No Fly zones over Libya?

[McHrozni]

Really?

Either that or he counts on NATO allies to step in for the entirety. The US involvement beyond the first couple of days has been fairly small.

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?

I'm not claiming his strategy is smart. I adhere to the belief that half measures are no measures and that if there was to be an intervention in Libya, it had to be decisive.

That doesn't mean his strategy in Libya has no chance of working at all, or that it's a complete mess that no one can solve. The rebels have the upper hand now, and will likely prevail, possibly within the next couple of weeks. He will have his victory, I just hope his strategy will work. No one we should care about benefits if it won't.

McHrozni

 

[geni]

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.

Okey first you have to get it out of the artillery shell without killing yourself. You've then got to get it into whatever

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

Personaly I would tend to store it in something airtight. A gas tank is a reasonable choice.

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

If you pour it only an area more than a few people will walk they would.

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.

No I rather assume they can learn to the point where they can make mustar gas themselves and yet no terrorist group has chosen to do so.

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.

Yes people tend to notice if you start pooring liquids in the aisles

The difference between a gas and a liquid is not a matter of symantics. You are again just demonstrating your own ignorance.

I was refering to it's use in WW1 when to all intents and purposes it was used as a poisonous gas. Heck Lewisite has much the same issues but my inorganic chemistry lecture didn't feel the need to mess around refering to it as anything out other than a gas.

 

[BeAChooser]

The US involvement beyond the first couple of days has been fairly small.

Sure ... if you pretend that the US doesn't pay by far the largest share of NATO's costs.

Sure ... if you pretend the predator drones that have been recently responsible for some of the so-called progress weren't provided by the US and operated by US forces.

Sure … if you pretend there are no US ground forces involved in the fight.

That doesn't mean his strategy in Libya has no chance of working at all

No, but I do question any seeming certainty that Obama will be able to completely extricate the US from involvement in the next 30 days … unless Gaddafi cooperates. And I see no sign of that happening yet.

The rebels have the upper hand now, and will likely prevail, possibly within the next couple of weeks.

Well, I guess we'll see. But I suspect there are still a great many unknowns in this equation and possible unpleasant surprises. Like how easy the rebels will find taking Gaddafi strongholds. Or like what Gaddafi will do with his chemical weapons in the face of announced intentions to try him for war crimes (and presumably hang him).

 

[McHrozni]

Sure ... if you pretend that the US doesn't pay by far the largest share of NATO's costs.

Irrelevant for the current situation.

Sure ... if you pretend the predator drones that have been recently responsible for some of the so-called progress weren't provided by the US and operated by US forces.

Yes, the US forces are providing some effort. Two (2) predator drones are among them. Though valuable, they are not irreplacable.

Sure … if you pretend there are no US ground forces involved in the fight.

Uh?

No, but I do question any seeming certainty that Obama will be able to completely extricate the US from involvement in the next 30 days … unless Gaddafi cooperates. And I see no sign of that happening yet.

It is possible, though by no means certain.

Well, I guess we'll see. But I suspect there are still a great many unknowns in this equation and possible unpleasant surprises. Like how easy the rebels will find taking Gaddafi strongholds. Or like what Gaddafi will do with his chemical weapons in the face of announced intentions to try him for war crimes (and presumably hang him).

Hopefully he will accept a comfortable retirement in a third country. I'd be more worried about his top lieutenants that haven't defected yet, because they will have nothing to loose.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

Well, I guess we'll see. But I suspect there are still a great many unknowns in this equation and possible unpleasant surprises. Like how easy the rebels will find taking Gaddafi strongholds. Or like what Gaddafi will do with his chemical weapons in the face of announced intentions to try him for war crimes (and presumably hang him).

I'm more worried about the rebels, than about finishing off Gadaffi.

With Gadaffi gone, the rebels still have to establish a stable government in control of the country. They haven't even managed to unify their military command while fighting Gadaffi.

It's quite possible the government will have either no control of large parts of the country, or for different rebel factions to fight each other over control of the government.

I wouldn't be surprised if the endresult is a new dictator with a token-parliament.

 

[geni]

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?

Money carries fingerprints (we can assume they wouldn't be stupid enough to pay by credit card). Then there is the CCTV in the theater lobby.

But that was before we tried to kill him, and before we killed his son.

Look I know you think thing Regan was a communist but credit where it's due he did try and kill Gaddafi back in 1986.

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.

Thats the strange thing. There have been claims and logicaly given the areas they operate in they should do but no one has really been able to find any.

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.

The rebels will be looking to form a new goverment with reasonable international relations (okey they are already trying that). Arming groups that most contries on the planet don't like wouldn't be consistent with that goal.

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.

Again you are into NATO fantisy territory. Neither Gadiffi "loyalists" or merceneries are known of their loyalty so thats just risking defection and the war being ended very quickly.

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.

You don't understand terrorism very well do you? It a PR game. Take the supposed Ricin plot. The goverment shouted about that from the rooftops. Not only does it make your police look competent but is extra support for the "terrorists are pure evil" possition which is kinda handy if you want make it harder for them to recruit people and attract funding.

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).

Source?

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.

Again there was the ricin case then there was the Red mercury case (is it a crime to try and aquire a substance that doesn't actualy exist?).

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

I'm not sure what your strawman is up to.

However the the Bush executive which it certianly appears thought saddam had chemical weapons was prepared to spend months threatening him during which he might have supplied those weapons to terrorists (if he had had them) and yet you don't appear to object to that.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm more worried about the rebels, than about finishing off Gadaffi.

With Gadaffi gone, the rebels still have to establish a stable government in control of the country. They haven't even managed to unify their military command while fighting Gadaffi.

It's quite possible the government will have either no control of large parts of the country, or for different rebel factions to fight each other over control of the government.

I concur, this may well become a major headache very soon.

However, between the certainty of Quackdaffi after the intervetion and the uncertainty of rebels, I'll choose the latter. They might turn out fine, Quackdaffi won't. At the very least they won't have a grudge against us and some might actually be thankful for saving their skins.

McHrozni

 

[BeAChooser]

I wouldn't be surprised if the endresult is a new dictator with a token-parliament.

and

... links to al-Qaeda

... and WMD.

 

[geni]

I'm more worried about the rebels, than about finishing off Gadaffi.

With Gadaffi gone, the rebels still have to establish a stable government in control of the country. They haven't even managed to unify their military command while fighting Gadaffi.

Not exactly. There is are now at least nominal millitry leaders in Benghazi and Misrata. Sure their C&C is still limited (the Benghazi ones don't appear to be able to issue orders more specific than "defend that oil refinery" and the Misrata one don't seem very sure what his troops have actualy captured) but it's progress.

Expecting a unified Benghazi/Misrata command is a little odd since there isn't any way for the two groups to have a line of communication.

 

[geni]

and

... links to al-Qaeda

... and WMD.

And they might decide to trade their oil in euros but there's no reason to think so.

 

[egslim]

Not exactly. There is are now at least nominal millitry leaders in Benghazi and Misrata.

At one point they had two 'supreme commanders' in Benghazi, neither of which wanted to serve under the other. Did they resolve that? Or did they send one of them to Misurata?

However, between the certainty of Quackdaffi after the intervetion and the uncertainty of rebels, I'll choose the latter. They might turn out fine, Quackdaffi won't. At the very least they won't have a grudge against us and some might actually be thankful for saving their skins.

Well, there's also the destruction from the intervention and subsequent civil war to take into account. Even more destruction if the rebels start fighting each other.

And I wouldn't count on their gratitude. On the contrary, people might very well start to complain about destruction caused by the airstrikes, or why it took so long for NATO te remove Gadaffi. People will definately complain when their lives don't improve as quickly as they hope after Gadaffi is gone.

 

[BeAChooser]

Money carries fingerprints (we can assume they wouldn't be stupid enough to pay by credit card).

LOL!

Then there is the CCTV in the theater lobby.

Is there? Oh that's right, you don't live in the US. You live in the UK, Land of the CCTV.

Quote:
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).

Source?

Here:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february142011/nukes-found-ta.php

The video shows the assistant port director in San Diego who is also an officer with Customs and Border Protection, telling a San Diego ABC News crew that authorities in the past had intercepted a nuclear weapon or other weapons of "mass effect" being smuggled into the US. The video clearly shows the public affairs officer in the background frantically trying to keep control of the interview and after failing simply stopping the interview.

We are not told everything, geni. Surely someone in the UK would know that by now.

 

[McHrozni]

And I wouldn't count on their gratitude. On the contrary, people might very well start to complain about destruction caused by the airstrikes, or why it took so long for NATO te remove Gadaffi. People will definately complain when their lives don't improve as quickly as they hope after Gadaffi is gone.

The majority will be ambivalent at best, hostile at worst. How many will not be hostile if Quackdaffi were to win now?

McHrozni

 

[geni]

Is there? Oh that's right, you don't live in the US. You live in the UK, Land of the CCTV.

You are objecting to companies videoing people on their premisis?

Here:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february142011/nukes-found-ta.php

The video shows the assistant port director in San Diego who is also an officer with Customs and Border Protection, telling a San Diego ABC News crew that authorities in the past had intercepted a nuclear weapon or other weapons of "mass effect" being smuggled into the US. The video clearly shows the public affairs officer in the background frantically trying to keep control of the interview and after failing simply stopping the interview.

If the knowlage is widespread enough for him to know realisticaly it would have been leaked in detail by now. So you are basing your entire position on one guy who doesn't sound that coherent and the the authorities being otherwise extremely competent.

People have been caught smuggling radioactives but that is public knowlage.

We are not told everything, geni. Surely someone in the UK would know that by now.

Sure but the lies have so far always gone the other way. Claims of ricin when there wasn't any. Claims of panned attacks on footbal grounds when the evidence amounted to one football ticket.

 

[geni]

At one point they had two 'supreme commanders' in Benghazi, neither of which wanted to serve under the other. Did they resolve that? Or did they send one of them to Misurata?

A clear line of command has at last been laid down, with Colonel Qaddafi’s former interior minister, Abdel Fatah Younis, as commander-in-chief and General Khalifa Haftar, who previously claimed the top spot on his return from many years in the United States, politely sidelined. A civilian, Jalal el-Digheily, has been appointed defence minister in the National Transitional Council (NTC), a fledgling government.

http://www.economist.com/node/18713650?story_id=18713650&fsrc=rss

 

[BeAChooser]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

What part of (from the War Powers Resolution) the following does Obama not understand?

"in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;"

There is no exception for involvement in "limited" hostilities.

Obama is clearly trying to circumvent/ignore the law.

Guess all the promises of hope and change were nothing but lies to get elected.

 

[Thunder]

Obama is clearly trying to circumvent/ignore the law.

have you considered a citizen's arrest of Barack Obama?

 

[McHrozni]

Guess all the promises of hope and change were nothing but lies to get elected.

That's not unusual for politicians, all of them make promises they have absolutely no intent to hold. Obama does stand out somewhat because he seems to be making a mockery out of his central premises, and because he also ran on not being just one more top politician, which is what he turned out to be.

I hope I will be proven wrong eventually, but that is very doubtful.

McHrozni

 

[geni]

Interesting video of the aftermath of the fighting towards the centre of Misurata



Those Misuratans are tough.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/excited-power-obama-ignores-legal-restraints

Excited by power, Obama ignores legal restraints

… snip …

Presidential arrogation of power is nothing new. President George W. Bush's lawyer John Yoo declared in a post-9/11 memo that no congressional "statute .... can place any limits on the president's determinations" about how to fight terrorism, proclaiming such decisions "are for the president alone to make."

But Barack Obama ran against this imperial mind-set. On war powers, he said, "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."

More broadly, he declared, "No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are. . . . . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers."

Now that he's president, Obama apparently believes the inverse: Stubborn rulers should not be subject to the whims of the law.

It's sooooo illuminating to watch all those who vocally attacked the *arrogance* of Bush excuse or remain silent about the *arrogance* of Obama.