Question:
If the US was not involved would you all be questioning the motives of the international world? If it was the UK & France instead would you have issues with this defence of HUMAN lives? I really don't give a rats ass about the American politics, human live is more important than politics and money.
how can you defend human lives by taking other human lives? if all lives are equal who is right and who is wrong? who is to decide who is threatened and who is not, who is just and who is unjust?
the libyan rebels knew what they were risking when they started this uprising. if they were strong enough to overthorw ghadaffi and take control of things themselves then let them. if they are not strong enough to do so then they will face the consequences for their actions. not that i agree with those consequences, but if i am going to start a revolutionary war i am going to make damn sure i have the ability to win it without getting international help, because my country will be owing favors to those other countries for the next century...
i am just sick to death of my country getting it's nose in the business of other countries. especially when it is my country investing it's resources, money, and blood. we are not the world cop, and our military might is to be used for defensive purposes. we are not supposed to be blowing people up in countries that are no threat to us, but we have been doing just that for 30 years. we have let genocides go in other parts of africa and europe, so why libya? why now?
the uk and france were pushing for this, why not let them take care of it? they do not need the US to hold their hands. they are not involved in 2 active wars already. why is it we have to get involved in everything?
and american politics is a MAJOR issue in this offensive, so you can not dismiss that out of hand.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
that sounds nice, but i don't think libya is the only country with a ruthless tyrant. i think the fact that they are sitting atop a whole lotta oil may have something to do with it.
I can't believe I'm defending Obama...but in this cat's case, it has NOTHING to do with oil. You'd be correct in that assumption if we were still under the "protection" of our last Liar in Chief. I remember ultra-conservatives saying that if Obama were to be elected, he'd remove the troops from Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia before the mission was completed. Now he acts on a terrorist threat, and those same conservatives say he acted too slowly? And, you say he should be impeached for his actions? Out of curiousity, how'd you vote in 2004? You didn't happen to knowingly re-elect a public liar, did you?
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I can't believe I'm defending Obama...but in this cat's case, it has NOTHING to do with oil. You'd be correct in that assumption if we were still under the "protection" of our last Liar in Chief. I remember ultra-conservatives saying that if Obama were to be elected, he'd remove the troops from Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia before the mission was completed. Now he acts on a terrorist threat, and those same conservatives say he acted too slowly? And, you say he should be impeached for his actions? Out of curiousity, how'd you vote in 2004? You didn't happen to knowingly re-elect a public liar, did you?
i'm not a conserative, if that's what you're getting at. and it doesn't matter who you, i, or anyone voted for. whoever gets to play the role of the POTUS is working for interests other than ours. but that's another discussion.
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
this is killing me. i don't understand obama anymore. i have really tried to defend him but you guys make it impossible.
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
* unless you're a banker or a politician
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
* unless you're a banker or a politician
Amen, brother.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Yes, it is an impeachable offense, and he should be impeached. As should have Bush, Clinton, and just about every president this country has ever had. They've all violated the Constitution in some way or another, some worse than others. Shit, if every president this country ever had was allowed one "mulligan" to not be impeached for an impeachable offense, 100% of them still deserved impeachment, because they've all probably had at least 2 breaches of The Supreme Law of the Land. And here I am, forced to pay tickets for not wearing my fuckin seatbelt. I do believe that part of the resurgence in the interest in the Constitution is exactly for that reason... Not my seatbelt ( ), but the fact that "the little people" are held to the black and white of the law EVERYDAY to the fullest extent, while politicians and the banksters have either ignored laws that if broken are considered treasonous offenses (politicians), or have legalized fraud for themselves and themselves only (banksters). What IF our elected officials were held accountable to the strictest interpretations of The Constitution? I believe the world would be a much better place, and we would all be a lot freer and happier.
The US has no business being in Libya. Anyone who thinks this isn't going to turn into a complete clusterfuck and create more resentment towards the US and the western world in general is overly optimistic and horribly kidding themselves. Even if the intentions of this country were 100% noble, at this point given our recent history of military interventionism for control and profiteering, it will not be viewed that way.
Once Gaddafi is gone, who is going to replace him? Whoever THE UNITED STATES chooses. True or false, that is going to be the resounding belief in Africa and the Middle East whether it is the decision of the UN or not.
Just because the UN decided this is the right move, doesn't mean America has to get involved. How many wars has the world seen since the creation of the UN anyway? Bang up job they're doing.
One thing that bothers me as I read through this thread-- why must so many people insist on voting against their own sovereignty? Why leave decisions about the internal affairs of a nations to be decided through the force of an unelected global bureaucracy? If you, on your own personal level feel the need to support one side of a conflict in a country thousands of miles away from you of no immediate threat to you or your family-- bust out your checkbook! Take up arms and get over there! Go fight the cause that YOU feel so strongly about, while not involving your neighbor. Now, THAT'S freedom. For every forced outside government intervention you think is necessary, there will surely be 25 others that you probably disagree with, and that is going to drain YOU of your own livelihood in the process. If you support this global police system for one conflict, you end up supporting all of the unnecessary interventions, which likely yields serious errors and omissions of dictatorships far more worthy of global "police" intervention.
States bordering internal conflicts such as those bordering Libya may have reasons to intervene for their own self-defense reasons-- but either way, if it's not my country, it's not my decision.
And as far as the reasons for requiring a Congressional declaration of war: This was designed in such a way that war wasn't done so hastily, and the framers of the Constitution spent loads of time dealing with the portion of the document dealing with war. Unlike most of our politicians today, those guys just got done fighting a war themselves, some of them on the front lines. Declaring war involves a debate process, time to present the facts and make the people aware of any threat and gives the people a chance to contact their representatives in favor of, or against going to war, so that Congress can then represent the true beliefs of the people, and it still requires an overwhelming majority to make it happen! It was designed in such a way that war is NOT the favorable outcome, only an absolutely necessary one. If decided in favor of war, there is a process to make sure the war is fought quickly, efficiently, and is properly funded.
GOING TO WAR, OR GIVING WAR ANY OTHER CUTE LITTLE PSEUDONYM SUCH AS "ENFORCEMENT OF A NO-FLY ZONE," WHERE VIOLENT MILITARY FORCE IS CLEARLY BEING EXECUTED, IS NOT TO BE DECIDED ON THE WHIMS OF ANY PRESIDENT, NOR IS IT TO BE DICTATED BY ANY OTHER OUTSIDE "GOVERNMENT" ORGANIZATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM AND / OR DEMOCRACY. BY GIVING INTO THAT SYSTEM AND PHILOSOPHY, "DEMOCRACY" IS USURPED BY ALL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED FROM THEIR OWN NON-CONSENTING INDIVIDUALS OF WHICH THEIR GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT.
Yes, it is an impeachable offense, and he should be impeached. As should have Bush, Clinton, and just about every president this country has ever had. They've all violated the Constitution in some way or another, some worse than others. Shit, if every president this country ever had was allowed one "mulligan" to not be impeached for an impeachable offense, 100% of them still deserved impeachment, because they've all probably had at least 2 breaches of The Supreme Law of the Land. And here I am, forced to pay tickets for not wearing my fuckin seatbelt. I do believe that part of the resurgence in the interest in the Constitution is exactly for that reason... Not my seatbelt ( ), but the fact that "the little people" are held to the black and white of the law EVERYDAY to the fullest extent, while politicians and the banksters have either ignored laws that if broken are considered treasonous offenses (politicians), or have legalized fraud for themselves and themselves only (banksters). What IF our elected officials were held accountable to the strictest interpretations of The Constitution? I believe the world would be a much better place, and we would all be a lot freer and happier.
The US has no business being in Libya. Anyone who thinks this isn't going to turn into a complete clusterfuck and create more resentment towards the US and the western world in general is overly optimistic and horribly kidding themselves. Even if the intentions of this country were 100% noble, at this point given our recent history of military interventionism for control and profiteering, it will not be viewed that way.
Once Gaddafi is gone, who is going to replace him? Whoever THE UNITED STATES chooses. True or false, that is going to be the resounding belief in Africa and the Middle East whether it is the decision of the UN or not.
Just because the UN decided this is the right move, doesn't mean America has to get involved. How many wars has the world seen since the creation of the UN anyway? Bang up job they're doing.
One thing that bothers me as I read through this thread-- why must so many people insist on voting against their own sovereignty? Why leave decisions about the internal affairs of a nations to be decided through the force of an unelected global bureaucracy? If you, on your own personal level feel the need to support one side of a conflict in a country thousands of miles away from you of no immediate threat to you or your family-- bust out your checkbook! Take up arms and get over there! Go fight the cause that YOU feel so strongly about, while not involving your neighbor. Now, THAT'S freedom. For every forced outside government intervention you think is necessary, there will surely be 25 others that you probably disagree with, and that is going to drain YOU of your own livelihood in the process. If you support this global police system for one conflict, you end up supporting all of the unnecessary interventions, which likely yields serious errors and omissions of dictatorships far more worthy of global "police" intervention.
States bordering internal conflicts such as those bordering Libya may have reasons to intervene for their own self-defense reasons-- but either way, if it's not my country, it's not my decision.
And as far as the reasons for requiring a Congressional declaration of war: This was designed in such a way that war wasn't done so hastily, and the framers of the Constitution spent loads of time dealing with the portion of the document dealing with war. Unlike most of our politicians today, those guys just got done fighting a war themselves, some of them on the front lines. Declaring war involves a debate process, time to present the facts and make the people aware of any threat and gives the people a chance to contact their representatives in favor of, or against going to war, so that Congress can then represent the true beliefs of the people, and it still requires an overwhelming majority to make it happen! It was designed in such a way that war is NOT the favorable outcome, only an absolutely necessary one. If decided in favor of war, there is a process to make sure the war is fought quickly, efficiently, and is properly funded.
GOING TO WAR, OR GIVING WAR ANY OTHER CUTE LITTLE PSEUDONYM SUCH AS "ENFORCEMENT OF A NO-FLY ZONE," WHERE VIOLENT MILITARY FORCE IS CLEARLY BEING EXECUTED, IS NOT TO BE DECIDED ON THE WHIMS OF ANY PRESIDENT, NOR IS IT TO BE DICTATED BY ANY OTHER OUTSIDE "GOVERNMENT" ORGANIZATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM AND / OR DEMOCRACY. BY GIVING INTO THAT SYSTEM AND PHILOSOPHY, "DEMOCRACY" IS USURPED BY ALL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED FROM THEIR OWN NON-CONSENTING INDIVIDUALS OF WHICH THEIR GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT.
It's hypocritcal, immoral, and against the law.
:thumbup:
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
where are the republicans and tea partiers who are so concerned about spending on this? :?:
they are actually criticizing obama for acting too slowly and not jumping into this sooner.
so let me get this straight, don't spend money on government employees and the middle class and entitlement programs, but spend limitless amounts delivering freedom to other people? how can they reconcile this?
and i will say it again. if he broke the law and committed an impeachable offense, then man up and begin the proceedings now.
Is it ok to fire teachers and tomahawks at the same time?
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
The way I see it is it's not illegal because no war has been declared. This is under a UN resolution and the US, UK and France are all UN members. It would been illegal if the bombing had started without a UN resolution. This isn't about blowing the shit out of Libya and moving the troops in, that would be illegal.
If the world stepped back and watched the opponents of Gaddafi being butchered as he had already started doing and did nothing that would have been a crime IMHO. By now we would have been discussing the bloodbath in Benghazi and why we did nothing. Tunisia's and Egypt's presidents quit because of the protests. Now we need to watch what happens in Syria which is another matter entirely. It seems that the people in that region have had enough of their dictators.
where are the republicans and tea partiers who are so concerned about spending on this? :?:
they are actually criticizing obama for acting too slowly and not jumping into this sooner.
so let me get this straight, don't spend money on government employees and the middle class and entitlement programs, but spend limitless amounts delivering freedom to other people? how can they reconcile this?
and i will say it again. if he broke the law and committed an impeachable offense, then man up and begin the proceedings now.
Is it ok to fire teachers and tomahawks at the same time?
apparently is is possible because that is exactly what is happening. and it would be even more ironic if those building the missiles were the ones being laid off and having their collective bargaining rights stripped away...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
The way I see it is it's not illegal because no war has been declared. This is under a UN resolution and the US, UK and France are all UN members. It would been illegal if the bombing had started without a UN resolution. This isn't about blowing the shit out of Libya and moving the troops in, that would be illegal.
bombing a country is an act of war, declaration or not. last i knew, the us government does not get it's authorization for anything from any international bodies.. at least it isn't supposed to. our so-called representative government is supposed to be working for us, and carrying out our bidding through our elected representatives. this not what happened. the president decided on his own to launch an attack, without even a debate in congress - nevermind an authorization. as far as this country goes, this act was not legal.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Shall we all sit idle and watch another dictator slaughter his people? I think not. Bombing Libya is not the right way to term what is happening, Libya bombing it own people would be closer.
I didn't read all of the replies but Biden sure was after Bush trying for impeachment.
We are not the world police. If people are so worried about Libya people dying why aren't we doing something about Darfur and situations like that? It is that we have nothing to gain or what?
The US needs to mind its' own business and pull all troops from around the world and bring them home. And before someone screams isolationist to me it is more like non-interventionist. Big difference.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
We don't even know who these rebels are. Many analysts believe they are affliated with al-qaeda.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Oh and one other thing, if the UN is running this I want us out now. Our troops should not be taking orders from a foreign commander.
Shall we all sit idle and watch another dictator slaughter his people? I think not. Bombing Libya is not the right way to term what is happening, Libya bombing it own people would be closer.
I didn't read all of the replies but Biden sure was after Bush trying for impeachment.
We are not the world police. If people are so worried about Libya people dying why aren't we doing something about Darfur and situations like that? It is that we have nothing to gain or what?
The US needs to mind its' own business and pull all troops from around the world and bring them home. And before someone screams isolationist to me it is more like non-interventionist. Big difference.
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
The way I see it is it's not illegal because no war has been declared. This is under a UN resolution and the US, UK and France are all UN members. It would been illegal if the bombing had started without a UN resolution. This isn't about blowing the shit out of Libya and moving the troops in, that would be illegal.
If the world stepped back and watched the opponents of Gaddafi being butchered as he had already started doing and did nothing that would have been a crime IMHO. By now we would have been discussing the bloodbath in Benghazi and why we did nothing. Tunisia's and Egypt's presidents quit because of the protests. Now we need to watch what happens in Syria which is another matter entirely. It seems that the people in that region have had enough of their dictators.
So now all countries must take orders from the UN...I don't think so. By the way Canada is also involved, which is bullshit as well.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
The way I see it is it's not illegal because no war has been declared. This is under a UN resolution and the US, UK and France are all UN members. It would been illegal if the bombing had started without a UN resolution. This isn't about blowing the shit out of Libya and moving the troops in, that would be illegal.
If the world stepped back and watched the opponents of Gaddafi being butchered as he had already started doing and did nothing that would have been a crime IMHO. By now we would have been discussing the bloodbath in Benghazi and why we did nothing. Tunisia's and Egypt's presidents quit because of the protests. Now we need to watch what happens in Syria which is another matter entirely. It seems that the people in that region have had enough of their dictators.
So now all countries must take orders from the UN...I don't think so. By the way Canada is also involved, which is bullshit as well.
speak for yourself, i'm glad Canada is participating. I agree with what the U.N is doing.
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
The way I see it is it's not illegal because no war has been declared. This is under a UN resolution and the US, UK and France are all UN members. It would been illegal if the bombing had started without a UN resolution. This isn't about blowing the shit out of Libya and moving the troops in, that would be illegal.
bombing a country is an act of war, declaration or not. last i knew, the us government does not get it's authorization for anything from any international bodies.. at least it isn't supposed to. our so-called representative government is supposed to be working for us, and carrying out our bidding through our elected representatives. this not what happened. the president decided on his own to launch an attack, without even a debate in congress - nevermind an authorization. as far as this country goes, this act was not legal.
When it comes to matters of organised conflict like the Libyan situation countries DO take authorisation from the UN. If a country decides it will along with others help another country's people it is totally legal if sanctioned by the UN.
Nobody has declared war on Libya, if they had the troops would be in by now. This is purely protecting the Libyans that had the outrageous idea of protesting against the leader of their country. It's something we on here can all do but the Libyans can't.
If US citizens think the US should never listen or have it's plans sanctioned by the UN lobby your politicians and get out of the UN.
If the world stepped back and watched the opponents of Gaddafi being butchered as he had already started doing and did nothing that would have been a crime IMHO. By now we would have been discussing the bloodbath in Benghazi and why we did nothing. Tunisia's and Egypt's presidents quit because of the protests. Now we need to watch what happens in Syria which is another matter entirely. It seems that the people in that region have had enough of their dictators.
Did you read the excellent Salon article _________ posted? Do you have a response to the points made in it?
Do you support military intervention in every country oppressed by their leaders?
He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.
Exactly. This is not an American run strike, it is the international world helping civilians to defend themselves against a tyrant.
Not to be a dick, but I don't know if I've ever read this many regurgitated media soundbytes in five short sentences....You're both swallowing their spin, hook, line and sinker....
Did anyone happen to catch Monday's Daily Show?
paraphrased:
"enforcing a no-fly zone? You bombed a whole line of tanks"
"yes John, and we've been assured those tanks will never fly again"
"the US is not leading this mission, we are lending technical support to an international coalition”
"how many missiles did the US launch?"
"about 120"
"how many missiles did Britain launch?"
"uh....2"
Loved the disclaimer at the end:
Freedom packages may cause America to experience unintended consequences, including but not limited to:
Inflammation of local or ethnic tensions, strengthening of one or more of America’s traditional enemies, current allies becoming future enemies who may one day use American supplied rocket launchers against us. Jobless, unmarried 19 year old men with dynamite underwear may wish to take out frustrations on freedom package suppliers. If you experience an insurrection lasting more than four months, seek diplomatic attention immediately. Offer not valid in West Bank or Gaza.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
I normally never quote the preceding post (it is very annoying) but that line needs to really stand out.
Also: “The President committed the U.S. to military invention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war,” Kucinich wrote in a Tuesday letter to colleagues.
The way I see it is it's not illegal because no war has been declared. This is under a UN resolution and the US, UK and France are all UN members. It would been illegal if the bombing had started without a UN resolution. This isn't about blowing the shit out of Libya and moving the troops in, that would be illegal.
If the world stepped back and watched the opponents of Gaddafi being butchered as he had already started doing and did nothing that would have been a crime IMHO. By now we would have been discussing the bloodbath in Benghazi and why we did nothing. Tunisia's and Egypt's presidents quit because of the protests. Now we need to watch what happens in Syria which is another matter entirely. It seems that the people in that region have had enough of their dictators.
So now all countries must take orders from the UN...I don't think so. By the way Canada is also involved, which is bullshit as well.
speak for yourself, i'm glad Canada is participating. I agree with what the U.N is doing.
I am speaking for myself, i'm glad your proud that we're taking part in a war we have no business being involved in. Out of curiosity have you joined the armed forces and volunteered to go? Because those who support war should be the first people into battle.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Comments
the libyan rebels knew what they were risking when they started this uprising. if they were strong enough to overthorw ghadaffi and take control of things themselves then let them. if they are not strong enough to do so then they will face the consequences for their actions. not that i agree with those consequences, but if i am going to start a revolutionary war i am going to make damn sure i have the ability to win it without getting international help, because my country will be owing favors to those other countries for the next century...
i am just sick to death of my country getting it's nose in the business of other countries. especially when it is my country investing it's resources, money, and blood. we are not the world cop, and our military might is to be used for defensive purposes. we are not supposed to be blowing people up in countries that are no threat to us, but we have been doing just that for 30 years. we have let genocides go in other parts of africa and europe, so why libya? why now?
the uk and france were pushing for this, why not let them take care of it? they do not need the US to hold their hands. they are not involved in 2 active wars already. why is it we have to get involved in everything?
and american politics is a MAJOR issue in this offensive, so you can not dismiss that out of hand.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I can't believe I'm defending Obama...but in this cat's case, it has NOTHING to do with oil. You'd be correct in that assumption if we were still under the "protection" of our last Liar in Chief. I remember ultra-conservatives saying that if Obama were to be elected, he'd remove the troops from Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia before the mission was completed. Now he acts on a terrorist threat, and those same conservatives say he acted too slowly? And, you say he should be impeached for his actions? Out of curiousity, how'd you vote in 2004? You didn't happen to knowingly re-elect a public liar, did you?
You realize that Libya's in Africa, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA
The question of the original post was basically "is this legal?". Whether or not it was the "right" thing to do ain't the point, which is a whole other topic. The president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize an unprovoked attack on a foreign country no matter if it is morally good or bad. We have rules and the whole idea of this country is that no one is above the rules.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
i'm not a conserative, if that's what you're getting at. and it doesn't matter who you, i, or anyone voted for. whoever gets to play the role of the POTUS is working for interests other than ours. but that's another discussion.
sure do.. what's your point?
tunisia's also in africa. why aren't we bombing them? or any of the other brutal dictatorships all over that continent?
this is killing me. i don't understand obama anymore. i have really tried to defend him but you guys make it impossible.
* unless you're a banker or a politician
Amen, brother.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
The US has no business being in Libya. Anyone who thinks this isn't going to turn into a complete clusterfuck and create more resentment towards the US and the western world in general is overly optimistic and horribly kidding themselves. Even if the intentions of this country were 100% noble, at this point given our recent history of military interventionism for control and profiteering, it will not be viewed that way.
Once Gaddafi is gone, who is going to replace him? Whoever THE UNITED STATES chooses. True or false, that is going to be the resounding belief in Africa and the Middle East whether it is the decision of the UN or not.
Just because the UN decided this is the right move, doesn't mean America has to get involved. How many wars has the world seen since the creation of the UN anyway? Bang up job they're doing.
One thing that bothers me as I read through this thread-- why must so many people insist on voting against their own sovereignty? Why leave decisions about the internal affairs of a nations to be decided through the force of an unelected global bureaucracy? If you, on your own personal level feel the need to support one side of a conflict in a country thousands of miles away from you of no immediate threat to you or your family-- bust out your checkbook! Take up arms and get over there! Go fight the cause that YOU feel so strongly about, while not involving your neighbor. Now, THAT'S freedom. For every forced outside government intervention you think is necessary, there will surely be 25 others that you probably disagree with, and that is going to drain YOU of your own livelihood in the process. If you support this global police system for one conflict, you end up supporting all of the unnecessary interventions, which likely yields serious errors and omissions of dictatorships far more worthy of global "police" intervention.
States bordering internal conflicts such as those bordering Libya may have reasons to intervene for their own self-defense reasons-- but either way, if it's not my country, it's not my decision.
And as far as the reasons for requiring a Congressional declaration of war: This was designed in such a way that war wasn't done so hastily, and the framers of the Constitution spent loads of time dealing with the portion of the document dealing with war. Unlike most of our politicians today, those guys just got done fighting a war themselves, some of them on the front lines. Declaring war involves a debate process, time to present the facts and make the people aware of any threat and gives the people a chance to contact their representatives in favor of, or against going to war, so that Congress can then represent the true beliefs of the people, and it still requires an overwhelming majority to make it happen! It was designed in such a way that war is NOT the favorable outcome, only an absolutely necessary one. If decided in favor of war, there is a process to make sure the war is fought quickly, efficiently, and is properly funded.
GOING TO WAR, OR GIVING WAR ANY OTHER CUTE LITTLE PSEUDONYM SUCH AS "ENFORCEMENT OF A NO-FLY ZONE," WHERE VIOLENT MILITARY FORCE IS CLEARLY BEING EXECUTED, IS NOT TO BE DECIDED ON THE WHIMS OF ANY PRESIDENT, NOR IS IT TO BE DICTATED BY ANY OTHER OUTSIDE "GOVERNMENT" ORGANIZATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM AND / OR DEMOCRACY. BY GIVING INTO THAT SYSTEM AND PHILOSOPHY, "DEMOCRACY" IS USURPED BY ALL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED FROM THEIR OWN NON-CONSENTING INDIVIDUALS OF WHICH THEIR GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT.
It's hypocritcal, immoral, and against the law.
:thumbup:
Is it ok to fire teachers and tomahawks at the same time?
If the world stepped back and watched the opponents of Gaddafi being butchered as he had already started doing and did nothing that would have been a crime IMHO. By now we would have been discussing the bloodbath in Benghazi and why we did nothing. Tunisia's and Egypt's presidents quit because of the protests. Now we need to watch what happens in Syria which is another matter entirely. It seems that the people in that region have had enough of their dictators.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
bombing a country is an act of war, declaration or not. last i knew, the us government does not get it's authorization for anything from any international bodies.. at least it isn't supposed to. our so-called representative government is supposed to be working for us, and carrying out our bidding through our elected representatives. this not what happened. the president decided on his own to launch an attack, without even a debate in congress - nevermind an authorization. as far as this country goes, this act was not legal.
I didn't read all of the replies but Biden sure was after Bush trying for impeachment.
We are not the world police. If people are so worried about Libya people dying why aren't we doing something about Darfur and situations like that? It is that we have nothing to gain or what?
The US needs to mind its' own business and pull all troops from around the world and bring them home. And before someone screams isolationist to me it is more like non-interventionist. Big difference.
I so despise the UN.
Godfather.
Your avatar becomes more relevant everyday.
So now all countries must take orders from the UN...I don't think so. By the way Canada is also involved, which is bullshit as well.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
speak for yourself, i'm glad Canada is participating. I agree with what the U.N is doing.
Nobody has declared war on Libya, if they had the troops would be in by now. This is purely protecting the Libyans that had the outrageous idea of protesting against the leader of their country. It's something we on here can all do but the Libyans can't.
If US citizens think the US should never listen or have it's plans sanctioned by the UN lobby your politicians and get out of the UN.
Do you support military intervention in every country oppressed by their leaders?
Not to be a dick, but I don't know if I've ever read this many regurgitated media soundbytes in five short sentences....You're both swallowing their spin, hook, line and sinker....
Did anyone happen to catch Monday's Daily Show?
paraphrased:
"enforcing a no-fly zone? You bombed a whole line of tanks"
"yes John, and we've been assured those tanks will never fly again"
"the US is not leading this mission, we are lending technical support to an international coalition”
"how many missiles did the US launch?"
"about 120"
"how many missiles did Britain launch?"
"uh....2"
The bit with Oliver about American Freedom Packages was so perfect, I nearly started applauding in my living room.
http://watch.ctv.ca/the-daily-show-with ... clip437208
(dunno if the link will work outside Canada)
Loved the disclaimer at the end:
Freedom packages may cause America to experience unintended consequences, including but not limited to:
Inflammation of local or ethnic tensions, strengthening of one or more of America’s traditional enemies, current allies becoming future enemies who may one day use American supplied rocket launchers against us. Jobless, unmarried 19 year old men with dynamite underwear may wish to take out frustrations on freedom package suppliers. If you experience an insurrection lasting more than four months, seek diplomatic attention immediately. Offer not valid in West Bank or Gaza.
I have, numerous times. I contact ALL of my representatives regardless of party. Do you support UN policy that violates the US Constitution?
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
I normally never quote the preceding post (it is very annoying) but that line needs to really stand out.
Also:
“The President committed the U.S. to military invention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war,” Kucinich wrote in a Tuesday letter to colleagues.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/22/ron-p ... z1HXMqlnUR
I am speaking for myself, i'm glad your proud that we're taking part in a war we have no business being involved in. Out of curiosity have you joined the armed forces and volunteered to go? Because those who support war should be the first people into battle.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon