Actually, thanks to the tweet embedded in the article, we know exactly when the meeting happened.
March 22nd. Not that it matters much, but there you go.
Also, Frank, the article does seem to put up a rationale for why it is our business. I know, ‘hundreds of thousands killed and everyone blames us’ isn’t much of a reason to you, but it seems like one to me.
Quite. So far we have not perfected stimultaneous reporting…
Let us look forward to the torture basements, the emaciated figures behind the barbed wire enclosures, and the small child scrabbling in the shell-shattered concrete; ‘Where’s my daddy ?’.
Why do we have to look forwards to that? Do you want me to start linking to things described as ‘bag of child’? I’ve seen shit you really don’t want to. And if you do, you’re a horrible person and the mods would be very upset with me anyhow.
The good Colonel has supplied us with quite a lot of footage of this, you see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Peyote_Coyote
http://wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
Apparently, if this report is correct, the ground forces are going in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Peyote_Coyote
http://wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
Apparently, if this report is correct, the ground forces are going in.
Still think we’re going to be out of this by Monday, Shayna?
Got any witty comments, eluciadator?
I apologize for the error.
I don’t look at horror pictures of any description. Then again, I wouldn’t work in a slaughterhouse either.
Yet the efforts of the USAAF and America’s capacity to produce much the same results — just in the recent Obama Wonder Years alone — has been adequately addressed by the splendid Jacob Freeze doggedly writing in The Free Speech Zone.
An American drone attack in Datta Khel, Pakistan killed 44 people, including 13 children, on March 17, 2011.
One of the elders, Malik Faridullah Wazir Khan told the BBC that “the area was completely covered in blood. There were no bodies, only body parts – hands, legs and eyes scattered around. People carried away the body parts in shopping bags and clothing or with bits of wood, whatever they could find.”
“We are a people who wait 100 years to exact revenge. We never forgive our enemy.”
Except for the graves, this photo from the village of Granai looks like most of the rest of Farah Province, where the only river dried up four years ago, and extreme drought prevails everywhere.
About 140 civilians were killed here by a US airstrike on May 4, 2009. The United States lied about it at the time, and never stopped lying.
13 March 2011
Sadly the past few years of the Free Speech Zone seem to be unavailable since only March is showing now, but there’s plenty of stuff like that in the past from Mr. Freeze probably googlable — which also has to be plastered each night on major US network news — which shows that atrocities committed by the righteous to prevent bad people doing atrocities are good, because our hearts are pure.
Yes, I quite understand the results of our actions in Afghanistan.
And it is true that Gadaffi has shown bodies of people he claims were killed by our bombing. Interestingly, their families have also recognized them. As people that were hauled away after anti-government protests.
I don’t think you understand the differences between Afganistan and Libya. One is a mountainous terrain against irregular combatants. The other is a flat desert against armored vehicles, installations, and other large objects.
Why do you think ‘dropping bombs on things’ would result in ‘torture basements’ or ‘the emaciated figures behind the barbed wire enclosures’?
I mean, are they going to walk there themselves?
As far as ‘the small child scrabbling in the shell-shattered concrete; ‘Where’s my daddy ?’’, there’s already a lot of that. Gadaffi’s forces have removed every male of fighting age from certain cities. Zawiya, for one. Rounding them up and taking them away. Unsure why, right now. I think probably they’re going to be pressed into service, but you never know.
Right now, the government of Libya is sending snipers to randomly fire bullets into cities at any moving target.
Sixteen dead a day, more or less, in Misrata alone.
It’s really up to you which side you think is ‘right’ here. Me, I’ll go for the one trying to stop the guy who’s gone beyond ‘illegal use of force’ and is somewhere over at ‘sadistic use of force’.
If you want to talk about Afghanistan, bring up your own damn thread, it’s off-topic in this one.
This headline would almost be comical if the circumstances weren’t so grave: US likely to keep combat role after Libya shift
I mean, didn’t anyone think of anything other than bombing the shit outta of Libya? As in what happened afterwards?
Only bloggers and internet message board users. Clearly, neither Obama nor his staff gave it a moment’s thought. I mean, look at that AP headline, man.
[/sarcasm]
Seriously, the story confirms that the US will continue to participate in the NATO operation in a reduced role. Of course the US isn’t going to forswear the possibility of combat while we’re operating in a theater where hostile action against US forces is at least possible (although not as likely as it was a week ago).
This is certainly not an exit yet, but it isn’t a protraction of the effort yet either. If we’re still doing the same things after the inevitable activity shift inside Libya* in the next few weeks, I’d call it a protracted operation.
*At some point soon, the situation must either resolve into a successful suppression of the rebellion, the overthrow of Qaddafi, or an uneasy standoff, at which point Obama needs to definitely withdraw our forces and let other entities tip the scales.
It’s such a shame that we’re doing this without any local support.
It’s clear that all the other countries in the area know that this is a bad idea and should be avoided.
Frank started this thread. i am sure he has changed his position because Obama turned the operations over to NATO. All Obama did was run a humanitarian operation to keep Libyans from getting slaughtered by Gadaffy. NATO said they will continue the NFZ and may take on more later. All is well.
All the difference in the world to a child bombed to bits…
I really shouldn’t have to explain this, but I was referencing the inevitable proofs of enemy wickedness that governments conveniently wave to prove that bombing people is the only humane thing to do.
Because of a brighter tomorrow for the survivors.
I understand your War Between the States cost around 600k lives: I’m not good enough at math to work out what the average was per diem. Maybe some latin American country should have sent in military force to stop the slaughter by killing both sides.
I don’t care that much about Afghanistan. But it is instructive that if Gaddafi supplies the werewithal for what you called ‘bags of child’ he’s a sinner, whereas when a drone does it to* your *civilian enemies it’s a separate non-issue.
As a monarchist I have no interest in whether he lives or dies; but somehow the United States and the world lived with his regime for 40 years. Were he to survive this presumably they can continue to do so. Particularly if the alternative government turns out to be still nastier to the United States. I applaud Obama for his instincts to avoid this mess, but one can understand he has obligations to his supporters and his military.
[/quote]
OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
[/quote]
Obviously, the Libyan situation posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States. It still does not.
And, no, a meeting with 18 senior lawmakers at the White House on Friday afternoon to “consult” with them about the new plan to intervene in Libya 90 minutes before announcing that plan to the world constitute Congressional approval for such an attack.
I missed it, at what point on Friday afternoon did 18 senior lawmakers demand time on CNN, MSNBC and Fox to condemn the monstrous plan?
So basically, you have no moral core, your only reason for existing is to feel superior to others by holding up the negative consequences of any action. You’re a spineless little wretch, and a monarchist. But I repeat myself.
You disgust me.
Well, no, you don’t disgust me, except as a waste of human potential. Basically, I think you’re a sad little example of what happens when one opens their mind so far their brain falls out. After all, if there is no morality, everything is equally bad. And you like that, because it lets you make pointless analogies without considering any sort of meaning behind them. Clearly, human beings are worthless, and their leaders should be able to treat them as dolls, to be moved around and discarded as they wish. But I repeat myself, you’re a monarchist.
Or, to put it another way, you’re a serf. Have a good life.
More to the point, at what point did Congress vote and authorize this Libyan mission?
Or is you argument that passivity by 18 Congressional leaders equates to a vote to go to war by the entire Congress?
Our leader has clearly stated that the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Where is the the actual or imminent threat to the United States?
Where is the announcement that Congress authorized this attack? At what point on Friday afternoon did 18 senior lawmakers demand time on CNN, MSNBC and Fox to announce that Congress had taken the United States to war with Libya?
I must have missed that.
I know you think that Obama is doing the right thing here. And that’s fine. I think that reasonable people can disagree about the moral issue here.
The question remains, though… do you think Obama had the legal, constitutional authority to do so? Because if not, what is to stop (to paraphrase what I heard Jim Webb say) President Palin from deciding to bomb Iran? Or President Bachmann from bombing New Hampshire because she doesn’t know the difference between NH and Massachusetts.
I think we are best served when we operate on agreed upon principles, rather than the expediency of the moment.
That is not to say that Obama should not have acted (even though I think he was wrong to do so). It’s just that he should have only acted after obtaining approval by Congress.
Thank you Shayna. I agree with 90% of what Shayna has been trying to do in this thread. Gonzomax also mentioned earlier that Obama just can’t win. He’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t. Someone won’t be happy but I really do trust his judgement for the most part, and certainly I trust him more than most politicians. Does he make mistakes? Does he do stupid things? Duh, uhh he’s human. But do I think he’s better than most, yes.
So I just wanted to pop in and support Shayna a little bit because I really thought that post was great. 
During the Iraq war there was a decent faction of folks going around yelling about how Bush’s wars were illegal or how he skirted the normal procedures somehow. I figured these people were anti-war but wouldn’t or couldn’t come out and say it, so instead of talking about imperialism or state sanctioned killing they’d wring their hands about crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.
Nope. Turns out a lot of people just have an inner school marm.
If that’s the case there’s nothing to worry about. It’s all on the up and up. You can get out the big foam fingers and root for the home team now.
I’m going to guess the answer might be: The lack of a UN Security Council resolution authorising the action.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
Hey! Look! Jefferson did the same damn thing. Literally. Shellin’ Tripoli. To protect American interests.
Anyhow, the whole document seems pretty persuasive. And, in my opinion, President Reagan would have the ability to declare that Russia had been outlawed, and bombing begins in five minutes, and carry it out. He would probably then be impeached, but he does have the legal authority to do so.
We, uh, better not elect anyone that stupid, okay?