No Fly zones over Libya?

Virus said:
Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic were charged with genocide.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between the Bosnian war and the Kosovo War. Radovan Karadzic was accused of genocide in the Bosnian conflict. Here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/karadzic-charged-with-genocide/story-e6frg6to-1111117076286 and http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/radovan_karadzic/index.html . Not the Kosovo War. Same goes for Ratko Mladic. He was charge in connection with the war in Bosnia, not the Kosovo War.

Learn some history before embarassing yourself further.
 
You're right. Serb leadership weren't charged with genocide in Kosovo. They were charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. You win.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304186404576387751720857280.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

The Obama administration laid out Wednesday its most-detailed justification yet for the U.S. air strikes in Libya, in response to the growing disquiet in Congress and among the public after 10 years of war in the Middle East.

In a report sent to all members of Congress, the White House underscored the limited nature of U.S. involvement in Libya, which it said has cost $716 million so far and will total $1.1 billion through September.

The report made clear the administration's view that the Libyan conflict is too limited to require authorization by Congress under the War Powers Act.
Click to expand...

Someone can't read the law. It CLEARLY states that

"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;"
Click to expand...

There is no exception for involvement in "limited" hostilities.
 
'The Libyan Crisis From The Libyan Perspective

Libyan Crisis: Events, Causes and Facts.'

Videos -WARNING: Graphic violence (corpse desecration) in second video ("Part 2").


"Libya is unlike Tunisia or Egypt where peaceful demonstrations caused Ben Ali and Mubarak to step down. Calls for demonstrations in Libya on 02/17/2011 on Facebook, but also calls for stability, including by the families of those killed on the same day in 2006 during a protest against Islamophobic cartoons in the European press.

Detailed description of demonstrations, counter demonstrations, violence and extremist militants [including al Qaeda - JJ] becoming involved from 02/15/2011 onwards."
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.”
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like someone was not listening to the only people really qualified to say what "hostilities" are. :)

On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.
 
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/...erious-problems-with-obamas-handling-of-libya

Sen. Jim Webb (Va.), a leading Democratic authority on national security policy, on Sunday said he has “serious problems” with President Obama’s decision to support NATO operations in Libya.

... snip ...

Webb, former Secretary of the Navy and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the action set a worrisome precedent.

“The reason that he used for going in defy historical precedent. We weren't under attack. We weren't under an imminent attack. We weren't honoring treaty commitments. We weren't rescuing Americans,” he said of Obama in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Click to expand...
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/5/obamas-hostility-to-the-truth/

EDITORIAL: Obama’s hostility to the truth

White House needs to own up to its war in Libya

… snip …

Common sense should be enough to define hostilities, but lacking that, there is official proof. On June 3, The Washington Times broke the story that on April 26 the Defense Department had designated troops operating in Libya, Tunisia and a portion of the Mediterranean Sea as eligible for “imminent danger pay” of $225 a month, retroactive to March 19, which was the onset of U.S. Operation Odyssey Dawn. According to the Pentagon, such a designation applies to “foreign areas where U.S. military personnel are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.”

Last week, United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) reported that since March 31, the advent of NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, U.S. forces have flown 3,475 sorties, of which 801 were strike sorties and 132 dropped ordnance. The White House has admitted that U.S. strike forces are involved in “suppression and destruction of [Libyan] air defenses” but said such attacks still fall outside the definition of hostilities. Yet according to U.S. Air Force Doctrine Document AFDD 3-01, “Counterair Operations,” suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) is an offensive mission “designed to neutralize, destroy or degrade enemy surface-based air defenses by destructive or disruptive means.” If a foreign power or terrorist group did this to the United States, it would trigger a full-scale war.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/10/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110710

France tells Libya rebels to seek peace with Gaddafi
Click to expand...

Things must be going well. :rolleyes:

Also, this ominous warning ..

Gaddafi sounded a new note of defiance on Friday. In an audio recording broadcast on state television, he threatened to export the war to Europe in revenge for the NATO-led military campaign against him.

"Hundreds of Libyans will martyr in Europe. I told you it is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth," he said. "You will regret it, NATO, when the war moves to Europe."
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why France wants this to end?
 
Senator Webb is once again correct, but he seems to have run into the problem of being listened to. (Well, not listened to). Having already announced that he's not going to seek another term, his party associates are under no illusions about any benefit of agreeing with him, and the disloyalty stigma that might stain them with.

MSNBC news today pointed out that Libya is now in its fifth month of war.

Wonder how they are enjoying their new hobby?
 
Last edited:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45114

Victory In Libya May Be Near

Unfortunately, NATO won’t be the winner.

07/26/2011

… snip …

Our exquisitely deficit-conscious President has blown about $750 million on this fiasco, which is far beyond his original budget projections. We also pay a good 75% of the defense budget for NATO. On the bright side, if the quagmire is going to end soon, Harry Reid can add a few billion more dollars in “savings” to his phony budget proposal. If we can just declare a few more expensive wars to jack up the 10-year projections, then end them abruptly, we can save trillions!
Click to expand...

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom