Where is the US Congressional Declaration of War...

[ladajo]

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_07- ... epresented

Try this. There are other news articles if you fish around.

[bcglorf]

President Bush sought and got Congressional approval. President Obama's actions against Libya are unilateral from the perspective of the separation of powers listed in the Constitution and further clarified in the War Powers Resolution.

Being Canadian myself I'm not well versed in what the President does and does not require congressional approval for. I am still glad that an American led NATO force stopped Gaddafi before he could enact his genocide. Similarly, I'd much rather Clinton had acted unilaterally and gone into Rwanda, with or without congressional approval. Similarly I find it contemptible that Clinton still hides behind the lack of Congressional approval for why he didn't launch a thorough campaign against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after attacks on American interests.

Cooperate with terrorists? Oh, yeah, he certainly did, the record is clear. But recently? I don't know.
Please, take the subject seriously if your going to push your opinion on it. How can you honestly imply that the days of Gaddafi supporting terrorism where in his crazy past, and clearly not a part of the modern more stable and moderate Gaddafi we have today???? If you can claim 'I don't know' to that then please remove yourself from the discussion as someone who is completely ill equipped to comment on Gaddafi.

Mr. Gaddafi gave up his WMD programs after the United States attacked Iraq the second time, IIRC.

The Iraq invasion certainly applied pressure, but it was the uncovering of the AQ Khan network that brought him to give up his nuclear program. Iraq only gave him reason to be worried if he was found out, it was when he was later about to be found out that he gave them up. I say it proves he could not be trusted, it seems peculiar to me you would seem to take the opposite tack and suggest he is now 'clean'.

Why was he not attacked and removed from office before? The work was certainly worth doing.

Indeed. Back then there wasn't a UN approved mandate to take any action necessary to protect the lives of Libyan civilians. That would seem a rather obvious point of change today from then. Of course, I share your question of why the UN failed to make the same declaration the first time, or towards any number of brutal murderous dictators.

Finally, General Powell is quoted as saying: "If you break it, you own it." What of the people, possibly not involved in the former regime's evils, who must live with the aftermath of regime-change?

You mean the people not involved in the former regimes evils that Gaddafi had promised to cleanse the nation of house-by-house? I suppose I would tell them, "your welcome", they would in large part all be dead without regime change.

Any one else you'd care to nominate?

In Libya I'd have rather seen the Arab league or just Egypt alone step up and show Gaddafi the door. But for one reason and another they won't and didn't.

As someone that cares about the state of the world over all, I'm glad when someone like Gaddafi is stopped before they commit a genocide and removed from power. My support is as simple as that, and it trumps any reservations I have over what kind of permission the President should have asked for before doing it, I'm still glad that he did.

If you want me to condemn Obama , his recent speech essentially calling for Israel to make 100% of the concessions needed to make "peace" is a far greater sin IMHO. He's weakening a key American ally and solely to show solidarity with America's enemies, who will NOT show America anything but hate unless America changes direction 100% and launches direct military action against Israel.

Comments like his gain NOTHING and cost a great deal. Now every conservative Arab and Palestinian in the region will utterly refuse any deal with Israel that doesn't include the right to return, meaning more bloodshed and violence.

[seedload]

President Bush sought and got Congressional approval. President Obama's actions against Libya are unilateral from the perspective of the separation of powers listed in the Constitution and further clarified in the War Powers Resolution.

Being Canadian myself I'm not well versed in what the President does and does not require congressional approval for. I am still glad that an American led NATO force stopped Gaddafi before he could enact his genocide. Similarly, I'd much rather Clinton had acted unilaterally and gone into Rwanda, with or without congressional approval. Similarly I find it contemptible that Clinton still hides behind the lack of Congressional approval for why he didn't launch a thorough campaign against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after attacks on American interests.

Cooperate with terrorists? Oh, yeah, he certainly did, the record is clear. But recently? I don't know.
Please, take the subject seriously if your going to push your opinion on it. How can you honestly imply that the days of Gaddafi supporting terrorism where in his crazy past, and clearly not a part of the modern more stable and moderate Gaddafi we have today???? If you can claim 'I don't know' to that then please remove yourself from the discussion as someone who is completely ill equipped to comment on Gaddafi.

Mr. Gaddafi gave up his WMD programs after the United States attacked Iraq the second time, IIRC.

The Iraq invasion certainly applied pressure, but it was the uncovering of the AQ Khan network that brought him to give up his nuclear program. Iraq only gave him reason to be worried if he was found out, it was when he was later about to be found out that he gave them up. I say it proves he could not be trusted, it seems peculiar to me you would seem to take the opposite tack and suggest he is now 'clean'.

Why was he not attacked and removed from office before? The work was certainly worth doing.

Indeed. Back then there wasn't a UN approved mandate to take any action necessary to protect the lives of Libyan civilians. That would seem a rather obvious point of change today from then. Of course, I share your question of why the UN failed to make the same declaration the first time, or towards any number of brutal murderous dictators.

Finally, General Powell is quoted as saying: "If you break it, you own it." What of the people, possibly not involved in the former regime's evils, who must live with the aftermath of regime-change?

You mean the people not involved in the former regimes evils that Gaddafi had promised to cleanse the nation of house-by-house? I suppose I would tell them, "your welcome", they would in large part all be dead without regime change.

Any one else you'd care to nominate?

In Libya I'd have rather seen the Arab league or just Egypt alone step up and show Gaddafi the door. But for one reason and another they won't and didn't.

As someone that cares about the state of the world over all, I'm glad when someone like Gaddafi is stopped before they commit a genocide and removed from power. My support is as simple as that, and it trumps any reservations I have over what kind of permission the President should have asked for before doing it, I'm still glad that he did.

If you want me to condemn Obama , his recent speech essentially calling for Israel to make 100% of the concessions needed to make "peace" is a far greater sin IMHO. He's weakening a key American ally and solely to show solidarity with America's enemies, who will NOT show America anything but hate unless America changes direction 100% and launches direct military action against Israel.

Comments like his gain NOTHING and cost a great deal. Now every conservative Arab and Palestinian in the region will utterly refuse any deal with Israel that doesn't include the right to return, meaning more bloodshed and violence.

Well said.

[rjaypeters]

Being Canadian myself I'm not well versed in what the President does and does not require congressional approval for.

Well, it's merely the topic of this thread, so feel free to make use of the resources available.

Cooperate with terrorists? Oh, yeah, he certainly did, the record is clear. But recently? I don't know.

Please, take the subject seriously if your going to push your opinion on it. How can you honestly imply that the days of Gaddafi supporting terrorism where in his crazy past, and clearly not a part of the modern more stable and moderate Gaddafi we have today???? If you can claim 'I don't know' to that then please remove yourself from the discussion as someone who is completely ill equipped to comment on Gaddafi.

It seems ignorance is not a requirement for removing oneself from discussion, so why should I?

I have taken this discussion seriously. I have admitted my ignorance about things dictators wisely try to keep secret, e.g. terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction programs. I didn't and don't mean to imply Gaddafi is reformed. I was answering another post that listed two conditions for removal of a dictator. My point was the other author's conditions were met long before and no definite action was taken to remove Gaddafi.

Mr. Gaddafi gave up his WMD programs after the United States attacked Iraq the second time, IIRC.

The Iraq invasion certainly applied pressure, but it was the uncovering of the AQ Khan network that brought him to give up his nuclear program. Iraq only gave him reason to be worried if he was found out, it was when he was later about to be found out that he gave them up. I say it proves he could not be trusted, it seems peculiar to me you would seem to take the opposite tack and suggest he is now 'clean'.

Not my suggestion. I merely admitted my ignorance about Gaddafi's recent actions.

Why was he not attacked and removed from office before? The work was certainly worth doing.

Indeed. Back then there wasn't a UN approved mandate to take any action necessary to protect the lives of Libyan civilians. That would seem a rather obvious point of change today from then. Of course, I share your question of why the UN failed to make the same declaration the first time, or towards any number of brutal murderous dictators.

I haven't questioned the UN failures to act, you have. My concerns in this thread were initially confined to the illegality of a U.S. attack against Libya without a Congressional declaration. I'm pretty sure I know why Gaddafi hasn't been dealt with earlier in his long career, but that's a book-length answer that just starts with Cold War geo-politics and continues through most every awful thing you can think of.

Finally, General Powell is quoted as saying: "If you break it, you own it." What of the people, possibly not involved in the former regime's evils, who must live with the aftermath of regime-change?

You mean the people not involved in the former regimes evils that Gaddafi had promised to cleanse the nation of house-by-house? I suppose I would tell them, "your welcome", they would in large part all be dead without regime change.

Just like the wonderful welcome U.S. and allied forces have received in Iraq and Afghanistan. Aren't there Canadians in Afghanistan? Are they collecting roses from the populace? No, I see Canadian 155 deaths. I will not mock the sacrifice of men and women who answer their country's call to duty, quite the opposite. I merely question the legality and wisdom of sending young men and women to hunt down the dictators of the world.

Don't expect any better treatment from the liberated people of Libya if anyone is so foolish as to invade.

If you want me to condemn Obama...

No, I really don't like condemning anyone. But President Obama's actions require me to condemn them.

Since you care, please answer my other question:

A problem I have with attacking the dictators of the world is there is no end to the mission. Where would you have the U.S. military stop? Where would you draw the line, above here, he's out; below this line, we won't attack?

[bcglorf]

Being Canadian myself I'm not well versed in what the President does and does not require congressional approval for.

Well, it's merely the topic of this thread, so feel free to make use of the resources available.

I know enough to see there are two options, he either requires congressional approval or he does not.

I think if you re-read my prior post I made the clear distinction that even if it DID require congressional approval, I still support the action anyways, for the many reasons I already listed. I don't believe that is so very far off the topic.

I didn't and don't mean to imply Gaddafi is reformed.

But you did, and you shouldn't have:

Cooperate with terrorists? Oh, yeah, he certainly did, the record is clear. But recently? I don't know.

moving on...

I was answering another post that listed two conditions for removal of a dictator. My point was the other author's conditions were met long before and no definite action was taken to remove Gaddafi.

I have to ask what your point is then? If a dictator is allowed to live long enough he becomes innocent? It was good enough reason before too, but now the added threat of genocide and resulting UN approval moved things over to a point where nations were willing to act. I think the first two reasons justified his removal long before, and I don't think global failure to do so counters that justification, do you?

Why was he not attacked and removed from office before? The work was certainly worth doing.

...

I'm pretty sure I know why Gaddafi hasn't been dealt with earlier in his long career...

Then why ask the question?

Finally, General Powell is quoted as saying: "If you break it, you own it." What of the people, possibly not involved in the former regime's evils, who must live with the aftermath of regime-change?

You mean the people not involved in the former regimes evils that Gaddafi had promised to cleanse the nation of house-by-house? I suppose I would tell them, "your welcome", they would in large part all be dead without regime change.

Just like the wonderful welcome U.S. and allied forces have received in Iraq and Afghanistan. Aren't there Canadians in Afghanistan? Are they collecting roses from the populace?

Now your sounding like the anti-Bush hippies. The Kurdish people of Iraq still love America for saving their lives. The Shia majority still resent America, but more for it's failure to stop their massacre after the first Gulf war than for the execution of the second. That leaves the Sunni's who largely did hate the invasion, because they liked holding power under Saddam, but I'm ok with that crowd fearing/hating our forces, they SHOULD.

Afghanistan is much the same. The hatred there didn't start when forces came in after 9/11. You may recall that the ruling Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies controlled the country then, and greatly encouraged deeply anti-western sentiments. That doesn't go away over night, or over a few short years. It's a generational change, and require more than killing of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but providing meaningful stability and prosperity to the locals, basically nation building.

In any case, simply killing off the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Saddam and Gaddafi are GOOD things. I support these things, and I support even if the people suffering the most under them aren't waiting there to thank us. As long as their removal acts as a deterrent to restoring similar future regimes in the region I'd prefer it does so from gratitude, but I'll take fear if that's the best there is to be had. That may be what the situation in Pakistan will come back to.

A problem I have with attacking the dictators of the world is there is no end to the mission. Where would you have the U.S. military stop? Where would you draw the line, above here, he's out; below this line, we won't attack?

I'd draw the line on a case by case basis, but the rule of thumb is anywhere that the net result is a humanitarian gain. The top of my hit list must be Omar Al-Bashir and Bashir al-Assad, if you must know. The ones continue freedom, let alone leading of a nation while standing convicted of crimes against humanity by the ICC is mockery of international law and justice that renders it worse than a bad joke. Meanwhile Syria's dictatorship is probably the singularly biggest source of instability and hatred in the entire middle east. That is not even mentioning the use of tanks against peaceful protesters. Jim Jong-Il ranks highly as well, but removing him comes with a multi-million body count. One must keep in mind though that the problem he presents may get worse instead of better by just waiting around as he stockpiles even more weapons.

But President Obama's actions require me to condemn them.

And that requires me to point out that you are condemning the act of stopping a dictator from committing genocide against his own people. A dictator who, for the record, has pursued a nuclear weapons program and open support for terrorist bombers.

My point is simple. The good of stopping Gaddafi vastly trumps the 'bad' of bypassing congressional approval, and that's assuming YOU are right and it even is needed.

[rjaypeters]

I didn't and don't mean to imply Gaddafi is reformed.

But you did, and you shouldn't have:/

No, I didn't. Now you are telling me what I mean. Congratulations, you know better than I do what I mean.

I recognize you support the attacks against Gaddafi, regardless of the U.S. legal implications. I don't expect you to care for the imperatives of U.S. law. Expect U.S. citizens to care about them, though.

Now your sounding like the anti-Bush hippies. The Kurdish people of Iraq still love America for saving their lives. The Shia majority still resent America, but more for it's failure to stop their massacre after the first Gulf war than for the execution of the second. That leaves the Sunni's who largely did hate the invasion, because they liked holding power under Saddam, but I'm ok with that crowd fearing/hating our forces, they SHOULD.

Afghanistan is much the same. The hatred there didn't start when forces came in after 9/11. You may recall that the ruling Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies controlled the country then, and greatly encouraged deeply anti-western sentiments. That doesn't go away over night, or over a few short years. It's a generational change, and require more than killing of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but providing meaningful stability and prosperity to the locals, basically nation building.

In any case, simply killing off the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Saddam and Gaddafi are GOOD things. I support these things, and I support even if the people suffering the most under them aren't waiting there to thank us. As long as their removal acts as a deterrent to restoring similar future regimes in the region I'd prefer it does so from gratitude, but I'll take fear if that's the best there is to be had. That may be what the situation in Pakistan will come back to.

Comparing what I think with any variety of hippy is just funny.

Anti-Bush? No, again, merely of many of his actions.

Your description of the situations of the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan remind me of a quote: "Let them hate, so long as they fear." The terrible irony is the Bush administration entered office deriding "nation-building" as a national policy and ended up committing the U.S. to long periods of nation-building in two very unfriendly countries. It's been working out well so far...but only because of the sacrifice of life and health of many young people and nearly untold amounts of money! Which the U.S. does not have!

And because of those large commitments, the U.S. was unwilling/unable to intervene in Darfur and other places, if you want to look at it that way.

I take the following as a guiding principle from one of the founding fathers of the United States of America: "We are the friends of liberty everywhere. We are the guardians only of our own." - John Adams

I'd draw the line on a case by case basis, but the rule of thumb is anywhere that the net result is a humanitarian gain.

How will you know before you send in the troops the result of invasion? See the Bush administration naivete for case histories. Many knowledgeable U.S. patriots warned against invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but all those objections were ignored.

The top of my hit list must be Omar Al-Bashir and Bashir al-Assad, if you must know. ... That is not even mentioning the use of tanks against peaceful protesters.

Have you forgotten China and Tiananmen Square in 1989 and Tibet a few years ago? I should think they would be at the top of your list. The Chinese communists win on sheer number of oppressed people. Add to that the willingness to use military equipment against their own which seems to be high on your critieria for deserving of removal.

Jim Jong-Il ranks highly as well, but removing him comes with a multi-million body count. One must keep in mind though that the problem he presents may get worse instead of better by just waiting around as he stockpiles even more weapons.

You count the cost? Oh, nevermind, those are the lives of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whom you would send to carry out your will. Oh, good, you did remember the millions of North and South Koreans who would die.

Your other nominees for World Police don't seem to match your enthusiasm for deciding whom should hold power.

And that requires me to point out that you are condemning the act of stopping a dictator from committing genocide against his own people. A dictator who, for the record, has pursued a nuclear weapons program and open support for terrorist bombers.

No. I haven't condemned the removal of the dictator. I condemn the President's ordering of dropping bombs and killing people before securing the approval of the United States Congress. Which is part of his job.

Further, if President Obama had done his job properly (he is supposed to very persuasive), it is barely possible the people of the United States would have supported the action against Gaddafi and he would be sitting in a prison somewhere, or dead, instead of further tormenting the people of Libya. As it stands, insufficient forces have been committed to remove Gaddafi and it looks like a stalemate. Tell me a stalemate is good for the Libyans.

My point is simple. The good of stopping Gaddafi vastly trumps the 'bad' of bypassing congressional approval, and that's assuming YOU are right and it even is needed.

My reply is simple. Gaddafi has not been stopped. You hope for that result.

The President has also made himself vulnerable on Constitutional grounds which if the Congress bestirs itself will further weaken his administration. How is that good for anyone other than dictators?

[bcglorf]

I don't expect you to care for the imperatives of U.S. law. Expect U.S. citizens to care about them, though.

Mind me if I don't hold my breath while I wait. I'll predict that 99% of the people interpreting the law as allowing Obama to do what he did support the action in Libya and 99% of those interpreting him as needing congressional approval oppose the action in Libya.

I didn't and don't mean to imply Gaddafi is reformed.

You questioned whether his having previously supported terrorists and operated a nuclear weapons program was currently relevant. The ONLY way it isn't relevant is if he has in fact reformed. Would prefer I give you the benefit of the doubt and observe that you imply Gaddafi MAY have reformed? I hardly see how that remote possibility is relevant. His genocidal threats would also seem to demonstrate that his reform need to have taken place in the last few weeks...

It's been working out well so far...but only because of the sacrifice of life and health of many young people and nearly untold amounts of money! Which the U.S. does not have!

And for which the world should be thankful, I for one certainly am.

You seem to be mistaking me in a way here. I am NOT saying I expect that America must have taken these actions as their due duty(though in Iraq there is a very strong case to be made). I am saying I consider the actions America CHOSE to take in Iraq and Afghanistan were good and served to improve overall the lot of our fellow man.

How will you know before you send in the troops the result of invasion?

You won't like this, but that's hippy talk, again. How will you know before you decide not to send in the troops the result of staying home?

In Libya the answer to both questions is the same, Gaddafi said he was going to commit a genocide against his opposition, and was in the process of doing everything one might do to prepare for that.

The result of not going into Libya can safely be considered a genocidal massacre of the opposition rebels.
The result of going into Libya can safely be said to have extended their lifes at least into the present day.

Of course nobody can predict outcomes further into the future, but thus far we have genocide at the very worst, postponed, and then a laundry list of I don't knows.

Unknowns cut both ways, you don't get trump the one thing we do know we prevented with them.

Have you forgotten China and Tiananmen Square in 1989 and Tibet a few years ago? I should think they would be at the top of your list.

You'll recall I listed net humanitarian good as the main requisite. I don't quite see how WWIII to 'liberate' China is gonna be a clear net gain for humanity, I think the suffering might outweigh the gains there, no? It's like the Kim Jong-Il issue, only the people aren't suffering a fraction as much and the losses are almost infinitely higher.

Oh, nevermind, those are the lives of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whom you would send to carry out your will.

My brother-in-law and many of my friends have served several tours in Kandahar. Maybe keep the snide comments about counting the cost in our lives to what I've actually said. Yeah, my country's lost about 160 lives so far, given the circumstances I DO think it's in my national interest to commit that to removing a massive safe haven for Islamic terrorists to plan and prepare assaults against the world abroad.

Tell me a stalemate is good for the Libyans.

A stalemate is good for Libyans. The alternative was genocide of the opposition and an indeterminate number of years for the survivors living in fear under the crazed man responsible for it.

My reply is simple. Gaddafi has not been stopped. You hope for that result.

They are alive and fighting today. Without intervention they would already be rotting in mass graves. I say that is good, and stand by that trumping the procedures and/or due process that may have been skipped over.

I understand if American's want to disagree and bring their men home, leaving the Libyan rebels to fend for themselves. You've been paying the butcher's bill for more than your share in a lot of causes of late, and received only contempt. I will still hope though that the strategic interests of a post-Gaddafi Libya are enough for American strategists to stay on in the mission there, because I selfishly prefer the genocide continue to be averted.

[ladajo]

I don't mean to start a branch, but...

I don't quite see how WWIII to 'liberate' China is gonna be a clear net gain for humanity, I think the suffering might outweigh the gains there, no? It's like the Kim Jong-Il issue, only the people aren't suffering a fraction as much and the losses are almost infinitely higher.

What makes you think fighting China or North Korea or both at the same time even would be "WWIII"?
Not even close.

[Diogenes]

Worrying about what the law says after letting this article II violator skate is pointless. Horse, barn door, etc.

[bcglorf]

I don't mean to start a branch, but...

I don't quite see how WWIII to 'liberate' China is gonna be a clear net gain for humanity, I think the suffering might outweigh the gains there, no? It's like the Kim Jong-Il issue, only the people aren't suffering a fraction as much and the losses are almost infinitely higher.

What makes you think fighting China or North Korea or both at the same time even would be "WWIII"?
Not even close.

It's sufficient for my point to observe that taking on China or even 'merely' North Korea would lead to an order of magnitude more immediate casualties than similar action in Northern Sudan or Syria. The baddies running North Sudan and Syria can be removed, by comparison, for free.

[rjaypeters]

Evidently, we do not agree on the fundamental principle I quoted: "We are the friends of liberty everywhere. We are the guardians only of our own." - John Adams

Accordingly, our reasoning ends up in very different places.

Actually, I take one thing back. Foreigners should care the U.S. President does things according to U.S. law, it's about the only framework holding us back from a dictatorship of our own. Our founding fathers were suspicious of two things, at least, the People; so we didn't get a small-d democracy, and the Monarch; so we didn't get a monarchy. Despite the efforts of some of our leaders (I'm thinking primarily of Dick Cheney) we don't yet have an imperial President, but the trends are that way. Do you want an American Empire? I certainly do not.

I share your gratitude to the military forces of the U.S. and its allies, but one of my theses, and that of other people wiser than myself, is Iraq and Afghanistan could have been dealt with in ways other than outright invasion. I have argued in at least one other thread about the necessity of invading Iraq, so I won't here. Afghanistan: all we had to do was convince the Taliban of the error of supporting terrorists who attack the U.S. Mr. Gaddafi received this treatment several years ago, it was called Operation Eldorado Canyon. It seems to have worked, at least a little.

Part of my disagreement with the Bush administration was their incompetence while waging war against opponents who did not need to invaded. In some cases, the greatest error was "sending a boy to do a man's job." In others it was fecklessness. Primary example: disbanding the Iraqi Army.

Gaddafi's threat of genocide is a serious matter. Seen through the prism of the principle I use most (see John Adams above), Mr. Gaddafi's threat does not require the U.S. to intervene. And here we come again to the charge of incompetence, this time against the Obama administration.

This time, the world watched and waited while the threat to the Libyan people grew. And we folded our hands. The smart thing now is to hire mercenaries to remove Mr. Gaddafi from power. Anyone may contribute to the fund.

We are kidding ourselves if we think Mr. Gaddafi is going to be removed short of a gun to his head or an explosion killing him. So far, no worldly power has decided to actually send the forces necessary to achieve this end. The danger is we will let Mr. Gaddafi slip away and remain in power while he carries out his threat and we avert our eyes. We are good at forgetting our responsibilities and even better at following the next shiny bauble that distracts us from important matters. That will be the fault of humanity.

President Obama had the bully pulpit to exhort people to see the righteousness of this opportunity to remove Mr. Gaddafi. The President did not exert himself to build support among the American people and thereby Congress. Nor did he attempt to perform the legal actions necessary to legitimize military attack, probably because he had not done the former. So now we have muddle where time is on Mr. Gaddafi's side. That is President Obama's fault.

Maybe a bomb will kill Mr. Gaddafi today, but the odds do not favor it (I won't be holding my breath for this one). A junior enlisted man with an assault rifle is a lot more likely to catch Mr. Gaddafi. If you want to topple a dictator, you must invade, but that moment may have passed.

And our final disagreement: I do not believe the strategic interests of the U.S. lie anywhere close to intervening in Libya. That does not mean other nations do not or should not have a diferent perspective. I'd rather the Libyan people alive and free, but I do not see it as a requirement for the U.S. military to make it so. Perhaps President Obama could have convinced me otherwise. But he did not even try.

[ladajo]

I don't mean to start a branch, but...

I don't quite see how WWIII to 'liberate' China is gonna be a clear net gain for humanity, I think the suffering might outweigh the gains there, no? It's like the Kim Jong-Il issue, only the people aren't suffering a fraction as much and the losses are almost infinitely higher.

What makes you think fighting China or North Korea or both at the same time even would be "WWIII"?
Not even close.

It's sufficient for my point to observe that taking on China or even 'merely' North Korea would lead to an order of magnitude more immediate casualties than similar action in Northern Sudan or Syria. The baddies running North Sudan and Syria can be removed, by comparison, for free.

Ending North Korea could more than likely be done during the National Day Parade with a single Mk-84 JDAM. Direct casualties, less than 100. Indirect, something more, but arguably no difference, and probably less than a normal day in the life of NK.

Ending China as it is would be a little more challenging, but certainly doable with much less death and destruction than what you think.
There is a really good book written by two PLA Colonel's (Qiao Liang, Wang Xiangsui) you should give a read. It is called "Unrestricted Warfare." There is also a good post publishing explanation article given by the authors that explains some of what they were thinking.

World War, certainly not. No longer necessary.

[ladajo]

Mr. Gaddafi received this treatment several years ago, it was called Operation Eldorado Canyon. It seems to have worked, at least a little.

Not really. He was so impressed by it, he erected a commemorative statue and made a point every year of using it as a national unity battle cry, how Lybia defeated the america imperialists that though they could attack with impunity. He even got his Lockerby Bomber back.

[rjaypeters]

I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters. Was there another Lockerby after Operation Eldorado Canyon?

[rjaypeters]

...The smart thing now is to hire mercenaries to remove Mr. Gaddafi from power. Anyone may contribute to the fund.

I recommend we use any confiscated Libya funds as the founding contribution to hiring the mercenaries.

And our final disagreement: I do not believe the strategic interests of the U.S. lie anywhere close to intervening in Libya. That does not mean other nations do not or should not have a diferent perspective. I'd rather the Libyan people alive and free, but I do not see it as a requirement for the U.S. military to make it so. Perhaps President Obama could have convinced me otherwise. But he did not even try.

Perhaps you would care to try?