EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
The War in Libya Growing More Illegal by the Day
To the extent that the War Powers Resolution (WPR) authorized President Obama to fight a war in Libya for 60 days without Congressional approval -- and, for reasons I described here, it did not -- that 60-day period expired 12 days ago. Since that date, the war has been unquestionably illegal even under the original justifications of Obama defenders, though I realize that objecting to "illegal wars" -- or wars generally -- is so very 2005. After making clear that they intended to contrive "some plausible theory" to justify this illegal war, the White House finally settled on the claim that the war in Libya -- despite featuring substantial U.S. military action with the goal of destroying a foreign army and removing that nation's leader -- is too small and limited to be a real "war" under the Constitution and the WPR.
Libyans attending Friday prayers near the courthouse in Benghazi. "Waging a war for 74 days without Congressional approval is illegal enough," writes Greenwald. "Doing so when there is a growing bipartisan movement in Congress to compel an end to the war -- rather than approve it -- is even worse." (Photo: REUTERS) Even the White House seemed to recognize the absurdity of that excuse -- the WRP explicitly applies "in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced (1) into hostilities" -- and the President thus subsequently requested a Resolution from Congress approving the war. That authorization, however, never came, and now it seems that Congress is closer to doing the opposite: approving a bipartisan bill opposing the war:
On Wednesday, 74 days after U.S. forces joined the military operation in Libya, President Obama seemed to run out of goodwill on Capitol Hill.
A group of both liberals and conservatives -- defying the leaders of both parties --- threw their support behind a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation. That prospect led GOP leaders to shelve the bill before it came to a vote. . . .
On Wednesday, the bill at issue was far more drastic. Introduced by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), it would demand that Obama withdraw forces from the Libyan operation within 15 days. That would be a crippling loss for the NATO-led campaign, which relies heavily on U.S. air power.
The resolution looked, a week before, like a legislative long shot.
Then, on Wednesday, it wasn’t.
"There’s been disquiet for a long time," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported it. "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism."
Conservatives expressed support for the bill in a closed meeting, but GOP leaders put off the vote.
Waging a war for 74 days without Congressional approval is illegal enough. Doing so when there is a growing bipartisan movement in Congress to compel an end to the war -- rather than approve it -- is even worse. And note the individuals on whom Obama is now relying to protect him from this bipartisan effort to put an end to his illegal war: "GOP House leaders" -- John Boehner and Eric Cantor, who refused to allow the bill to come up for a vote despite ample support among conservative members of their caucus as well as numerous liberal House members. Can we hear more now about how the two parties are so radically different that bipartisan cooperation is impossible? The Emperor has decreed that we will fight this war, and thus we will -- that seems to be the prevailing mindset.
Read more at Salon.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
97 Comments so far
Show Allever since I heard Bush Jr and then Obama, " ..solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President.." Emphasis on the Execute. I didn't hear an honorable man about to go about his duties. I heard a man about to dismantle whatever we all thought a President should be.
The President has been executed. We have an Emperor. The war is illegal and there is no stopping him. Short of laying our own bodies on the bombs so they cannot leave.
Greenwald still writes as if the US gave a damn about what was legal or not. It doesn't -- it's a rogue, terrorist, fascist nation now, with no legal legitimacy and no operational constitution. The war isn't even being conducted in compliance with the manipulated UN resolution.
The situation we have is similar to asking 'what should the German people have done when the Nazis were rising to power?"
Yes, bluepilgrim, you are correct.
Greenwald is terrific and a valuable voice of sanity, but even he needs to realize this nation is now (actually, since 1945) a warrior state run by and for Corporatist-Militarists solely for their own enrichment.
How can we reverse this insanity?
CAN we reverse this insanity?
We can't reverse the insanity as long we remain hostage to an economy owned and controlled by "corporatist-militarists". The Obama doctrine is all about defending them and their profits from the Constitution and the American people. Libya is yet another opportunity to cash in for war profiteers, and the bipartisan warmongers in Congress, as GG says, are there for them.
Obama is determined to continue and extend the war insanity of the Bush years, and he has the heavy hitters in Congress backing him up. Kucinich's bill is just another annoying, but finally impotent, obstacle they have to kick out of their way.
We can't reverse this insanity as long as we continue to only vote for Democrats and Republicans. One is not any less evil than the other one. I went to a Democratic organization's meeting last night and lots of people were upset that Obama has not followed through on any of his campaign promises-------but---------they insist that they MUST VOTE FOR HIS REELECTION or, horrors!! A Republican might get elected.
I stood up to say that Obama will win--no problem, no opposition by the Republicans. I said there is little we can do to influence our government but if we do not vote for Obama in the primary, the Democratic party may have to face the fact that the people want the wars to end, we want Medicare for all and we don't want anyone to 'fix' Social Security and/or Medicare. I said they could vote for Obama in the general election but should not do so in the primary. It may be possible for us to effect the position of the Democratic party. I insisted that we must try and have some effect on the Democratic party.
My comment and suggestion were not well received. All loyal Democrats must vote for Obama. Even if he acts against our wishes?
Beats me. What is wrong with these people? Why kiss the boot on your chest? Is it a pleasure to be betrayed?
I don't disagree, but what exactly do you propose that writers like Greenwald say? If it's such a wast of time to document how the US is systematically breaking the law and shredding the constitution -- if the fascist dictatorship is a fait accompli, in other words -- what precisely should we say about that?
Obama's campaign slogan:
"Win the Future!"
Needs some punctuation changes and a spelling correction. It should be:
"Win!"
--The Fuhrer
Indeed, if Obama wants to act like Hitler, deciding to go war on his own and decreeing which American citizens he can assassinate, we should treat him like Hitler. We should line up outside his rallies this summer and next, raise our right arms, and shout over and over: "Seig Heil! Seig Heil!"
Maybe that will get his attention. Nothing else seems to be working.
sieg heil
Nah... Obama would LIKE that. He'd give one of those 'slow shaking his fist in the air' like Lieberman did during his campaign.
If most everyone woke up, and supported and helped out each other, even the rotten economy and lack of money for the lower classes wouldn't be so hard to deal with. Problem is, evenyone is thinking 'how could I survive such troubles' instead of how can WE survive such troubles.
The only way to handle these problems is as a collective WE. This is why so much of the propaganda and cultrual hegemony has been directed towards breaking up solidarity and community organization (union-busting is just one glaring example).
"as if the US gave a damn about what was legal or not."
ask the original inhabitants how the US views legal agreements.
"it's a rogue, terrorist, fascist nation now,"
always has been.
Silly lawyer thinks US is a nation of laws. US is a nation of looting. Laws are tools for the looters, used to keep the masses in line for the boss class to smash and grab. The one true law is power. Orwell had it correctly: You want a picture of the future? Imagine a boot smashing a human face, forever. Iron law of oligarchy. Small boss class smashing the mass class. Sometimes with a law, sometimes with a boot, sometimes with a bomb as part of "humanitarian intervention." But it's always POWER SMASHING AND GRABBING.
http://warisacrime.org/content/even-legal
Talk about your basic "illegal" military operations: the relation between NATOs Libya actions and anything approaching the "legal" becomes more tenuous by the day. They are supposedly operating aggressively against the country on a UN resolution authorizing actions under the UN's "Reponsibility to Protect" minorities brutalized by their own leaders---the term of that authorization was to have expired at the end of this month. So it undertakes massive bombing raids with the killing of many civilians which its mandate required them to "protect." And it even, on its own say-so, according to this morning's news, extends its mandate until September. If NATO is operating under UN "cover," it's difficult if not impossible to understand how the resolution mandates actions that have nothing to do with civilian protection nor for a length of time that exceeds that of the mandate. NATOs whole operation is patently illegal even if one assumes (for argument) that the UN itself did not exceed the limits of international law in mandating military action against Libya.
I was unaware that illegality came in degrees.
Even Absolutists go over the speed limit and Civil Disobedience has given us more rights than the law.
But anyway, I am unaware of a war that ever ended because it is illegal but maybe we agree It would be good if it did.
I definitely agree, Jim.
Call for his impeachment.
Obama is a fucking fascist. Period. All you Obama supporters ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If W. had done this, you'd be foaming at the mouth about what a violation of our laws it is, but when your fascist golden child does it, you're silent or complicit.
Fascism is fascism. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Stop with the lesser of two evils bullshit and call it what it is. Either you stand for law and the Constitution and democracy, or you stand for totalitarianism. Make up your minds.
Um just who the hell are you talking to HERE? We all agree that Obama is a war criminal. So take your statement to Daily Kos. But you will be HR'd out.
Hmmm...perhaps my post wasn't clear, or your eyes aren't so good. I believe I wrote "all you Obama supporters." That sorta means that I was addressing my comment to those people here on CD who still unwaveringly support Obama. Of which there are several (albeit a minority, thankfully). You make the assumption that EVERYONE who reads/posts at CommonDreams is against Obama. That is quite the blanket assumption.
Was that not clear?
It seems to me that Obama supporters -- if they exist here at all -- are a tiny minority. There are many here who voted for him in 2008, such as myself, who have since removed the rose-colored glasses, but as far as I can tell, no one here actually defends this guy anymore.
There are plenty at sites like Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos. These hypocrites were among the loudest critics of Bush and were most likely out on the streets a few times protesting the Iraq War, but are now the most vocal cheerleaders for the Libya War. They somehow justify this one, particularly impressed that Obomber got UN approval for this intervention -- even though the Security Council resolution doesn't come close to authorizing what it is that NATO is doing.
It's all about team loyalty. The US is, as you say, a totalitarian state -- with two parties instead of one. Those who have grown up life-long Democrats are less concerned with actual principles (such as peace, justice and democracy), and are simply rooting for their team.
Gadaffi is a nice man, a benevolent kind dictator and he should have been left alone to do as he pleased, it's (his) country after all.
Any of his thousands of people who asked or begged for help should have been totally ignored. Thousand of them began to peacefully protest in the beginning and were fired upon with tank's cannon and machine gun fire and by aircraft of Gadaffi's troops... They killed children, women,,, anyone who was present in the streets.. So what?
That was Gadaffi's business and absolute right and it was (legal),,, I guess... Gadaffi didn't have to talk or negotiate with anyone's complaints with anybody, he is the fair and reasonable dictator and has been for 40 years.
It's a danm shame President Obama took any action to request (the UN) to do anything. We should apologize to Gadaffi and his people, send Gadaffi a few billion dollars, or maybe a trillion and stop interferring with Gadaffi's business... Decent, fair minded, sane dictators like Gadaffi are hard to find... Leave him alone.
Btw,,, sarcasm is sometmes useful.
Yet another lame excuse for the Executive to shit on the Constitution. Just like in Iraq - "we had to attack Iraq, because Saddam was a very bad man who gassed his own people." Now it's Libya. "We had to attack Gaddafi because he is a horrible dictator."
I.e., sometimes it is OK to violate the Constitution. Travel down that road far enough and you are in the same Dictator-Land that Libya is. When laws are not followed - ALWAYS - by our benevolent leaders, they mean precisely nothing. And when leaders only follow laws when they feel like it, you have a....wait for it...
dictatorship.
Hard to forgive you for not understanding that Gadaffi is the primary issue.
Don't tell us Gadaffi wasn't fully prepared to slaughter a thousand or thousands of his own people, including children and women, whatever was necessary in his warped mind to put down the protesting. His troops have already killed more than a thousand and hundreds of fleeing refugees.
Gadaffi's actions (started a civil war) and the rebels asked for assistance, it was impossible for them to fight heavy weapons, helicopter gunships, jet aricraft and artillary, which Gadaffi has used to shell cities, and he mined a major port to prevent hospital and aid ships from docking and refugees from fleeing.
The UN did exactly as was establiehed as legal action to prevent (genocide). Do you approve of genocide? Do you support Gadaffi's actions? You say we are using DU ammo there. Is that a fact? Gadafi has DU ammunition and so if DU is present who used it? Give proof not assumptions or repeat what someone else has said and claim that it's factual.
Is it for oil, or water or for control of the world money market? All assumptions based upon past history of other events... Or was the UN and NATOs actions to prevent genocide? __ At the present time I'll go with the latter until it is (proven) otherwise. So far it has not been proven otherwise.
If you wish to repeat rumors __ scribe, __ that is your perogative. If I choose to use sarcasm to make a point, that is my perogative. You disagree with me and I with you and that's alright also.
Show me where the UN is (targeting) infastructures, hospitals, schoos, bridges, water supplies, dams, oil refineries, ports, manufacturing plants. DU ammo is not necessary to take out tanks from the air. The armor on the top of those tanks is thin and DU ammo is not necessary at all an danti tank rockets fried by aircraft are not DU weapons.
I do not agree with them targeting Gadaffi's personal residences' and attempting to kill Gadaffi, nor would I support ground UN troops.
I would fuully support pulling all of our troops out of Afghan and Iraq. This military action in Libya is not the same, not at all... That's (my) opinion. I support Obama, and the UN, NATO on (this) one. I do not support any use of DU ammunition, ever, by anyone! If ground troops or Blackwater criminals are ever put in and that is proven, I will change my mind.
You are supporting an Executive violating the Constitution, which means you are complicit in this crime. It means you support dictatorship. If a President can ignore the law whenever he wants or it is inconvenient, you have a dictatorship. Either the Constitution is the law of the land, or it is a worthless "piece of paper" (to quote Bush).
Using the excuse "well, it's a good cause, what we are doing in Libya" as your reason why it's "ok this time' for the President to violate the Constitution, means that it can be violated any time, by any President, for whatever "good cause" or "good reason" the President sees fit.
Keep traveling down that road, Wayne. Keep letting your leaders travel down that road. You won't like what is at the end of it. But you will have yourself to blame when you get there.
I have seen (no proof) that what the UN and NATO are doing in Libya is a violaton of the US Constitution... I have read others opinions and assumptions... I do believe the UNs legal and approved by members of the UN mandates supercede the constitution of any country.
And from what I have posted here it should be clearly obvious that (I don't) approve of dictators I do approve of protesting dictatorships and a civil war (by the people), if necessary. And if the people request help, I approve of considering their request and taking action if it is justifiable.
I also do approve of the UNs written legal policy in respect to taking action to prevent (genocide).... Do you? __ Just a simple (yes or no) would suffice. Only asked since you bothered to reply to me with your assumptions.
The logic of this Wayne fellow is just not in touch with reality; a product of the USA.
He should be allowed to be so we can simply see where not to go,
He also presents us with a good opportunity to laugh and let us face it that when we do, we laugh at the USA too.
So please allow me to destroy you to save you Wayne. S&M is so in! Isn't it?
I'll beat the pants off you too! When I am on top what I say is legal---uhm-- whatever I say.
Ooooh! This is exciting now. If I don't, you will.
Problem is it is sooooo yesterday USA.
Always remember there are people who will help you without killing you Wayne.
James Edwards
You did not address or reply to one single point I posted. You did a good job of slinging insults. If I should ever disagree with any opinion you may ever post on an issue, is it alright for me to insult you if I disagree with your position?
Are you a Gadaffi supporter? Was the UN wrong? Have you read the UNs agenda on genocide? ___ Thanks for nothing Mr. Edwards.
Try reading the Constitution sometime, Wayne. Specifically that little itsy-bitsy part that says that only Congress can commit America's military to wars. Not the President. I'm sure you will say "this isn't a war," as a kind-of lame little cop-out, just as your golden boy Obama is, but unfortunately that distinction is not his or yours to make. In most people's book, invading another country and bombing the shit out of it and killing people is called "war." I know you would LOVE for the President/Emperor to be able to just unilaterally bomb/invade whoever the fuck he pleases anytime he pleases with no input from Congress, but sadly for you that is not what the Constitution allows.
Continue shitting on the Constitution all you want. For a shrinking minority of us, that document still matters. You shred it to your own peril.
You wrote,,> (" I know you would LOVE for the President/Emperor to be able to just unilaterally bomb/invade whoever the fuck he pleases anytime he pleases with no input from Congress").. Did you miss the words I wrote where I said I support pulling all of our troops out of Iraq and Afghan?
Yes I will say the UN NATO action is not a war... It is action which has been approved by the UN to (prevent genocide by Gadaffi) and apparently you don't care what Gadaffi does or has done.
You support whomever you please and I'll do likewise, but don't make false assumptions about me. You don't see me attacking anyone here with false assumptins about their character or for any other reason. If you cannot debate civily and like an adult, don't reply to my comments.
I also say the UN action is not Obama's action. He sought authorization from the UN,,, to act and it is now a NATO action, not a US or President Obama action. Our Constitution which I fully support and always have is not the issue. Go complain to the UN, not to me. It is humans with your type of attatude that start wars.
"Yes I will say the UN NATO action is not a war... It is action which has been approved by the UN to (prevent genocide by Gadaffi) and apparently you don't care what Gadaffi does or has done."
Hehe - "Action." You and your ilk always like to butter up the horrific atrocities of US drones, troops, and bombs upon human beings as an "action" - anything to avoid using that nasty "W" word. In any event, quit using the excuse that Gadaffi is a "dictator" to justify the killing of human beings. There are dozens of horrific dictators all over the world, and I don't see the US bombing the shit out of all of them. Why so selective, Wayne? Why not bomb North Korea? There is a horrible dictator there. How about Saudi Arabia? Most repressive dictator in the MidEast there, complete with beheadings and violent suppression of dissent. How about Bahrain? Nasty dictatorship there, complete with killings of civilians who protest and bulldozing their places of worship in retribution. Pick up a newspaper for Christ's sake, Wayne. LOTS of nasty dictators and I don't see you banging the war drums for bombing those countries.
Same lame excuse you and your ilk used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq - "Saddam was a horrible dictator who killed his own people." AWFULLY selective about which dictators you support and which ones you define as "bad enough to attack." Sorry to burst your bubble, Wayne, but just because a country has a dictator doesn't mean the US has the right to attack them. This may come as a shock to you, but some people believe that sovereign nations have the right to manage their own affairs. The rebels in Libya decided to rise up against Gadaffi - good for them. How, again, does that give the President of the U.S. the right to violate our Constitution and ignore the part that says only Congress may commit US troops to military engagements?
Ohhh...right. Because NATO and the UN said it is o.k., and because Gaddafi is a bad man. Gotcha.
You are an ignorant boy scout trying once again to put a humanitarian spin on US imperialism.
How many muslim nations must the US & NATO destroy before you give up your childishly naive belief in the goodness of NATO imperialism?
NATO and the US have already far exceeded any humanitarian authorization from the UN. It is intent on destroying Qadaffi regardless of the cost to the Libyan peole in deaths and destruction, thus eliminating one more obstacle to total NATO control of middle east oil supplies.
You Wayne are an ignorant bufoon or a shill. Which is it?
Drone killings are not humanitarian Wayne. You come here spouting idiotic moral indignation against war resisters while you lend support to an illegal imperialist effort to destroy Libya.
"You Wayne are an ignorant bufoon or a shill. Which is it?"
Neither sonny___ And your unnecessary personal attacks show what you are.
We obviously have diverse opinions about the UN authorized action in Libya and I suppor the UN action and the Libya protesters, or rebel citizens in Libya... You aparently suppport Gadaffi, that is your business and I won't attack you for it.
Just because the UN authorizes action against a nation does not mean the President of the U.S. can ignore the Constitution. The U.N. does NOT trump our Constitution, which states that Congress and NOT the President has the power to commit the US military to foreign engagements. Sounds to me that as long as someone, somewhere says it is OK to attack something, that's good enough for you and lends legitimacy to it. Screw the Constitution, right Wayne? UN>Constitution! Not.
Well scribe
Apparently you don't understand what the words mean, study it... .("to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,")... (All necessary measures) ,which would include taking out tanks, artillary, etc. Not just aircraft.
And NO ground troop are to be put into Libya, which is a most important issue.
"You aparently suppport Gadaffi, that is your business and I won't attack you for it."
Bullshit Wayne. You've attacked everyone who opposes the illegal imperialist war and called them Qadaffi supporters. That's just idiotic over-simplified war propaganda, and your spouting it makes you an accomplice to murder.
Seems that in your book it's all right for the NATO imperialists to kill Libyans and destroy Libya as a viable nation. Your cover is blown Wayne. You are an imperialist and an apologist for imperialist butchery,
You have yet to show any evidence this US/NATO intervention will be any less disasterous than the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the eveidence points the other way, but you keep insisting that this is a humanitraian intervention.
What a shill. What a complete ass you are. You deserve every insult that you get.
..
I have attacked no one here with personal inslults. It is clear that some here support Gadaffi and his killing his own people, (genocide)... If you, or they, don't support the UN mandate to (prevent genocide) by Gadaffi, you, they, support Gadaffi's actions and saying that is not an insult or an attack. It's how it is. One cannot have things two seperate way.
Your foul mouth comments about me are false. Spew out all of the obnoxious bile you wish, it does not bother me at all, you do not know me, not at all.
All I know are the ignorant and naive opinions that you state here.
You are an apolgist for imperialism. I oppose US imperialism in the middle east. All indications point to the fact that the US intervention in Libya is party of the larger US imperial war for oil & Israel.
You have offered no evidence to the contrary and instead repeat the same tired argument ad ifinitum, ie that opposing the US bombing of Libya = Support for Qadaffi.
Why do you think that a US installed islamic dictatorship will be better for Libyans than Qadaffi? That makes no sense at all. This is not about Qadaffi alone, but about the fate of an independent Libyan nation.
Finally the tales of bombings and murder by Qadaffi forces are undoubtedly exagerated by the US & Western media. This is what invading nations do, create humanitarian propaganda justifications.
If he were a dictator he would have been able to pass a law giving the oil revenues directly to the people. He has failed to convince the government over the last few years to do this. Dictators are never in that position are they?He is leader of the revolution not ruler of the country. A leader of the country, or prime minister of Lybia ,exists. Gaddaffi is an advisor as the voice of the revolutionary principles. If he had the power of a dictator the people would be getting that money but the corrupt apparatus doesn't want that which is Gaddaffi's point. Some dictator!
Yes of course, it is quite obvious that Gadaffi is not running the country as a dictator and never has.
As long as Gadaffi is a dictator, then that is all the excuse the U.S. needs to bomb the shit out of the country, right Wayne? Why aren't we bombing Saudi Arabia? That is the most ruthless dictatorship in the Mideast. Oh....right, they are our allies. I forgot. And sitting on a vast oil reserve. What about North Korea? Mucho dictator there. Why don't we bomb the shit out of that country? Oh....right. They have nuclear weapons. And no oil. How about Bahrain? Horrific dictatorship there, actually killing protestors and burning their churches. Oh....right. The US Fifth Fleet is stationed there.
You and your fascist emperor, Obama, are awfully selective about the "dictators" you feel it is o.k. to bomb back to the stone age.
Shame on me? I have fought against DU use for years and personally supported nurse Linda Faye Kroll on site in Hawaii fighting the government there to stop testing DU ammon on friing ranges there.
I'll read the links you offered and see if there is any evidence or (prof) that DU has been used by the NATO troops in Libya. There are many anti tank missels that are not DU warheads. Our US Navy has banned DU ammo on naval ships for many years and most of the US military action in Libya has been by the US Navy aircraft.
Don't attempt to get on my cse about DU use as I'm totally against it's use by anyone, ever. If it's porven we are using DU again like we did in Iraq I will protest.
sribe __ You wrote,,, > ("When the US is involved in a war in which tanks are targeted, DU munitions are the only choice, from the point of view of US military leadership.") ... That is absolute nonsense. The acton in Libya by (NATO) forces is not tank warfare with US military tanks fightng enemy tanks.
scribe___ You don't know what you are talkng about when it pertains to military weaponry. You are just blathering and what you wrote there is not true. There are many weapons carried by aircraft to easily take out tanks that have zero DU.
You just have a personal agenda here to say I'm for DU and that too is false. Read the blog posted here in the views section about fears of DU use in lybia and my comments on that thread. There many other previous threads here at CD where I have spoken out against DU use and you know it.
~~scribe~~, I read the artilce in the link you posted.
The author wrote, " it has been widely reported NATO forces are using DU ammunition in Libya"... He offers no factual evidence or proof of his claims It is opinions and suppositions, very political and it not credible. Anyone can write anything and you know it.
If DU has been used there it would have been detected by insturments in several different locals in the Arab nations and none have been reported by anyone with credibility.
No one said armored vehilces fly,,, You are being extremely ignorant and obtuse.
I said we are attacking tanks form the air and DU ammo is not necessary to take out a tank with aircraft weapony. They could but it is not necessary and the US Navy does not allow DU weaponry on their ships.
The UN mandate authorizes any force necessary to prevent genocide; that includes aricraft, tanks, heavy weapons, artillary, snipers and armed forces. Check it out smart guy..
Stow it scribe and when it comes to discussing DU I don't need any lessons from you or anyone else. I'm an expert on the subject and totally against it's use. If you wish to contiue your obtuse argument go ahead and argue with yourself. I am tired of your continual nonsense, unfounded attacks and ignoring my comments of my firm positon on the non use of DU ammunition.
And in any event, there ARE U.S. troops on the ground. Many stories on that particular breach all over lately (although not in the MSM, of course). But hey - whatever. The U.S. is not particularly constrained by any laws or resolutions or treaties it doesn't feel like being constrained by.
Cite a source for that claim and not that picture of five whte guys in civilian clothing sitting at a table with some Arabs in what appears to be a restaueant or a party.
Here's another widely reported claim: Elvis Presley and James Dean are in Libya, they are secret CIA agents.
Obviously you have not read the UN mandate. Blather on
I read it a long time ago scribe.
Where is the a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory?
There is NO occupation force on any Libyan territory... So what is your argument?
A-ha, another chickenhawk rears his ugly head! You're crazy if you think that intervening in Libya is even remotely humanitarian. It's NOT a good cause!
While I agree that Gaddafi is a disgusting human being, we really have no good reason to launch a war against Libya.
Let me point a few facts out for you:
1) NATO is killing civilians on both sides of the civil war.
2) The rebels are killing civilians.
3) The rebels are targeting black Libyans.
4) Gaddafi has always been on the U.S.'s hit list, so this was the perfect excuse to do regime change.
5) Libya has the largest fresh water reserves in Northern Africa.
6) Libya has the largest oil reserves in all of Africa and 9th largest in the world.
7) The rebel leader is a former Gaddafi henchman.
8) The United States currently has no military bases in Northern Africa. Libya is a strategic location in the region. This gives the United States an excuse to build bases there and expand AFRICOM.
Summary: The U.S./NATO forces are going to war for geopolitical reasons. It's all about power projection and nothing more. Why didn't NATO give a shit about Tunisia, or Egypt, or especially Bahrain or Saudi Arabia? Why the selective justice? This is no different than the invasion of Iraq, which also was preceded with "no-fly zones".
There is nothing humanitarian about wars of aggression or strategic bombings.
Most importantly Wayne, why aren't you in Libya? Why don't you go over there as an aid worker, or a foreign service officer, or even as a soldier if it sadly comes to that? You are a typical gutless, arrogant, racist chickenhawk.
Why aren't you in Libya? __ Maybe Gadaffi could use you?
It looks like Gadaffi's former henchman got tired of Gaddafi as have most of the citizens there.
If the UN and NATO hadn't acted, Gadaffi's troops would have slaughtered thousands of the peolpe you claim you are concerned about. They asked and even begged for help and NATO is helping them. I do not agree with all of their actions there, I believe it is wrong to go after Gadaffi personally or individually as a target.
I see a few here have misread my full intent. I just happen to believe we should help the rebel forces overthrow their 41 year dictator who doesn't care whom he kills in order to stay in power. Gadaffi started the civil war by not talking to the protestors in a fair and civil manner instead of ordering his troops to start killing them. That's how I see it as that's what happened.
I'm not a "chickenhawk" or gutless, you don't know me at all... Your personal attacks do not bother me either. I was and am totally against the Bush/Cheney war and have stated many times here at CD that Obama should have withdrawn our troops from Iraq and Afghan as soon as he took office.
If we put ground troop in LIbya and attempt to takee control of the oil then I will protest that... Has that happened? Until it does,,, it hasn't happened.