Posted on 04/30/2011 4:08:36 PM PDT by The Chief
nope, the family home is not a military target. But like a hospital, a protected location loses protected status when a military target is hiding there.
See, I can say it’s an orphanage and put a sign out saying “orphanage” but if I use it for assembling bombs, it loses its protected status, now do you understand
So the fact that it is his home no longer matters? When did the Laws of War change? How is this a Just War?
Muslims do not exist politcaly as individuals, only as a group. Uma does not subscribe to notions of Western democracy. Lebanon before civil war and Libya are closest you can get to democracy in a Muslim state. Turkish "democracy" is only for the show.
Let's say for arguments sake, that a Muslim state decides to follow your advice and imports American model of democracy and elects president.Three years later, new democratically elected president wages war without getting approval from the newly established Congress, in violation of newly adopted Constitution.
How would you call such system - Democratic or Dictatorship? How you would call such president - democratic or dictator?
What would be our remedy then - bombing their tv stations so their President could not deliver his speech, murdering their civilians or offing such president?
I believe that you can see the mud Barakah Hussein Al Amriki has dragged U.S. into.
Ex hippie
your analysis leaves something to be desired.
The military target was Gaddafi. (Rightly or wrongly, I happen to think we have no business in this) Gaddafi was using his innocent grandchildren as human shields. THAT IS THE WAR CRIME RIGHT THERE
He did a better job than we did. And when Israel loses more than that million as the nukes start popping, will you cry as much?
Donald Rumsfeld thought we could breeze in and use that as a base to contain Iran, but that hasn’t happened, has it?
Gadaffi has no safe zone. He is a military target where ever he goes. HE KNEW THIS. He was protected by human shields, his own grandchildren. THAT IS A WAR CRIME. furthermore THAT IS DEPRAVED
Guess what?
Iran is surrounded. Yeah, it was a good strategy. It is at checkmate.
Are Barakah Hussein Al Amriki, Sarkozy and Csmeron military targets?
Great analysis...accurate and to the point!!
Yeah, they will even lie about atrocities..like the journalist that went to Soviet Union when the famine was on and came back and said, “no one is dying, everything is fine.”
the analysis is accurate!
I am not saying we should NOT have done that..its just that they1) screwed it up and didn’t get the target 2) had the collateral damage and bombing a residential area
The reason I brought this up was that if it had been Bush, we would NEVER hear the end of it...Now, nothing will be said. My point on the analysis was that these were the points that the left harps on!
“The military target was Gaddafi.”
Really? When did the chief of state become a military target? What theory of war supports that belief?
Were these folks flying aircraft? Were they attacking other civilians? Were they in a battle zone?
That was then. This is now. He's an old man now, and he knows that death awaits him soon, whether from NATO or natural causes. If it were me, and somebody had killed a bunch of my kids and grandkids, I would be totally focused on making them pay for that, without regard for my own survival.
Every leader is surrounded by 300-1000 core supporters. In dictatorships, these are the key people who hold high level positions, such as head of security, senior general of the army, etc. Their positions of power and wealth depend on their collective support leader. There is an outer circle, men whose wealth depends on the leader.
Any “leader” can be toppled when their core support ends. When their circle sees more advantage for themselves by abandoning the leader. This maxim was shown in Nixon; in Haiti; in Egypt; in Tunisia.
Qaddifi will be gone in two hours if every villa along the Mediterranean coast of his supporters is attacked. Actually, it has more impact if every third villa gets a missile (less expensive, and greater worry).
The key concept is that his inner and outer circles have to see that their best choice is with a different leader. A vacuum is never a viable alternative. But Quaddaffi wil leave only when his supporters see their best options somewhere else.
I have a feeling this will outrage the Saudis who hold the key to our oil.
Obama bowed low to his Islam master/campaign treasurer, the Saudi king.....but he might as well have not bothered....his policies in the Middle East have now screwed everything up beyond repair.
Leni
Of course they don't...many of them LOVE the cash we hand out, since now they get to practice their deceit and extremism at the same time we're paying them!
And heck, buying stock in a defense contractor paid off well with all the transfer of taxpayer funds.
And I suppose all the families broken up by year after year of war, using National Guard and Reserve troops has been SO worth it.
But when all is said and done, despite having Iraqi friends, I am of the opinion that giving American lives and American tax dollars for "democracy" for a people who didn't ask for it and who might "democratically" decide that we're the enemy is just not something that's our federal government's business doing, unless it's in our interests--
--such as taking the oil or whatever. :-)
Excellent analysis!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.