The jasmine revolution spreads?

[BeidAmmikon]

Yo, amtct, what have you done? This is not your shift, I suppose, cause it's not funny at all...

"19.50 Romania will send a frigate with a crew of more than 200 to the Mediterranean to take part in a NATO arms embargo on Libya, President X has said."

Naughty-naughty... A piece of the action, you want...

[amtct]

Yo, amtct, what have you done? This is not your shift, I suppose, cause it's not funny at all...

"19.50 Romania will send a frigate with a crew of more than 200 to the Mediterranean to take part in a NATO arms embargo on Libya, President X has said."

Naughty-naughty... A piece of the action, you want...

That will count in the end you know.I already see the almighty force of .... mmmm,oh wait ,the KGB president (he tries hard to copy Putin) sent what he calls "an army" to do what?
We are talking about 200 people armed with stones and a bad vocabulary.Pretty sure he wants to piss that dictator

[Warenwolf]

An insight about Qaddafi's arms smuggling operations.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/ ... y-exposed/

It looks like Warenwolf is right about cold war equipment that can still sell like gold.

That's just the illegal trade. The legal trade is still (?) much larger. You would be surprised how many HK G3s have found their way from cold war storages and into Africa, entirely legally (legally at least when shipped from Europe).
A man with right connections can still make fortune by being intermediate between western governments and third world countries - legally without breaking any laws.

[BeidAmmikon]

That will count in the end you know. [...] We are talking about 200 people

Well, amtct, don't be sad, perhaps it will count indeed, after all the pals of Ulysses weren't that many to fit into that accursed, wooden Trojan Horse... Yeah, you could give that frigate to Qadhafi as a gift LOLZ.

[amtct]

Well, amtct, don't be sad, perhaps it will count indeed, after all the pals of Ulysses weren't that many to fit into that accursed, wooden Trojan Horse...

Are you saying that he should have sent those people to invade Troy Dragoongfa is not going to like that

Yeah, you could give that frigate to Qadhafi as a gift LOLZ.

We don't want that frigate ,so why do you think he'll want that as a gift

[Tycow]

Looks like the Americans have deployed one of their psyop planes. It was telling the Libyan Navy not to leave port or risk being destroyed.

Best bit is that it was found out by a ex-military Dutch bloke who's been monitoring the military communication frequencies.

Other finds of his include the Russians having a look around!

Interesting stuff, especially as it was found by a civvie radio geek listening in!

@USAfricaCommand be advised, one of your WEASEL's F-16CJ from 23th FS Spangdahlem Germany has his transponder Mode-S on! NOT secure!

Made me chuckle.

(BTW for the uninitiated ANDVT = Advanced Narrowband Digital Voice Terminal, Link 11 is a NATO/US data link system)

[silentWitness]

If we're talking silly I hear that the French are attempting to deliver the terms of their surrender but their delivery method needs work so far the bombs and missiles have been unable to deliver the message!

The RAF is using aircraft last used in the Battle of Britain... pilots were heard commenting "well at least they're a step up from the Eurofighter". The navy has relaunched the 'Victory' sighting that it is "the most powerful ship in the navy today".

The Netherlands has sent their most advanced navy blockage ship. All vessels coming within 100km of the vessel will become overcome by the smoke coming from the mess room and stop in the water.

And now the Romanians... hmm... actually it would be impossible to poke fun at them. They will be too tired having to row all that way! We should just leave them alone to sleep.

[brucewarren]

The RAF is using aircraft last used in the Battle of Britain... pilots were heard commenting "well at least they're a step up from the Eurofighter". The navy has relaunched the 'Victory' sighting that it is "the most powerful ship in the navy today".

It probably is after all those defence cuts.

EDIT:

On a more serious note, AIUI the Eurofighter is actually quite capable.
If only we had a carrier to land them on.

[philip_hughes]

The aussie government was at one time seriously considering buying eurofighters, but it would have been a really dumb move. The fighters are fine, but their range is just too limited. We still have F1-11's, and it seems like we won't have a decent replacement for them in quite some time. In our theatre, range trumps everything.

By the way, an F-15 crashed and the US made its usual hash of public relations

article

[Shock223]

By the way, an F-15 crashed and the US made its usual hash of public relations

article

looks like someone dropped the ball there..

[BeidAmmikon]

A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

[Warenwolf]

Read the article. It may be right about the legality of the war from american perspective, however he didn't really make an issue. Lot of adjectives, some dubious interpretation of American civil war and supposed moral equivalence between that and Gaddafi's suppression of the protesters.

He lost me totally when he started to claim that protesters were Al Quada extremists*. Then I checked who the writer was and saw that it was a real gem of humanity....

*which is outright lying.

[Dragoongfa]

A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

Buchanan.

You might as well point a PETA extremist's essay about the dangers of meat.

[amtct]

You might as well point a PETA extremist's essay about the dangers of meat.

The article is right .How can someone defend innocent people when they are attacked by a guy who has womens as bodyguards and hates fashion by wearing http://izismile.com/2009/08/19/colonel_ ... _pics.html
Hope no one will attack Kimmy Jong extremly Ill because he's cute and small

[BeidAmmikon]

I expected much more from you guys, other than shooting the messenger.

Erm... nope...
Wrong again.



Good news, everyone!
08:13 Uhr Verteidigungsminister Thomas de Maizière verteidigt die skeptische Position Deutschlands zum internationalen Libyen-Militäreinsatz: Der nun gestartete Abzug deutscher Soldaten aus der Mittelmeer-Region sei gerechtfertigt, denn Deutschland wolle sich militärisch nicht beteiligen, sagt der CDU-Politiker im Deutschlandfunk. Die Bundesregierung habe weiter "berechtigte Zweifel" am Sinn der Luftangriffe auf die libyschen Streitkräfte.
It says that is reasonable to pull the German troops back from the Mediterranean because there are doubts over what will happen if NATO will get involved. Perhaps, a reminder to the whole gang about Article 5...
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

[Dragoongfa]

@Beid If you expected such answers from us then you know that Buchanan is a known demagogue with antisemitic views. There is a reason why I backfired at his essay, not only because he uses completely foolish arguments and comparisons but also because he always tells what the plebs want to hear, even if it is the complete opposite of what he was supporting some time ago.

Were you expecting that much?

[Warenwolf]

@beid

Compared to this article and it's analyzes*, buchanan's piece rates below that of a high school pupil.


*take the "analyzes" part with pinch of salt - this too is an opinion piece.
.......................



Anyways, the rebels got their act together and finally formed an interim government.

[Tracker001]

Q108. "Who has the power to declare war?"

A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President.

The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.
....................
These two distinct roles, that of the Congress and that of the President, bring up the interesting and important questions: can the United States be "at war" without a declaration of war? If we can, then what is the point of a declaration? If not, then what do we call hostilities without a formal declaration?

A bit of history
The question of the need for a declaration of war dates all the way back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson sent a squadron of warships to the Mediterranean to protect U.S. shipping against the forces of the Bey of Tripoli. Jefferson's instructions to the squadron were that they act in a defensive manner only, with a strictly defined order of battle. When a Tripolitan cruiser shot at a U.S. ship, the U.S. forces seized the ship, disarmed it, and released it. Jefferson's message to Congress on the incident indicated that he felt the acts to be within constitutional bounds. Alexander Hamilton wrote to Congress and espoused his belief that since the United States did not start the conflict, the United States was in a state of war, and no formal declaration was needed to conduct war actions. Congress authorized Jefferson's acts without declaring war on the Bey.

Not all acts of war, however, need place the United States into a state of war. It is without doubt an act of war to fire upon a warship of another nation. In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence ship operating off the Sinai coast. But the United States did not react as though it were at war, even though many considered the attack deliberate (both Israel and the U.S. later determined the attack to have been a mistake caused by the cloud of war).

It may be correct to say, then, that an act or war committed against the United States can place the United States into a state of war, if the United States wishes to see the act in that light. A declaration of war by the Congress places the Unites States at war without any doubt. Absent a declaration of war, the President can react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.

War powers act 1973: NY Times (Short and sweet version here
Long drawn-out legal ease version here

WASHINGTON, March 28— The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.

The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto

[BeidAmmikon]

Q108. "Who has the power to declare war?"

A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President.

The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.
....................
These two distinct roles, that of the Congress and that of the President, bring up the interesting and important questions: can the United States be "at war" without a declaration of war? If we can, then what is the point of a declaration? If not, then what do we call hostilities without a formal declaration?

A bit of history
The question of the need for a declaration of war dates all the way back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson sent a squadron of warships to the Mediterranean to protect U.S. shipping against the forces of the Bey of Tripoli. Jefferson's instructions to the squadron were that they act in a defensive manner only, with a strictly defined order of battle. When a Tripolitan cruiser shot at a U.S. ship, the U.S. forces seized the ship, disarmed it, and released it. Jefferson's message to Congress on the incident indicated that he felt the acts to be within constitutional bounds. Alexander Hamilton wrote to Congress and espoused his belief that since the United States did not start the conflict, the United States was in a state of war, and no formal declaration was needed to conduct war actions. Congress authorized Jefferson's acts without declaring war on the Bey.

Not all acts of war, however, need place the United States into a state of war. It is without doubt an act of war to fire upon a warship of another nation. In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence ship operating off the Sinai coast. But the United States did not react as though it were at war, even though many considered the attack deliberate (both Israel and the U.S. later determined the attack to have been a mistake caused by the cloud of war).

It may be correct to say, then, that an act or war committed against the United States can place the United States into a state of war, if the United States wishes to see the act in that light. A declaration of war by the Congress places the Unites States at war without any doubt. Absent a declaration of war, the President can react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.

War powers act 1973: NY Times (Short and sweet version here
Long drawn-out legal ease version here

WASHINGTON, March 28— The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.

The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto

Green is enough to convince anyone willing to listen. BUUUUUUT....
We all know Buchanan has anti-Semitic (define!) views, and his article could have been written by a seven year-old brat. Hell, even I could write such a piece of propaganda if I put my mind to it, or better yet, a pair! (of them)
Nevermind the law of the land - bring up the anti-Semitic argument to discredit anything that anyone may be saying, and the house wins.
There is such a thing called the US Constitution, Warenwolf, whether you like it or not. You should be thankful for me not linking to what Farrakhan said, since he's pretty much going on the same lines as Buchanan did in that article, only worse



Egypt Air are at it with jokes in poor taste They have no flights listed to and from Israel... nor Israel, for that matter... "WTF!"


Also: Yo, amtct, what kind of frigate is that frigate? Is it an M6, an M7, an M7M or an Ion Frigate, like in Homeworld? Is it Gadhafi's Nemesis? LOLZ (still...)

[Warenwolf]

There is such a thing called the US Constitution, Warenwolf, whether you like it or not.

Indeed. Of course I don't care much about it since I am not citizen of USA but we digress. Don't know why you really bring it up in connection to me.
Regardless, my suspicions about Mr. Buchanan being liberal with truth seems justified* - after all US President did not break the law like Mr. Buchanan claimed as stipulated by the paragraph Tracker001 outlined.

Nevermind the law of the land - bring up the anti-Semitic argument to discredit anything that anyone may be saying, and the house wins.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Buchanan insinuated in his article that Libyan protesters were Al Quada members (which in US these days is "I WIN" tactic in debates ) which makes him guilty of the tactics you accuse us of.

BTW, I read the article before I checked who wrote the piece (I was amused by such interesting interpretation of the revolt in Libya). So who wrote the piece had no bearing on me thinking it was crap in first place.


*Since I couldn't be bothered to find the relevant US law I wrote that the article "may be right about the legality of the war from american perspective".