|
Excellent OP. Is that equestrian statue Alexander? (I assume in Alexandria?)
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
The UN SC usually stays out of internal disputes like this. UNless it starts to threaten regional security or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:The UN is limited due to the fact that countries like China and Russia have veto powers over any actions. That's right, Russia and China, absolute dictatorial autocracies can veto any proposal for the United Nations to intervene in a countries disputes. Well even if they weren't themselves bad governments, it is against the UN Charter to interfere in the way people seem to be talking about. Cite: Article 2 paragraph 7 of the UN Charter
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:The overwhelming majority of American veto abuse that is of any concern is/was the constant defense of Israel and South Africa. Uh unilaterally supporting two Apartheid states is actually really really bad. I am only saying this because the tone of your post seems to dismiss this as not a big deal. I may be reading you wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
Turkey is in the Middle East. Stop being ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
Sounds like it is more of a payback for campaign donations or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Furious Mittens posted:I wasn't hating on the U.N., just stating my opinion that they wouldn't act because of the current makeup of the security council. Also while it is true the UN SC can in theory do pretty much anything it wants the UN Charter does contain specific language which says the the UN should not intervene in affairs in the domestic jurisdiction of a member state. This idea also has high customary law precedence as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Monkeytime posted:Such a move would be seen by most of the developing world as a neo-imperialist venture It would be a "neo imperialist" adventure. I am not sure though why you say "neo" as if imperialism went away for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Sivias posted:The systematic slaughter of any human is a horrible thing. I don't understand why there is any leeway on the subject? Is there a "Well, they haven't killed 600 people yet, so we're not gonna do anything quite yet." ? It is never ok. But the issue is when does the UN SC authorize intervention which is decidedly more complex.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Sivias posted:I'm not saying the UN should intervene with boots on the ground, per say. I'm just trying to understand the definition. International law is actually pretty complex but most of the sources are online.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Thanks I'll have to check that out (and share it). Only one country has Nimitz size carriers. Unless Britain got some since I last read anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Also putting an air craft carrier next to Tripoli would be highly aggressive and a violation of sovereignty. So UNSC cover would be needed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Sivias posted:To your first question - frankly, yes. The US's invasion of Iraq should not have been legal. And from what I remember, it wasn't? Didn't Bush go invade Iraq without the UN consent? Just because the United States has such political and economic and world power shouldn't make us immune to the international Law. The UN SC authorized Bush's invasion. I think it was UNSC R 1441.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:I agree 100% I was mostly just *wishing* we could do something like that. Basically saying "you start mowing down civilians the gloves are coming off quickly". You could understand why the US would be hesitant to support such a precedent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't think it did. Ok, "arguably". It was endorsed by the UN after the fact anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
You would not need a carrier group I'd think. Libya is easily reachable from European and Asian air bases I wager.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
I dont think it is inaccurate to call an Osprey a helicopter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
Sometimes people have to go outside to get food and stuff. Or go to the hospital or go to work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
I just looked it up and one Osprey has crashed in 11 years and that one was pilot error. It has been in active duty since 2007.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:NYTimes has this on the rescue Oh god that is horrible. Are those Americans going to get in trouble/prosecuted?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
IRQ posted:For not knowing the people coming at him in the middle of the night after his jet crashed were friendly or not? Dropping bombs indiscrimitly is problematic and possibly criminal. Who knows who those people were.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
That's the point! He didn't know. It was entirely reckless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
I would hope the US military is in the habit of identifying targets before trying to kill them. I guess from what you are telling me that is not the case. My questions was whether they were going to get in trouble anyway: I suppose the answer is No?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
By the way, is Obama using the 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution? Or has Congress given him an ok here (doubtful.) (I know: authorized use of force? Hahaha how quaint! A vestigial limb of the Republic period.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:The news of Gad forces being destroyed inside Misratah is great. It might suggest that there are special forces inside the city lasering targets. It would explain why coalition forces left this type of action so late- special forces might have been infiltrating the city covertly. If not, this will prove whether or not coalition forces can pinpoint enemy vehicles inside the towns, which would be a huge boost for rebel morale and operations/organisation. Yes. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp Invasions of airspace trigger the Resolution. Thanks for the link JIR499! That answers my question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
Well he clearly didn't violate the Constitution. Unless you think the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:The 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution applies only to circumstances where the country is under attack or has been seriously threatened. That doesn't apply here. I don't know where you got that interpretation of the War Powers Resolution from, but it is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Citing from the link you just provided with the text of the War Powers Resolution: Yeah I know but that's why there is the War Powers Resolution because it is a compromise between Congress and the executive. The executive has 60 days to do things and the he must have Congressional approval. (that is a summary at least)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Committing forces in hostile situations is clearly within the Executive's power. Congress said it was ok.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
You guys are reading way too much into Section two. The meat is in sections 4 5 and 6. The 60 day window action does not have to fit the stuff recited in section 2. I mean it is nice if it does of course. euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Maybe you'd like to quote the section where it says "The President is released from his previous obligations in using the military and can use them for whatever the gently caress he wants". Section 8 just says that the resolution does not grant the president any new powers, which makes sense since the whole point of the resolution was to limit presidential power. It is basically a guide for judges to not construe the resolution in a certain way if the president for example finds a loophole or makes some claim that the Resolution grants him novel powers. The current use of force is within the traditional scope of use of force by the commander in chief and it is up to Congress to ratify or stop it should it go beyond sixty days. euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
Attacking Libya is like walking the dog for an American President. I can't conceive of a more mundane and uncontroversial use of force. Maybe overthrowing Haiti's government?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Hardly uncontroversial. There are those ignorant of what it entails and the reality of the situation in Libya. We even had a poster come in here, where there is all this information to be informed, and say that it's Obama starting another war in the Middle-East (Yes he actually thought Libya is in the Middle-East.) There are also those who just don't like Obama regardless of what he does and use this as hate rhetoric. I suppose they are all short-comings of ignorant people though, not the operation. It was sarcasm  Anyway my personal opinion is that the executive has WAY too much power and Congress too little w/r/t use of force. I also think Congress and especially the Senate should be reformed to be more directly democratic. Oh well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
The other democratic method to check Obama is to vote him out of office.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Obama is going to raise a billion dollars by next year, he's going remain our Communist/Atheist/Islam President. Yes I know I was speaking more theoretically. As in there are, unlike the Roman Empire, actual checks on the president. Well there were checks on the Roman emperor too. So that is a bad example.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
The UNSC resolution does not go as far as retime change so maybe Obama felt hamstrung by that.Suntory BOSS posted:Dear Mr. President, Why? Its not like it changes anything.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
George Washington quotes. Super. The USA and the world are a little different since then. By the way the only reason Washington wasn't hung as a traitor was because of the French. Heh! A historical example of a Power intervening in a civil war.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:You're right. In fact, why even bother telling the American people at all? Thats not what I said. He told us and Congress and that is enough.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
In terms of military tech, international institutions, status and power of America, and concept of international and humanitarian law the world is completely different. So you quote was dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:The President was absolutely right to authorize military intervention in Libya, but he needs to get better at communicating his accomplishments and decisions to the voting public. He has given two prime time TV announcements. What more do you want. I think it is two right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 01:43
|
|