liked to see the crippling UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.
    * Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.

You refer to Blair as being deluded. You refer to the countries joining the US and England as being "tin-pot" and then you follow that with "Mike, they were precisely my thoughts on Bush and Blair going into Iraq.  I thought they were heros standing up to the world."

There's no inconsistency of approach.  As for Bush/Blair/Iraq, I don't mind admitting at all, that I changed my mind somewhat.  I did agree with the war at the outset, and in fact even now I am uncertain as to whether it was "good" or "bad".  I agreed with it even though, I was pretty sure Bush and Blair were either lying or else genuinely deluded.  

Later I came to believe that both men were wrong to do what they did.  Not because of the suspect motives and shaky evidence for going in, but because in their anxiety to clobber a nasty man they omitted to put in the thinking and planning for the most important part of any conflict - the latter stages and the aftermath.  That, in my book, was at best negligent and at worst, criminally negligent.  It remains to be seen how Obama performs.

You seem to applaud Obama going in for "humanitarian" reasons. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraquis. Iraq was littered with secret prisons, complete with torture devices, from which people interred were never seen again. He murdered thousands of Kurds by gassing entire villages. Thousands of children under the age of 5 died of starvations every year. That is why I made the statement that I cannot understand how someone could support Libya action and not support Iraq decisions.

Like I say, I agree with you on this.  I still think that, despite the lies, despite the fact that they were bucking most of world opinion, despite the fact that Bush probably had a personal vendetta on his mind rather than the maltreated Iraqis, the idea of clobbering Saddam was good.  The execution of that clobbering however, while initially ok (as ok as killing innocent civilians can ever be), turned out to be incompetent, and unforgivable, thereby tarnishing the whole expedition fatally.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

102 posted 2011-03-27 05:06 AM


I'm just popping in to say thanks--I am tired and dangerously close to "crossing wires" again. I'd like to thank Moonbeam for the U.N. info, and ask if anyone is game for a new thread regarding more info about the inception, conception, purpose and pro's and cons of a United Nations cooperative.

It does seem to me that from my limited viewpoint, the counsel of the U.N. has been dismissed, if not entirely ignored.

I am not a fan of the option of an "abstain" vote, either, as it has been my personal experience that to opt to do nothing is a decision of acceptance while shrugging responsibility.

Moonbeam? It's been intriguing to participate in this discussion.

Thank you, and thanks to all of you who contributed, too. I happen to learn more in a congenial conversational atmosphere, so while I can't say it's a pleasure (due to the gravity of the topic) it's certainly been informative.

Somebody think about that U.N. thread, k?

Dream sweet 'till then. Goodnight.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

103 posted 2011-03-27 06:12 AM


Thanks Karen.  As always, you add perspective, graciousness and mystery!

Now I have to go and figure why the ? after "Moonbeam"



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

104 posted 2011-03-27 09:12 AM


quote:
Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

What part of this first section was complied with by the President prior to committing troops to Libya? ZERO.

Absent compliance with section 1, the remaining sections are irrelevent. You don't skip over section 1 and go to section 2, which only outlines the reporting requirements placed on the President once section one has been complied with. But Obama didn't even comply with section 2 in that he didn't notify even some members of Congress until after, not before, he had committed troops.

I agree that the law should be revised to eliminate any perceived loopholes of which unscrupulous leaders may take advantage, but, even then, I don't think it would really matter to the current occupant of the White House, who increasingly seems to do as he pleases, regardless of the rule of law, the Congress, the courts, and the will of the people.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

105 posted 2011-03-27 09:47 AM



quote:
What part of this first section was complied with by the President prior to committing troops to Libya?


Section 2 - part C - item 2
Item 1 at a push and item 3 at a stretch.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

106 posted 2011-03-27 10:20 AM


What specific statutory authorization did he obtain, Uncas?
Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

107 posted 2011-03-27 10:40 AM



He received statutory authorization from the UN Denise in the form of resolution 1973.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

108 posted 2011-03-27 11:38 AM


Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

It's understood that the statutory authorization has to come from Congress, Uncas, not the U.N., as idicated from the overview of the law by the Library of Congress. So are you saying that this is one of those loopholes afforded the unscrupulous?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

109 posted 2011-03-27 12:00 PM




     It is a revelation to see how upset Republicans have gotten about the War Powers act.  I too am upset about the War powers act, by the way.  So are Congressmen like Denis Kusinich, who believe that it may be enough for an impeachment.

     Where were you folks when Ronald Reagan was shipping troops to Panama and Grenada and sending covert forces into Nicaragua and making arms deals with the Iranians?  How about when He was sending the gas into Iraq that was later used to kill the villagers that folks are today so upset about?  Me too, by the way?

     The war powers act was shredded for decardes by both parties with scarcely a peep from either side, and with some vigor especially by the Republican side.  Pardon me, please, for growing somewhat cynical about the sudden revelation of a conscience by the Right.  It's about time.  It's also a remarkably a-historical and one-sided conscience that would sound considerably more convincing if it acknowledged where it came from.

     That would be  somewhat more in line with the reality of things.

     Please pardon my imparience here, because much of the case, as stated by Denise, has substance to it.  It's simplely that I, who argree with much of the substance, find myself distracted by the completely partisan focas that I have trouble keeping up the stream of agreement in print that the sumstance of what Denise is saying merits.

     Please don't draw me off into defending my party at the expense of the accuracy of your main point, Denise, which seems worthy.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

110 posted 2011-03-27 01:19 PM



quote:
It's understood that the statutory authorization has to come from Congress, Uncas, not the U.N., as idicated from the overview of the law by the Library of Congress.


That understanding would be incorrect Denise, as is the overview you posted, unless there's an amendment to the resolution that I've missed. The original text of the War Powers Resolution I read doesn't specify the origin of the statutory authorisation - it's one of those tank sized loopholes I mentioned earlier.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

111 posted 2011-03-27 01:44 PM


Bob, my understanding of Grenada, by Reagen, and Panama, by Bush the elder, were that American lives in those areas were in immenent danger. If that was the case than the War Powers Act was not violated. Were there other motivations, like deposing Marxists regimes? I'm sure.

I would condemn the actions in Libya even if it were Bush doing it under the same circumstances. Sec. of Defense Gates, on tv this morning, answered "No" when asked if our involvement in Libya was to protect the national interests of the U.S.

I'd say the understanding is the correct intended understanding, Uncas, and that the omission of 'of Congress' in the actual law is definitely a giant loophole that needs to be closed.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

112 posted 2011-03-27 02:22 PM


This woman, Samantha Powers, now is an advisor to the President. The Responsibiity to Protect doctrine, recently adopted by the U.N., is her brain child. Some see our intervention in Libya as the test run of this newly adopted U.N. doctrine.

Whom will we be bombing next, Israel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oFkmcZt4OQ

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

113 posted 2011-03-27 04:34 PM



quote:
I'd say the understanding is the correct intended understanding.


How can the insistence that Congress must give its authorisation be the correct understanding Denise, when the law clearly doesn't stipulate anything of the sort?

Surely, the law is the law as written, not how it could, would or should have been written.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

114 posted 2011-03-27 04:52 PM


Because it's a given, Uncas. U.N. mandates or resolutions are not the law of this land, nor do we require their permission or blessing in any of our activities. The Constitution is the law of the land and nowhere does the Constitution give over any authority to a foreign nation or multinational organization, and no law passed subsequently can be interpreted contrary to the Constitution. It has to be interpreted within the confines of the Constitution. A change like that, authorizing the U.N. to have power to authorize us to war would have to involve a Constitutional Amendment.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

115 posted 2011-03-27 05:07 PM




     Denise, President Reagan  certainly stated that American lives were in danger.  On the other hand, he did not remove them from danger before or instead of going in in either Panama or in Grenada.  President Obama made it a point to do so.  President Reagan's actions preserved the appearance of a cause for war which could have been simply, safely and easily removed.  Certainly the Medical students in Grenada, if you'll remember their statements at the time as opposed to the White House Press releases about them, showed puzzlement.  They did not see themselves as being endangered at all.

     I understand you mean well, here, Denise.

     Both situations, President Obama's and President Reagan's, were wrong, in my opinion.  And remain wrong.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

116 posted 2011-03-27 05:20 PM


No, I don't remember the events clearly, Bob, it was so long ago. But if it was just a pretext for war when war could have been avoided, then I condemn that action as well.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

117 posted 2011-03-27 05:39 PM


From Denise:

Because it's a given, Uncas. U.N. mandates or resolutions are not the law of this land, nor do we require their permission or blessing in any of our activities. The Constitution is the law of the land and nowhere does the Constitution give over any authority to a foreign nation or multinational organization, and no law passed subsequently can be interpreted contrary to the Constitution.

From "Liberty News online":

The United Nations has been granted no legal authority over the American people or our government because the UN does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. Americans need to stop thinking that the United Nations has some legitimate, legal authority over our country. It does not! Americans have a choice. We can follow the U.S. Constitution and protect our freedoms, liberties and sovereignty, or we can continue to contribute billions of dollars to a bottomless pit and submit to the unconstitutional interference by the United Nations in our country's and other country's internal affairs.

Perhaps, the time has finally come for Americans to rethink the value of our membership and participation in the United Nations. The evidence is clear. Not only should we get out of the United Nations, but maybe it is also time for the United Nations to get out of the United States as well.


This is the sort of dangerous parochial thinking that could eventually lead to WW3.

People who think like this in the US simply don't get it.  The world is changing, has changed.  This is the thinking of the playground bully, arrogant colonialism and might is right.  The time to hide behind the mantra "not the intention of the Founding Fathers", has long gone.  

Hello!!  We've moved on.  However prescient the Fathers were, they probably did not foresee the Internet, Globalization, travel mobility, the meshing of international finance and markets and their interdependence.  And even if the dominance of the US was forseeable, no-one perhaps catered for its inevitable decline and the rise of another world power to challenge it.

Perhaps it's time to recognise that a Global decision making body IS necessary, and to stop carping on about the loss of national identity, freedoms, control and the "power" (illusory in global terms) of Congress etc etc.  

Once again it's time to thank God you have a President who seems to realise, not just the desirability of such a course, but actually the necessity.

From Wiki:

"Recently the United States Government released its National Security Strategy for 2010. National Security Strategy.pdf

It was published in May 2010. This quote was found embedded on the 46th page in regards to the United Nations.

Enhance Cooperation with and Strengthen the United Nations: We are enhancing our coordination with the U.N. and its agencies. We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. To this end, we are paying our bills. We are intensifying efforts with partners on and outside the U.N. Security Council to ensure timely, robust, and credible Council action to address threats to peace and security. We favor Security Council reform that enhances the U.N.'s overall performance, credibility, and legitimacy. Across the broader U.N. system we support reforms that promote effective and efficient leadership and management of the U.N.'s international civil service, and we are working with U.N. personnel and member states to strengthen the U.N.'s leadership and operational capacity in peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, post-disaster recovery, development assistance, and the promotion of human's rights. And we are supporting new U.N. frameworks and capacities for combating transnational threats like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, infectious disease, drug-trafficking, and counter terrorism."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
118 posted 2011-03-27 06:17 PM


We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights.

True enough. Perhaps if we  had one, people would change their minds. We don't. We have a UN that talks and does nothing, issues directives and restrictions and doesn't enforce them. We have a UN that puts countries like Libya on their Human RIghts council, one that watches the massacres of millions of people in Africa and does nothing. They show their incompetence every time a human rights issue arises. The fact that they all agreed on Libya is unprecendented. We will have to see how that works out.

The UN in theory is a wonderful idea. The UN in reality does next to nothing...a modern day League of Nations and little else. Would the elimination of the UN lead to WW3? They  are doing nothing to stop it now. Communication is good....communications without action is just a lot of talk.

The UN is supposed to stand for defending human rights. China is a major member. China is one of the greatest violators of human rights. When you you think the UN will hold China responsible for their actions? If you said never, you win a Wal-Mart gift certificate. If you didn't, get mental help quick!!!!

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

119 posted 2011-03-27 06:19 PM



quote:
Because it's a given


As far as laws are concerned Denise nothing is 'a given', the letter of the law, including unintentional loopholes, is all that matters. In fact far from allowing presumptions most laws are put in place to change the notion of what was previously presumed as 'a given'. The right to keep slaves was once a given, the fact that women weren't allowed to vote was a given, both assumptions were removed by legislation.

How do you determine what's an intentional removal of 'a given' and what isn't? Simple, you adhere to the letter of the law until it's amended, and in this case the letter of the law doesn't stipulate the source of the statutory authorisation, foreign or otherwise.

quote:
The Constitution is the law of the land and nowhere does the Constitution give over any authority to a foreign nation or multinational organization.


I agree, but that just makes the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional, it's still the law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. Only at that point forward would adhering to the law be unconstitutional.

BTW - If you think item 2 is a mistake Denise you'll love item 1:

The President can instigate military action pursuant to "a declaration of war"

If Congress declares war against another nation?
If another nation declares war against the US?
If a nation declares war against its own citizens?

The War Powers Resolution doesn't specify, some would argue that only the first was a given, others that the second was also a given, due to the lack of a specific exclusion I'd argue that the third is also a given.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

120 posted 2011-03-27 08:48 PM


Uncas, abolition of slavery and Women's Suffrage were handled by Amendments to the Constitution, not just by the passing of a law by the legislature.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery, the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right of blacks (male) to vote and the 19th Amendment guaranteed the right of women to vote.

The Constitution incorporated within it a flexibility to address the need for change based on further enlightenment, expanded understandings and changing times.


quote:

BTW - If you think item 2 is a mistake Denise you'll love item 1:

The President can instigate military action pursuant to "a declaration of war"

If Congress declares war against another nation?
If another nation declares war against the US?
If a nation declares war against its own citizens?

The War Powers Resolution doesn't specify, some would argue that only the first was a given, others that the second was also a given, due to the lack of a specific exclusion I'd argue that the third is also a given.


See how ridiculous it all gets when it is interpreted outside of its intended context?

Since the courts have declined to become involved in interpreting it, I believe that Congress needs to work on tightening up some of the language.

Rob, you can have the U.N. I'll keep our Constitution and our sovereignty, thank you very much!


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

121 posted 2011-03-27 11:52 PM




     Thank you, Denise for what seemed to me to be your openminded non-partisan comments.  I appreciate them and you.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

122 posted 2011-03-28 12:13 PM




     Mike, I understand some of your frustration with the U.N.  You may be confusing the U.N., however, with a nation state, which actually maintains its own armed forces, has sovereignty and it's own coherent foreign policy.  It is not a world government, which might be a legitimate target for the sort of criticism that you are leveling.  Its funding is voluntary, pretty much, and is often somewhat petulantly withheld by member states who still insist on voting rights.  It is better at some things than others.  Imposing its will on members is not something that it seems to have been consistently good at as long as members show up and vote, especially permanent members of the security counsel.  

     In many ways, it closer to Student Government in High School or College than a nation with the power to levy taxes.

     I can't imagine there are many actual governments in the world that would be thrilled to have it be more powerful.  It does serve as a sport of screen for a lot of other governments to mask their intrigues behind, as George Bush did in 2001 and as Barack Obama is doing now, when they wish to make unpopular or somewhat shady international moves without taking the full shock of the responsibility for them.

     As they said in The Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the little man behind the screen."

     Blaming the screen is a waste of time.  It's a convenience everybody seems to use to, Democrats, Republicans, Arabs, Jews, Right Wingers, Lefties, Polar bears and penguins.  Remember how wonderful the U.N. Used to be when it provided cover for the Invasion of Iraq?  I predict, it will eventually earn your praise again, just as it will earn your contempt for whatever particular flaws it displays so electrically — Black market oil, anybody?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

123 posted 2011-03-28 11:21 PM




     My preference is that a formal declaration of war be required for the president to commit troops or military resources.

     This has not been the case in fact for decades.  Certainly there was no declaration of war in Iraq.

     We act as though the United States has been in a constant state of war since World War Two, one which slips into occasional active phases which seems to require emergency comittment of troops to an already ongoing state of war.  I do not believe that this is what the framers of the constitution intended, nor do I believe that this in fact describes our current situation.  I do believe, however, that it describes our current behavior.  I believe that we need to submit ourselves to a searching examination of our behavior in this regard.

     It is politically expedient for both parties.  It is also toxic to the democracy.  It justifies our current system of government by emergency.  Such governments have a long historical precident in Democracies, going back at least as far as the Romans.  The rulers who ran things during these periods were given a special title in Rome.  That title was Tyrant.  When the emergency was over, they were supposed to go back to the farm; and sometimes they actually did.

     Government by emergency is very dangerous.  It tends to lead to security states.  It certainly did in Rome.  It seems to be tending that way here.  One of the indications of difficulty seems to me to be that parties seem to show more loyalty to the party than to the state itself.  I speak here of both parties.  I mention that I see the center withering away.  The center should be the place where everybody should be able to meet and talk, and there is a lot of difficulty doing that these days.

     I speak of both parties in this regard.

     Perhaps at another time I will speak in another, more partisan fashion, but I find it simply a bit difficult to bear for some reason today.  I don't blame anybody else for that, not even the weather; it's simply who I am this evening.  I wish everybody well, and a good evening to all.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

124 posted 2011-03-29 06:03 AM


Mike

We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights.

True enough. Perhaps if we  had one, people would change their minds. We don't. We have a UN that talks and does nothing ...


I think you know that that last statement is wrong Mike, as for the rest, well, maybe we would have a more effective UN if the US particularly had behaved differently over the last ten years.

True the US does not have an easy task, the UN evolved in a manner that makes it hard to operate in an environment where one nation state is much more powerful that all the rest (although frankly with such an imbalance it's hard to see any easy option), however this places a huge onus on the US to behave "maturely" and unselfishly, to recognise that there will be many times when sovereignty and national interest will not be synonymous world interest, and to seek compromise wherever possible.  Americans are generally, with justification, a very proud people, and hopefully won't let that pride become destructive.

Maybe, as China moves towards ascendancy, it's more than ever time to quit hiding behind the past and narrow self interest, and engage with the world in a way that would, I am sure, have made your Founding Fathers proud, and will hopefully show other countries the way to behave.  

The UN is certainly not perfect, but it's a start, and trying to manipulate and bully it using financial, political and economic threats and coercion while preaching the sovereignty line, is not the way forward imo.  


Ron

As I have had no e-mail from you, it would probably save you hassle editing, and me time writing, if you could explain what I can and can't do.

I just posted an addendum here, commenting on Mike's Obama post in the Alley.  It is also largely relevant to this thread.  I'm assuming that you deleted it not because it infringes the rules on "personal attacks" but because it was answering issues raised in the Alley, and you have a problem with that?

Am I not allowed to comment on any Alley post in other places in PiP?

If I have strong feelings about Mike's Obama post in the Alley, am I allowed to start a new thread here in Feelings dealing with some of the issues he raises?

I'll obviously abide by whatever you want, but it would be nice to know what it is you do want.

[This message has been edited by moonbeam (03-29-2011 07:16 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
125 posted 2011-03-29 08:05 AM


I think you know that that last statement is wrong Mike

Exactly the opposite. I think the statement is spot on.

founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. - MOONBEAM

  In many ways, it closer to Student Government in High School or College than a nation with the power to levy taxes. - BOB K

I think Bob's assessment is closer to the truth, although I've never seen a high school student government with such an expensive clubhouse.

The assertion that the UN could maintain world peace and security begs the question of how? With paperwork? Passing resolutions? Shaking fingers in "no-no" gestures? Advance human rights? Let's ask Darfur how that's going.

The UN has done well at giving humanitarian aid in distressed situations and I applaud them for that. Other than that they are UN-productive and UN-necessary.

Want to make it the United State's fault that the UN is what it is? Go ahead....we're used to it

btw..don't hold your breath waiting for China to see the error of it's ways and repent. That's about as realistic as the rest....

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

126 posted 2011-03-29 08:17 AM


We have a UN that talks and does nothing ...

I think you know that that last statement is wrong Mike

Exactly the opposite. I think the statement is spot on."


and then:

"The UN has done well at giving humanitarian aid in distressed situations and I applaud them for that."

A contradiction in the space of 2 posts?

Also a list here:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm

which makes your "does nothing" contention look, er, inaccurate.


......


"founding purpose" maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. - MOONBEAM"

No, not me, Wikipedia actually, as acknowledged previously.

......

Certainly not the US's "fault", but the US has the position and strength to make things better if it chooses. It would just take that vision that your Founding Fathers had, and which seems to be in short supply right now.

......

China will change of course, just as your country and mine changed, you just have to take a longer view Mike.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
127 posted 2011-03-29 09:01 AM


quote:
I just posted an addendum here, commenting on Mike's Obama post in the Alley.  It is also largely relevant to this thread.  I'm assuming that you deleted it not because it infringes the rules on "personal attacks" but because it was answering issues raised in the Alley, and you have a problem with that?

Am I not allowed to comment on any Alley post in other places in PiP?

Your posting privileges in the Alley were suspended, MB, because you were commenting on posters, not posts, and being more than a little snarky about it. As I said elsewhere, it appeared you were intentionally trolling for reactions.

Allowing you to move the Alley outside the Alley sort of defeats the purpose of not letting you into the Alley, don't you think? We'd be right back to where we were in the past, with my only options being to continue editing your posts when you go over the line or to ban you from the entire site.

If you want to participate in these discussions you'll just have to wait until your current suspension is lifted at the end of the month. That's all covered, of course, in the link above. When and if you do rejoin the Alley conversations you will, of course, be expected to abide by our rules.

And, no, I don't send out an email every time someone breaks the rules, MB. I do, however, generally answer emails if they can't figure it out on their own?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
128 posted 2011-03-29 12:20 PM


You got me, Ron. I'm guilty of not being more careful and specific in my assessment.

The UN serves well as an organization such as the Red Cross. If that's the definition they wish to accept, fine...it's not, though, is it?
I doubt the Red Cross has a headquarters as opulent as the UN building.

As a humanitarian organization, it is fine. As an organization to set and  enforce rules to maintain peace and security and protect human rights..it is not....regardless what Wikipedia says.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

129 posted 2011-03-29 05:11 PM


Thanks for explaining your thinking Ron.  Suspended from the Alley means not even discussing Alley posts in other forums within the rules of those forums.  Fair enough.  That wasn't entirely clear from the "Sticky", but it's clear now, and I'll abide by it.

.........

Well that's ok Mike, at least you admit it does some good.  I disagree on the degree, but then we can agree to disagree I guess.


Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

130 posted 2011-03-29 06:20 PM



The UN will continue to be largely ineffective unless they dump the inane veto rule and 'Permanent Member' status; it should be one nation, one vote - no special treatment or elitist ideas.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
131 posted 2011-03-29 06:43 PM


That wouldn't work, either.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

132 posted 2011-03-30 03:14 AM



quote:

The assertion that the UN could maintain world peace and security begs the question of how? With paperwork? Passing resolutions? Shaking fingers in "no-no" gestures? Advance human rights? Let's ask Darfur how that's going.



     Fair question, Mike.

     The answer is one that I sometimes give to people who ask me how they’re going to manage to turn their lives around.  “Hopefully, it will start off shakily and get better from there.  Maybe you’ll start off gangbusters, but most people start off shakily.”

     One thing the United Nations does do is encourage people to talk.  Frequently that means shout at each other, which is what a lot of do when they start off not know how to talk.  And since we’re talking about nations and problems that have often lasted for hundreds and even thousands of years, and most people can’t even get a notion of problem solving that gets from one paycheck to the next, we’re really at the beginning of the process, aren’t we?

     Mostly, I think it’s important that we keep feeding the process and staying with it.  We’re basically apes with both pretentions and attitude, so we’ve been know at have tantrums when we don’t get what we demand right now, and when we even imagine that there are others around who may not want to give us what we want yesterday.  What do they know, anyway?

     I appologize for not having solved Darfur today.  Yesterday, when I was going through the drive-through at Micky-D’s place, though, after the 13 year old manning the microphone asked me if I wanted to supersize it (I looked at my belly, and I thought, no, probably not) she asked me if I wanted anything else.  When I asked her if they had any world peace on the menu, she laughed and told me I probably couldn’t afford it.

     I will probably have to have a long talk one day with that girl.

     Can’t afford for it not to be on the menu.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

133 posted 2011-03-30 04:09 AM




     More requests for references, Mike?  Taliban offer to surrender Bin Ladin to Third Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv5AKw6gwXg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2

http://www.infowars.com/released-state-department-documents-mention-‘failed-pipeline-negotiations’-with-the-taliban-right-before-911/

(excerpts below)

A Pakistani official told the U.S. that “Pakistan ‘will always support the Taliban’”. This “policy cannot change, he continued; it would prompt rebellion across the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and indeed on both sides of the Pashtun-dominated Pak-Afghan border.” But the Taliban were “‘looking for a way out’ of the problem with bin Laden”. The U.S. was urged to “find a way to compromise with the Taliban”, and possible “ways that the U.S. and the Taliban might use to break the impasse” were suggested, including “the possibility of a trial in a third (Muslim) country”, “U.S. assurances that bin Laden would not face the death penalty”, and “a U.S. outline of what the Taliban would gain from extradition of bin Laden”.[2]
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued “until just days before” the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, “State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.”
Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, “We never heard what they were trying to say…. We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’” Bearden added, “I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck,” but this “never clicked” with U.S. officials.
Michael Malinowski, a State Department official involved in the talks, acknowledged, “I would say, ‘Hey, give up bin Laden,’ and they would say, ‘No…. Show us the evidence’”, a request U.S. officials deemed unreasonable.[3]
According to the BBC, the Taliban later even warned the U.S. that bin Laden was going to launch an attack on American soil. Former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said his warnings, issued because of concerns that the U.S. would react by waging war against Afghanistan, had been ignored. A U.S. official did not deny that such warnings were issued, but told BBC rather that it was dismissed because “We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff”.[4]
Indeed, underscoring Muttawakil’s stated reasons for having delivered the threat warning to the U.S., a State Department document from June 2001 obtained by INTELWIRE.com[5] showed that the U.S. had warned the Taliban “that they will be held directly responsible for any loss of life that occurs from terrorist actions related to terrorists who have trained in Afghanistan or use Afghanistan as a base of planning operations.”[6] The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef responded that “the Taliban do not see Americans as their enemies and that there are no threats to Americans coming from the Taliban. Nontheless, said Zaeef, ‘We will do our best to follow up and stop’ any threat.” With regard to bin Laden, “Zaeef emphasized that the Taliban’s relationship with UBL [Usama/Osama bin Laden] and others is based not on enmity against the United States, but on ‘culture.’”[7]
Know what’s important: Having a Healthy Food Supply like eFoodsDirect is Essential (AD)
Rejecting the Taliban offers to have bin Laden handed over, the U.S. instead pursued a policy of regime change well prior to the 9/11 attacks. Jane’s Information Group reported in March 2001 that “India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime”, which included support for Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, including “information and logistic support” from Washington.[8] Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik told the BBC that he had been told by senior U.S. officials in July 2001 at a U.N.-sponsored summit in Berlin that military action would be taken against the Taliban by the middle of October. Preparations had already been coordinated with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Russia. Naik also “said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.”[9]
A newly released document dated August 30, 2001 shows that Pakistan was continuing to urge the U.S. “to maintain open channels to the Taliban.” Pakistani officials denied that their support for the Taliban included military assistance. When asked “why Pakistan supports the Taliban”, an official replied, “We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban”. Pressed further on why Pakistan continued “to give the Taliban international diplomatic support and to press the USG [United States Government] to engage with the Taliban?” the Pakistanis “reiterated that the Taliban are the effective rulers of at least 90 percent of Afghanistan, that they enjoy significant popular support because they ended the banditry and anarchy that once bedeviled the country, and that the instant success of the opium poppy production ban underscored … the reality and effectiveness of Taliban authority.” If it wasn’t for “external support” for the Northern Alliance, it “would collapse in a matter of days.”[10]
Another newly disclosed document shows that two days after the 9/11 attacks Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was told “bluntly” that “There was no inclination in Washington to engage in a dialog with the Taliban.” The U.S. was already prepared for military action and “believed strongly that the Taliban are harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.” The U.S. was “fairly sure” that bin Laden “and his Al Qida network of terrorists” were guilty.[11]
The following day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage issued an ultimatum to Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed that Pakistan’s cooperation was expected “should the evidence strongly implicate Usama bin-Laden and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbor him and this network”.[12]


     Should you wish to look for more, you should check for more.  The New York Times Wants people to pay for older articles, and I don't have enough money to do so.  Should you wish to check the Main Stream Media Resources for this information, my memory tells me you will basically find the same information as I chose here, but in greater detail.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

134 posted 2011-03-30 12:07 PM


So it seems, if I am reading this correctly, that it wasn't actually an outright offer of Bin Laden to the U.S. that was declined, but actually the taliban seeking a quid pro quo in exchange for him, a deal which was never actually worked out or finalized by either side.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

135 posted 2011-03-30 05:07 PM




     The Talliban offered, the United States declined to even consider the offer.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
136 posted 2011-03-30 07:19 PM


It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Why is it then that Clinton refused to accept him when offered? There were some flimsy excuses given, like we had no prison secure enough to keep him (imagine that!). Another reason given was that Bin Laden had done nothing wrong yet so it was against policy to hold someone  who was not yet guilty of a crime. Well, a case could be made for that point but what you are doing is bringing up the acknowledgement that Clinton was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, demanding Bin Laden be turned over while refusing to take him at the same time. That has what to do with Bush?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
137 posted 2011-03-30 07:35 PM


Yesterday, it was the turn of Clinton administration veterans to face questioning on why they had failed to take more aggressive action against al-Qaida in the wake of the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa and the 2000 attack on the American destroyer USS Cole.

That's a major point. What was the Clinton administration's reaction to these incidents? Nada. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden mentioned in a speech after 9/11 that they were so encouraged by America's lack of response to the attack on the Cole, that they went ahead with the 9/11 attack.

The former officials defended their record but also revealed splits in the Clinton administration on how to respond to the attacks. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, directed blame at the Clinton-era defence department under William Cohen for not agreeing to use special forces to hunt down al-Qaida in the Afghan mountains.

"I'm personally not satisfied we were able to get the right answers out of the Pentagon," she said. Mrs Albright said she had repeatedly pressed for alternative military measures other than the cruise missile strikes on suspected al-Qaida bases that were tried after the embassy bombings. She said the Pentagon told her that special forces units would either be too small to protect themselves or too large to be covert.


That is Clinton's CYA in action. I must say, Bob, I am surprised and pleased that you would refer so well  to articles showing the democrats bungling at that time.

The commission heard that after the African embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the Clinton administration presented an ultimatum to the Taliban warning it would bear the consequences if there were another al-Qaida attack.

The commission members, drawn from the ranks of retired officials and politicians from both parties, repeatedly asked why that threat was not delivered after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

Mrs Albright said that by the time the Clinton administration left office in January 2001 there was still no "definitive proof" of al-Qaida involvement in the suicide attack off the Yemeni coast. John Lehman, a navy secretary in the Reagan administration and one of the commissioners, alleged that the CIA was already convinced of al-Qaida's responsibility by December, but Mrs Albright said that finding was not passed on to the political leadership.


If your intention was to expose the Clinton White House for the Keystone Cops they acted like with regards to Bin Laden and the Taliban, you have succeeded admirably.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

138 posted 2011-03-31 02:52 AM




     While I'm not holding my breath for Clinton or Obama to repent the things they probably should repent for — and I'm reasonably sure we would disagree on what those things might be — I was actually addressing your request to give you references for my suggestion that The Presidency of Bush the younger had amounted to an abandonment of Afghanistan.  I offered multiple references and a lengthy excerpt, which not only addressed the information you requested but offered a multi-dimensional look at that material, including so facts from the right wing point of view, which certainly deserved representation.  I don't intend to try to pretend there is no right wing point of view, even when it is inconvenient.

     You apparently missed the part of the text where the authors spoke about how the Taliban offered to turn Bin Ladin over to a neutral third party, and how George Bush refused the discussion.  

     I regard my obligation to demonstrate proof of my allegation as discharged.

     Should you wish to change the subject to The activities of President Clinton, you might consider opening another thread on the subject.  Since you and I have already had that discussion, I will think about joining that discussion, but my major interest remains here, where you have asserted that — if I understand you correctly — President Bush Minimus has done nothing that might materially hurt the interests of the United States by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and using these same folks to invade Iraq.  This would suggest that the enemies of the United States did nothing in the intervening time to consolidate their position in Afghanistan or put the lives of American troops or our allies in danger there, and it further supposes that each and every life lost in Iraq was lost in the interest of the successful recovery of those weapons of Mass Destruction that The President told us were our reason for doing the invasion in the first place.  It further suggests that each and every life, American and otherwise, was lost fighting Al Qaeda soldiers that The President told us were there in such large numbers.

     Frankly, I believe the boat has sailed on those terrible lies.  I do not believe that I could tell you what the current justification is for the original invasion.  I have considerable trouble with understanding the justification the current Democratic administration offers for our ongoing presence there.

     I have shown proof that we were given a chance to head off much of this conflict.

      Instead of trying to suggest that I didn't, it would be nice if you acknowledged that I actually did as you requested and came up with the goods.  Trying to shift the subject top what Clinton might have done or should have done is a topic for another thread, and one we've been around — beg pardon — the Bush with already.

     If you don't believe I came up with the goods, tell me why and what's wrong with the references and the facts, so that I can take a shot at repairing the problem if I think that the job is worth it.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
139 posted 2011-03-31 08:55 AM


Should you wish to change the subject to The activities of President Clinton, you might consider opening another thread on the subject.

Actually, Bob, I could live very nicely with never discussing Billy again, however, it was not to change the subject. The subject I saw was the opportunity missed of Bin Laden being offered to the United States. That road led directly to Clinton, long before Bush. You know how it is. I refer to the current atrocities in Afghanistan and you refer to Bush's past actions..same thing.

As far as Bush's refusal of the "offer"..it smells, in my opinion. The Taliban wanted proof of Bin Laden's guilt and all bombing stopped before they would "consider" turning him over to a "third Party". Doesn't that sound just a little like stalling for time to you? The week after 9/11 there was still no concrete proof, although the circumstantial proof was overwhelming - and proved to be true, didn't it? I'm assuming that the Bush administration saw that the same way - a stall for time and little  more...or do you think the Taliban actually wasn't sure Bin Laden engineered 9/11? Or do you feel that fine, upstanding organization that held weekly events at soccer stadiums around the country, where they rounded up citizens, lined them up and machine-gunned them, for the enjoyment of the watching audiences? That was documented, with video, by 60 Minutes, before 9/11 even happened...were sincere in their offer?

I do acknowledge that you have put in an attempt at research and I'll applaud you for that. Yes, there were two articles from the Guardian in the UK and another from "infowars" which led to a broken link on my computer, but it was something. Was the Guardian's account accurate or not....who can say? It does lead me to wonder, though, why such a momentus thing was not carried by US media, certainly not great friends of Bush....but it WAS something and I appreciate your effort.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

140 posted 2011-03-31 11:28 AM




     You have cited The Guardian in the past, as I recall, Mike.  I also cited The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washinington Times and CBS, twice.  Most of them tell about the same story.  They tend to all agree that the offer was made to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral Third party government.  Many of the Sources state that the Proof was a face saving device for the Taliban, who mostly wanted to get rid of the guy.

     Stalling for time?  Possibly   That could have been checked out very quickly indeed.  A lot of blood and treasure might have been saved.

     The test, of course, would have been Bush calling their bluff, which was the issue.  He didn't.  It was one of the more serious errors the man made.  It seems pretty much characteristic of the man's Presidency.

     "Seems fair enough to me, Mr. Taliban, if we can work this out in say a week or less.  That seems a serious amount of time to me.  Otherwise, I'll have to assume you're simply not serious and are stalling for time for some reason."

     Of course, The President would have had to negotiate in good faith himself, but at that point in time he still had the reputation to be able to pull it off, I think.

     I believe that the war was what he wanted, however, for whatever reason.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
141 posted 2011-03-31 05:41 PM


I also cited The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washinington Times and CBS, twice.  Most of them tell about the same story.  They tend to all agree that the offer was made to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral Third party government.

Sorry, Bob.I haven't seen those links. I only saw  the threee I mentioned.

They only wanted to get rid of the guy? Then why didn;t they? Asking for definite proof of guilt right after 9/11 isn't something that could be done in a week....or even months...and whenever proof was given, the taliban could have said "that's not enough" and kept it going, all the while having all action halted. Bush was correct for not agreeing to such a trap.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

142 posted 2011-04-01 01:58 AM




     They wuz turned down flat as a pancake By President Bush.  Why did he turn them down?  Many of us wondered that.  I think that bin Laden had pretty much even taken credit for the thing at that time.  It's one of the great puzzles I've run across, and the only thing that makes sense to me is that the President needed to go to war for some reason and was following what he saw was the shortest line he could find to that destination.  The thought feels very uncomfortable to entertain, though.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
143 posted 2011-04-01 07:51 AM


If Bin Laden had taken credit for it, then why was the Taliban demanding proof before turning him over? I'm surprised that "the many of you" didn't see the scam.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

144 posted 2011-04-01 02:28 PM



     Mike, my memory is imperfect on that point, as I said, rught?  I was trying to extend some courtesy your way here, not trying to explain what seems to me a policy failure, or one of them, that got us into an unnecessary war.


Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

145 posted 2011-04-02 06:19 AM



quote:
If Bin Laden had taken credit for it, then why was the Taliban demanding proof before turning him over?


The US under Clinton were trying to get the Afghans to hand Bin Laden over to face charges relating to the USS Cole bombing, diplomats met to discuss the possibility on more than 20 occasions and each time the Afghan request for evidence linking Bin Laden to the attack was rejected.

I don't think the Afghan request for evidence was unreasonable, do you? In fact I'd expect any country, including the US. to demand evidence before extraditing an individual accused of committing a crime by another country.

I'd also expect any country demanding extradition to present such evidence on request, the US didn't do that.
  
There's probably a very good reason why the US didn't present the evidence Mike, it's because they didn't actually have any. That fact is glaringly obvious to anyone who's read the 9/11 commission report which documents the USS Cole incident and subsequent actions in some detail.

So you have a request for extradition without evidence and a country, quite rightly, refusing that request. Then 9/11 happened and everything changed. At that point the US again demanded the extradition of Bin Laden, again without evidence, but this time with the threat of military action. The Afghans, holding true to the notion that handing over Bin Laden without any presentation of evidence wasn't an option, offered to offload the hot potato to a neutral body to stand trial. The US then huffed, then they puffed, then they blew the house down.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
146 posted 2011-04-02 07:55 AM


I don't think the Afghan request for evidence was unreasonable, do you? In fact I'd expect any country, including the US. to demand evidence before extraditing an individual accused of committing a crime by another country.
I'd also expect any country demanding extradition to present such evidence on request, the US didn't do that.
The Afghans, holding true to the notion that handing over Bin Laden without any presentation of evidence wasn't an option,


Yes, I understand that, by posting this reply, I will leave myself open to all kinds of replies, but that's fine.

You speak of Afghanistan as the same as any other country. You speak of  the "Afghans", when in reality you are speaking of the Taliban. You present it in such a way that these Taliban are simply exercising the same thought processes as any decent country. I suggest you research the Taliban. You will find a group far removed from the  government of those "any countries" you refer to. I reiterate the tapes that were smuggled out of Afghanistan and played on 60 Minutes showing life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Perhaps those tapes are on the web, I haven't yet checked.

You have, according to Bob, a country eager to unload Bin Laden, a Bin Laden acknowledging master-minding 9/11, a murderous group of individuals ruling the country with death squads holding on to principles of needing to see concrete evidence before getting rid of someone they wanted to get rid of...My comment would be......yeah, right. All I see is an attempt to stop the bombing by presenting delay. I feel fairly confident that any evidence presented by the US would have somehow been deemed unacceptable with demands for more, perpetuating the delay.

9/11 was actually a pretty big deal over here, sir. So you have a fellow you know to be responsible (even with lack of a videotape recording him giving direct instructions to carry it out), you have a murderous regime who is hiding him and saying "prove it", and your course of action would be.....do nothing, until you can find concrete proof that the Taliban may or may not accept? Since Bin Laden's guilt has been proven since, it seems  that the circumstantial evidence the US had, turned out to be pretty valid, wasn't it? They had him, he masterminded killing over 3000 American and destroying our major landmarks, they would not turn him over, and we bombed them. Call us impetuous Americans.

Comparing the Taliban as any "normal"  government is like comparing a rabid dog with a household pet, claiming that it would not bite you because that's not what a normal pet would do and yet you would present the case that their actions were based on principles?

Plenty of swampland still for sale.....

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

147 posted 2011-04-02 11:12 AM



quote:
Plenty of swampland still for sale.....


Perhaps you shouldn't have bought so much Mike.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
148 posted 2011-04-02 03:23 PM


LOL! Nice return
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

149 posted 2011-04-02 08:17 PM




     You don't have to like the Taliban to treat the then ruling party of a sovereign nation with diplomatic courtesy, do you?  You don't have to stop obeying the rules of grammar, either.  Bother are there for similar reasons.  They put the meaning of actions and statements into a context that makes their meaning much more understandable than they would be otherwise.  When you stop obeying the rules of grammar or diplomacy, the meaning of statement and actions becomes more difficult to understand and interpret.

     In other words, Mike, it's not about whether we think the Taliban are thugs or not or deserve the niceties or not; it's whether or not we want to understand what's being said to us, and whether or not we want the other folks to understand what we're saying.  That's why the whole business of diplomacy got started in a formal way during the Napoleonic wars, so that everybody was pretty much talking the same language in the same way, and so that misunderstandings due to ruffled feathers and trust issues would be cut to a minimum because all of them would be dealt with with elaborate courtesy, sometimes to the point of nausea and fury.  That's why there was so much talk about the shape of the table in the Paris peace talks in the Vietnam War.    

     When you don't like somebody or have contempt for them, all this stuff gets drawn out further.  It doesn't get condensed.  You have more to fight about, not less.

     What we're talking about here is President Bush's unwillingness to substitute conversation and frustration for blood and treasure, and his inability to think that there might be something to be gained by substitution of thought and conversation for action.  It's possible there might be reasons beyond inability.  Considering the reasonably short periods of the delay he might have negotiated for, it would be fascinating to see what those might have been.

     Considering the stakes involved, I cannot imagine what would possibly have been the advantage of action over negotiation.  Any course ,of action but negotiation would have resulted in an equal or larger loss for the United States in terms of status, treasure or lives, to put these things in reverse order.

     It may, however, be possible, that an action agenda would have been to the advantage to other parties than the People of these United States.  Multinational oil Companies, for example, might have benefited; the far right wing might in some fashion have benefitted.  This would have to be demonstrated, of course.  The actual benefit of a war to the people of the United States seems pretty far down the list of possibilities as far as I can tell.

     Negotiation would have been far preferable.

     People who live in Florida complaining about folks who don't buying swamp-land?  That's a switch for you.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
150 posted 2011-04-02 09:31 PM


You don't have to like the Taliban to treat the then ruling party of a sovereign nation with diplomatic courtesy, do you?

Would you be kind enough to tell me which countries regarded the Taliban respectfully as the ruling party of a sovereign nation? They were nothing more than the thugs in charge, ruling by fear and murder. DIplomatic courtesy? Which countries gave them diplomatic courtesy, Bob?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
151 posted 2011-04-03 04:35 PM



A great interview with Anne Marie Slaughter:
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2011/04/01/anne-marie-slaughter-on-the-state-dept-libya-women/

  

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

152 posted 2011-04-03 06:53 PM




     No, Mike.  There is a point where quibbles  are shoddy.  We were in negotiation with them and making demands of them as if they were the folks in control there.  We were not attempting to treat with The Northern Alliance or others as if they were the folks in charge.  Our diplomatic position was that we would punish any country that gave Al Qaeda refuge.  We were making those assertions to the Taliban.

     This would be the point when it would be appropriate for you to do some research yourself and assert why were were doing these things if we did not believe they were in charge in Afghanistan.  Otherwise, we would have had no legal standing to gop into Afghanistan at all, would we?  WQe would have had even less of a legal position than you suggest we had already.

     It's difficult enough doing my own work here, Mike, without doing your research as well.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
153 posted 2011-04-03 08:38 PM


It's difficult enough doing my own work here, Mike, without doing your research as well.

So we reach the point where personal insulting begins, Bob? That's when I say see ya, later. I've no desire to go back to the old days.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

154 posted 2011-04-03 11:29 PM




     Where were the facts, Mike, that you were presenting?  Was there some dispute that the United States was treating with Afghanistan at the time?  And that The United States was holding The Taliban responsible for activities within the country as the government of Afghanistan?  Is there some reason I should have to prove something that you had been taking as an assumptive truth right along — that the Taliban was responsible for bib Laden's behavior as a State Sponsor.  That is what you've been asserting, isn't it?

     Why should I have to prove your assertion, Mike?  

     Deal with the post and stop trying to blame me for the flaws in the position that you attempt to take and defend.  It's not a sensible position unless the logical contradictions can be ironed out.  The responsibility for doing that, I'm afraid, lies with the flawed position, not for the ones who disagree with it...

Bluesy Socrateaser
Member Elite
since 2002-11-07
Posts 2417
In The Mirror
155 posted 2019-01-14 03:54 PM


With all respects to those departed, all any of this was worth was in its respective moment...and then not much.

None of it changed a single thing. Altered a few attitudes, but changed nothing significant'

If you're not 'solution-oriented' and involved...you're just whizzin' in the wind.

...just bein' Bluesy

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Feelings » Obama (Superman)

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary