No Fly zones over Libya?

[BeAChooser]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43038762/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

5/15/2011

WASHINGTON — The fierce combat in Libya has unleashed a once-hidden arsenal of portable anti-aircraft missiles that the government fears could easily be siphoned off to terrorist groups, giving rise to a potential threat to commercial aviation that the U.S. is only beginning to confront, government officials and arms experts said.

The fears are compounded by suspicions that Libyan government and opposition forces are both deploying fighters with ties to terrorists and mercenaries. With more than 20,000 missile launchers estimated in Libya, there have been unconfirmed reports that some anti-aircraft weapons have already been funneled to North African militants, but amid the vast caches wielded by both sides, there is no solid evidence yet that terrorists have them.

 

[geni]

You would rather such weapons remained in the oh so responsible hands of Gaddafi?

Anyway the logistics suck. The main trade routes are with Egypt and Tunisia neither of which have much interest in an arms smuggling route going through their turf.

 

[BeAChooser]

You would rather such weapons remained in the oh so responsible hands of Gaddafi?

I gather you would also like Gaddafi's chemical weapon arsenal to be similarly distributed rather than remain in the oh so responsible hands of Gaddafi?

 

[geni]

I gather you would also like Gaddafi's chemical weapon arsenal to be similarly distributed rather than remain in the oh so responsible hands of Gaddafi?

At this point any chemical weapon arsenal appears to be wishful thinking by NATO.

 

[BeAChooser]

At this point any chemical weapon arsenal appears to be wishful thinking by NATO.

You sure about that?

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110509_9563.php

May 9, 2011

The Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons last week voiced worries about the protections surrounding a cache of Libyan mustard blister agent and about Tripoli's plans to destroy the material as previously promised (see GSN, May 4).

... snip ...

Libya is thought to have eliminated more than half of its chemical stockpile, leaving some 9.5 metric tons of mustard agent and a quantity of precursor materials that have yet to be destroyed as mandated by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

 

[geni]

You sure about that?

Given our past record on thinking people had chemical weapons?

In any case your concern is misplaced. Mustard gas is hard to transport and hard to use. Sarin is better but even with that Aum Shinrikyo only managed a kill count of 13.

If you want to worry about anything worry about his semtex and his money.

 

[BeAChooser]

Mustard gas is hard to transport and hard to use.

Have any proof of that? Seems to me that mustard gas, being a liquid, would be easy to transport in a sealed container. Then just open the container in a closed environment with many people and ... well you know the rest.

As to getting it in the container ...

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

In its distilled form, mustard gas has a long life, and can be stockpiled for decades. It is relatively easy to produce and load into munitions.

And just a small amount in a closed space ... say an airplane ... and ...

Sarin is better but even with that Aum Shinrikyo only managed a kill count of 13.

Multiple experts have concluded that had they done a better job of dispersing the sarin they deployed, they could have killed hundreds or thousands in the subway.

 

[McHrozni]

Given our past record on thinking people had chemical weapons?

In any case your concern is misplaced. Mustard gas is hard to transport and hard to use. Sarin is better but even with that Aum Shinrikyo only managed a kill count of 13.

And injured over 6000, with his primitive method? Call me unconvinced.

Mustard gas causes quite nasty injuries. It must still be dispersed (just opening a container won't do), and will kill few people, true. It has the potential to seriously injure and maim many. You can't base your estimates to the dangers of various weapons solely on their kill potential. It's important, certainly, but should not be used as the sole factor. In war, permanently disabling enemy soldiers is usually far superior to killing them (with the possible exception of long wars of total exhaustion). The same can be true for terrorist attacks as well.

If you want to worry about anything worry about his semtex and his money.

I agree that conventional explosives are a greater threat to us from Quackdaffi than his chemical arsenal.

McHrozni

 

[BeAChooser]

Mustard gas causes quite nasty injuries.

That's putting it mildly. The injuries can apparently be horrific and life-long. Here is a picture of what a researcher named Sollman caused in 1917 with just small quantities of mustard applied to the skin of volunteers:

http://molinterv.aspetjournals.org/content/7/3/124/F2/graphic-2.large.jpg

And because the appearance of injury is usually delayed many, many hours, lots of people could come into contact with a mustard release before authorities would even know about it. And then they'd have to find out where the person came in contact with it and that might take additional hours … during which time even more people would be exposed. And note that mustard can last several days even in a warm environment so if the authorities aren't competent …

Furthemore, the clothing that the exposed people wore at the time might become a danger to other people who might come in contact with it. Iranians died during the Iraq/Iran war from simply coming in contact with the vapors coming off mustard liquid contaminated clothing. And mustard will go through latex, making it threat to medical personel who might be trying to treat the injured. It apparently takes specialized gear to deal with mustard agent.

All these features put together make it a potent terror weapon that could cause much disruption and fear. More so, perhaps, than anthrax did after 9/11.

It must still be dispersed (just opening a container won't do)

Actually, mustard will vaporize at room temperature, albeit more slowly than water. Like I noted, many Iranian fatalities resulted from exposure to vapors simply coming off liquid mustard contaminated clothing.

But, fine. Instead of just opening the container as I suggested they might do, the terrorist could spill it out on a floor of someplace that would see a lot of people walk through it, and/or where people would be confined for several hours. Like the aisle of movie theater or a plane. Note that one of the methods that Iraq used to deliver mustard gas was to simply tip drums of it out of helicopters. And that was enough to cause severe problems for the Iranians, including many deaths.

Mustard liquid can even be put into water … say a fountain at a mall … so that people are exposed who come in contact with the water. Mustard has an odor (hence the name) but the nose detection concentration is close to the level that damage to the eyes (extensive exposure can cause blindness) can occur after even just an hour or so of exposure. And damage to skin would be much faster.

And who is to say that competent terrorists couldn't come up a better means of dispersing it? Something that would more quickly vaporize it and then spread the vapors with a fan. Don't be too blase about this threat.

You can't base your estimates to the dangers of various weapons solely on their kill potential.

That's true and that's especially true where terrorism is concerned. Terrorists want to disrupt society … create fear … and you don't have to kill many people to do that. And mustard might be ideal to such a purpose for all the reasons I listed above.

I agree that conventional explosives are a greater threat to us from Quackdaffi than his chemical arsenal.

Well I hope you are right. But then terrorists already have access to plenty of conventional explosives … so why would they need Ghadaffi's? No, Ghadaffi has something they don't have and thanks to Obama's rashness, terrorists may not get access to it.

 

[geni]

Have any proof of that? Seems to me that mustard gas, being a liquid, would be easy to transport in a sealed container. Then just open the container in a closed environment with many people and ... well you know the rest.

Feel free to look into the logistical issues militaries had with poisen gas. By the time you've got the people in place to deal with those issues aquiring a chemist who can make sulphur mustards isn't going to be much more of a challange

And just a small amount in a closed space ... say an airplane ... and ...

I may not have the highest respect for US airport security but I would expect them to spot someone hauling around a gas tank.

Multiple experts have concluded that had they done a better job of dispersing the sarin they deployed, they could have killed hundreds or thousands in the subway.

However the fact is they didn't and we have no reason to think that future groups will do much better. Proper use of toxic gasses is hard ever when WW1 stlye you have plenty of time to prepare, reasonable logistics and your targert isn't going anywhere. Worst-case scenario thinking leads you down some very blind alleys.

 

[geni]

That's putting it mildly. The injuries can apparently be horrific and life-long.

So can those from a petrol bomb or even bleach.

All these features put together make it a potent terror weapon that could cause much disruption and fear. More so, perhaps, than anthrax did after 9/11.

However the washington sniper incerdernt suggested that much the same could be said of a fairly conventional gun.

And who is to say that competent terrorists couldn't come up a better means of dispersing it? Something that would more quickly vaporize it and then spread the vapors with a fan. Don't be too blase about this threat.

Other than a couple of cases in iraq and the Aum Shinrikyo cult competent terrorists have largely stuck with guns and explosives (and knives, hammers and fire)

Well I hope you are right. But then terrorists already have access to plenty of conventional explosives … so why would they need Ghadaffi's?

Not all explosives are the same. The explosives tend to have acess to are either unstable with a short lifespan (see those used in the london underground bombing) or bulky (which is why you get car and truck bombs).

Semtex is stable which means you can bury it and still be able to cause problems with it ten years down the line. It's simple to use. You don't have to worry to much about blowing yourself up. It's easy to mold into shapes which means you can pack anything with explosives. It also packs quite a punch. Semtex is a great choice if you want to turn a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs into a real problem for the authorities.

No, Ghadaffi has something they don't have and thanks to Obama's rashness, terrorists may not get access to it.

Err Ghadaffi has been supplying stuff to terrorists for years. In case you forgot thats why he was under sanctions for years until Bush decided it was time to kiss and make up.

 

[BeAChooser]

Feel free to look into the logistical issues militaries had with poisen gas.

But we aren't talking about militaries. Or large quantities. This is about small quantities of a liquid delivered by fanatics who have demonstrated they are willing to die to accomplish their terrorist ends. Against soft targets, no less ... not military targets. And these terrorists won't even have to die.

I may not have the highest respect for US airport security but I would expect them to spot someone hauling around a gas tank.

LOL!

You don't even understand that mustard agent starts as a LIQUID that is even more dangerous than the fumes.

You don't understand that it doesn't take much of that liquid (or a very long exposure to the fumes) to do serious harm to a person.

You don't realize that while mustard has a smell, the sense of smell is quickly dulled so that one can no longer detect it's presense. Or that it can still cause damage to the respiratory system in concentrations so low a person can't smell it. So release it in a theater and people are likely to stay and watch the film, unaware of the fact that they are being exposed to perhaps lethal concentrations. While the terrorist quietly sneaks out the door.

However the fact is they didn't and we have no reason to think that future groups will do much better.

You have no basis for that claim. NONE WHATSOEVER. In fact, with all the information now on the internet, I would be shocked if a terrorist group that obtained some sarin simply punched some holes in bags of the stuff (like Aum did) and left it up to dripping and air currents to spread the stuff (like Aum did). It would be very easy to come up with something more creative and effective, which is why the experts say we were very LUCKY in that instance. Even a small fan could have greatly increased the casualties. Senate staffers concluded that tens of thousands could have easily been killed by a reasonably smart terrorist in that case.

And as someone pointed out to you (which you just ignored), it wasn't just the number of dead that was the problem. That ineffective attack sent over 5000 people to hospitals, of which 500 were so seriously affected that they had to be hospitalized. Many suffered from long term psychological and physical trauma. And with mustard agent, you are talking about something just as serious, an agent that causes life-long scarring, blindness and even DNA damage. And there is no antidote. All you can do is treat the symptoms and hope for the best.

I'm sorry, but you simply can't rely on the stupidity of your enemy. If you do, you are destined to be rudely awakened. Like we were on 9/11.

Proper use of toxic gasses is hard ever when WW1 stlye you have plenty of time to prepare, reasonable logistics and your targert isn't going anywhere.

Again, mustard agent is a liquid whose fumes are also dangerous.

And you don't think terrorists have time to prepare? If they have acquired the agent from Ghadaffi's arsenal, what do you think they are doing right now?

And what's this about your target going somewhere? You simply don't get it, geni. If a terrorist opens a container of mustard agent in the aisle of a darkened theater just before a movie begins, what do you think will happen? Hmmmmmm? If lots of people even walk through a location with mustard agent on the ground, what do you think will happen? You will likely see mass casualties.

And perhaps you don't realize that one means of spreading mustard agent is to use explosives. So what if the terrorists decide to combine the two? Hmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That's putting it mildly. The injuries can apparently be horrific and life-long.

So can those from a petrol bomb or even bleach.

But a petrol bomb makes a big explosion. And talk about transportability issues. What makes mustard scary is that it's silent. And it's danger can be transferred from the point to point by those exposed to it, thus endangering others. And a coke bottle full of it could hurt everyone in a theater. And what are you going to do to find the culprit? Track down the origin of that coke bottle?

However the washington sniper incerdernt suggested that much the same could be said of a fairly conventional gun.

But the Washington sniper had to hang around to do his deed. And people could hide from it. And they didn't take the danger home to their family and children before even knowing there was a danger.

Other than a couple of cases in iraq and the Aum Shinrikyo cult competent terrorists have largely stuck with guns and explosives (and knives, hammers and fire)

So you are saying that if you handed terrorists a chemical agent on a platter … like we may be doing or have already done in Libya, they wouldn't use it? They'd decide to stick with guns and explosives for their mayhem? Aren't you just trusting in luck?

Err Ghadaffi has been supplying stuff to terrorists for years.

But not chemical weapons. That's the Rubicon.

 

[geni]

But we aren't talking about militaries. Or large quantities. This is about small quantities of a liquid delivered by fanatics who have demonstrated they are willing to die to accomplish their terrorist ends. Against soft targets, no less ... not military targets. And these terrorists won't even have to die.

Would you count a village as a soft target? Becuase logistics issues were what stopped britian using the stuff in iraq between the wars.

LOL!

You don't even understand that mustard agent starts as a LIQUID that is even more dangerous than the fumes.

You don't understand that it doesn't take much of that liquid (or a very long exposure to the fumes) to do serious harm to a person.

I'm aware of the properties of the various sulphur mustards

You don't realize that while mustard has a smell, the sense of smell is quickly dulled so that one can no longer detect it's presense. Or that it can still cause damage to the respiratory system in concentrations so low a person can't smell it. So release it in a theater and people are likely to stay and watch the film, unaware of the fact that they are being exposed to perhaps lethal concentrations. While the terrorist quietly sneaks out the door.

People tend to notice if you start pooring a liquid across the floor.

You have no basis for that claim. NONE WHATSOEVER.

The chemical attacks in iraq also had flaws.

In fact, with all the information now on the internet, I would be shocked if a terrorist group that obtained some sarin simply punched some holes in bags of the stuff (like Aum did) and left it up to dripping and air currents to spread the stuff (like Aum did). It would be very easy to come up with something more creative and effective, which is why the experts say we were very LUCKY in that instance. Even a small fan could have greatly increased the casualties. Senate staffers concluded that tens of thousands could have easily been killed by a reasonably smart terrorist in that case.

The problem is somewho need to get their mustard gas from a third partly is unlikely to qualify as a reasonably smart terrorist.

And as someone pointed out to you (which you just ignored), it wasn't just the number of dead that was the problem. That ineffective attack sent over 5000 people to hospitals, of which 500 were so seriously affected that they had to be hospitalized.

Remeber though sarin sarin outclasses mustard gas by a significant margin.

Many suffered from long term psychological and physical trauma. And with mustard agent, you are talking about something just as serious, an agent that causes life-long scarring, blindness and even DNA damage. And there is no antidote. All you can do is treat the symptoms and hope for the best.

And again you are back to over complicating a petrol bomb.

Again, mustard agent is a liquid whose fumes are also dangerous.

Okey if you really want play semantics then poison gas aerosol mixes.

And you don't think terrorists have time to prepare? If they have acquired the agent from Ghadaffi's arsenal, what do you think they are doing right now?

Being gunned down by tunisian boarder guards who've had quite enough hastle already.

And what's this about your target going somewhere? You simply don't get it, geni. If a terrorist opens a container of mustard agent in the aisle of a darkened theater just before a movie begins, what do you think will happen? Hmmmmmm? If lots of people even walk through a location with mustard agent on the ground, what do you think will happen? You will likely see mass casualties.

And if a terrorist chucks a petrol bomb into that same theater?

And perhaps you don't realize that one means of spreading mustard agent is to use explosives. So what if the terrorists decide to combine the two? Hmmmm?

Thats actualy rather hard to do. You've got to rig it in a way that will survive the explosion and avoid killing yourself in the process. And if you can do that you might as well make it yourself.

 

[geni]

But a petrol bomb makes a big explosion. And talk about transportability issues.

A bottle with a clear liquid and rag?

What makes mustard scary is that it's silent. And it's danger can be transferred from the point to point by those exposed to it, thus endangering others. And a coke bottle full of it could hurt everyone in a theater. And what are you going to do to find the culprit? Track down the origin of that coke bottle?

We caught the guy who did the Brighton hotel bombing even though that was planted a month before it went of.

But the Washington sniper had to hang around to do his deed. And people could hide from it. And they didn't take the danger home to their family and children before even knowing there was a danger.

And yet it still managed it.

So you are saying that if you handed terrorists a chemical agent on a platter … like we may be doing or have already done in Libya, they wouldn't use it? They'd decide to stick with guns and explosives for their mayhem? Aren't you just trusting in luck?

No I'm trusting experience. Firstly Gadiffi has no history of supplying chemical weapons to anyone. Secondly the groups he supplied no longer exist for the most part and there are few modern groups he could supply without risking the stuff being used against him. In fact his options would probably be limited to FARC and the Naxalites neither of whom would gain anything by deploying chemical weapons.
Thirdly if you think terrorists haven't had easy acess to some very nasty chemicals you've never had a job where you get your hands dirty. And yet we don't see terrorists using them.

But not chemical weapons. That's the Rubicon.

Its Gaddafi. He's not exactly predictable. If you seriously think he would supply chemical weapons to terrorist groups there it's just as possible he would do it in responce to one of his kids getting thrown out of a nightclub.

Of course all these concerns might have fractionaly more credibility if they weren't coming from a bush supporter.

 

[BeAChooser]

Would you count a village as a soft target?

Non-sequitur. This isn't about attacking villages with large numbers of artillery shells containing chemical agents. It's about attacking a movie theater (for example) with a small amount of chemical agent perhaps removed from an artillery shell. And "logistics issues" won't prevent that.

I'm aware of the properties of the various sulphur mustards

And yet you kept talking about it as if it was just a gas and not a liquid.

People tend to notice if you start pooring a liquid across the floor.

Not in a darkened movie theater, they wouldn't.

Quote:
You have no basis for that claim. NONE WHATSOEVER.

The chemical attacks in iraq also had flaws.

Another non-sequitur. Your response does not address my observation that you have no basis for claiming "we have no reason to think that future groups will do much better" than the Aum terrorists. One might suspect you don't want to honestly debate this topic, geni, in which case we'd have to examine your motives.

The problem is somewho need to get their mustard gas from a third partly is unlikely to qualify as a reasonably smart terrorist.

That's an unfounded and dangerous assumption on your part. Very few terrorists could build a gun or a nuclear weapon, but they can still use it to create havoc should one come into their possession. Same goes for chemical agents. As I stated, with all the information now on the internet, I would be shocked if a terrorist group that obtained some sarin simply punched some holes in bags of the stuff (like Aum did) and left it up to dripping and air currents to spread the stuff (like Aum did).

You assume they are stupid and can't learn, and that might not be the case. Remember, that some of these people are college educated engineers. al-Zarqawi dropped out of secondary school and was barely literate. Yet, he organized and funded a plot against Jordan and the US embassy in Amman back in 2004. Expert testimony during the Jordanian trial of him and about a dozen terrorists who were captured entering Jordan with the vehicles, explosives, and chemical agents to be used in the attack, said that the plot might have killed 20,000 people.

Remeber though sarin sarin outclasses mustard gas by a significant margin.

Still another non-sequitur. The point wasn't that mustard was better or worse than sarin, but that deaths (which is all you mentioned originally when you dismiss the threat of chemical attacks as minor) are not the only criteria by which to judge a chemical agent's efficacy as a terror weapon. Injuries, and the type of injuries, are important too.

And in terms of the number of injuries that mustard can cause, it may pose just as serious a threat as sarin. Because the effects of sarin will be noticed right away and the area cleared of people. While the effects of mustard will be delayed. Consequently, spread mustard agent on the darkened aisle of a theater and you may have hundreds and hundreds of people walk through it and breath it during the day and they will not show the effects until hours or days later. And they will transport that mustard agent with them to other locations. And should anyone actually touch the floor or an article of clothing that has come in contact with the mustard liquid, they will be dramatically affected. Yes, very few will likely die since the exposure may not be that high, but in the end the number of injured may be very high and the injuries may be just as serious as those caused by sarin. Plus, the disruption to society that follows may be just as serious.

Quote:
Many suffered from long term psychological and physical trauma. And with mustard agent, you are talking about something just as serious, an agent that causes life-long scarring, blindness and even DNA damage. And there is no antidote. All you can do is treat the symptoms and hope for the best.

And again you are back to over complicating a petrol bomb.

Non-sequitur. Why don't you try to address the specific affects that make mustard agent so scary that it's use was banned in wartime when there are explosives far worse than petrol bombs being lobbed by the millions at humans and structures?

Okey if you really want play semantics then poison gas aerosol mixes.

The difference between a gas and a liquid is not a matter of symantics. You are again just demonstrating your own ignorance. An aerosol is a suspension in gas of fine solid or liquid particles. That is not what is being discussed here. Mustard agent, in the form it is in before a chemical shell is fired and detonates … in the form it would be if carried into a darkened theater in a coke bottle after being removed from a Libyan chemical shell, is almost 100% liquid. It is NOT an aerosol mix. That is something you get from specialized munitions or sprayers. Which is not what is being talked about here. Liquid mustard could be poured on the floor of a theater where it would adhere to the shoes of anyone walking by, then slowly over time vaporize. It is not an aerosol. And I wasn't "playing" semantics. But you are.

Quote:
And perhaps you don't realize that one means of spreading mustard agent is to use explosives. So what if the terrorists decide to combine the two? Hmmmm?

Thats actualy rather hard to do.

Call me skeptical, but given what lack of understanding you already displayed during this conversation, I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But a petrol bomb makes a big explosion. And talk about transportability issues.

A bottle with a clear liquid and rag?

Oh you English … you meant a molotov cocktail. Well that doesn't make a big explosion after all.

Quote:
What makes mustard scary is that it's silent. And it's danger can be transferred from the point to point by those exposed to it, thus endangering others. And a coke bottle full of it could hurt everyone in a theater. And what are you going to do to find the culprit? Track down the origin of that coke bottle?

We caught the guy who did the Brighton hotel bombing even though that was planted a month before it went of.

LOL! And you don't suppose that had something to do with the culprit registering for a stay in the hotel which allowed police to narrow the culprit down to a single person after police individually traced and ruled out the other 800 (approximately) people who had stayed in the hotel the month before the blast? You don't think that has to do with the culprit, even though he used a false identity, leaving a palm print on the hotel registration card. And you don't think that had anything to do with there being bomb components (including a timer made from a video recorder) that police could examine afterwards and connect to him. Now where do movie goers write down their names? How are you going to track down the origin of a coke bottle? And presumably, since the terrorist would be concerned about getting mustard on his hands, he/she would even be wearing gloves so you won't even have a palm print to work with. So why don't you try to address the situation I described, rather than your luck in the Brighton case?

Quote:
But the Washington sniper had to hang around to do his deed. And people could hide from it. And they didn't take the danger home to their family and children before even knowing there was a danger.

And yet it still managed it.

Non-sequitur. You seem to like those, geni.

Quote:
So you are saying that if you handed terrorists a chemical agent on a platter … like we may be doing or have already done in Libya, they wouldn't use it? They'd decide to stick with guns and explosives for their mayhem? Aren't you just trusting in luck?

No I'm trusting experience. Firstly Gadiffi has no history of supplying chemical weapons to anyone.

But that was before we tried to kill him, and before we killed his son. He may be seeking revenge now. And second, if the rebels win, which Obama wants, he may have no say in what happens to his chemical weapons. And those rebels do have contacts with al-Qaeda. And they may not be reluctant to share "the loot". So you are again *trusting* they won't. And I think it's rather foolish to trust them regarding that … given our past experience with THEM.

Secondly the groups he supplied no longer exist for the most part and there are few modern groups he could supply without risking the stuff being used against him.

If he decides to use it, he won't have to supply "groups". He'll simply send his own loyalists with the stuff to do the deed. Or have some of the many mercenaries he's hired do it. You simply have no basis for making this claim either.

Thirdly if you think terrorists haven't had easy acess to some very nasty chemicals you've never had a job where you get your hands dirty. And yet we don't see terrorists using them.

That not the whole picture. First, it isn't clear that terrorists have had access to something like mustard agent (and known it). And second, you may simply not have heard when they did try to do something nasty with chemicals. Just the other day, the Harbor Master in San Diego admitted to a reporter that there had been attempts to smuggle nuclear devices (presumably dirty bombs) into the US. And it had been kept quiet (perhaps to avoid panic). There is no reason to think that the government would have announced a busted plot to smuggle "nasty chemicals" into the US or even make them locally either. There are lots of things going on in the WOT that we are not privy to because we have no need to know.

Quote:
But not chemical weapons. That's the Rubicon.

Its Gaddafi. He's not exactly predictable.

And you think terrorists are?

Of course all these concerns might have fractionaly more credibility if they weren't coming from a bush supporter.

And what's your motivation for bobbing and weaving, and denying the facts and the obvious ... if not your own political agenda? Hmmmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/death-of-the-war-powers-act/2011/05/17/AF3Jh35G_story.html

Death of the War Powers Act?

May 17

This week, the War Powers Act confronts its moment of truth. Friday will mark the 60th day since President Obama told Congress of his Libyan campaign. According to the act, that declaration started a 60-day clock: If Obama fails to obtain congressional support for his decision within this time limit, he has only one option — end American involvement within the following 30 days.

Obama has not only failed but he hasn’t even tried — leaving it to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, to call for a “specific resolution that would give [the president] authority.” Neither the president nor the Democratic congressional leadership has shown any interest. They have been sleep-walking their way to Day 60.

… snip …

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations.

… snip …

If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.

Nice going Obama.

 

[McHrozni]

Nice going Obama.

I think he's counting on that the campaign will end within the next 30 days. There is a fair chance that will happen, too, given the recent developments.

McHrozni

 

[BeAChooser]

I think he's counting on that the campaign will end within the next 30 days. There is a fair chance that will happen, too, given the recent developments.

Really?

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/gadhafi-forces-rocket-rebel-950265.html

May 19, 2011

The Associated Press

BENGHAZI, Libya — Moammar Gadhafi's forces rocketed rebel fighters Thursday in the formidable strongholds and training camps they have built up in the strategic mountain heights southwest of the Libyan capital, rebels said.

... snip ...

The situation in the Nafusa mountains "remains dire, really dire," said Jalal al-Gallal, a spokesman for the rebel governing council, based in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Tell me ...

Is Obama (via NATO) planning to accomplish that by making even more of a mockery of the conditions and strictures under which NATO entered the conflict?

Is Obama (via NATO) planning to accomplish that by committing the same sort of war crimes that Clinton did to end the Kosova war?

General Sir David Richards has said that Nato’s campaign needs to be expanded to include the regime’s infrastructure if the dictator is to be toppled. He wants Nato warplanes to bomb the perimeter fence around Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli. It's been suggested that NATO cripple the dictator’s main oil refinery at Zawiyah, which supplies the regime’s energy needs.

Sure, Obama and company can win this anytime they want ... but only making even more of mockery of their own claims at the start of this.

And by the way, the International Criminal Court is seeking warrants for Gaddafi and other top Libyans for war crimes. That being the case, what happens if Gaddafi decides he's nothing to lose ... and he breaks out the WMD? Hmmm?