PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Obama: 'We're Succeeding in Our Mission' on Libya


petegz28
03-27-2011, 08:59 AM
Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address that international forces are succeeding in their mission in Libya. He also said Libya's air defenses have been "taken out" and forces loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi have been pushed back from cities where the people have risen up against him.

President Obama will address the nation Monday night on the crisis in Libya in an effort to clear up questions regarding the U.S.'s handling of the crisis.

Lawmakers have criticized the president for not consulting with them sufficiently before launching military attacks against Qaddafi's forces and several of them have raised concerns over the cost of funding military efforts. Congressional leaders also say Obama has failed to lay out clear goals for the mission.

The speech announcement came as Pentagon officials said they were considering additional firepower and airborne surveillance systems to attack and find enemy troops in Libya, who are still considered threats to civilians.

Obama will speak at 7:30 p.m. ET at the National Defense University in Washington, the White House said Friday.

While the U.S. is eager to take a backseat role in the international military campaign in Libya, it is considering stepping up its assistance to rebel forces through humanitarian, political, economic and even military aid, a U.S. official said Friday.

"Nothing is off the table right now," Gene Cretz, a U.S. ambassador to Libya, said at a news conference.

But Cretz wouldn't provide details.

"I'm not going into any internal discussions we are having about whether we will provide arms or whether we won't provide arms," he said. "I can just say that the full gamut of potential assistance we might offer both on the non-lethal and the lethal side is a subject of discussion within the U.S. government, but there has been no final decision made on any aspect of that."

Cretz's comments came a day after NATO agreed to take control of the almost week-old no-fly-zone. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday that transfer of command and control of the no-fly zone over Libya to NATO will be complete in a couple of days, and by early next week the rest of the U.N.-authorizied mission.

But NATO's decision doesn't allow America to swiftly move into the supporting role the Obama administration prefers.

American sea and airpower remain key parts of the effort to keep Qaddafi forces from attacking civilians after allies balked at assuming complete command of the campaign that began six days ago. The U.S., France and Great Britain maintain primary responsibility for attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces and air defense systems, which are the toughest and most controversial parts of the operation.

Carney said that agreement had been reached on a political level for NATO to assume control of the entire mission but that the military plans associated with that were being worked out.

Obama updated congressional leaders on the situation in a conference call Friday.

The president told lawmakers on Friday that American involvement in Libya will be ratcheted down and emphasized that it is not an American-led effort, a senior Republican aide told Fox News. The president also said there is not a clear endgame on how to remove Qaddafi from power.

Republicans were still dissatisfied after Friday's meeting.

"The speaker appreciates the update today, but still believes much more needs to be done by the administration to provide clarity, particularly to the American people, on the military objective in Libya, America's role and how it is consistent with U.S. policy goals," a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said.

U.S. officials have struggled to answer difficult questions about the rules of engagement in Libya.

Asked about reports that rebel forces were detaining suspected Qaddafi loyalists, Cretz said, "I don't have any information about that."

Earlier in the week, White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon said the coalition forces are treating the rebels as civilians, even though they're in an armed struggle against the Qaddafi regime.

"They're not military forces under the direction and control of Qaddafi," he said.

Cretz said Friday the U.S. is "gradually stepping up its contacts on a daily basis" with the rebel forces that have formed the opposition government.

While the U.S. still hasn't formally recognized the legitimacy of the opposition, Cretz said an envoy will soon deploy to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

Obama, already prosecuting wars he inherited in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been eager to limit U.S. involvement in Libya and quickly hand off control, but disagreements among NATO countries have complicated that.

Obama had said the U.S. lead role in subduing Qaddafi's forces would be a matter of days, not weeks, and then the handoff of control would occur. Carney said Friday the president was delivering on that.

"He said what he would do, and he's doing what he said," said Carney.

"What we will not be is in the lead either in the no-fly zone or the civilian protection."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/25/key-libya-despite-nato-deal/

petegz28
03-27-2011, 09:01 AM
The president also said there is not a clear endgame on how to remove Qaddafi from power.


So I thought we weren't trying to take him out??? We are just aiding those who are but WE are not trying to take him out. LMAO


Asked about reports that rebel forces were detaining suspected Qaddafi loyalists, Cretz said, "I don't have any information about that."

More BS but not surprising if true. This Administration is full of people who have no clue.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 09:05 AM
Obama had said the U.S. lead role in subduing Qaddafi's forces would be a matter of days, not weeks, and then the handoff of control would occur. Carney said Friday the president was delivering on that.

vs.

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi's forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110327/D9M7JGB00.html

WV
03-27-2011, 09:07 AM
Not to take up for BO at all, but I don't think he was speaking specifically to the US removing Qaddafi but a general overall plan for his removal.

I still believe we should have told them all to stick up their asses and stayed out of Libya. The US needs to become a little more self interested.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 09:07 AM
I guess it is easy to claim you are succeeding on your mission when the mission has no clear goals.

It would be nice if the President would have waited until after tomorrow night to make such a claim so the people would actually, hopefully know what the mission is before he goes around spouting off success claims.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 09:08 AM
Not to take up for BO at all, but I don't think he was speaking specifically to the US removing Qaddafi but a general overall plan for his removal.

I still believe we should have told them all to stick up their asses and stayed out of Libya. The US needs to become a little more self interested.

That may be but we are a part of "we" in this case, meaing NATO.

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 09:09 AM
I guess it is easy to claim you are succeeding on your mission when the mission has no clear goals.



Thread summary. Done.

WV
03-27-2011, 09:12 AM
That may be but we are a part of "we" in this case, meaing NATO.

True and I don't see how the plan isn't clear. Taking out Qaddafi shouldn't be that big a deal. That's my biggest problem once we do get involved in crap like this. If you aren't going to go in and get it done quickly and correctly then don't get involved. We can deliver a missile down a chimney yet we can't take out Qaddafi?? Give me a break.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 09:13 AM
True and I don't see how the plan isn't clear. Taking out Qaddafi shouldn't be that big a deal. That's my biggest problem once we do get involved in crap like this. If you aren't going to go in and get it done quickly and correctly then don't get involved. We can deliver a missile down a chimney yet we can't take out Qaddafi?? Give me a break.

Reagan damn near did it with 2 A-10's. I agree with you, if this is the goal, do it and get it over with.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 11:00 AM
I guess it is easy to claim you are succeeding on your mission when the mission has no clear goals.

The mission, from day one, has two clear goals.

1. Protect Benghazi from massacre (check).

2. Impose a no-fly rule (check).

At this point, it's just a matter of who's involved. NATO is reportedly taking control of the intervention.

go bowe
03-27-2011, 11:53 AM
More BS but not surprising if true.
geebus pete, you are right on with this one...

this has been in al jazeera for days now...

does this guy keep up with the news?

why does al jareeza know this but this tard doesn't?

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 11:55 AM
Obama on Libya: “It’s in Our National Interest to Act” — Defense Secretary Gates: “No, It’s Not a Vital Interest for the United States”


Nice, huh? Clusterf***

The O http://www.france24.com/en/20110326-obama-staunch-defense-us-libya-policy?quicktabs_1=1

Gates: http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/robert-gates-libya-is-not-in-americas.html

go bowe
03-27-2011, 11:57 AM
The mission, from day one, has two clear goals.

1. Protect Benghazi from massacre (check).

2. Impose a no-fly rule (check).

At this point, it's just a matter of who's involved. NATO is reportedly taking control of the intervention.
1 has morphed into protecting civilians in all population centers under attack by ghaddafi's forces...

which is just fine with me...

Count Zarth
03-27-2011, 11:57 AM
Is it just me or does Obama seem like he regrets what he did and now he's trying to reverse course while saving face?

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 12:02 PM
1 has morphed into protecting civilians in all population centers under attack by ghaddafi's forces...

which is just fine with me...

I think that objective may have changed... it's hard to say. The military obviously isn't going to report that officially.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 12:03 PM
Is it just me or does Obama seem like he regrets what he did and now he's trying to reverse course while saving face?

I don't know why. We've achieved our two objectives pretty easily. We're getting NATO and UN support to maintain the job.

Most sources seem to confirm rebellion advances towards Tripoli.

At this point, the move by the UN, partially led by the United States, seems to be having the desired effect...

go bowe
03-27-2011, 12:17 PM
Obama on Libya: “It’s in Our National Interest to Act” — Defense Secretary Gates: “No, It’s Not a Vital Interest for the United States”


Nice, huh? Clusterf***

The O http://www.france24.com/en/20110326-obama-staunch-defense-us-libya-policy?quicktabs_1=1

Gates: http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/robert-gates-libya-is-not-in-americas.htmlpfffft... there's a difference between being in our national interest and a vital interest... /lefties

pfffft... gates is a republican... /lefties

pfffft... obama is and idiot... /pete

well, there's some truth in each of these cases i guess... :D :D :D

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 12:21 PM
pfffft... there's a difference between being in our national interest and a vital interest... /lefties

pfffft... gates is a republican... /lefties

pfffft... obama is and idiot... /pete

well, there's some truth in each of these cases i guess... :D :D :D


just words.......

go bowe
03-27-2011, 12:21 PM
I think that objective may have changed... it's hard to say. The military obviously isn't going to report that officially.attacks on armor and artillery have been going on in several cities for awhile now...

and we keep denying any civilian casualties and godaffy keeps bringing in bodies from the morgue and claiming they were people killed by bombs...

al jazeera has been reporting this stuff regularly...

and i'm still all for it...

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 12:22 PM
We need a parade when Johnny Comes Marching Home.

go bowe
03-27-2011, 12:23 PM
just words.......yep, but sometimes i think obama and his advisors have their collective heads up their asses...

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 12:25 PM
yep, but sometimes i think obama and his advisors have their collective heads up their asses...


Can we have a float with that? Hold that idea. We can sell ads on the float.

go bowe
03-27-2011, 12:27 PM
I don't know why. We've achieved our two objectives pretty easily. We're getting NATO and UN support to maintain the job.

Most sources seem to confirm rebellion advances towards Tripoli.

At this point, the move by the UN, partially led by the United States, seems to be having the desired effect...it really does look like it's working...

although there may be a bit of a rush to degrade kafairy's heavy weapons before they have to stop "protecting civilians"...

(i have totally given up on spelling kafuckwad's name, fuck him)

go bowe
03-27-2011, 12:30 PM
We need a parade when Johnny Comes Marching Home.there should be a parade every time our troops get home...

these young people are amazing, a dedicated all-volunteer force...

my hat's off to 'em...

go bowe
03-27-2011, 12:32 PM
Can we have a float with that? Hold that idea. We can sell ads on the float.
ROFL ROFL ROFL


hell, pete can put it in his signature if he wants... :evil: :evil: :evil:

Iowanian
03-27-2011, 12:42 PM
I think the biggest reason "we" can't decide how to play it is that both sides of this fight are lunatic assholes who are no friends of Americans.

I think the extremists that are the rebels in Libya are probably as bad an option to be in power as Capt Spellshisname4waysafi.


We should stay the hell out of all of these shitholes and let them fight to the death unless it is understood that our involvement is for the direct benefit of Americans. "We'll help you, but we're here for a percentage of your oil in return".

KC Dan
03-27-2011, 02:38 PM
I don't know why. We've achieved our two objectives pretty easily. We're getting NATO and UN support to maintain the job.

Most sources seem to confirm rebellion advances towards Tripoli.

At this point, the move by the UN, partially led by the United States, seems to be having the desired effect...Two problems with this:

1) The commander of NATO forces in Europe is U.S. Admiral James Stavridis

- US still leading the effort not an international contingent

2) The overwhelming military forces being brought to bear are U.S. forces.

3) The U.S. taxpayer is paying the lion's share of the cost at a tune of approx. $30 - $100 million a week according to :

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/23/us-effort-in-libya-costs-hundreds-of-millions-so-far/


No one can legitimately deny these facts. This has always been a U.S. led war to remove Donald Duck "Qaddafy" and nothing else regardless of the rhetoric.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 03:38 PM
Two problems with this:

1) The commander of NATO forces in Europe is U.S. Admiral James Stavridis

- US still leading the effort not an international contingent

2) The overwhelming military forces being brought to bear are U.S. forces.

3) The U.S. taxpayer is paying the lion's share of the cost at a tune of approx. $30 - $100 million a week according to :

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/23/us-effort-in-libya-costs-hundreds-of-millions-so-far/

No one can legitimately deny these facts. This has always been a U.S. led war to remove Donald Duck "Qaddafy" and nothing else regardless of the rhetoric.

I'm not denying that we're providing the bulk of the force... I don't think anybody here is denying that? Truth is, the United States is not going to sign off on any international military action that we aren't calling the shots for.

It's just important to note that we aren't sticking our necks out here. We have near unanimous global support, from four different continents, to be doing what we're doing.

I find it amusing you're lamenting the millions we're spending on Libya. I'm wondering what your opinion of the wisdom of the Iraq invasion was...

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 04:22 PM
I thought to commander for this effort was Canadian.

KC Dan
03-27-2011, 04:28 PM
I find it amusing you're lamenting the millions we're spending on Libya. I'm wondering what your opinion of the wisdom of the Iraq invasion was...Was against that too HOWEVER once we are in, we are in. I expect full throttle drive to end it quickly and decisively. That is how you minimize cost and loss of treasure. Standing in the background while you really are fighting a WAR saying that you are really just supporting others and not calling the shots is not what should be expected from a world power or THE U.S.A.

Over-Head
03-27-2011, 04:38 PM
well looks like were sending a few fly boys over to support our southern allies

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+fighter+jets+route+support+Libya+zone/4464300/story.html

Bwana
03-27-2011, 05:31 PM
What I want to know, is where are are the protesters? Hell, if old Bush were still around, you would have every swing'n dick hippy/tree hugger within 2000 miles walking around with their little peace signs. Where the **** did they go?

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_2003/RIP_Here_Lies_George_Bush.jpg

http://www.skeptictank.org/prot026.jpg

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 06:12 PM
The difference between the invasion of Iraq and a humanitarian intervention in Libya is so profound, I am astonished when someone tries to equate them.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 06:13 PM
Was against that too HOWEVER once we are in, we are in. I expect full throttle drive to end it quickly and decisively. That is how you minimize cost and loss of treasure. Standing in the background while you really are fighting a WAR saying that you are really just supporting others and not calling the shots is not what should be expected from a world power or THE U.S.A.

Ah. So you would prefer an invasion and occupation of Libya over what we're doing now?

Donger
03-27-2011, 06:19 PM
Do we even know that the rebels whom we are supporting are any better than Ghaddafi?

petegz28
03-27-2011, 06:20 PM
The difference between the invasion of Iraq and a humanitarian intervention in Libya is so profound, I am astonished when someone tries to equate them.

You are correct. Bush got approval from Congress and the UN. Obama didn't. Excellent point!

Donger
03-27-2011, 06:20 PM
The difference between the invasion of Iraq and a humanitarian intervention in Libya is so profound, I am astonished when someone tries to equate them.

Errr, why? Hussein killed plenty of his own people. With WMDs, no less.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 06:51 PM
You are correct. Bush got approval from Congress and the UN. Obama didn't. Excellent point!

Bush actually didn't get approval from the UN Security Council. Obama got unanimous approval.

Also, the President doesn't need Congressional approval for nonwars with no ground troops. The War Powers Act doesn't even apply.

So, again, apples and oranges.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 06:54 PM
Bush actually didn't get approval from the UN Security Council. Obama got unanimous approval.

Also, the President doesn't need Congressional approval for nonwars with no ground troops. The War Powers Act doesn't even apply.

So, again, apples and oranges.

Uh yes, Bush did get approval from the UN, nice try at revisionist history there. Secondly, War Powers Act or not, Obama should have gone to Congress before getting us into a conflict that has 0 threat to the U.S.

And thirdly, there have been ground troops so that sort of kills your whole argument. We had to send troops in to rescue a downed pilot.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 06:55 PM
Errr, why? Hussein killed plenty of his own people. With WMDs, no less.

Because we are not engaging ourselves in an invasion-slash-toppling-slash-occupation on virtually unilateral grounds with over a hundred thousand US troops seeking weapons that don't exist.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 06:56 PM
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.[citation needed] The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

I don't think we were under attack or the threat of from Libya. What am I missing?

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 06:58 PM
Missiles, bombs, jets flying from Missouri to Libya, SAS and special ops on the ground, a force of military from multiple countries. This defines a nonwar?

Good Christ. WTF is a nonwar? Are casualties nondead? Obama got approval from the UN but not from his own country? Is this real?

Donger
03-27-2011, 06:59 PM
Because we are not engaging ourselves in an invasion-slash-toppling-slash-occupation on virtually unilateral grounds with over a hundred thousand US troops seeking weapons that don't exist.

No, that's true. But then again, Libya isn't Iraq. Why do care enough about Libyan rebels but not Iraqi rebels?

LiveSteam
03-27-2011, 06:59 PM
If you put your finger on your lips & move it up & down & blow at the same time till you get a ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba sound, that would have been Obama in front of congress trying to get an approval.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 07:02 PM
Missiles, bombs, jets flying from Missouri to Libya, SAS and special ops on the ground, a force of military from multiple countries. This defines a nonwar?

Good Christ. WTF is a nonwar? Are casualties nondead? Obama got approval from the UN but not from his own country? Is this real?

This is Kinetic Military Action. Don't you know anything???

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 07:04 PM
This is Kinetic Military Action. Don't you know anything???

nonwar.

just the existence of such a term makes me want to spit.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 07:06 PM
nonwar.

just the existence of such a term makes me want to spit.

What do you expect from a guy who leads an administration that refuses to call terrorists, "terorists", sues his own states for wanting to crack down on illegal immigration and gives his condolences to the Palestiniens when they set off a bomb on an Israeli bus?

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 07:06 PM
No, that's true. But then again, Libya isn't Iraq. Why do care enough about Libyan rebels but not Iraqi rebels?

You lost me...

petegz28
03-27-2011, 07:08 PM
You lost me...

In other words he is asking you to be consistent in your arguments. JFC, it isn't that hard. Why should we not have gone into Iraq to save the people from Sadaam but we should protect the same kind of people from Quacky in Libya? For that matter, WTF were we not in Darfur?

Donger
03-27-2011, 07:34 PM
You lost me...

Well, wasn't invading Iraq in 2003 also a "humanitarian" mission based on Hussein's genocidal past? If so, why did/do you support one versus the other?

orange
03-27-2011, 07:46 PM
What am I missing?

You want me to quote an encyclopedia?

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action

Done. Actually, it was even before the first missile was launched.

and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war

Over 40 days to go - won't be necessary because they're taking it before Congress this week.

Obama got approval from the UN but not from his own country? Is this real?

No. Though it's not being pointed out in so many words anywhere, Congress DID authorize this. They authorized it in 1945 when they passed the UN Participation Act. It's still the Law until changed.

In other words he is asking you to be consistent in your arguments. JFC, it isn't that hard. Why should we not have gone into Iraq to save the people from Sadaam but we should protect the same kind of people from Quacky in Libya? For that matter, WTF were we not in Darfur?

Strategic importance. Most people learn about age 3 that they can't have everything on the menu. I'm sorry you never achieved that cognitive development.

Well, wasn't invading Iraq in 2003 also a "humanitarian" mission based on Hussein's genocidal past? If so, why did/do you support one versus the other?

Imminence.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 07:48 PM
You want me to quote an encyclopedia?



Done. Actually, it was even before the first missile was launched.



Over 40 days to go - won't be necessary because they're taking it before Congress this week.



No. Though it's not being pointed out in so many words anywhere, Congress DID authorize this. They authorized it in 1945 when they passed the UN Participation Act. It's still the Law until changed.



Strategic importance. Most people learn about age 3 that they can't have everything on the menu. I'm sorry you never achieved that cognitive development.



Imminence.

How is Libya more important than Iraq???

Donger
03-27-2011, 07:52 PM
Imminence.

So you would have supported GHW Bush going after Saddam into Iraq during his attacks against the uprising after the Gulf War?

orange
03-27-2011, 07:52 PM
How is Libya more important than Iraq???

It's not. Nor is our commitment there ANYWHERE CLOSE to what we put into Iraq.

Donger
03-27-2011, 07:54 PM
It's not. Nor is our commitment there ANYWHERE CLOSE to what we put into Iraq.

Yet. And, like I tried to inform Direckshun, Iraq isn't Libya. Iraq still had a substantial military in 2003.

orange
03-27-2011, 07:54 PM
So you would have supported GHW Bush going after Saddam into Iraq during his attacks against the uprising after the Gulf War?

Not exactly. I wanted Bush I to roll on into Baghdad and take out Saddam as part of Desert Storm.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 07:55 PM
It's not. Nor is our commitment there ANYWHERE CLOSE to what we put into Iraq.

Uh, that isn't what I asked.

Donger
03-27-2011, 07:56 PM
Not exactly. I wanted Bush I to roll on into Baghdad and take out Saddam as part of Desert Storm.

That isn't what the UN supported. You would have violated the authority of the UN?

orange
03-27-2011, 08:08 PM
That isn't what the UN supported.

I believe that's bullshit, actually. It was offered up after the fact to rationalize their stopping.

The actual resolution:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678

USE ALL NECESSARY MEANS

It also didn't set any limits.

It's well known from published materials (both then and since) that they left Saddam in charge because they didn't want the Islamists in charge.

orange
03-27-2011, 08:14 PM
Uh, that isn't what I asked.

:hmmm:

How is Libya more important than Iraq???

It's not.
I don't know how I could answer any more directly.

Donger
03-27-2011, 08:14 PM
I believe that's bullshit, actually. It was offered up after the fact to rationalize their stopping.

The actual resolution:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678

USE ALL NECESSARY MEANS

It also didn't set any limits.

It's well known from published materials (both then and since) that they left Saddam in charge because they didn't want the Islamists in charge.

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure that UN 660 only required that Hussein get out of Kuwait and return to Iraq (previous positions).

You think that 660 authorized the USA to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein?

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 08:17 PM
660 said Saddam had to withdraw to a position he held before he invaded Kuwait I believe.

orange
03-27-2011, 08:31 PM
678 also authorized enforcement of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677 ("660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions")

670, for example:

Condemning the actions by the Iraqi authorities and occupying forces to take third State nationals hostage and to mistreat and oppress Kuwaiti and third State nationals, and the other actions reported to the Council such as the destruction of Kuwaiti demographic records, forced departure of Kuwaitis, and relocation of population in Kuwait and the unlawful destruction and seizure of public and private property in Kuwait including hospital supplies and equipment, in violation of the decisions of this Council, the Charter of the United Nations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations and international law,

Expressing grave alarm over the situation of nationals of third States in Kuwait and Iraq, including the personnel of the diplomatic and consular missions of such States,


Freeing those prisoners was all the pretext necessary to occupy Baghdad. There may have been more as well.

Donger
03-27-2011, 08:36 PM
678 also authorized enforcement of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677 ("660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions")

670, for example:

Condemning the actions by the Iraqi authorities and occupying forces to take third State nationals hostage and to mistreat and oppress Kuwaiti and third State nationals, and the other actions reported to the Council such as the destruction of Kuwaiti demographic records, forced departure of Kuwaitis, and relocation of population in Kuwait and the unlawful destruction and seizure of public and private property in Kuwait including hospital supplies and equipment, in violation of the decisions of this Council, the Charter of the United Nations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations and international law,

Expressing grave alarm over the situation of nationals of third States in Kuwait and Iraq, including the personnel of the diplomatic and consular missions of such States,


Freeing those prisoners is all the pretext necessary to occupy Baghdad.
There may have been more as well.

So you are stating that 660 authorized the coalition to pursue Hussein's forces beyond Kuwait?

orange
03-27-2011, 08:40 PM
678 also authorized enforcement of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677 ("660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions")

670, for example:

Condemning the actions by the Iraqi authorities and occupying forces to take third State nationals hostage and to mistreat and oppress Kuwaiti and third State nationals, and the other actions reported to the Council such as the destruction of Kuwaiti demographic records, forced departure of Kuwaitis, and relocation of population in Kuwait and the unlawful destruction and seizure of public and private property in Kuwait including hospital supplies and equipment, in violation of the decisions of this Council, the Charter of the United Nations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations and international law,

Expressing grave alarm over the situation of nationals of third States in Kuwait and Iraq, including the personnel of the diplomatic and consular missions of such States,


Freeing those prisoners was all the pretext necessary to occupy Baghdad. There may have been more as well.

And of course, we could have gone into Baghdad BEFORE Kuwait was liberated.

Feb 26, 1991 Kuwaiti resistence leaders declare they are in control of Kuwait City.
Feb 27, 1991 President Bush orders a cease fire effective at midnight Kuwaiti time.

http://www.desert-storm.com/War/chronology.html

orange
03-27-2011, 08:42 PM
So you are stating that 660 authorized the coalition to pursue Hussein's forces beyond Kuwait?

Yes, absolutely. We were ALL OVER Iraq.

https://bashapedia.pbworks.com/f/1223844199/800px-DesertStormMap_v2_svg.png

Donger
03-27-2011, 08:44 PM
Yes, absolutely.

Not according to the resolution:

Resolution 660 (1990) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990

The Security Council,

Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

orange
03-27-2011, 08:49 PM
Not according to the resolution

See map above. Of ACTUAL troop movements.

Their operational plan was to avoid Baghdad. As I said, that was a mistake.

Of course, it didn't get off scotfree.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/img/240s/desert_storm.jpg

Donger
03-27-2011, 08:54 PM
See map above. Of ACTUAL troop movements.

Their operational plan was to avoid Baghdad. As I said, that was a mistake.

Sure, but all of that was in concert with preventing a reinforcement of the defense of the Kuwaiti positions. Going into Baghdad and taking out Hussein (regime change) had NOTHING to do with the UN Resolution 660. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

orange
03-27-2011, 08:57 PM
Going into Baghdad and taking out Hussein (regime change) had NOTHING to do with the UN Resolution 660. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Is that so? I'm sure you will now show me where the UN authorized "taking out Hussein (regime change)" for Bush II.

Donger
03-27-2011, 09:00 PM
Is that so? I'm sure you will now show me where the UN authorized "taking out Hussein (regime change)" for Bush II.

I didn't claim they did. You are the one claiming that the UN authorized something that they didn't.

orange
03-27-2011, 09:05 PM
I didn't claim they did. You are the one claiming that the UN authorized something that they didn't.

I'm saying they authorized "using all necessary means," which leaves it up to the CinC of the operation to determine what's necessary. And that Bush I CHOSE not to take out Saddam even though he had a green light.

Just like the green light the UN - and Congress through extension of the UN Participation Act - has given Obama to pummel Qaddafi's armed forces, to get back on topic.

Donger
03-27-2011, 09:09 PM
I'm saying they authorized "using all necessary means," which leaves it up to the CinC of the operation to determine what's necessary. And that Bush I CHOSE not to take out Saddam even though he had a green light.

Just like the green light the UN - and Congress through extension of the UN Participation Act - has given Obama to pummel Qaddafi's armed forces, to get back on topic.

Bush I did use all necessary means in order to fulfill UN Resolution 660, which was:

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

The UN did not authorize us or anyone else going into Iraq to remove Hussein from power.

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 09:35 PM
yep, but sometimes i think obama and his advisors have their collective heads up their asses...

No I think they actually handle things diplomatically. You know unlike some other "bring it on" Presidents I can think of.

I can tell you for sure

1) The admin would love to take Gaddoofy out

a) They have to walk a very tight line on this. The Arabs leaders generally want him gone but are concerned what if the US decides its time for me to go.

b) No one can openly say regime change without the right losing whats left of their collective minds.

2) They consulted with congress plenty. There was a large amount of time leading up to the action and even if Obama didn't call each one on the phone there are newspapers that even carried articles about this UN No Fly Zone thingie.

3) If the net result is something like Milosevic and we act like we did in Serbia, the world is a better place end of discussion.

I don't want to see any significant boots on the ground but a few military advisors to help draw up battle plans and tactics on the ground works for me.

If we toss them some anti-tank weapons and munitions in limited numbers that is fine by me. That's pretty much as far as I want to see this go. Anything beyond that is more than I would care for.

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 09:37 PM
Bush I did use all necessary means in order to fulfill UN Resolution 660, which was:

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

The UN did not authorize us or anyone else going into Iraq to remove Hussein from power.

And it was the right call. W just screwed the pooch by going back in there.

Bwana
03-28-2011, 07:26 AM
The difference between the invasion of Iraq and a humanitarian intervention in Libya is so profound, I am astonished when someone tries to equate them.

:spock:

Direck, pleeeeease. If Bush would have pulled an "intervention" (Apple for Apple) they would have been coming out of the woodwork.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 11:29 AM
:spock:

Direck, pleeeeease. If Bush would have pulled an "intervention" (Apple for Apple) they would have been coming out of the woodwork.

Bush did, in Pakistan.

I have yet to see liberal outrage directed at it that isn't also directed at our interventions in Yemen and Libya.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 11:32 AM
Well, wasn't invading Iraq in 2003 also a "humanitarian" mission based on Hussein's genocidal past? If so, why did/do you support one versus the other?

Because the humanitarian issue was on the backburner.

Iraq was, first and foremost, predicated on "preemption." Meaning that we had to attack them before they attacked us, theoretically.

No preemption, no war/toppling/occupation.

That is obviously not the case in Libya.

chiefsnorth
03-28-2011, 11:32 AM
:spock:

Direck, pleeeeease. If Bush would have pulled an "intervention" (Apple for Apple) they would have been coming out of the woodwork.

You have to be an Olympic gymnast to try to say that you favor this action but oppose the Bush era actions.

I am not opposed to this, but I am opposed to half-measures or posturing without the guts to actually do something decisive, both of which seem to be Obama's specialty.

Bwana
03-28-2011, 02:41 PM
You have to be an Olympic gymnast to try to say that you favor this action but oppose the Bush era actions.



I agree, but it would seem we have at least one such creature in this thread and it's a bit ugly. LMAO

http://www.skyroadster.com/forums/attachments/f18/27385d1218849667-topless-olympic-gymnasts-pics-gymnast_face.jpg

Count Zarth
03-28-2011, 06:11 PM
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/199494_10150221321063146_508718145_9273714_6920979_n.jpg

Jaric
03-28-2011, 08:06 PM
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/199494_10150221321063146_508718145_9273714_6920979_n.jpg

That's awesome.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 09:21 PM
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/199494_10150221321063146_508718145_9273714_6920979_n.jpg

Dear god, yes.

The Mad Crapper
03-29-2011, 10:50 AM
The Pentagon announced that the military costs of intervention in Libya have topped $600 million.

No problem, just put it on the credit card.

PornChief
03-29-2011, 06:30 PM
anybody know who these rebels are yet?

mlyonsd
03-29-2011, 07:15 PM
anybody know who these rebels are yet?No, but we learned from Iraq if we just throw money their way it will all be good.

Jaric
03-29-2011, 09:02 PM
Dear Lord, history does repeat itself it seems...

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2010/11/mission-accomplished-427jc1119101.jpg

HonestChieffan
03-30-2011, 09:52 AM
anybody know who these rebels are yet?

No. But according to what I heard on the radio we may help arm them. We can get names and shake hands when we pass out ammo and guns. Santa in Camo.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/clinton-un-resolution-gives-us-authority-to-arm-libyan-rebels-2256768.html

HonestChieffan
03-30-2011, 09:58 AM
How many of the guns Obama wants to give the "rebels" will end up in Afghanistan or iraq pointed at American soldiers or in Gaza used to kill Jews?

Giving guns and ammo is sort of like the failed ATF effort that gave guns to cartels.

We have an odd view these days in washington. RegimeChange(not) is a difficult deal it seems in this nonwar.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/29/1000-freelance-jihadists-join-libyan-rebels/