Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts that the Senate’s version of the health care law would be the one to pass, if any version did. After all, it was apparent for months after the passing of the late-Sen. Wicker approaching the Democratic leadership in the run-up to passage of this bill, and presenting in good faith, sensible solutions to some of the problems which were bound to arise. I’m trying now to recall ever reading or otherwise hearing about Sen. How can we possibly hold them responsible?īut, I would say to my fellow Mississippians who are finding themselves, as I am, priced out of the health insurance market: Doesn’t being a US Senator impute some responsibility for a major change like the Affordable Care Act, whether he/she voted for it or not? Isn’t a Representative’s job, after all, to Represent? Meaning, if you see a potential problem with a major piece of legislation which will have far-reaching effects upon your constituents, shouldn’t you at least TRY to fix some of those problems? As a matter of fact, not a single Republican in either house of Congress did. “But why would we do THAT?!” you ask after all, Sen. Roger Wicker and his Republican colleagues accountable for this tragedy as well? Perhaps there is some blame to be apportioned there.īut, is it too much to ask that we hold Sen. Obama and the Democrats in Congress who passed that law. I can state with certainty that most folks in my locale would respond to this situation the way they’ve been responding to it: By calling down curses upon Pres. Fighting back, the Ukrainians have depended largely on ground fire.To the politically-informed reader, the immediate cause of my predicament is well known: insurers are finding themselves increasingly bound by greater coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act, and they are – while they still can – passing along those increased costs to their customers. In its invasion Russia has relied mostly on long-range missiles and surface artillery fire to attack Ukrainian targets. So far the war in Ukraine has not depended heavily on air power, on either side. Last week a group of US defence and foreign policy experts released a letter calling for a “limited” Nato-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine to establish humanitarian corridors in which civilians were protected from aerial bombardment.īut critics said that would not limit the risk of conflict with Russia, as Nato aircraft would still have to be willing to shoot down Russian aircraft. So that’s the reason why we make this painful decision,” Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said on 4 March.Ī day later, Russian president Vladimir Putin confirmed those stakes, saying any country trying to enforce a Ukraine no-fly zone “will be considered by us as participation in an armed conflict by that country.” What about a ‘limited’ no-fly zone? “If we did that, we’ll end up with something that could end in a full-fledged war in Europe, involving many more countries and causing much more human suffering. US and Nato officials say flatly that for a Ukraine no-fly zone to work their own jets would have to be prepared to shoot down any Russian violators – effectively making them direct participants in the war. Zelenskiy urges Nato to impose no-fly zone over Ukraine – video Why not do it? It could allow civilians, who are becoming casualties at a staggering rate, to flee the conflict more safely. What would a no-fly zone achieve in Ukraine?Ī full no-fly zone enforced by Nato would mean that Russia’s superior air power could not be deployed against Ukrainians – but also that the Kyiv would not be able to fly its fighter jets and significantly effective attack drones against the Russians. And in 2011 Nato also enforced a UN-approved one over Libya during that country’s civil war. But they are costly, requiring constant air patrolling and monitoring.įrom 1991 to 2003 the US, France and Britain enforced no-fly zones over Iraq in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, to protect Shia populations in the south and minority Kurds in the north from air attacks by the Saddam Hussein’s Sunni government.įrom 1993 to 1995 Nato enforced a UN-declared no-fly zone over Bosnia. They have been used in attempts to limit an ongoing conflict on the ground and to protect certain populations. The zones require one or more parties to be willing to enforce them – that is, being ready and able to shoot down any aircraft violating the space.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |