Don’t try and squirm out of your horseshit post re: “2003 invasion of Iraq, darkest hour” nonsense. When intelligence turns out to be wrong, it isn’t necessarily bad when it was believed to be right at the time.[/quote]
Wow you take issue with THAT–the fact that in my opinion the invasion of Iraq was our darkest hour in contemporary history? Because I consider it dark when thousands of young Americans are sent to their deaths in a country thousands of miles away? Because I consider it dark when trillions of dollars are spent on a bullshit war? Fuck you.
4,439 Americans dead. That is “dark” in my book.[/quote]
Oh noez, 4400 Americans died that decided that they wanted to serve the Leviathan?
Well, that is a downright tragedy.
The few hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not so much.
[/quote]
I used the American deaths as an example.
I feel more pity and more shame at the thought of civilian deaths in Iraq than anything else with regard to that clusterfuck.
The rationale is fairly straight forward and simple unless one is willfully choosing obstinance. This is multi-national enforcement of a U.N. sanctioned cease-fire which was blatantly breached by Gaddafi. The debate and vote in Congress was over whether or not to participate in the U.N.
Simple stuff, really. [/quote]
A preposterous response. Participation in the UN doesn’t trump constitutional requirements for declarations of war, and never has. At no point has Congress ceded its constitutional war powers to a decision made by the UN.
Seriously. That was a ridiculous statement.[/quote]
First, you know that not all implementation of the weapons of war constitute a declaration of war. War hasn’t been declared. The Commander-in-chief both has, and needs, the right to deploy military power quickly in our interest. Are you arguing that enforcing the cease-fire is not in our interest?
Second, as contentious as the current bipartisan landscape of D.C. is, if this was such a low hanging fruit of Constitutional abuse, Congress would be all over it simply as ammunition for other agendas. Had Obama done nothing, he would be lambasted as weak on the floor of Congress.
Third, I wasn’t saying we launched missiles because the U.N. told us we had to. The security council resolution did not trump our constitutional requirements in declaring war, but war wasn’t declared, so your point is moot. Had the U.N. security council been on spring break in Cabo, Obama would still be within his right to launch those missiles.
Borrek why did Obama wait so damn long and wait for the UN to come to an agreement. He was looking for a way out in my opinion, no he is not responsible but the UN is.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Borrek why did Obama wait so damn long and wait for the UN to come to an agreement. He was looking for a way out in my opinion, no he is not responsible but the UN is.[/quote]
To be honest, a way out would not entirely be a bad thing. My point is that every recent president has an event like this on their resume, but now that it is Obama in the White House, suddenly he’s wiping his ass with the constitution by doing exactly what every other president has done.
My personal opinion is that we don’t need to be the world’s police force, and I was pleased to hear that the French and Italians had taken the lead on this. It seems like our initial “support” role was a bit more than advertised, but hopefully once we’ve knocked out the air defense grid the French air force will handle to no-fly patrols.
Our participation is neither ideal, nor outrageous.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Borrek why did Obama wait so damn long and wait for the UN to come to an agreement. He was looking for a way out in my opinion, no he is not responsible but the UN is.[/quote]
To be honest, a way out would not entirely be a bad thing. My point is that every recent president has an event like this on their resume, but now that it is Obama in the White House, suddenly he’s wiping his ass with the constitution by doing exactly what every other president has done.
My personal opinion is that we don’t need to be the world’s police force, and I was pleased to hear that the French and Italians had taken the lead on this. It seems like our initial “support” role was a bit more than advertised, but hopefully once we’ve knocked out the air defense grid the French air force will handle to no-fly patrols.
Our participation is neither ideal, nor outrageous. [/quote]
Except for that whole not going to congress thing.
I think we can go ahead and say you are one of those it is Ok if my guy does it but if your guy does it he is ______________(Fill in the blank)
“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.” - Barack Obama, 2007
First, you know that not all implementation of the weapons of war constitute a declaration of war. War hasn’t been declared. The Commander-in-chief both has, and needs, the right to deploy military power quickly in our interest. Are you arguing that enforcing the cease-fire is not in our interest?[/quote]
It’s quite clear you didn’t bother reading what I provided. First, the entire point was that while the military action in Libya is statutorily authorized (War Powers Act), it may not be constitutionally authorized; i.e., the War Powers Act itself may be unconstitutional.
Second, whether it is “in our interest” or not is secondary issue, but in any event, that was the other point of the article - Obama himself has declared that he believes that the President cannot unilaterally authorize force unless the country is in danger. Thus, the proper question isn’t whether it is or isn’t in our interest - the question is why does Obama now think he has the right to attack Libya when he didn’t before, as we are clearly not in danger from Libya?
So, this goes straight to your ridiculous statement that “it’s quite simple, really” - it’s not simple, if you know what you’re talking about.
You’re asking the wrong questions. And, don’t take my word for it - Grenwald ia a hard left constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian raising these issues, not a Tea Party type.
Different issue - you are talking about the politics of the move, not the legality.
Not according to Obama himself, which is part of the problem being raised.
So, are we obligated to set up no-fly zones in countries that attack civilians with aircraft? Is that now part of the Obama doctrine? What happens if Israel attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon. Won’t it look bad if the US and European nations don’t intervene?
And if Kadaffi survives and manages to crush the rebels, no doubt he’s back as a Russian client once again.
Will he follow Iran and pursue a nuclear program as a deterent for next time?
Will there be a spike in terrorism in all the nations who helped with the no-fly zone as was with coalition members following the invasion of Iraq?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, are we obligated to set up no-fly zones in countries that attack civilians with aircraft? Is that now part of the Obama doctrine? What happens if Israel attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon. Won’t it look bad if the US and European nations don’t intervene?
[/quote]
If israel starts strafing unarmed protesters, then yes, I’d hope someone would do something.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, are we obligated to set up no-fly zones in countries that attack civilians with aircraft? Is that now part of the Obama doctrine? What happens if Israel attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon. Won’t it look bad if the US and European nations don’t intervene?
And if Kadaffi survives and manages to crush the rebels, no doubt he’s back as a Russian client once again.
Will he follow Iran and pursue a nuclear program as a deterent for next time?
Will there be a spike in terrorism in all the nations who helped with the no-fly zone as was with coalition members following the invasion of Iraq?[/quote]
You are reaching. Hezbollah is an established terrorist organization and the tension with Israel is well-known. Bombing Hezbollah is overlooked because they are a militant opposition.
Yes, the current opposition to Ghaddafi is “armed,” but the protests weren’t originally meant to be militant (to my knowledge). So, not good example.
Who armed Ghaddafi with weapons? EU nations?
Anyone take issue with that?
And I’m fine with using force against Ghaddafi, so long as we don’t have another David Cameron scandal (Egypt). That’s the last thing we need right now in terms of our image.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
And, for the record, support for the intervention in Libya is not as you say “blind acceptance for this administration.” The Obama White House has exuded reluctance in discussing ways to deal with this issue. This is not “Obama’s” in the way that the invasion of Iraq was “Bush’s”.[/quote]
Reluctance or sold, Bush pulled trigger, Obama pulled trigger. Commander-in-Chief owns the decision whether gung-ho or reluctant.
Un-fucking-real.
Are we at war with Libya now? I didn’t read where Congress declared war on a sovereign country.
Is the US in the business of just lobbing missiles into countries now?[/quote]
We agree on many of these points. My point has all along been merely that there are a number of fundamental differences between this and Operation Iraqi Freedom.[/quote]
Agreed. Saddam was much worse and had many more UN resolutions against him.
Obama is shooting from the hip here while Bush was far more deliberate.
Wow you take issue with THAT–the fact that in my opinion the invasion of Iraq was our darkest hour in contemporary history? Because I consider it dark when thousands of young Americans are sent to their deaths in a country thousands of miles away? Because I consider it dark when trillions of dollars are spent on a bullshit war? Fuck you.
4,439 Americans dead. That is “dark” in my book.[/quote]
No, I take issue with your atrocious revisionism as to the Iraq war’s “illegitimacy”, and I told you so.
Have whatever opinion or emotional reaction to the Iraq war you want, just don’t lie your way to your conclusion and then try and pass off these lies as truth.
EDIT: typo.[/quote]
I said that in this case the international community has a different attitude toward the intervention–not too controversial I think.
I said that in 2003 the will to act came mainly from the US government (which in this case is not true) rather than an international call for military intervention–not too controversial.
I said that extant, finished-product WMD, which were sold in 2003 as the chief justification for military action, were not found. Not controversial at all.
There is no revisionism there.[/quote]
Far more international agreement with a larger coalition to go into Iraq than Libya.
Amazing really that the press isn’t hammering Obama for this. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, are we obligated to set up no-fly zones in countries that attack civilians with aircraft? Is that now part of the Obama doctrine? What happens if Israel attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon. Won’t it look bad if the US and European nations don’t intervene?
And if Kadaffi survives and manages to crush the rebels, no doubt he’s back as a Russian client once again.
Will he follow Iran and pursue a nuclear program as a deterent for next time?
Will there be a spike in terrorism in all the nations who helped with the no-fly zone as was with coalition members following the invasion of Iraq?[/quote]
You are reaching. Hezbollah is an established terrorist organization and the tension with Israel is well-known. Bombing Hezbollah is overlooked because they are a militant opposition.
Yes, the current opposition to Ghaddafi is “armed,” but the protests weren’t originally meant to be militant (to my knowledge). So, not good example.
Who armed Ghaddafi with weapons? EU nations?
Anyone take issue with that?
And I’m fine with using force against Ghaddafi, so long as we don’t have another David Cameron scandal (Egypt). That’s the last thing we need right now in terms of our image.[/quote]
The Chinese and Russians armed Libya to a far greater extent than the EU. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
[quote]John S. wrote:
“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.” - Barack Obama, 2007[/quote]
Not only was he incorrect in 2007 he has proven himself a hypocrite as well as a liar.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, are we obligated to set up no-fly zones in countries that attack civilians with aircraft? Is that now part of the Obama doctrine? What happens if Israel attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon. Won’t it look bad if the US and European nations don’t intervene?
And if Kadaffi survives and manages to crush the rebels, no doubt he’s back as a Russian client once again.
Will he follow Iran and pursue a nuclear program as a deterent for next time?
Will there be a spike in terrorism in all the nations who helped with the no-fly zone as was with coalition members following the invasion of Iraq?[/quote]
You are reaching. Hezbollah is an established terrorist organization and the tension with Israel is well-known. Bombing Hezbollah is overlooked because they are a militant opposition.
Yes, the current opposition to Ghaddafi is “armed,” but the protests weren’t originally meant to be militant (to my knowledge). So, not good example.
Who armed Ghaddafi with weapons? EU nations?
Anyone take issue with that?
And I’m fine with using force against Ghaddafi, so long as we don’t have another David Cameron scandal (Egypt). That’s the last thing we need right now in terms of our image.[/quote]
The Chinese and Russians armed Libya to a far greater extent than the EU. Let’s not pretend otherwise.[/quote]
ya gotta love revisionists.
edit- not refering to what you wrote, which I am in agreement with, but the article.
Hezbollah is a known terrorist group, but also a member of the Lebanese Government, so an attack on Hezbollah by Israel is an attack on the government of Lebanon. (It was stupid even forming a coalition government with Hezbollah in the fist place, but let’s not go there.)
Plus, the last time they bombed Lebanon, a lot of unarmed civilians got killed, (nevermind the fact that Hezbollah was using human shields) so it’s not out of the question that the Lebanese govt. could call for a no fly zone in the event of another air attack by Israel now that this huge can of worms has been opened.
After reading articles and what the Obama admin has said along with his minions, it sounds to me like he wants Qaddaffi to stay in power. They do not want to go after him personally, why? The liberal might say because Obama is anti war, but is there a bigger reason. He left Bush alone because in my opinion he knew he would be killed by a heart attack.
Im glad Obama did this but this shows how much of rat he is.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
After reading articles and what the Obama admin has said along with his minions, it sounds to me like he wants Qaddaffi to stay in power. They do not want to go after him personally, why? The liberal might say because Obama is anti war, but is there a bigger reason. He left Bush alone because in my opinion he knew he would be killed by a heart attack.
Im glad Obama did this but this shows how much of rat he is.[/quote]
They are specifically choosing not to target Gaddafi because that would change the perception of the intervention’s purpose. As long as military action is entirely designed to enforce a no-fly rule and thereby protect civilians, this is a humanitarian intervention.
The direct targeting of Gaddafi would send a far more overt message and one far more directly reminiscent of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Question. Who are the rebels anyway? The coalition is setting them up basically to gain entrance to this power vacuum and Im wondering what their motives are if they gain control.