Operation ODYSSEY DAWN

Status
Not open for further replies.
patentesq said:
Short answer is no. Justice against a head of state can only be meted out by either the International Court of Justice or internally by the follow-on regime. It is important to note, however, that the Brits and French are NOT bound by United States Executive Order 12333. Of course, there are ways to repeal EO12333 (e.g., Congress can overrule it), but this likely will not happen. I think it is a good policy (it's an example of what separates the human race from animals).
Click to expand...

Where's Jason Bourne when you need him? :shake:
 
patentesq said:
I think it is a good policy (it's an example of what separates the human race from animals).
Click to expand...

Agreed. As long as upholding it doesn't give him a gateway to genocide. I understand the money issues hit home for everyone, and some say its not our fight; but if we don't stand up for the innocent that are being slaughtered who will? Others may, but reality is they look to us. I understand the need for a coalition for various political reasons. But simply put if the "Bully" is beating up the innocent and you don't step in because it costs you something...How could you sleep at night? IMO its simply the right thing to do. I just pray for our leaders to have wisdom and our military to get it done quickly and without loss.
 
patentesq said:
Short answer is no. Justice against a head of state can only be meted out by either the International Court of Justice or internally by the follow-on regime. It is important to note, however, that the Brits and French are NOT bound by United States Executive Order 12333. Of course, there are ways to repeal EO12333 (e.g., Congress can overrule it), but this likely will not happen. I think it is a good policy (it's an example of what separates the human race from animals).
Click to expand...

Manuel Noreiga is an example where we cut corners a bit. When he was in our custody, we at least gave him POW status. Noriega I think is now in prison in France without that status, serving out a seven-year prison sentence.
 
patentesq said:
Manuel Noreiga is an example where we cut corners a bit. When he was in our custody, we at least gave him POW status. Noriega I think is now in prison in France without that status, serving out a seven-year prison sentence.
Click to expand...

Gaddafi might try to skip town and gain asylum in Venezuela :shake: Birds of a feather! ...Joking... ...I wonder what we would do if he seriously stopped all aggression at this point or are we already in it too deep.
 
tpg said:
What does the IAEA sy: It confirms from its inspections that Iran is enriching uranium to the levels stated and says that Iran has not diverted any declared nuclear materiel to military use. Iran's nuclear facilities remain under IAEA monitoring and the IAEA produces regular reports.

As for comparing Iran to North Korea....Well that is a bit different considering the allies involved on both sides wouldn't you say.
Click to expand...

As for IAEA, they only know what they know. Don't have the best track record on keeping tab on nuclear programs.

Not sure what you meant by "allies involved." I did some research on nuclear proliferation as a part of my masters thesis. It is reasonable to assume Pakistan shared their nuclear know-how with various countries in varying degrees. Also reasonable to believe countries inspiring to be nuclear power cooperated with each other.

North Korea's nuclear program dates back to 1945. Almost first hand experience of nuclear devestation from Koreans living in Japan. It received threat of nuclear weapons being used against her using the Korea War. Russia and China pulled stop providing support related to nuclear development in 1960s when they didn't want a nuclear armed Nort Korea. US never ruled out use of nuclear weapons against North Korea. President Carter withdraw nuclear weapons from South Korea. North Korea has very little to export for hard currency, but she does export weapons and people.
 
scoutpilot said:
It is? I don't remember that in the oath. I remember swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, but I didn't hear national interest mentioned.

As for this fight, I appreciate Bruno's assessment.

Though I think it's squishy and weak as a motto, the US Navy calls itself "A Global Force for Good," not "A Global Force for Good...Unless it seems kinda dangerous or hard, in which case not so much."

If we wanna get technical...

"The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas."
Click to expand...

National Interest = defend the Constitution of the Unites States against all enemies . . .

I was dicussing ideas not exact words as nothing in the Constitution specifically authorizes the President use the miltiary for humantarian purposes.
 
Not sure where you get "insensitive".
Both crew are recovered and only slightly injured, fortunately. click on the links.

SP - as an American, which should bring me more comfort - the *ineptitude* of our AF mechanics or that Libya shot down one of our planes? just sayin'.....


Oh, and if this is all about assisting the Libyan people, why are we not in Cote d'Ivoire - on the brink of civil war - helping them seat their democratically elected leader? Why are we not protecting the people of Yemen? Bahrain?
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Not sure where you get "insensitive".
Both crew are recovered and only slightly injured, fortunately. click on the links.

SP - as an American, which should bring me more comfort - the *ineptitude* of our AF mechanics or that Libya shot down one of our planes? just sayin'.....


Oh, and if this is all about assisting the Libyan people, why are we not in Cote d'Ivoire - on the brink of civil war - helping them seat their democratically elected leader? Why are we not protecting the people of Yemen? Bahrain?
Click to expand...

Wow. This is a new low. Disparaging the efforts and capabilities of thousands of USAF maintainers?!

For once, just once, please have some self awareness and be cognizant of the fact that you know absolutely nothing about the maintenance and operation of military aircraft (I'll limit my comments to that, for now). You have NO idea what failed or why it would have failed. Zero. To claim that an aircraft must have failed due to the *ineptitude* of a crew chief is not only viciously ignorant, it's mean-spirited. You have less than no reason to insinuate that. Machines fail. Period. The best maintained machines in the world fail, despite proper maintenance.

Wow. Just...wow. :unhappy:
 
folks- once again- it's time to close the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top