Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
I'm talking about now. Are you saying we are actively killing Libyan civilians? and that it is US policy to do so?
Click to expand...

Well, I watched Obama's speech and he didn't mention why we did not start bombing China when they were killing innocent civilians .... :hmm:
 
Steinhauer said:
Well, I watched Obama's speech and he didn't mention why we did not start bombing China when they were killing innocent civilians .... :hmm:
Click to expand...

try to stay on topic. I am asking specifically about our current role in Libya. not China.

I ask again - Are you saying we are actively killing Libyan civilians? and that it is US policy to do so?
 
Steinhauer said:
Well, I watched Obama's speech and he didn't mention why we did not start bombing China when they were killing innocent civilians .... :hmm:
Click to expand...

Or a score more......

I think TIME called it the Goldilocks strategy
 
woah woah woah. There are no clear enemies or allies in war.

Anyway...we already gave them money...isn't that enough? :cry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is engaged in a fierce debate over whether to supply weapons to the rebels in Libya, senior officials said on Tuesday, with some fearful that providing arms would deepen American involvement in a civil war and that some fighters may have links to Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...
 
Diplomatic observers were shocked by the sweeping resolution passed by the Security Council, which allows “all necessary measures” to be used against Libya. The United Nations Charter strictly limits Chapter 7 military actions to threats to international peace and security, which Libya has never represented, but rules out interference in internal affairs of member states. The pretext cited in this case was the protection of defenseless civilians, but it is clear that the rebels constitute an armed military force in their own right. Since no state can be an aggressor on its own territory, the Security Council resolution stands in flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, and India abstained.


The resolution contains an arms embargo against Libya which the US is already violating by arming the rebels through Egypt.
Click to expand...


Obama

emphasis mine


edited to add wikipedia article on chapter 7 of UN charter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter
 
Jiro said:
I saw that today at gym. Secretary Clinton said that it's legal within UN Security Council Resolution. Enforcing UN resolution.. no problem... but I've got a big problem with funding and aiding Libyans with weapons and money.
Click to expand...

*producing "Hands Off Libya" signs*
 
We're trying to shuffle money from Q's coffers to the rebels.

This is costing us $$ already.

We'll have to pay humanitarian aid, too.

ps f* international "law"
 
Obama said we'd try to fuel money to them a few days ago...as far as weapons goes...I knew this would happen. Britain is "considering" it as well. Oh gtfo. No one is considering anything. It's already been decided.

*finds a protest to join*
 
This is such shit. We're trying to protect citizens, not institute a regime change. :roll:

Yeah right.
 
TheOracle said:
Is it safe to say we are at war with Libya yet? :)
Click to expand...

good gracious - I hope not.

I'm praying this is all part of deception to force Gaddafi out of office.
 
TheOracle said:
This is such shit. We're trying to protect citizens, not institute a regime change. :roll:

Yeah right.
Click to expand...

I got it too


CIA is sponsoring the Moslem Brotherhood rebels and we all know what that means.
 
If this thing goes sour, I'm afraid I'll have to address Ron Paul as "Mr. President" soon. :(
 
More and more we all confront difficult questions about how to protect civilians against their own government or to stop a civil war who's violence can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds as it was in the Balkans.
Click to expand...


Excerpt from Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.


White House aide Samantha Power, a former news reporter turned anti-genocide advocate, said President Obama’s two-year campaign to promote human rights helped trigger the uprising in Libya against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.

In a speech Monday at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president’s efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.

...

On the military operation to impose a no-fly zone, however, Ms. Power, said that “force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.”
Click to expand...

Arab spring: an interactive timeline of Middle East protests | World news | guardian.co.uk



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/16/muammar-gaddafi-condemns-tunisia-uprising


funny how wikileaks released info discrediting Hillary from ever running for President (Obama's only "real" competition for 2012).
 
Isn't it interesting that we don't have to be attacked or even defend a nation from an aggressor to enter a war?

We can just define the action as "humanitarian" :roll:
 
Steinhauer said:
It seems you are still confused. Allow me to refresh your memory. You were claiming that Ghadaffi was intentionally targetting innocent civilians. I asked you how that makes us any better when we have soldiers "intentionally targetting civilians" too?

I asked, what if Ghaddafi considers the killing of innocent civilians by his troops to be collateral damage. Where is the difference?
Click to expand...
The difference is that Ghaddafi, as the nation's leader, orders his troops to kill civilians as part of an official policy.

When American troops go rogue and commit atrocities (as described in that article) they do it as part of their own sick behavior, not part of an official military policy.

Collateral casualties mean people who were not the primary targets are injured or killed as a result of being in proximity to the primary targets. It doesn't make their casualties any less tragic but it does make a difference as to circumstances.
 
Steinhauer said:
Well, I watched Obama's speech and he didn't mention why we did not start bombing China when they were killing innocent civilians .... :hmm:
Click to expand...
Should we have attacked China? Would that make things better now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top