So they say they are not targeting Quaddafi - Now how dumb is this. In a cancer operation you do not leave the heart of the tumor. Jesus we need out of the war business.
Printable View
So they say they are not targeting Quaddafi - Now how dumb is this. In a cancer operation you do not leave the heart of the tumor. Jesus we need out of the war business.
A fair and reasonable point, but I can completely see — as deep down, I reckon you may be able to as well — why those involved are attempting to avoid forcing a 'regime change' themselves. Far better for the same thing to happen as occurred in Serbia in 1999, where it was the people's doing and not directly NATO's, than what took place in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
not me, but may be others........i would be saying that he recognizes the constitutional requirements necessary before he starts blowing the snot out of peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Some think that because I do not support gun banning and all that, that i be a right winger; however that is the one and perhaps the only area which I might qualify. I voted for McCain becuse of his position on adopting certain economic policies that the mega rich hated in terms of what they would no longer be able to do on Wall Street, and mcCain had been pushing that long before he became a presdential candidate, so the fact that the Wall Street fat cats did not like him, but liked obama was all I needed to know.
Voting for Obama makes one look liberal, when in fact, that is mostly smoke screen for the benefit of the public, while privately, he has always taken care of the fat cats, even while in congress. As someone in Watergate once said, "follow the money" .....
So like i posted earlier, where is the money.......must be something for someone, maybe the french need some oil?????????????????
Very dumb. Always figured one way to stop all wars would have it be that the first to die would be all the leaders involved........one reason for the lack of a nuclear war, as it would be tough for the leaders to escapeQuote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Thanks for that one Roamy. That is Forum goldQuote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
:rotflmao:
Bound?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Why, give legal proof.
I beleive he mis-spoke. Even if we are "bound", those terms do not mandate that the member countries must go to war when the UN says so.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Technically, there are those that argue that due to certain language in the constitution, a treaty ratified under article II by the Senate is on equal footing with the constitution and federal law; however the why that may be true or NOT true, is beyond the scope of this forum.
I would add, for those who just got to know, Reid v Covert, is about as close as we have come to an answer, although that did not involve an article II treaty: "this [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty......"
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
----------------------------------------
We are not invading all Muslim countries why?
Libya had the highest standard of living in the area, and women had the more rights than before Qaddafi took over, yet the United Nattering Nabobs ignore other Muslim stink-holes that butcher women to go after poor old Qaddafi.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...858#post898858Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
is a start.......Logic got nothing to do with the unconstitutional actions of sending cruise missiles ....
'Poor old Gaddafi'. My word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Rofl...... Poor old Gaddafi :D
The reason is a thing called "Metonymy", where something is said in place of something else. In this case one thing - England, stands in place of the whole - Great Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O5rCjTa6v4
Starting to look like Khadafy is going to get a favorable ruling from the U.N.
That guy is a freakin' magician
It time to put some British, French, Canadian, Italian, and all other special forces on the ground.
No American boots on the ground however!
Now that I've had a chance to deliberate, I don't think there is a chance in hell that a rulling by the UN will save "The Great Dictator" from this unholy quest. Sarkosy will keep fighting that b@stard untill the UN puts a contract out for anyone to shove a cap up his @$$
Solution to the problem in Libya:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
They want a new Muslim leader, I say, give them ours.
Solves 2 problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
And would raise the average IQ in both places
even the hard core leftist liberal democrats are whining about the unconstitutional actions of our beloved president :bigcry:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
:roll:
He could consult with the Arab league, He could consult with the UN, but he don't even call the people in his own party serving in Congress...... :roll:
United Nations Participation Act, December 20, 1945Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp
Done. QED.
This binds us to any UN rules why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Show me the part that says UN laws legally are worth more than the ink it took to print them.
United States Federal Law applies in the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Obviously you don't agree with the whole concept of the established rule of law then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
This has nothing to do with U.S. Federal law, zilch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
There is no Federal that makes any UN hype more than a piece of paper, written by wannabes.
The United Nations Participation Act was passed by the US Congress and signed off by Harry S. Truman on the 20th of December 1945. Laws which are passed by the Congress are the Law in the United States. The United Nations Participation Act is part of US Federal Law.
You are wrong, it is in no way connected to U.S. laws, it merely means we are supposed to send them x amount of money to belong to a feel good society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
United Nattering Nabob laws mean squat in any U.S. court.
One of these days we may get a congress with enough balls to quit. The U.S. populace would be very happy to quit flushing money down that toilet.
Rollo, my hat is off to you for trying really, really really hard, and sometimes you come close, real close, but darling clementine, once again "no cigar" as ole Groucho would say.
You missed the boat.
Perhaps you should actually carefully read what you find, very very closely.
Congress has passed a number of laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional.
Second, the so-called "act" does not say what you want it to say.
I will put more detail in the other thread.
Has the United Nations Participation Act been "struck down as unconstitutional"?Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
I love it. Now the UN and allied forces have approved the bombing of Libya. Why is it that only countries with oil are targeted these days? While I don't agree with what Gadafi is doing to his people, he is no worse that the likes of Robert Mugabe, but as they have no oil, they have been unmolested for many years now. Libya, just a few weeks and suddenly half the world is involved. Stinks.
A bad smell indeed, but apparently the reason for the inaction over Mugabe is that, unlike the Arab League in Libya's case, African states have not reached an agreement/consensus to take action against him and therefore the international community will not intervene.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
I not only agree, there are UN missions that don't get a lot of ink. It usually takes extraordinary events, and to your credit @555 stakes that are important to all members, which includes a contingency plan. Just for yucks and giggles I decided to Google a mediocre western state's military preparednessQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
and conflicts involved.
As to Mugabbe Why is this man still in power?
Yes this whole deal stinksQuote:
According to The Guardian, Annan allegedly made an extraordinary offer to Mugabe at the millennium summit of world leaders in New York.
The memo, written in September 2000, records a meeting between a US embassy official in Harare and a senior source in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the party opposed to Mugabe's Zanu-PF.
The cable reveals that Zanu-PF itself had put out "feelers" to see whether the MDC would be willing to allow Mugabe a "graceful exit" that was "in Zimbabwe's national interest".
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/414910.php
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...operations.png
United NationsQuote:
Since the second post-war the Italian armed force has become more and more engaged in international peace support operations, mainly under the auspices of the United Nations. The Italian armed forces are currently participating in 24 missions that take place in 18 countries over three continents[5]:
UNTSO, from 1958 (Israel, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon) – 8 out of 142 soldiers from 23 countries
UNMOGIP, from 1951 (India and Pakistan) – 7 out of 44 soldiers from 8 countries
UNIFIL, from 1978 (Lebanon) – 2,410 out of 12,800 soldiers from 30 countries
MINURSO, from 1991 (Western Sahara) – 5 out of 915 soldiers from 14 countries
UNFICYP, from 2005 (Cyprus) – 4 out of 915 soldiers from 14 countries
UNAMID, from 2008 (Sudan) – 1 officer out of 19,000 soldiers from 53 countries
KFOR, from 1999 (Kosovo) – 1,596 out of 12,990 soldiers from 32 countries
ISAF, from 2001 (Afghanistan) – 3,207 out of 63,500 soldiers from 40 countries
EUFOR, from 2004 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – 260 out of 2,150 soldiers from 25 countries
European Union
EUPM, from 2003 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – 13 out of 190 soldiers from 33 countries
EUPOL RD Congo, from 2007 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) – 4 out of 49 soldiers from 10 countries
EUBAM Rafah, from 2005 (Rafah Border Crossing) – 2 out of 22 soldiers from 9 countries
EUMM Georgia, from 2008 (Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia) – 21 out of 320 soldiers from 26 countries
Operation Atalanta, from 2008 (Gulf of Aden) – 202 soldiers
NATO
Military accession and integration liaison – Tirana, from 2002 (Albania) – 2 out of 11 officers from 4 countries
NATO HQ – Skopjie, from 2002 (Macedonia) – 1 out of 12 officers from 7 countries
NATO HQ – Sarajevo, from 2004 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – 20 out of 81 officers from 16 countries
NATO Training Mission – Iraq, from 2004 (Iraq) – 82 out of 169 soldiers from 15 countries
Operation Active Endeavour, from 2001 (Mediterranean and Strait of Gibraltar) – 220 soldiers
Operation Ocean Shield, from 2009 (Gulf of Aden) – 230 soldiers
Multinational force
MFO, from 1982 (Israel and Egypt) – 78 out of 1,700 soldiers from 11 countries
TIPH-2, from 1997 (West Bank) – 12 out of 37 soldiers from 6 countries
International cooperation and technical assistance
Italian Delegation of Experts, from 1997 (Albania) – 28 soldiers
Italian Military Mission of Technical Assistance, from 1988 (Malta) – 36 soldiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Armed_Forces
One of our F-15E Strike Eagle's went down. One pilot rescued by rebels and returned to US forces, and the second pilot is still missing!
This just in second pilot reported back in US hands. According to reports It was on a strike mission as opposed to Recon.
and went down because of mechanical failure
Here is the $40,000 question. How did we get these freakin' guys back so quickly without "boots on the ground"?
http://www.f15model.com/wp-content/u..._Iraq_1999.jpg
Because the special forces guys wear sneakers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
Not that it proves jack. But they are saying that they were picked up by an Osprey ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/v22/v22_header.jpg
I'm not saying that, and I'm not denying it either. All I'm saying is that to believe that we are going to have a no fly zone without some form of "Boots on the Ground" is a bit nieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
Perhaps because there are loads of rebel combatants in the area which are friendly to US forces. It's not like they went down over enemy territory.
And yes, of course there will be special forces all over Libya! The best and easiest way to accurately target your weapons is to have eyes on the ground guiding in the air strikes.
Clearly, they have been there since well before the current campaign started. From the UK's point of view, why else were Chinooks from a special forces flight deployed to Malta at the end of February?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
No, it was amended in 1949, so as to take out the language that Rollo mistakenly attempts to rely on, except that original language did not even support Rollo's position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Under Civil Rights law, the fact that a statute exists does not excuse behavior pursuant to the statute, if the statute or action is unconstitutional--even if the statute has not been "struck down"
The actions were taken without lawful authority, and no doubt, americans will end up paying for this with their lives. One pilot now lost and the other had to be saved by rebel forces
at least Tony Martin was defending his territory and property; Obama can not even say that.
They probably didn't realize the "no-fly zone" doesn't apply to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly