Let's move the discussions of Libya here so we don't clutter up the other, important threads on boobs and beer pong.
So, what's the latest 4-1-1? Last time I checked the United Nations were all talk and no walk, and Libya was threatening to re-take the rebel stronghold house by house. Japan sure has ripped this off the front page.
So yeah, 110 cruise missiles fired at 20± targets. What I don't understand, though, are the details of the Rebels. There have been pics of a rebel fighter jet being shot out of the sky, and I have to wonder, how do Rebels have jets? When I think of Rebels, I think of guys with AK's under their bed that do covert shit like IED's and more or less "annoying" things, if you know what I mean. How do they manage to acquire and maintain an air force? It was so much easier to understand when they all just dressed up in red tunics and lined up in rows to be shot at. (pic spoilered for size)
Basically time ran our for Gaddafi. The US has moved 3 subs and a few carriers into the region to launch airstrikes and cruise missiles, which they have begun. The French have also been striking fuel depots for the past hour or so. The UK, Canada, and Italy are also providing air support. One thing I find peculiar is that there are a few Arab nations also in the coalition that are assisting which they are not naming. I guess it would make sense for their security.
There was a UN resolution approving a no-fly zone and the French air force has begun to enforce it as of this afternoon. Let the rest of this thread be filled with bad jokes about the French air force being an oxymoron. By the same standard, the brigadistas of the Spanish Civil War were extremely well-funded and well-organized. Between international funds, seized assets of Ghaddafi's, and former soldiers/pilots joining the rebellion, it's not impossible to imagine them having at least a few major assets. That said, I can't imagine them being able to keep an air force flying for long. The fuel, maintenance, logistics and funding just doesn't seem to be there.
US is reporting that there are 25 coalition ships in the Med, including 3 Tomahawk laden subs. Libyan TV is now reporting that the "Zionist air force has destroyed a hospital full of cancer patients." And they're saying "hey, we already called cease fire!"
The deserters that are in the Libya military basically kept the toys that were assigned to them. The rebels have high-ranking military members (at least one general) so they probably have more than just their powerful and accurate throwing arms. Next president of Libya will be Charlie Sheen. Sleeping in a Bedouin tent with armed female bodyguards? Right up his alley.
So it's probably safer to say it was a Gadaffi jet that might have been borrowed by a defecting pilot. That makes more sense.
Watching the press conference now. Made me review this page for shits and giggles: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com</a>
So, being without cable, I've been following along on BBC: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418</a> Anyone else have good web links for following the events?
I just tuned into Al Jazeera English. They were great during the Egypt revolt. *edit original link removed because it was crashing my browser and I don't want it to do that to anyone else Go here: http://english.aljazeera.net/ and click watch live.
wow thanks for the info guys this board is wicked Aussie news is less then scetchy on this subject atm.
I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution requires Congressional approval for war, and I'm also pretty sure that one sovereign state launching attacks against the military assets of another sovereign is the text book definition of war. Am I missing something about the legality of this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but... From what I understand, the president can commit troops and perform military operations without a formal declaration of war. This is what George W. Bush did. If I am correct, there was no actual war declared, except for a "war on terror" which was basically the rhetoric used to explain what he was doing. I can't remember the exact year but Bill Clinton also threw a few missiles at Iraq during his tenure without a formal declaration of war either.
I don't think you're using the word "sovereign" correctly (that said, you're a lawyer and I'm not, so). A mass of land contained by borders isn't "sovereign", per se. Governments hold overeignty over a territory. Sovereignty is forfeited under various conditions. When a government engages in genocide, for example, military intervention is no longer one sovereign entity invading another. For that matter, when a government is engaged in the widespread killing of its own people, or its people are in widespread revolt, it can no longer be considered sovereign.
Congress hasn't officially declared war since WWII. The Korean War, Vietnam War, and Gulf War I were not official declarations, just granted congressionally military actions, as was the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Ones that were not addressed by Congress include this action against Libya, 1999 in Kosovo, and 1995 in Bosnia. Those count as NATO actions.
The United States will not win here, and Obama will ultimately lose face and composure because of this. There is no way this will not result in troops on the ground. Every UN "Action" from the formation of the UN til now has been an "American" action, with UN blessing. Not to mention that if ANYTHING was to be done, it should have been done weeks ago. Not after Ghadafi has basically won. We are stepping in to save the Libyans from Ghadafi, but we are turning a blind eye to the exploits of Saudi Arabia and other "Allies" cracking down on protesters and rebels. This hypocrisy will come back to bite Obama in the ass. You are not wrong. The US Constitution requires congressional approval for actions not directly related to the safety of the united states. But do not confuse what the constitution requires with what the government actually does.
If you go by effect, a resolution authorizing the use of force (like we had with Iraq) is a declaration of war. Rhetorically? No, but I think the spirit of the Constitution is that you need Congress's approval, not that they have to say the magic words.