Gaddafi a legitimate target, says NATO official

[JohnBrowdie]

not if it's a "humanitarian mission", he isn't.  and not if we are still operating under the UN resolution.  this is sheer frustration showing due to fatally flawed mission statement.  there is never an end to a "humanitarian mission", and yet you also never have the proper authority to finish the job.  they should have declared the objective to be regime change, but they wanted to "feel good" about using advanced weaponry to kill people.

and this is yet another step in an incremental slide into a swamp.  the big problem with incrementalism is that you never seem to have enough military resources for the next increment.   

for our sake, I hope they splatter the son of a bitch soon.  and then I hope the post-GoDaffy era gets off to a better start than history would indicate.

Gaddafi a legitimate target, says NATO official (VIDEO)

A U.N. resolution justifies the killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a senior NATO military official reportedly told CNN Thursday.

The NATO official said that Gaddafi would be included in the resolution and is a legitimate target because he is head of the military and therefore part of the control and command structure.

The officer declined to comment on whether Gaddafi was being targeted by NATO's airstrikes.

Libya has seen months of violence as government forces and rebels have battled for control over the country.

A U.N. mandate in March paved the way for NATO to carry out a campaign in Libya to protect civilians targeted by Gaddafi.

More

[jafo2010]

The fact that one UN official is claiming Gahdafi is a target does not make it a just action.  Even a humanitarian enterprise should not be about regime change.  We are right back to where we were when we decided to take this one or that one out because we did not like them.

The UN Security Counsel clearly has not voted to target Gaqhdafi, which makes what this official is saying as meaningless.  Russia and China both would not vote to cancel his existence.

[JohnBrowdie]

he was from NATO, not the UN (not that it really matters).  and a humanitarian mission is the opposite of regime change;  we are advertising the former, but conducting the latter.  and that's spineless and ultimately dangerous.

The fact that one UN official is claiming Gahdafi is a target does not make it a just action.  Even a humanitarian enterprise should not be about regime change.  We are right back to where we were when we decided to take this one or that one out because we did not like them.

The UN Security Counsel clearly has not voted to target Gaqhdafi, which makes what this official is saying as meaningless.  Russia and China both would not vote to cancel his existence.

[jafo2010]

The article started with "UN resolution", and I am certain that resolution does NOT indicate that the death of Kadhafi is mandated.  You are right about the idiot being NATO, but NATO any more is just the flunky carrying out UN resolutions.

[JohnBrowdie]

NATO is allegedly in the driver's seat on libya.  we abandoned our role as leader of the free world in 2008.  it was so . . . "bush".

[jafo2010]

Since Vietnam, I don't think we were the leader of much in the world.  Most events happened one way or the other without the USA having a huge impact.

This empire has been in decline for 36 years.

The USA used to be number one for many things....now we are roughly 15th for standard of living, a similar number or worse for education, and on and on.  This country is in serious trouble, and we are frivolously spending hundreds of billions on wars with no objective and no hope of a positive outcome.

The USS Obama is completely rudderless, and the American people are going down with this ship to the bottom.

Enjoy what you have now, for tomorrow we may very well be the next Egypt, Syria, Yemen.  How much longer will the American people suffer from this abominable leadership in the presidency and Congress, and I condemn both parties with that statement?  How long?

Thess fools are arguing over $20 billion from a budget standpoint when they should be cutting the budget $2 trillion!  Any effort other than that, and it is time for a revolution from my view!

[JohnBrowdie]

those international "standard of living" surveys are a total crock of sh*t.  if you don't have full blown socialized health care, a government mandated 20 hour work week, and full government retirement at age 40, and public transportation to every corner of the land, then you are considered oppressive.  they should be honest, and call those surveys what they really are, socialist quotient surveys.

and for a country with a broken educational system, our colleges seem to be overflowing with students from other countries.

[jafo2010]

How many countries in Europe have you been to?

I can tell you that they do live better than we do.  And it is largely the European countries that almost across the board have it better.  I have been to a number of them, stayed with families, and they do live a very nice life.

They have more benefits, and I think by and large pay comparable taxes.  Here in the USA, our legislators have gotten very creative in the many many ways they tax us FOR EVERYTHING, and when added up, we pay through the nose for what we get.

Of course, most European countries are not squandering their treasury across the planet like the USA/  In fact, it is ONLY the USA that appears concerned about elevating the standard of living for every country around the world versus its own people.

Charity begins at home, and with a $1.6 trillion DEFICIT, I do not want to see one dime spent overseas before balancing our budget.

[JohnBrowdie]

one less than you 

How many countries in Europe have you been to?

I can tell you that they do live better than we do.  And it is largely the European countries that almost across the board have it better.  I have been to a number of them, stayed with families, and they do live a very nice life.

They have more benefits, and I think by and large pay comparable taxes.  Here in the USA, our legislators have gotten very creative in the many many ways they tax us FOR EVERYTHING, and when added up, we pay through the nose for what we get.

Of course, most European countries are not squandering their treasury across the planet like the USA/  In fact, it is ONLY the USA that appears concerned about elevating the standard of living for every country around the world versus its own people.

Charity begins at home, and with a $1.6 trillion DEFICIT, I do not want to see one dime spent overseas before balancing our budget.

[JohnBrowdie]

this would tend to be at odds with our standing policy prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state.