Nobel Peace Prize winner...

[Philhelm]

Originally Posted by Starry69

Obama is joining a U.N. sanctioned military operation, similar to the operation in Kosovo when Clinton was president. Heck, the French and English are even taking the lead.

The talking heads on the right are trying to equate this to the invasion of Iraq, which is completely ridiculous.

So, I'm assuming you skipped or conveniently ignored the President's own statement on using military force without congressional approval? Here, I'll repeat it:

"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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Having U.N. approval* does not mean that our nation's laws do not apply. One man should not have the power to initiate aggression on another nation, regardless of the intentions. I don't care what the talking heads say, but I made sure to call my representatives in order to find out if they have any official opinion on the matter, and to tell them that I do not approve of going into Libya. I also cited the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, Obama's own words, and U.N. Charter: Article 2, in order to support my claim.

*U.N. approval: A bunch of countries that don't have any moral or legal authority to commit an act, yet assume such a role, and enforce such decisions based on the use of physical force. (i.e. might makes right)


Joe Biden comments on going to war without congressional approval (lulz):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw

[thorough9]

Iran and Libya do not equate. There was talk of invading or attacking Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. The operation in Libya is to prevent the existing dictatorial regime from attacking and slaughtering his opostion from the skies - along the same line of defense used in justifying attacking Iraq, except the supposed infractions in Iraq happened years before the actual invasion.

I don't believe that the U.S. or any other nation should be opposed to Ghadafi using planes and tanks on the rebels in Libya due to the unfair technological advances that the Libyan government has. The rebels "need" a No Fly Zone to level the playing field because most of the older school of thought within American government have been anti-Ghadafi since the Reagan era. If that's the precedent, I can't wait to see what happens the next time that the rock-throwing, bottle-rocket launching Palestinians face off with the attack helicopters, howitzers, and tanks of the Isreal. I'd love to see the implemetation of a No Fly Zone then............

[Philhelm]

Originally Posted by thorough9

Iran and Libya do not equate. There was talk of invading or attacking Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. The operation in Libya is to prevent the existing dictatorial regime from attacking and slaughtering his opostion from the skies - along the same line of defense used in justifying attacking Iraq, except the supposed infractions in Iraq happened years before the actual invasion.

You've missed the point. The question isn't about whether or not we should assist the Libyan rebels, or to compare the situation to Iran. The central issue is a legal question: Does the President have the legal authority to send troops without congressional approval? The fact that Obama and Biden had reference Iran is irrelevant; they had both stated that the President does not have that authority, unless responding to an imminent threat. The only way we can legally use force is if:

(a) Congress declares war,
(b) Congress authorizes the use of force by statute, or
(c) The President responds to an imminent threat.

Libya was not an imminent threat (Any argument to the contrary is laughable). Obama had never framed his rationale for engaging Libya in a way that is consistent with the authorization granted by the War Powers Resolution. It was only after the strike that he is trying to say that Libya posed a national security threat.

If we were to get involved with Libya, Congress should have declared war or authorized the President to use force by statute. What Obama has done is illegal, whether or not you agree with his action in this matter. If we accept this, then we accept that one person can use troops anywhere across the globe for any reason. That is simply un-American.

[lacrew_2000]

Well the coalition is falling apart. India is pulling out, Germany is pulling out. Turkey is blocking NATO from taking control. France, UK, and US are all saying 'I'm not in charge', and no kidding, France wants to form a committee to be in charge. It seems there is a lack of clarity in the mission...

And then there's the domestic side. Members of congress in Obama's own party are furious that he didn't consult congress. And, the usual lunatics in his own party are calling for his impeachment.

Wow.

And BTW, this is very much comparable to Iran in the summer of 2009, and very comparable to what is happening right now in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain....and Libya pales in comparison to what has happened in Rwanda. This is the part where the President goes befire the American people and explains what is unique about Libya....

[thorough9]

The quote that you referenced was specifically concerning Iran, hence, I also referenced Iran. The situation in Iran, and consequently, the quote concerning Iran, when taken in context(Iran), is different from the situation in Libya. The fact that they were referencing Iran is extremely relevant because the language reflects the situation. Do you think that they would have used the same language concerning some small rinky-dink country...say New Foundland. Iran is a regional power, an oil exporter, and a threat to stability in the region, not to mention there are troops still in Iraq that can be directly/indirectly harmed by Iran's actions and influences. So kidd-skinned gloves/language was used.

No troops have been sent, and from what i've read, there never will be. Reagan didn't need congressional authority to bomb Libya, the first time, Clinton didn't need it for Somalia, and apparently, neither does Obama. I'd hardly call bombing Libya "un-American". Sending Bombs, and a Declaration of war, which involves sending troops and loss of life are very different.

[lacrew_2000]

Huh?

Newfoundland is not a nation
Clinton did not initiate the action in Somalia
Reagan notified congress
Airmen can die just like the infantry...two did in Op Eldorado in '86

[Philhelm]

Originally Posted by thorough9

The quote that you referenced was specifically concerning Iran, hence, I also referenced Iran. The situation in Iran, and consequently, the quote concerning Iran, when taken in context(Iran), is different from the situation in Libya.

Yes, the different situations should be examined individually before making the decision to use military force. I never claimed that the situation with Iran is the same as Libya. However...

Originally Posted by thorough9

The fact that they were referencing Iran is extremely relevant because the language reflects the situation. Do you think that they would have used the same language concerning some small rinky-dink country...say New Foundland. Iran is a regional power, an oil exporter, and a threat to stability in the region, not to mention there are troops still in Iraq that can be directly/indirectly harmed by Iran's actions and influences. So kidd-skinned gloves/language was used.

Again, this is irrelevant. There is nothing in U.S. law that states that Iran or Libya have any special exemptions or additions to the President's legal authority to use military force without the approval of Congress. In President Obama's own (accurate) words:

"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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

This has nothing to do with any specific nation. Yes, they were speaking of Iran, but the statement above references U.S. law in general. Is there some exception in which if the nation in question is Libya, then the President does have the authority to use military force, even if there is no imminent threat (answer: no)? I'll admit that I'm a bit dumbfounded that you can't seem to grasp this. There is a difference between what one thinks our actions should be, and what is legal according to the letter of the law.

Originally Posted by thorough9

No troops have been sent, and from what i've read, there never will be.

Irrelevant. The War Powers Resolution refers to any use of military force. Air strikes v. using ground troops has no bearing on the situation.

Originally Posted by thorough9

Reagan didn't need congressional authority to bomb Libya, the first time, Clinton didn't need it for Somalia, and apparently, neither does Obama.

I'd have to research those issues to determine the facts, but it is irrelevant. An un-Constitutional act is un-Constitutional, regardless of the man, or the party he represents, who had done it.

Originally Posted by thorough9

I'd hardly call bombing Libya "un-American". Sending Bombs, and a Declaration of war, which involves sending troops and loss of life are very different.

Way to twist my words. I didn't say that bombing Libya is un-American. I had said that allowing the President, any President, to use military force in order to initiate an attack without the approval of Congress is un-American. The only situation a President may do such is if he were responding to an imminent threat. Obviously, if we were in peril, or another nation had declared war on us, then the President would be well within his rights to respond. As for initiating, that should be through Congress. The bottom line is that one man should not have the power to wage war; to allow such is a grave threat to our way of life.

[lacrew_2000]

And it gets worse...

Italy has accused the French of being in this for the oil...

Italy has threatened to deny use of bases, unless NATO takes control...

NATO can't take control...the Turks are blocking it

Germany is turning around two ships, and recalling its AWACS

Gates and the UK are bickering over whether or not Gadaffi is a legit target...

Obama wants to turn this over to NATO...France says no..

Our SecDef : “This command-and-control business is complicated, and we haven’t done something like this kind of on-the-fly before,” U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Moscow today. “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.”

Most people assume that people in the military lean to the GOP, which really isn't true. The bulk of the military is very young, and frankly don't care much about politics. However, they do have an intuitive ability to recognize a GoatFuck when they see one...and it is very demoralizing. Our leadership had better get back from vacation and start leading on this.

Trivia question: Which one of our allies tipped Gadaffi off, and allowed him to survive El Dorado? (And why in the hell did anybody think they could be trusted now?)

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Huh?

Newfoundland is not a nation
Clinton did not initiate the action in Somalia
Reagan notified congress
Airmen can die just like the infantry...two did in Op Eldorado in '86

The use of New Foundland was sarcasm................. used to illustrate the differences in sizable threat.
Clinton ordered missiles fired into Somalia - i think - after Bin Ladin attacked the embassies, during the whole Lewinsky fiasco, without congressional consent or notification.
Reagan notified congress, but didn't ask for permission.
Launching missles from aboard a super-carrier is alot more safer than using a weapon in an alley in downtown Tripoli.

Besides, Bush fucked up the whole "what presidents can legally do" precedent, and once a precedent is set, it's usually followed until corrected by the supreme court.

[thorough9]

Un-American: The old un-patriotic, "for us or against us", catch-all, feigned-outraged phrase that sends straight-laced, hard-working, law-abiding, honest American citizens(WASPs) into bouts of uncontrollable tears, lip-shaking anger, or epilepsy, that translates to "things that I don't agree with". I didn't realize that there was a Committee that decided what was American or not - At least not since McCarthy. My apologies. Do they have a website? lol. With the current mixture of race and culture in America, what's "American" is really relative. What's American in NY may not be considered American in KS. But can you expect an "American" decision to be made by a president who's not even a citizen? He was born overseas! And he's a Muslim! He's just attacking Ghadafi cuz they's two different types of Muslims: See, Obama's a Sunday Muslim and Ghadafi's a Sheet-Tight.

The legal system, with all of its written rules, operates on precedents. If I, as president, set the standard of launching missiles without congressional approval, and no one complains too loudly, then my successor can follow my precedent until some entity decides to reign our office back in. Shooting missiles from a super-carrier is military involvement but not a full-scale declaration of war. IF it's illegal , then you shouldn't accept it. For all intents and purposes this is a humanitarian mission, an intervention to stop a crazed, highly opposed, highly-armed thug from beating his countrymen into submission a la Saddam Hussein. What's more Un-American? Launching a few missiles or causing the deaths of thousands of Americans, and others, based upon lies and deception?

How many American lives is Libyan freedom worth? NONE. How many American lives have been lost? NONE. If helping defenseless people or aiding just causes i.e spreading democracy a la George Dub-Ya is un-american, oh well.

[lakecat]

I think you need to go back to Truman sending forces into Korea without getting authorization from Congress by saying it was a UN action, not American. Not sure why you're saying Bush fucked up the what Presidents can legally do. Every one of them, Democrat and Republican, have pushed the limit. Guess it depends which side you're on as to whether it was "good" or not.

[catnipdipper]

Hell:

The cooks are British
The mechanics are French
The Policemen are all German
It is all organized by the Italians.

[Philhelm]

Originally Posted by thorough9

Un-American: The old un-patriotic, "for us or against us", catch-all, feigned-outraged phrase that sends straight-laced, hard-working, law-abiding, honest American citizens(WASPs) into bouts of uncontrollable tears, lip-shaking anger, or epilepsy, that translates to "things that I don't agree with".

Blah blah blah...

Originally Posted by thorough9

I didn't realize that there was a Committee that decided what was American or not - At least not since McCarthy.

Actually, it was called the Constitutional Convention. To be fair, I should clarify my use of the term un-American: In this particular case, the concept that one man should wield so much power in being able to single-handedly get the U.S. involved in a (third) war.

Originally Posted by thorough9

My apologies. Do they have a website? lol.

Lulz!
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html
(Check out Article I, Sections 8 and 10...lol)

Originally Posted by thorough9

With the current mixture of race and culture in America, what's "American" is really relative. What's American in NY may not be considered American in KS.

Blah blah blah...

Originally Posted by thorough9

But can you expect an "American" decision to be made by a president who's not even a citizen? He was born overseas! And he's a Muslim! He's just attacking Ghadafi cuz they's two different types of Muslims: See, Obama's a Sunday Muslim and Ghadafi's a Sheet-Tight.

Seriously? This is a bullshit comment, and assumes much. I have never claimed that President Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, or what have you, nor do I believe that (although, he is a Keynesian!).

For the ignorant:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/K...Economics.html

Originally Posted by thorough9

The legal system, with all of its written rules, operates on precedents. If I, as president, set the standard of launching missiles without congressional approval, and no one complains too loudly, then my successor can follow my precedent until some entity decides to reign our office back in. Shooting missiles from a super-carrier is military involvement but not a full-scale declaration of war. IF it's illegal , then you shouldn't accept it. For all intents and purposes this is a humanitarian mission, an intervention to stop a crazed, highly opposed, highly-armed thug from beating his countrymen into submission a la Saddam Hussein. What's more Un-American? Launching a few missiles or causing the deaths of thousands of Americans, and others, based upon lies and deception?

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. You have not even attempted to address any of my logical points. From a legal standpoint, I don't care what the objective of the engagement is. It's simply not authorized, not even by the War Powers Resolution. I'm more than happy to debate, but if you're just going to spout off hot air, then why should I even bother trying? If you wish to continue, please respond to my earlier posts, and cite the legal justification. At least meet me half way.

Originally Posted by thorough9

How many American lives is Libyan freedom worth? NONE. How many American lives have been lost? NONE.

Irrelevant. How many American lives might be lost? (Clue: the answer is unknown).

Originally Posted by thorough9

If helping defenseless people or aiding just causes i.e spreading democracy a la George Dub-Ya is un-american, oh well.

I don't like Bush. Oh, I get it, I can only either like Bush or Obama. Liking both or disliking both is not an option. Sorry, that had just dawned on me.

[catnipdipper]

We also messed with Grenada and Panama in the 80's under Reagan and H.W. Bush. Two full invasions and kinda spotty justifications?

Last official Declaration of War was 1942.

[Philhelm]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

Hell:

The cooks are British
The mechanics are French
The Policemen are all German
It is all organized by the Italians.

And the politicians are American.