[tomder55]

Maj. Gen. Suleiman Mahmoud, who defected Sunday called on the US to intervene in support of the rebels in Libya.Obama speaks of working with the international community; German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle speaks of working with the international community. What international community are they talking about ?
The UN ?The EU ? The Arab League ? Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaaa!! The EU calls for sanctions even as their energy supply is being shut down .Italy and Malta dissented .They don't show a unified front and do not have the military means to make an effective difference. The UN Security Council demanded an “immediate end to the violence”. OOOOOOHHHHH!! That of course caused an immediate end to the conflict.

One thought is reconstitute the UN 1990s Iraq solution of no-fly zones and sanctions .

Although the United States is working diplomatically to facilitate democratic transition in Tunisia and Egypt, the situation in Libya calls for more urgent, possibly military, involvement. In the region, Qatar has appealed for urgent Arab League mediation and condemned the violence against Libyan civilians. Yet given the emirate's track record -- such as hosting indicted Darfur war criminal Omar al-Bashir at the 2009 Arab Summit in Doha -- the Qataris will probably not serve as a compelling moral voice. A more likely place for progress is the UN Security Council, which is meeting today to discuss the crisis.

One proposal that the council will probably consider is the imposition of a no-fly zone across Libya to halt Qaddafi's use of fighter aircraft and attack helicopters against civilians. This would be similar to the zone set up over northern Iraq during the Saddam Hussein era to protect Kurdish civilians. As in Iraq, a Libyan operation would require the United States to take the dominant role, backed by its European allies. In order to function under the UN's aegis, such an operation would also require Russian and Chinese approval, which might not be forthcoming. The European Union could be much more supportive, however, given its fears regarding potential energy supply disruption and the flow of economic migrants from Libya becoming a flood of asylum seekers. But for Europe as well as the United States, the presence in Libya of many thousands of their own citizens will prompt caution.

Qaddafi and the future of Libya - CBS News

Who would supply the muscle ? The US .Who would violate the sanctions ? The Europeans. There's lots of money in oil... Even more when it's dealt under the table.

The US doesn't need North African sweet light crude. We are energy independent since we have instituted the drill drill drill policies ;since we have built new refineries ;since we are exploiting our abundant natural resources like natural gas ;since we have all these new nuclear plants going on line.
What ? We aren't ,we haven't ?
Ok... the President has announced a release from the strategic reserve and an end of the drilling moratorium... What ? He Hasn't ?

Oh well... bombs away. Why is the Libyan Air force not a pile of junk on the ground already instead of a killing machine against it's citizens ?

[paraclete]

Oh well ....bombs away. Why is the Libyan Air force not a pile of junk on the ground already instead of a killing machine against it's citizens ?

I think it is because the US needs to declare war first or does it? Didn't stop Bill Clinton attacking Afghanisan and wasn't there someone, lost in history, who bombed Tripoli. Now there's a precedent so go ahead, bomb the crap out of Gadhafi again, only thing he understands. Perhaps it is all their assets are deployed elsewhere because once again they were unprepared.

[tomder55]

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli

A Wikileak revealed that Q~daffy personally ordered the downing of Pan Am 103.Libya also terror bombed a German disco in the 1980s that US military personel frequented. That is why Reagan ordered the assassination attempt.
Of course in the old days our Intel services would've been at work nurturing a colonel or 2 in the Libyan military to stage a strategic coup so there would be no power vacume after Q~daffy was deposed.

[tomder55]

I think it is because the US needs to declare war first or does it? Didn't stop Bill Clinton attacking Afghanisan and wasn't there someone, lost in history, who bombed Tripoli. Now there's a precedent so go ahead, bomb the crap out of Gadhafi agin, only thing he understands. Perhaps it is all their assets are deployed elsewhere because once again they were unprepared.

There was approval I believe under the 'War Powers Act(or Resolution) ' which is still operational law (it has been invoked well over 100 times since 1973).

[excon]

I think it is because the US needs to declare war first or does it?

Hello clete:

Declare war? DECLARE WAR?? Dude! We don't need no stinkin declaration. We haven't declared war in over 65 years. We go WHERE we want, WHEN we want.

excon

[tomder55]

Nope... every military action has had Congressional Approval since 1973 (a Democrat Congress overrode a Nixon veto on the War Powers Act) .
Further ,twice in the last decade President Bush got from Congress specific approvals for military action. Like it or not ;those complied with the Constitutional requirements to 'declare war'.

[excon]

Like it or not ;those complied with the Constitutional requirements to 'declare war'.

Hello tom:

Nahhh.

In Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, it says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". We've done it 5 times.. What? Did we forget how? Look. It's two tiny words... They COULD have been included in any of the war powers gobbeldy gook they wrote. They weren't. Was that a mistake? I don't think so. It's TWO WORDS.

Don't WORDS matter in the Constitution?? What if we changed the Second Amendment to read... the right to bear slingshots? It's close isn't it? I mean, what's a word or two?

excon

[tomder55]

Yeah words do matter. However ,nothing in Article One Sec 8 says what format the Congressional declaration should take.

[excon]

Yeah words do matter. However ,nothing in Article One Sec 8 says what format the Congressional declaration should take.

Hello again, tom:

No, it doesn't. But, FIVE times in our history, we seem to have grasped, that whatever wartime document we wrote, needed to include those two little tiny words - and they DID. Then all of a sudden, THEY DIDN'T. That's not accidental.

Now, YOU may believe the ABSENCE of those two words makes NO difference. I don't share your belief.

excon

[tomder55]

Ok we disagree. Our 1st war (to the shores of Tripoli) was waged by Jefferson while most of the founders were still in governance. What Congressional "declaration of war" was used in that war ? We also waged a defacto war against France during John Adam's Presidency . No Congressional "declaration of war "was issued .

[speechlesstx]

Obama can't even call out the little dictator by name, you think he's going to stick his neck out for anyone but himself and Trumka?

[tomder55]

There are no US carrier task force in the Mediterranean Sea at a time when the whole Maghreb is at risk... even if only to assist in evacuations from Libya . But there are 2 Iranian ships .
Here is the current deployment.
CVN Enterprise: North Arabian Sea
CVN Vinson: North Arabian Sea
CVN Lincoln: Singapore
CVN Washington: Japan
CVN Stennis: San Diego
CVN Truman: Norfolk
CVN Reagan: Eastern Pacific
CVN Bush: Western Atlantic

[paraclete]

There are no US carrier task force in the Mediterranean Sea at a time when the whole Maghreb is at risk.....even if only to assist in evacuations from Libya . But there are 2 Iranian ships .
Here is the current deployment.
CVN Enterprise: North Arabian Sea
CVN Vinson: North Arabian Sea
CVN Lincoln: Singapore
CVN Washington: Japan
CVN Stennis: San Diego
CVN Truman: Norfolk
CVN Reagan: Eastern Pacific
CVN Bush: Western Atlantic

As I said Tom, assets deployed elsewhere, caught flatfooted again!

[tomder55]

Flat footed ? This has been going on for almost a month.

[paraclete]

Yes and the US still has no presence, no ability to apply direct pressure, has gun boat diplomacy failed at last?

[tomder55]

With the current POTUS... maybe. Meanwhile the UN debates meaningless sanctions. In a decade everyone will wonder how we let the next Darfur or Rwanda happen

[paraclete]

with the current POTUS ...maybe. meanwhile the UN debates meaningless sanctions. In a decade everyone will wonder how we let the next Darfur or Rwanda happen

But you miss the plot, Tom, they are muslims, it really doesn't matter what they do as long as they don't attack the US. No one least of all the US wants to be embroiled in another Somalia, we know how well they did there and perhaps Libya would be one Iraq too many and in any case Gadhafi didn't attack Israel.