Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Shofercia]

Wait, so you're arguing for intervention based on something that Ghadaffi said?! Are you saying that Ghadaffi would never use a scare tactic to win a war? Well if that's the case, then Ahmadinejad said something bad about Israel, let's invade Iran according to Anda's logic.

In reality, it's much safer to wait until criminal acts are being committed, than to go in blind, and risk another Iraq. US cannot be the World Force Police, as that's an impossible goal to attain. Besides, if Ghadaffi does carry that out, he knows that he will be wiped out. He may be crazy, but he's not a complete dolt to carry out that threat.

Your proposing that we wait for the massacres to start before we get the UNSC to spend a few weeks debating whether or not they should do anything? Great idea, the first responders should arrive just in time to count the bodies.

The alternative is to go in blind, and risk being stuck in a third quagmire. My apologies for being a realist.

Edit: I am all for going into oppressive countries like Congo, Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, that have shown a pattern of oppression. I am against selective enforcement though, which is exactly what's going on here.

[Nazis in Space]

Wait, so you're arguing for intervention based on something that Ghadaffi said?! Are you saying that Ghadaffi would never use a scare tactic to win a war? Well if that's the case, then Ahmadinejad said something bad about Israel, let's invade Iran according to Anda's logic.

In reality, it's much safer to wait until criminal acts are being committed, than to go in blind, and risk another Iraq. US cannot be the World Force Police, as that's an impossible goal to attain. Besides, if Ghadaffi does carry that out, he knows that he will be wiped out. He may be crazy, but he's not a complete dolt to carry out that threat.

Your proposing that we wait for the massacres to start before we get the UNSC to spend a few weeks debating whether or not they should do anything? Great idea, the first responders should arrive just in time to count the bodies.

Sho's proposals are solely depending on what western countries do. If they'd waited, he'd now bash them for waiting. But since they intervened, he's now bashing them for intervening. As a consequence, the arguments he's using are somewhat in flux.

That's how he manages to simultaneously bash the west for non-intervention (Rwanda) and intervention (Libya) in the same damn post, as he's now done a few times.

[Andaluciae]

We know what Colonel Gaddhafi has been saying, and the areas most likely to face reprisals are those that have been under rebel control--most obviously Benghazi. We know he called the for the purification of Libya, house by house.
Hutu power radio gave us the exact same warning. Once the mass murders begin, it's too late, the only way you can pre-empt its by acting before the crimes happen.

Wait, so you're arguing for intervention based on something that Ghadaffi said?! Are you saying that Ghadaffi would never use a scare tactic to win a war? Well if that's the case, then Ahmadinejad said something bad about Israel, let's invade Iran according to Anda's logic.
In reality, it's much safer to wait until criminal acts are being committed, than to go in blind, and risk another Iraq. US cannot be the World Force Police, as that's an impossible goal to attain. Besides, if Ghadaffi does carry that out, he knows that he will be wiped out. He may be crazy, but he's not a complete dolt to carry out that threat.

So we wait until he has killed 10000 people a week? Colonel Gaddhafi is responsible for an awful lot of bloodshed. It's not unreasonable to expect him to do what he said, in an active civil war, that has challenged not only his rule and lifestyle (Ukrainian nurses and all) but his life. Iran is not at.war with Israel. Iran lacks the means to wipe out Israel, and the Presidency of Iran is a powerless position--not much different from the role of the Queen. The circumstances.surrounding the rhetoric are fundamentally different.

[Shofercia]

Your proposing that we wait for the massacres to start before we get the UNSC to spend a few weeks debating whether or not they should do anything? Great idea, the first responders should arrive just in time to count the bodies.

Sho's proposals are solely depending on what western countries do. If they'd waited, he'd now bash them for waiting. But since they intervened, he's now bashing them for intervening. As a consequence, the arguments he's using are somewhat in flux.

That's how he manages to simultaneously bash the west for non-intervention (Rwanda) and intervention (Libya) in the same damn post, as he's now done a few times.

Rwanda and Libya aren't the same country. There's no Genocide going on in Lybia. I believe in a standard: if you commit Genocide, you get an intervention up your ass. If you don't, I'll be very skeptical. I bash countries in NATO for not preventing a Genocide; and I bash countries in NATO for Neo- Imperialist tactics. I firmly believe that you can have a normal country, without Genocide. My apologies for tearing through your Ad Hominem.

[Cosmopoles]

The alternative is to go in blind, and be stuck in a third quagmire. My apologies for being a realist.

If we waited until Ghaddafi starts massacring his opponents we would be in a quagmire. We'd have to put land forces in the country to prevent the violence.. We'd have to scrape the barrel to find opposition leaders that haven't been shot yet. We've already seen how the Arab League shits itself when the slightest force is applied - you think they are going to lend their support to a full scale invasion? With the organised opposition crushed, it would be down to foreign troops to engage Ghaddafi's forces throughout the country. Not to mention that the Libyan opposition might not even want foreign troops on the ground. That's your quagmire right there - not a no fly zone denied to allow a Libyan opposition victory.

[Andaluciae]

Your proposing that we wait for the massacres to start before we get the UNSC to spend a few weeks debating whether or not they should do anything? Great idea, the first responders should arrive just in time to count the bodies.

The alternative is to go in blind, and risk being stuck in a third quagmire. My apologies for being a realist.
Edit: I am all for going into oppressive countries like Congo, Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, that have shown a pattern of oppression. I am against selective enforcement though, which is exactly what's going on here.

I, and a lot of other supporters of R2P have no qualms about selective enforcement for the time being. The interests of powerful states are going to have to be leveraged while a consensus is built up in favor of a broader R2P. We can build a new global consensus, but it takes time.

Above and beyond that, if our choice is between selective enforcement and no enforcement--and the concurrent body counts, I'll take selective enforcement.

[Shofercia]

Wait, so you're arguing for intervention based on something that Ghadaffi said?! Are you saying that Ghadaffi would never use a scare tactic to win a war? Well if that's the case, then Ahmadinejad said something bad about Israel, let's invade Iran according to Anda's logic.
In reality, it's much safer to wait until criminal acts are being committed, than to go in blind, and risk another Iraq. US cannot be the World Force Police, as that's an impossible goal to attain. Besides, if Ghadaffi does carry that out, he knows that he will be wiped out. He may be crazy, but he's not a complete dolt to carry out that threat.

So we wait until he has killed 10000 people a week? Colonel Gaddhafi is responsible for an awful lot of bloodshed. It's not unreasonable to expect him to do what he said, in an active civil war, that has challenged not only his rule and lifestyle (Ukrainian nurses and all) but his life. Iran is not at.war with Israel. Iran lacks the means to wipe out Israel, and the Presidency of Iran is a powerless position--not much different from the role of the Queen. The circumstances.surrounding the rhetoric are fundamentally different.

Shall I go into how many civilians died in Iraq, because of countries that are in NATO thinking that he possessed WMDs? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ The number's over 100,000. It doesn't have to be 10,000 a week, but it has to be substantial and specific evidence, not "an awful lot of bloodshed". In order for him to do what he said, the Civil War would have to be over. Thus, actually carrying out the threat that he made, would be supremely stupid. And if he's that stupid - remove him. However, considering that he held onto power for quite a while, I doubt that he's that stupid.

[Laerod]

If you're going to respond to me, I require that you actually read the post.

This, coming from you, is rich.

Who's firing cruise missiles at Gaddafi's tanks anywhere?

I was responding to a hypothetical, posited by strawman argument I attributed to OuroborousCobra:

The only limits on this action is that an occupying force may not be used, i.e. a ground invasion. Other than that, the coalition forces are authorized to take force in the prevention of harm to civilians under threat of attack, without limitation as to what that threat is from. If Ghadaffi decides to use tanks against civilians, such as in Benghazi, coalition forces have the authority to destroy those tanks.

Fix'd. Tanks being destroyed by coalition forces is not hypothetical. There is no indication that cruise missiles have been used to destroy tanks whatsoever.

You asked for us to mention one country that wasn't involved. Learn to express yourself in the English language if that's not what you meant. Or quit moving your goalposts if you did and changed your mind after setting yourself up like that.

I am terribly, terribly sorry that I forgot Poland, err Qatar. I was wrong to forget the mighty nation of Qatar, and I admit it. My main point is that this war is being primarily escalated by countries who are in NATO.

Actually, you forgot this:

So can you tell me of a single country involved that isn't a NATO member?

You asked, you got answered.

Which is irrelevant. We didn't refer to the Iraq war as a NATO operation either, despite NATO countries supplying just about all of the troops.

That's because certain NATO countries, such as France, offerred severe criticism of Iraq. Thus NATO was split on Iraq. In this case, not a single NATO country objected.

Nope.

Yes, lying and avoiding uncomfortable truths is simpler than admitting it. But here's some basic facts you conveniently forgot:
- "Coalition" is currently the accepted term for the group of nations enforcing the no-fly zone
- Germany is not one of them, so typing "Germany" when referring to them is either you being ignorant or you lying
- A de facto NATO operation is an operation de facto run by NATO; an operation de facto run by France is not a de facto NATO operation

Coalition is extremely vague.

Works for Anglo- and Germanophone news broadcasts.

As for Germany - I thought they usually tag along with France, didn't realize that wasn't the case here.

I'm shocked, quite shocked, to discover that you haven't been paying attention to the issue.

Additionally, I somehow doubt that France is "running" Operation Dawn. By saying that, you are being ignorant or you lying, (oh look, I can do that too!) It's a coalition of nations, most of whom just happen to be in NATO, running Operation Dawn. Unless you want to argue that the US is placing parts of its military under the French command. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 38009.html

Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Gadhafi, the U.S. kicked off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.

Sarkozy is the driving factor behind this. Of course, it's all sort of uncoordinated right now, which is why France, the UK, the US, and Canada are running their own operations. Kinda sinks whatever crazy "NATO is behind it!" conspiracy you're touting, though.

Rebels aren't civilian last time I checked. I don't think it's customary for civvies to carry around 81mm mortars. I don't think this guy qualifies for a civilian:

Here's some reading material for you:

Libya's insurgent leader warned that any delay in imposing a no-fly zone could let Gaddafi regain control.

"We ask the international community to shoulder their responsibilities," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, head of the rebels' National Libyan Council, told the BBC.

"The Libyans are being cleansed by Gaddafi's air force. We asked for a no-fly zone to be imposed from day one, we also want a sea embargo," he said.

Yeah, looks like NATO, err I mean countries that are in NATO, just happen to be taking sides in a Revolution, and supporting the Rebels.

Looks like it to those that want to see it that way. An intellectually honest critic would note that one cannot prevent Gaddafis forces from extracting retribution for the rebellion without providing the rebels with a strategic advantage. Then again, the main person to blame for Gaddafi getting this slapped on him is Gaddafi himself for wantonly attacking civilians and

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

You didn't bold the part that's talking about protecting civilians. You can only take military measures that protect civilians. And cruise missiles generally have this weird tendency to kill civilians, it's like their stupid, or an inanimate object unable to distinguish between civilians and military, or something.

True, I didn't bold that part. I was considering it, though. But it isn't what you asked for.

Now, regarding the cruise missiles: legal. They have, so far, been used to eliminate military threats to airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. The only one claiming otherwise is Gaddafi, and he's been suspiciously not allowing the press to actually see the cardiac center that allegedly got hit. If we give that credibility, we might as well believe the BBC anonymous interviewee from Tripoli that he saw the Libyan forces destroy soft targets themselves for the purpose of blaming it on the Coalition.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Sho's proposals are solely depending on what western countries do. If they'd waited, he'd now bash them for waiting. But since they intervened, he's now bashing them for intervening. As a consequence, the arguments he's using are somewhat in flux.

That's how he manages to simultaneously bash the west for non-intervention (Rwanda) and intervention (Libya) in the same damn post, as he's now done a few times.

Rwanda and Libya aren't the same country. There's no Genocide going on in Lybia. I believe in a standard: if you commit Genocide, you get an intervention up your ass. If you don't, I'll be very skeptical. I bash countries in NATO for not preventing a Genocide; and I bash countries in NATO for Neo- Imperialist tactics. I firmly believe that you can have a normal country, without Genocide. My apologies for tearing through your Ad Hominem.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'll have to disagree with you saying NATO should intervene in Genocide's. If we did that where would it end, it would mean going into Congo, (a huge country by the way), Sudan, Chad,Zimbabwe, EQ Guinea, possibly Cote d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, ect. That is just irrational. After all the incredible refutations you said about intervening in Libya, with the statement about bashing NATO for not preventing a Genocide, you denigrate your earlier comments. Perhaps it is best if we keep this on the topic of military intervention in Libya.

[Laerod]

In order for him to do what he said, the Civil War would have to be over.

Haha, right. And the Nazi Einsatzgruppen didn't kill any Jews or Soviet citizens because they were saving that for the end of the war.

[Shofercia]

I, and a lot of other supporters of R2P have no qualms about selective enforcement for the time being. The interests of powerful states are going to have to be leveraged while a consensus is built up in favor of a broader R2P. We can build a new global consensus, but it takes time.

Above and beyond that, if our choice is between selective enforcement and no enforcement--and the concurrent body counts, I'll take selective enforcement.

And that's where you and I differ. I don't like selective enforcement, and I think it's a piss poor doctrine, that will never be able to generate global consensus.

The alternative is to go in blind, and be stuck in a third quagmire. My apologies for being a realist.

If we waited until Ghaddafi starts massacring his opponents we would be in a quagmire. We'd have to put land forces in the country to prevent the violence.. We'd have to scrape the barrel to find opposition leaders that haven't been shot yet. We've already seen how the Arab League shits itself when the slightest force is applied - you think they are going to lend their support to a full scale invasion? With the organised opposition crushed, it would be down to foreign troops to engage Ghaddafi's forces throughout the country. Not to mention that the Libyan opposition might not even want foreign troops on the ground. That's your quagmire right there - not a no fly zone denied to allow a Libyan opposition victory.

Actually, if you were to follow facts, you'd know that several opposition leaders are enjoying Paris, so you wouldn't have to be scrapping the barrel. Opposition's been pinned down, and the battle for the opposition stronghold rages on. And there was at least a waiting periodof several weeks. Do check your facts before posting, you seem to have a habit of doing the exact opposite.

[Shofercia]

In order for him to do what he said, the Civil War would have to be over.

Haha, right. And the Nazi Einsatzgruppen didn't kill any Jews or Soviet citizens because they were saving that for the end of the war.

Nazis controlled Jewish ghettoes; Aushwitcz was under Nazi control for years. Khadaffi does not control Benghazi. So it would be impossible for Khadaffi to commit atrocities in an area that he doesn't control.

[Laerod]

And that's where you and I differ. I don't like selective enforcement, and I think it's a piss poor doctrine, that will never be able to generate global consensus.

Blame China and Russia for threatening the use of their veto powers.

[Laerod]

Haha, right. And the Nazi Einsatzgruppen didn't kill any Jews or Soviet citizens because they were saving that for the end of the war.

Nazis controlled Jewish ghettoes; Aushwitcz was under Nazi control for years. Khadaffi does not control Benghazi. So it would be impossible for Khadaffi to commit atrocities in an area that he doesn't control.

Bold part is important. Benghazi is the rebels stronghold, not the only place they can be found. Considering that several cities have fallen to Libyan forces, you can be damn sure that there are rebels and rebel sympathizers or people that are going to be accused of being rebel sympathizers well within Gaddafi's sphere of influence.

[Shofercia]

And that's where you and I differ. I don't like selective enforcement, and I think it's a piss poor doctrine, that will never be able to generate global consensus.

Blame China and Russia for threatening the use of their veto powers.

Huh? Yes, clearly China and Russia are the ones responsible for selective enforcement by countries that are in NATO

[EnragedMaldivians]

And that's where you and I differ. I don't like selective enforcement, and I think it's a piss poor doctrine, that will never be able to generate global consensus.

So given that a Utopia where morals and interests always align has not been reached, you prefer a sociopathic dystopia where they never align.

Why?

[Cosmopoles]

Actually, if you were to follow facts, you'd know that several opposition leaders are enjoying Paris, so you wouldn't have to be scrapping the barrel.

Because that plan worked so well in Iraq.

Opposition's been pinned down, and the battle for the opposition stronghold rages on. And there was at least a waiting periodof several weeks. Do check your facts before posting, you seem to have a habit of doing the exact opposite.

How does this run contrary to anything I've said? Its my entire point. If we don't intervene now while the opposition still control some territory then stopping massacres will become an order of magnitude greater. If the UNSC sits with its thumb up its ass waiting for Ghaddafi to start systematically killing people then the only way the rest of the world is going to get him to stop is with a full blown invasion. What the hell would a no fly zone do when Ghaddafi's supporters are going house to house killing opponents? You would need peacekeepers on the ground to stop that. That means urban warfare. That means heavy casualties, including civilians. How the hell is that better than imposing a no fly zone in order to allow the rebels the chance to overthrow Ghaddafi?

[Laerod]

Blame China and Russia for threatening the use of their veto powers.

Huh? Yes, clearly China and Russia are the ones responsible for selective enforcement by countries that are in NATO :clap:

Yes, they are. You could expect a lot more intervention if China and Russia weren't holding their shielding hands over a bunch of despots. Similarly, the African Union and the Arab League deserve plenty of blame as well. The main reason why intervention is impractical is because of the damage it does to the relations in the international community.

[Sdaeriji]

Blame China and Russia for threatening the use of their veto powers.

Huh? Yes, clearly China and Russia are the ones responsible for selective enforcement by countries that are in NATO

You keep mispelling "UN" as "NATO".

[Takaram]

Huh? Yes, clearly China and Russia are the ones responsible for selective enforcement by countries that are in NATO

You keep mispelling "UN" as "NATO".

It's rather annoying, isn't it?

[Shofercia]

I was responding to a hypothetical, posited by strawman argument I attributed to OuroborousCobra:

Fix'd. Tanks being destroyed by coalition forces is not hypothetical. There is no indication that cruise missiles have been used to destroy tanks whatsoever

I was referring to a direct comment made by Cobra quoted in this post: viewtopic.php?p=5103919#p5103919 I did not attribute anything to him, other than what he said. If you cannot read that, obtain glasses.

That's because certain NATO countries, such as France, offerred severe criticism of Iraq. Thus NATO was split on Iraq. In this case, not a single NATO country objected.

Nope.

France didn't offer severe criticism of Iraq?

But his conciliatory advance through the pomp and protocol of a state visit -- celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, a pact that brought together the onetime bitter rivals -- was coupled with unrepentant criticism of the American-British war in Iraq and, more generally, of America’s global posture.

Most prominently, Chirac reiterated his view that the war in Iraq had led to an expansion of terrorism in the world.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N55/long3_55.55w.html

Additionally, I somehow doubt that France is "running" Operation Dawn. By saying that, you are being ignorant or you
lying, (oh look, I can do that too!) It's a coalition of nations, most of whom just happen to be in NATO, running Operation Dawn. Unless you want to argue that the US is placing parts of its military under the French command. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 38009.html

Sarkozy is the driving factor behind this. Of course, it's all sort of uncoordinated right now, which is why France, the UK, the US, and Canada are running their own operations. Kinda sinks whatever crazy "NATO is behind it!" conspiracy you're touting, though.

I'm saying that countries, which are NATO members, are bombing an Islamic country. Sorry if that fact sounds conspiratorial to you.

True, I didn't bold that part. I was considering it, though. But it isn't what you asked for.

It applied to the bolded part. Usually, when there's a law and a restriction, both have a tendency to apply. For instance, just bolding the first part of "you can shoot people, if they enter your house and have a gun" making it look like "you can shoot people, if they enter your house, uninvited and have a gun", would be supremely biased.

The resolution, states:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

The relevant part states:

to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi

You only get to take all necessary measures in order to protect civilians; it's not a card blanche for trying to ensure regime change from the air.

[Sdaeriji]

So, intervening at the request of civilians who are being massacred by an oppressive dictator is bad, unless it's Ossetians?

[Nazis in Space]

Huh? Yes, clearly China and Russia are the ones responsible for selective enforcement by countries that are in NATO :clap:

Yes, they are. You could expect a lot more intervention if China and Russia weren't holding their shielding hands over a bunch of despots. Similarly, the African Union and the Arab League deserve plenty of blame as well. The main reason why intervention is impractical is because of the damage it does to the relations in the international community.

Curiously, Russia has been rather disinclined to intervene for humanitarian reasons in the examples our Russian friend has provided, too, yet has been extraordinarily eager to intervene in cases that, according to said Russian, would not've qualified, and were thus staggeringly blatant and evil imperialism.

One wonders why exactly he's singling out countries that aren't Russia.

[Shofercia]

And that's where you and I differ. I don't like selective enforcement, and I think it's a piss poor doctrine, that will never be able to generate global consensus.

So given that a Utopia where morals and interests always align has not been reached, you prefer a sociopathic dystopia where they never align.

Why?

How do you get all that from me simply opposing selective enforcement? I'm for enforcement in cases of Genocide, and similarly harsh humanitarian crimes. When what Saudi Arabia does something worse than Lybia, and Lybia gets punished, while Saudi Arabia gets off scot free - that I believe is wrong. That is what I call selective enforcement.

How does this run contrary to anything I've said? Its my entire point. If we don't intervene now while the opposition still control some territory then stopping massacres will become an order of magnitude greater. If the UNSC sits with its thumb up its ass waiting for Ghaddafi to start systematically killing people then the only way the rest of the world is going to get him to stop is with a full blown invasion. What the hell would a no fly zone do when Ghaddafi's supporters are going house to house killing opponents? You would need peacekeepers on the ground to stop that. That means urban warfare. That means heavy casualties, including civilians. How the hell is that better than imposing a no fly zone in order to allow the rebels the chance to overthrow Ghaddafi?

Because you are gambling with people's lives If the rebels don't win with the no fly zone, what's next? Are NATO member countries going to allow Ghadaffi to stay in power? Are they going to start another insurrection? Ground invasion?

So, intervening at the request of civilians who are being massacred by an oppressive dictator is bad, unless it's Ossetians?

Never said that. I simply said that if you're going to intervene, establish what the fuck constitutes intervention, and what doesn't. Russia warned Georgia on August 5th, that if Georgia attacks Ossetia, Russia's going to intervene. I am NOT defending Khadaffi. I am against selective enforcement.

Huh? Yes, clearly China and Russia are the ones responsible for selective enforcement by countries that are in NATO

You keep mispelling "UN" as "NATO".

What exactly did UN selectively enforce?

One wonders why exactly he's singling out countries that aren't Russia.

I criticized Russia, and adopted a different stance, and I won't have any trouble criticizing Russia on this issue. I believe that Russia erred dismissing their ambassador to Lybia, and in not using the veto power. So please stop the Cold War "he's Pinko Russian - he must be wrong" bullshit. Cold War's over, get over it.

[Laerod]

Fix'd. Tanks being destroyed by coalition forces is not hypothetical. There is no indication that cruise missiles have been used to destroy tanks whatsoever

I was referring to a direct comment made by Cobra quoted in this post: viewtopic.php?p=5103919#p5103919 I did not attribute anything to him, other than what he said. If you cannot read that, obtain glasses.

You set up a strawman argument to make shooting cruise missiles seem unwarranted. The only way you were able to do that was by implying tanks were being targeted.

Nope.

France didn't offer severe criticism of Iraq? [...]

Not disputing that. I'm disputing that's why it's not referred to as a NATO operation. I maintain the Iraq War isn't called a NATO operation because NATO didn't do any operating, much like this conflict isn't a NATO operation because France and Turkey are fighting about how and who gets to run the show how hard.

I'm saying that countries, which are NATO members, are bombing an Islamic country. Sorry if that fact sounds conspiratorial to you.

Oh, bullshit. Up until a few posts ago you were saying it was a NATO operation and then you started being coy about it.

It applied to the bolded part. Usually, when there's a law and a restriction, both have a tendency to apply. For instance, just bolding the first part of "you can shoot people, if they enter your house and have a gun" making it look like "you can shoot people, if they enter your house, uninvited and have a gun", would be supremely biased.

The resolution, states:

The relevant part states:

You only get to take all necessary measures in order to protect civilians; it's not a card blanche for trying to ensure regime change from the air.

The revelation that it's not a carte blanche for regime change is so page 32 of this thread. Seriously, you're brandishing this as though it was some startling revelation for us when in fact everyone here already knew that.