It is clear that Obama's 'why we go to war' doctrine is new to the US. That much was said by the White House when the spokescritter agreed that 'there was no precedent' in launching this attack. The new "doctrine" leaves at least one very important question unanswered, however.
So how'd that happen?
The author of a military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."
...The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."
The Usual Suspects are involved:
Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
Interesting. Of course, the un-answered question is "Who decides?" Who decides to commit American blood--if 'treasure' is not really another objection.? I don't see "Congress" in the equasion so far.
And since the organization(s) supporting this are unhappy with resource-utilization in the West, will resource-allocation also become a casus belli?
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
We have had unconstitutional wars since Truman, but this is the first truly illegal one. The President violated the War Powers Act and should be impeached.
Where are the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" protests.
"The author of a military doctrine used by the Obama administration"
There is no doctrine and your links don't actually cite one by this author or any other. Obama approaches each situation based on the history, US interests, and the dynamics of the situation. It's not shooting from the hip or acting on a gut feeling.
"I don't see "Congress" in the equasion [sic] so far."
You apparently missed this from March 1, 2011:
The Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.
There is a difference between a no-fly zone and actual combat (in which we are now engaged).
And it is still in violation of the War Powers Act which requires "imminent threat" to the United States, not just it's interests. And while we can argue over previous wars and their relationship to "imminent threat", there is no such argument to be made here; the President has made clear there was no such "imminent threat".
Grounds for impeachment.
Since Deek schooled you on the difference between 'no-fly' and war, Jimmy, I only have to tell you that if you read the linked article, (all of it), you'll find what you're looking for.
BTW, you are one of three people in the entire country who think that Obozo is coherent on this one.
The others are HRC and Ms. Rice. They work for him.
Yeah and I guess Grenada posed an imminent threat to the United States.
"Since Deek schooled you on the difference between 'no-fly' and war"
Um, no he didn't. He simply said that there is a difference between a no-fly zone and a war and then decided on his own that the current no-fly zone is a war.
"Grounds for impeachment."
What a joke! Let's see your representatives in the House bring up the articles.
So....your definition of "war" is....?
A USAF F-15 was just shot down, the CIA is engaged in ground operations and there are reports of 2000 Marines on the ground as well. Did they grow wings?
The government of Grenada was holding US citizens as hostages, you may recall.
"The government of Grenada was holding US citizens as hostages, you may recall."
Uh, no, I don't recall that. That was one of the excuses, but no students were held hostage nor in danger of being held hostage prior to the invasion. In fact, one night the students said they were safe and did not feel their lives were in danger. The next night, after being promised that they could complete their med school education in the US, they said US Marines saved their lives.
So there seems to be some dispute about the danger to the students but no disputing that the reason for the invasion was not in any way related to the safety of those students.
"reports of 2000 Marines on the ground as well. Did they grow wings?"
No, not even "reports of 2000 Marines on the ground." Rather reports of 2,200 Marines in support of air and rescue based on the carrier Kearsarge. Maybe water "wings".
As reported by ABC News:
All of these missions were launched from the USS Kearsarge more than 100 nautical miles from the coast. Other than the small TRAP force sent to locate the Air Force pilots, no U.S. Marines from the 26th MEU have landed ashore.
Don't you EVER check stuff out before you blab it out here?
Post a Comment