PDA

View Full Version : How Can Obama Get Away With the War in Libya?



Mindy
06-18-2011, 04:26 PM
As if we didn't have enough wars going on, honestly, how is what he is doing legal? He doesn't have the support of Congress. Even his own people have basically said it's illegal. If George Bush were doing this, we'd never hear the end of it. This is why I really don't think there's much of a difference between the two parties. Obama has basically been the same as Bush -- starting illegal wars, cutting taxes for the rich, and so on. Even his 'health care reform' was no reform at all, just an excuse to force more healthy people to pay more and drive up profits for insurance companies. If he really wanted reform, why not start with the costs? Oh, that's right, that wouldn't help his campaign donors. I seem to have gone off on a tangent here...anyway, what is the deal with the war in Libya?

Mindy
06-18-2011, 04:36 PM
"President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp

I can't believe this guy is going to get reelected.

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 05:18 PM
forget the war powers resolution this act is first and foremost in violation of the constitution, next of course it is now in violation of the war powers resolution.....this happens because we the people through our elected representatives allow it......case in point.....little mac recently expressed his lack of concern for the war powers act because in his opinion it is unconstitutional and therefore he feels no obligation to abide by it's constraints....a sitting senator since reagan, perennial republican candidate for prez and self labeled conservative, announces that because he feels like it he will simply ignore federal law....some time back obama announced that he will not defend doma because again in his judgement it is unconstitutional.....in both cases we have elected leaders to the highest authorities in the land state that it is their intention to ignore federal law ignoring their constitutional responsibilities to enforce the laws of the land because they believe that it is their position to pronounce what is and is not constitutional, politispeak for they don't like that law.....no protest from the people and barely a murmur from the msm.....APATHY.

Mister D
06-18-2011, 07:40 PM
Where are the peaceniks? Where is the outrage from Code Pink and the like?

Captain Obvious
06-18-2011, 08:36 PM
I have many issues with BO. Bagging the guy for being part of the coalition (not the spearhead) in the Libya engagement isn't going to be one of them.

IMO, he handled the Libya thing appropriately. Might be the most presidential move of his POTUS tenure so far.

Mindy
06-18-2011, 09:27 PM
I have many issues with BO. Bagging the guy for being part of the coalition (not the spearhead) in the Libya engagement isn't going to be one of them.

IMO, he handled the Libya thing appropriately. Might be the most presidential move of his POTUS tenure so far.


So, explain to me why we're in Libya and not Syria? Why should we get involved in either one? And if one, why not the other? If we weren't already in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think we'd be in Syria? One of many problems with all these wars is that makes it effectively impossible to deploy an overwhelming force rapidly. We're now looking at three wars with no obvious end goal, instead of 'picking our battles' and achieving total victory.

Captain Obvious
06-18-2011, 09:34 PM
I have many issues with BO. Bagging the guy for being part of the coalition (not the spearhead) in the Libya engagement isn't going to be one of them.

IMO, he handled the Libya thing appropriately. Might be the most presidential move of his POTUS tenure so far.


So, explain to me why we're in Libya and not Syria? Why should we get involved in either one? And if one, why not the other? If we weren't already in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think we'd be in Syria? One of many problems with all these wars is that makes it effectively impossible to deploy an overwhelming force rapidly. We're now looking at three wars with no obvious end goal, instead of 'picking our battles' and achieving total victory.


Because it's a coalition effort.

I'm all for being a team player in this respect, but I'm fairly tired of being a unilateral hall monitor.

We can't do it all, that's a fairly obvious determination. There should and must be a coalition effort against the threat against western civilization.

We may have ushered western civilization into conception, but we're not the only ones enjoying this lifestyle nor should be the only ones defending it.

Mindy
06-18-2011, 09:35 PM
I have many issues with BO. Bagging the guy for being part of the coalition (not the spearhead) in the Libya engagement isn't going to be one of them.

IMO, he handled the Libya thing appropriately. Might be the most presidential move of his POTUS tenure so far.


So, ignoring the Constitution, ignoring Congress, and even going against his most trusted advisors is no big deal?

Captain Obvious
06-18-2011, 09:37 PM
I have many issues with BO. Bagging the guy for being part of the coalition (not the spearhead) in the Libya engagement isn't going to be one of them.

IMO, he handled the Libya thing appropriately. Might be the most presidential move of his POTUS tenure so far.


So, ignoring the Constitution, ignoring Congress, and even going against his most trusted advisors is no big deal?


There's a debate going on that this action violates congressional protocol. I am of the opinion that it is not an act of war and within a POTUS's power to act as such.

Mindy
06-18-2011, 09:38 PM
I have many issues with BO. Bagging the guy for being part of the coalition (not the spearhead) in the Libya engagement isn't going to be one of them.

IMO, he handled the Libya thing appropriately. Might be the most presidential move of his POTUS tenure so far.


So, explain to me why we're in Libya and not Syria? Why should we get involved in either one? And if one, why not the other? If we weren't already in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think we'd be in Syria? One of many problems with all these wars is that makes it effectively impossible to deploy an overwhelming force rapidly. We're now looking at three wars with no obvious end goal, instead of 'picking our battles' and achieving total victory.


Because it's a coalition effort.

I'm all for being a team player in this respect, but I'm fairly tired of being a unilateral hall monitor.

We can't do it all, that's a fairly obvious determination. There should and must be a coalition effort against the threat against western civilization.

We may have ushered western civilization into conception, but we're not the only ones enjoying this lifestyle nor should be the only ones defending it.


The fact that it is a coalition is a good thing, but I'm not sure that following the French is a great idea. Seriously though, if the Libyan and Syrian revolutions had happened in the opposite order, I'm not at all sure we wouldn't be in Syria instead. In fact, I believe Syria waited to start the crackdown until forces were committed to Libya. The fact remains these are not our battles.

No one has responded to my assertions that our country is more vulnerable than ever. No one can claim that our ports and borders are secure. This should be priority number 1. I'm tired of our government destroying and rebuilding foreign countries when we need security here at home.

Mindy
06-18-2011, 09:40 PM
I have many issues with BO. Bagging the guy for being part of the coalition (not the spearhead) in the Libya engagement isn't going to be one of them.

IMO, he handled the Libya thing appropriately. Might be the most presidential move of his POTUS tenure so far.


So, ignoring the Constitution, ignoring Congress, and even going against his most trusted advisors is no big deal?


There's a debate going on that this action violates congressional protocol. I am of the opinion that it is not an act of war and within a POTUS's power to act as such.


Well, there is a debate but honestly, doesn't it seem like Obama versus everyone else? Even his own lawyers, advisors, etc. have said this is unconstitutional. Obama's own AG Holder says this is illegal. So I defer to them.

"Late Friday, the White House acknowledged that both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Pentagon’s top lawyer concluded that the conflict in Libya should be considered “hostilities,” in opposition to what the White House has claimed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110618/pl_dailycaller/disagreementinadministrationoverwarpowersandlibya

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 08:22 AM
there is no honest debate to be had with regard to libya....anyone that does not believe that we have engaged in war on a sovereign state absent a declaration of war as required by the constitution and/or the formal approval of congress as required by federal law (war powers resolution) is either markedly obtuse or engaging in a deliberate exercise of intellectual dishonesty....capt your rather lame bs re we being part of a coalition and not the spearhead is a rather absent minded genuflect toward subordinating our sovereignty to the will and mandates of the un the marvelous body of nobodies that not to very long ago had mq as a member of their commission on human rights.....

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 06:09 PM
It's all partisan jerkoffology. If GW would have done the same thing, no conservative would be bashing him.

I'll bash BO on the shit he does wrong, which is fairly commonplace. I'm not going to knock the guy for shit he does right.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 06:29 PM
It's all partisan jerkoffology. If GW would have done the same thing, no conservative would be bashing him.

I'll bash BO on the shit he does wrong, which is fairly commonplace. I'm not going to knock the guy for shit he does right.

had bush violated the constitution and the war powers resolution conservatives would have reacted the same as they are today, further the reaction to this constitutional affront has been rather demur....you confuse republicans with conservatives and there is clearly a difference....and no this is not right and nor has it been done right....we are waging war upon a sovereign nation without congressional approval....all of your partisan jerkoffology cannot hide this simple reality....

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 06:33 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 07:08 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 07:11 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 07:27 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 07:35 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 07:55 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

if you have actually read the aforementioned documents and still believe as you do than clearly you are operating under some form of disability that i cannot cure..... ;)the skinny is that the candc executes war, the congress declares war....get it....

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 08:00 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

if you have actually read the aforementioned documents and still believe as you do than clearly you are operating under some form of disability that i cannot cure..... ;)the skinny is that the candc executes war, the congress declares war....get it....


We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 08:15 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

if you have actually read the aforementioned documents and still believe as you do than clearly you are operating under some form of disability that i cannot cure..... ;)the skinny is that the candc executes war, the congress declares war....get it....


We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 08:16 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

if you have actually read the aforementioned documents and still believe as you do than clearly you are operating under some form of disability that i cannot cure..... ;)the skinny is that the candc executes war, the congress declares war....get it....


We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


This is a loaded question, but do you understand the difference between a military action and a formal declaration of war?

I thought you were smarter than that.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 08:23 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

if you have actually read the aforementioned documents and still believe as you do than clearly you are operating under some form of disability that i cannot cure..... ;)the skinny is that the candc executes war, the congress declares war....get it....


We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


This is a loaded question, but do you understand the difference between a military action and a formal declaration of war?

I thought you were smarter than that.

cap you are not thinking at all....bo's own lawyers disagreed with him on this and he had to shop for an opinion to justify what is not justifiable.....cap read and think....while your at it impose upon yourself a modicum of intellectual honesty....

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 08:29 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

if you have actually read the aforementioned documents and still believe as you do than clearly you are operating under some form of disability that i cannot cure..... ;)the skinny is that the candc executes war, the congress declares war....get it....


We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


This is a loaded question, but do you understand the difference between a military action and a formal declaration of war?

I thought you were smarter than that.

cap you are not thinking at all....bo's own lawyers disagreed with him on this and he had to shop for an opinion to justify what is not justifiable.....cap read and think....while your at it impose upon yourself a modicum of intellectual honesty....


For one thing, I'm glad I've been able to tutor you on the definition of a military action and a formal declaration of war.

You can teach an old dog new tricks apparantly.

I'll ask again, I know you're a tad on the slow side. It's your argument that BO's actions are in violation of the Constitution. After asking twice, you concluded that we formally declared war. Now that I've corrected you, I'll pose that oft avoided question again and see if you can come up with a rational and intelligent response.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 08:36 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

this is not opinion cap, this is absolutely clear and you well know it....this is unconstitutional and in violation of attached federal law.....beyond that it is rather expensive nonsense that has gotten a lot of people killed....


We're talking about Libya, correct? Not Iraq?

Care to offer up some substance as to why it's unconstitutional?

read the constitution cap....read the war powers resolution....this really is not that much of a brain tease....


I have. many times.

It's your point to make. Give it a shot if you think you can.

if you have actually read the aforementioned documents and still believe as you do than clearly you are operating under some form of disability that i cannot cure..... ;)the skinny is that the candc executes war, the congress declares war....get it....


We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


This is a loaded question, but do you understand the difference between a military action and a formal declaration of war?

I thought you were smarter than that.

cap you are not thinking at all....bo's own lawyers disagreed with him on this and he had to shop for an opinion to justify what is not justifiable.....cap read and think....while your at it impose upon yourself a modicum of intellectual honesty....


For one thing, I'm glad I've been able to tutor you on the definition of a military action and a formal declaration of war.

You can teach an old dog new tricks apparantly.

I'll ask again, I know you're a tad on the slow side. It's your argument that BO's actions are in violation of the Constitution. After asking twice, you concluded that we formally declared war. Now that I've corrected you, I'll pose that oft avoided question again and see if you can come up with a rational and intelligent response.

no one has said that there is a declaration of war and that is the problem dumbass because that is what is required....you must be an apostle of kinetic military action or is that partisan jackoffology..... ;D ;D ;D ;D cap you are deliberately being obtuse, really you cannot be this stupid.....it is one thing to argue that there is precedent for this action quite another to argue it's legality.....

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 08:39 PM
no one has said that there is a declaration of war and that is the problem dumbass because that is what is required....






We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


You're making this too easy.

You're giving me a complex, I don't want to be known as the schoolyard bully that smacks the shit out of the retard.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 08:44 PM
no one has said that there is a declaration of war and that is the problem dumbass because that is what is required....






We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


You're making this too easy.

You're giving me a complex, I don't want to be known as the schoolyard bully that smacks the shit out of the retard.

son, anyone reading this will know that you have your head completely up your ass.....i just have difficulty believing that this is not some kind of act, you really cannot be this ignorant can you.....even bo's own lawyers within doj and the pentagon told your messiah that this required congressional authorization.....believe what you want to because that is what you must... ;)

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 08:49 PM
no one has said that there is a declaration of war and that is the problem dumbass because that is what is required....






We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


You're making this too easy.

You're giving me a complex, I don't want to be known as the schoolyard bully that smacks the shit out of the retard.

son, anyone reading this will know that you have your head completely up your ass.....i just have difficulty believing that this is not some kind of act, you really cannot be this ignorant can you.....even bo's own lawyers within doj and the pentagon told your messiah that this required congressional authorization.....believe what you want to because that is what you must... ;)


Keep in mind that I'm not the one confusing a military action with a declaration of war.

But yet you dodge the question. BO's lawyers taking a position has merit, I never disregarded that.

I'm simply asking you to make the case that this military action is in violation of the Constitution.

Obviously you're not up to that task.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 08:59 PM
no one has said that there is a declaration of war and that is the problem dumbass because that is what is required....






We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


You're making this too easy.

You're giving me a complex, I don't want to be known as the schoolyard bully that smacks the shit out of the retard.

son, anyone reading this will know that you have your head completely up your ass.....i just have difficulty believing that this is not some kind of act, you really cannot be this ignorant can you.....even bo's own lawyers within doj and the pentagon told your messiah that this required congressional authorization.....believe what you want to because that is what you must... ;)


Keep in mind that I'm not the one confusing a military action with a declaration of war.

But yet you dodge the question. BO's lawyers taking a position has merit, I never disregarded that.

I'm simply asking you to make the case that this military action is in violation of the Constitution.

Obviously you're not up to that task.

cap you have already demonstrated that you are an idiot....nothing will change that.... ;)

Captain Obvious
06-19-2011, 09:02 PM
no one has said that there is a declaration of war and that is the problem dumbass because that is what is required....






We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


You're making this too easy.

You're giving me a complex, I don't want to be known as the schoolyard bully that smacks the shit out of the retard.

son, anyone reading this will know that you have your head completely up your ass.....i just have difficulty believing that this is not some kind of act, you really cannot be this ignorant can you.....even bo's own lawyers within doj and the pentagon told your messiah that this required congressional authorization.....believe what you want to because that is what you must... ;)


Keep in mind that I'm not the one confusing a military action with a declaration of war.

But yet you dodge the question. BO's lawyers taking a position has merit, I never disregarded that.

I'm simply asking you to make the case that this military action is in violation of the Constitution.

Obviously you're not up to that task.

cap you have already demonstrated that you are an idiot....nothing will change that.... ;)


The death throes of capitulation.

I've already notched my belt in the past with intellectual victory over your nonsensical ramblings, but in the spirit of the rebirth of PR, I'll add another notch.

Thanks for playing.

GRUMPY
06-20-2011, 05:18 AM
no one has said that there is a declaration of war and that is the problem dumbass because that is what is required....






We are at war?

That's news to me.

Ball's still in your court. Still your point to make.

exactly dumbass, we are at war and it is news to you.... ;D ;D ;)


You're making this too easy.

You're giving me a complex, I don't want to be known as the schoolyard bully that smacks the shit out of the retard.

son, anyone reading this will know that you have your head completely up your ass.....i just have difficulty believing that this is not some kind of act, you really cannot be this ignorant can you.....even bo's own lawyers within doj and the pentagon told your messiah that this required congressional authorization.....believe what you want to because that is what you must... ;)


Keep in mind that I'm not the one confusing a military action with a declaration of war.

But yet you dodge the question. BO's lawyers taking a position has merit, I never disregarded that.

I'm simply asking you to make the case that this military action is in violation of the Constitution.

Obviously you're not up to that task.

cap you have already demonstrated that you are an idiot....nothing will change that.... ;)


The death throes of capitulation.

I've already notched my belt in the past with intellectual victory over your nonsensical ramblings, but in the spirit of the rebirth of PR, I'll add another notch.

Thanks for playing.

cap you really are just another liberal fraud.... ;) in the future when you don't know what you are talking about just stay silent son....

Vermouth
06-20-2011, 08:22 AM
Doesn't it require an immediate threat for the President to take military action without Congressional approval? How is Libya an immediate threat?

GRUMPY
06-20-2011, 08:53 AM
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml
....this action is clearly in violation the war powers resolution further absent clear and present danger/imminent threat the constitution requires a declaration of war or some form of authorization by congress....there was no threat posed by libya, there clearly is no national security imperative here....dems are rather amazing breed.....they debate the meaning of is and is oral sex sex, the find no controlling legal authority when found to be accepting campaign cash from buddist monks checks in sequential serial numbers, they save and create millions of jobs and yet the unemployment numbers rise and now we have kinetic military action.....amazing.....they have no sense of shame nor embarrassment likely because they truly have no sense......

Conley
06-20-2011, 06:31 PM
Doesn't it require an immediate threat for the President to take military action without Congressional approval? How is Libya an immediate threat?


once again verMOUTH nails it...there is no threat from Libya. The entire Middle East is on rocky ground, and the oil is going to run out soon, so it's time we start preparing for the alternative. With the money we've spent on wars there we could have already developed a good solution to the energy crisis. instead of the war on terror it should be the war on oil.

GRUMPY
06-20-2011, 06:54 PM
what alternative would you suggest conley....

Mister D
06-20-2011, 06:58 PM
Unfortunately, we have no alternative at this time so we will be "meddling" in the Mid East for some time to come. In the meantime, we can increase domestic production and continue pursuing the potential alternatives. I'd like nothing better for our foreign policy than to leave that God forsaken sandbox in the dark ages.

MMC
06-26-2011, 12:48 AM
There was no immeint threat to the US. Our US Ambassdor got played by the French with Libya. How so do we know. Because S.O.S. Clinton had to do a 180 on her remarks. 2. The French did not tell their allies that they had offically recognized the Libyan Rebels as the Offical ruling Govenrment of libya. When Obama gave his speech he validated such when he made the statement that our allies had come to us for help That our economic interests were tied together with that global Economy bullshit they feed everyone.

But here is the clincher that shit was in the works even before we jumped in with the UN. The former Dynasty that Ruled Libya jumped in and met the Obama Administration here in the US.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/A_Benghazi_citizen_holding_King_Idris%27s_photo.JP G/220px-A_Benghazi_citizen_holding_King_Idris%27s_photo.JP G

A young Benghazian carrying (deposed) King Idris' photo. Support of the Senussi dynasty has traditionally been strong in Cyrenaica.[369]


Muhammad as-Senussi, former Crown Prince and son of the late King Idris, sent his condolences "for the heroes who have laid down their lives, killed by the brutal forces of Gaddafi" and called on the international community "to halt all support for the dictator with immediate effect."[370] as-Senussi said that the protesters would be "victorious in the end" and calls for international support to end the violence.[371] On 24 February, as-Senussi gave an interview to Al Jazeera where he called upon the international community to help remove Gaddafi from power and stop the ongoing "massacre".[372] He dismissed talk of a civil war saying "The Libyan people and the tribes have proven they are united". He later stated that international community needs "less talk and more action" to stop the violence.[373] He asked for a no-fly zone over Libya but does not support foreign ground troops.[374] On April 20, Mohammed spoke in front of the European Parliament calling for more support for Libya.[375] He also states that he will support any form of government that Libya will choose after Gaddafi including a constitutional monarchy.[376]
A rival claimant to the throne, Idris bin Abdullah, announced in an interview with Adnkronos that he was ready to return to Libya and "assume leadership" once change had been initiated.[377] On 21 February, he made an appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight to discuss the uprising.[378]In March, it was reported Idris bin Abdullah had held meetings at the State Department and Congress in Washington with U.S. government officials. It was also reported attempts at contact had been initiated by French and Saudi officials.[379] On 3 March, it was reported that another member of the family, Prince Zouber al-Senussi, had fled Libya with his family and was seeking asylum in Totebo,Sweden.[
Uprising and civil war<<<<<again another section defining what the truth is.

Yeah right.....we weren't lied to. Anyone care to take a shot at Senussi Dynasty. <<<<<notice the terminology, DYNASTY.
Uhm, who was dealing with this Dynasty when it was in power? Not just dealing with them but in Country with them. In bed with them! Let me give you a little hint.....it's not the British and the UK.

I mean the President can tell us some sort of truth but he can't do that, until he himself knows about it. ANYONE still thinking the US Un Ambassador didn't get tricked, played, manipulated, and out-foxed? Still think our Ambassdor to the UN isn't compromised?
Wake-up and smell the coffee.

We are bombing militants in Yemen.....think those bombs know the difference between Shia militants and AQ? We are allowing the Sunni to commit genocide against the Shia. Yet people think we did the right thing by jumping into another Country's Civil War.
How can anyone even attempt to dispute some of the statements by our own Government and or this President. Wherein we admit to certain things. Such as not knowing who all the militants are and what they are about.

Or in the case of Libya.....not officially Recognizing the Rebels due to whom being in their groups?!!!!! We are in June, the US hasn't recogonized them. Tell you something? Otherwise it would have been universal all the way around the board. Oh, yeah.....shall we look at cost? Regional National Security Interests? Or how it is about somebody's elses Interests?

GRUMPY
06-26-2011, 07:20 AM
the skinny on all of this is that it is illegal and dumb of course that is par for the course with this administration....

MMC
06-26-2011, 09:10 AM
Personally I feel I was blowing away all the Neo-libs and Neo-Cons on this matter. The libs were like your not all over the Neo-Cons on this. I was like Neo-Cons I expect this type of behaviour and statements made. Now When it's Democrats who filing legislations for nation-building and infrastructure of other countries but are own. I have to stand-up and be counted. They cannot face the fact that the Democrats who they once knew are not the same anymore.

The rest of the World of Media calls it what it is.....A Civil War. None of our buisness. Simple as that. There was no immeint threat of complete genocide of the Libyan people and there was no threat to our Country nor it's Interests.

But this what even Democrats are saying.....Senator Webb who is not going to run again. After his first term as a Democratic Senator. Making like 7-9 that are not seeking re-election. Plus Kucinich and a few other have joined in with the calls to get out of Libya. Even Better would Getting out of NATO!

MMC
06-26-2011, 09:20 AM
This is what Dem. Sen. Webb had to say about it all.....

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR Jim Webb Rebukes President on Libya.....
Webb rebukes president on Libya, demands justification | Richmond Times-Dispatch

In a sharp rebuke to President Barack Obama, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., is demanding to know why U.S. forces intervened in Libya.

On Wednesday, Webb, along with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., filed a joint resolution that would require the Obama administration to provide an unclassified report justifying U.S. operations in Libya and prohibit the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground.
The resolution says Obama "has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya."
The resolution filed by Webb and Corker also calls on Obama to request authorization from Congress for the continuation of U.S. involvement in NATO activities there.

"For centuries the English monarchs had been able to wage wars of choice with the only restriction being whether Parliament would raise enough taxes to fund their adventurous armies. Our Founding Fathers said no," Webb added."The framers of the Constitution deliberately gave the Congress the specific power to rein in such conduct and to protect our people from unwise choices by insisting on a democratic consensus."

The legislation would require, under law, the administration to publicly answer a number of detailed questions about operations in Libya within 14 days of enactment.
A similar resolution, introduced by House Speaker John Boehner, sailed through the Republican-controlled House on Tuesday on a 268-145 vote.

Webb, an independent-minded Democrat who is not seeking re-election, has not been shy in criticizing some of the Obama administration's moves and policies.While he voted for the law, Webb was critical of the way in which last year's health-care overhaul was handled, saying the Obama administration "did a really terrible job," referring to the decision to rely on Congress to draft the plan.

Seems this Democrat see the the writing on the wall. Ex Naval Commander and note what he stated about Obama's health-care reform. How come he is not the only Democrat that see such?

Conley
06-26-2011, 10:35 AM
Unfortunately, we have no alternative at this time so we will be "meddling" in the Mid East for some time to come. In the meantime, we can increase domestic production and continue pursuing the potential alternatives. I'd like nothing better for our foreign policy than to leave that God forsaken sandbox in the dark ages.


I agree that we need to meddle in ME affairs for the purposes of national security, but I don't think it was a smart move to get involved in Libya. Not to mention the rebels' ties with aq and other jihadists. we just jumped in without proper due diligence imo.

Conley
06-26-2011, 10:39 AM
Personally I feel I was blowing away all the Neo-libs and Neo-Cons on this matter. The libs were like your not all over the Neo-Cons on this. I was like Neo-Cons I expect this type of behaviour and statements made. Now When it's Democrats who filing legislations for nation-building and infrastructure of other countries but are own. I have to stand-up and be counted. They cannot face the fact that the Democrats who they once knew are not the same anymore.

The rest of the World of Media calls it what it is.....A Civil War. None of our buisness. Simple as that. There was no immeint threat of complete genocide of the Libyan people and there was no threat to our Country nor it's Interests.

But this what even Democrats are saying.....Senator Webb who is not going to run again. After his first term as a Democratic Senator. Making like 7-9 that are not seeking re-election. Plus Kucinich and a few other have joined in with the calls to get out of Libya. Even Better would Getting out of NATO!


excellent points...i'm not sure why so many democrats can't recognize the double talk and lies. i disagree with the neo-cons but at least they are honest about what they're doing. the federal democrats say one thing and do another.

Mister D
06-26-2011, 11:16 AM
Unfortunately, we have no alternative at this time so we will be "meddling" in the Mid East for some time to come. In the meantime, we can increase domestic production and continue pursuing the potential alternatives. I'd like nothing better for our foreign policy than to leave that God forsaken sandbox in the dark ages.


I agree that we need to meddle in ME affairs for the purposes of national security, but I don't think it was a smart move to get involved in Libya. Not to mention the rebels' ties with aq and other jihadists. we just jumped in without proper due diligence imo.


Neither do I. I wonder if someone here can explain our national interest. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and it always turns into some silly partisan argument. Granted, I'm not sure the Iraq adventure was worthwhile either but it's 2011 and BO is in office. This was his decision.

Conley
06-26-2011, 11:43 AM
Unfortunately, we have no alternative at this time so we will be "meddling" in the Mid East for some time to come. In the meantime, we can increase domestic production and continue pursuing the potential alternatives. I'd like nothing better for our foreign policy than to leave that God forsaken sandbox in the dark ages.


I agree that we need to meddle in ME affairs for the purposes of national security, but I don't think it was a smart move to get involved in Libya. Not to mention the rebels' ties with aq and other jihadists. we just jumped in without proper due diligence imo.


Neither do I. I wonder if someone here can explain our national interest. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and it always turns into some silly partisan argument. Granted, I'm not sure the Iraq adventure was worthwhile either but it's 2011 and BO is in office. This was his decision.


Yes...I don't really see a partisan divide on this. Basically Obama got elected by proclaiming himself the anti-Bush, and here we have an example of him initiating military action all on his own for no particularly justifiable reason (human rights is the only one I can think of, but look at Egypt, Syria, etc). He's not only not what he portrayed himself to be, he's actually gone a step beyond what Bush did in attacking a sovereign nation with little connection to the US and doing so without the support of Congress.

Last thing I want to be labeled on this board is a Republican apologist but absolutely no one can argue that if a GOP president were acting like this there would be an uproar 1000x what we're currently seeing.

GRUMPY
06-26-2011, 01:40 PM
again, the short on this is that it is illegal and dumb period....obama was getting beat for looking feckless and behind the curve of the so called arab spring, the gals ( mrs bill and rice) wanted him to be tougher and he wanted to try to appear as if he were assertive....so off we go....this is why gates stated that we were doing this on the fly....this has exposed NATO to be anemic and the usofa to be at best confused and totally disoriented in it's foreign policy what ever it might at this point be....and of course remember that syria is not libya....or the congo, the sudan.... ;)

Mister D
06-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Aside from the neocon democracy fetish have we had a clearly articulated/coherent foreign policy since the collapse of the USSR?

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 02:52 PM
Unfortunately, we have no alternative at this time so we will be "meddling" in the Mid East for some time to come. In the meantime, we can increase domestic production and continue pursuing the potential alternatives. I'd like nothing better for our foreign policy than to leave that God forsaken sandbox in the dark ages.


I agree that we need to meddle in ME affairs for the purposes of national security, but I don't think it was a smart move to get involved in Libya. Not to mention the rebels' ties with aq and other jihadists. we just jumped in without proper due diligence imo.


Neither do I. I wonder if someone here can explain our national interest. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and it always turns into some silly partisan argument. Granted, I'm not sure the Iraq adventure was worthwhile either but it's 2011 and BO is in office. This was his decision.


Yes...I don't really see a partisan divide on this. Basically Obama got elected by proclaiming himself the anti-Bush, and here we have an example of him initiating military action all on his own for no particularly justifiable reason (human rights is the only one I can think of, but look at Egypt, Syria, etc). He's not only not what he portrayed himself to be, he's actually gone a step beyond what Bush did in attacking a sovereign nation with little connection to the US and doing so without the support of Congress.

Last thing I want to be labeled on this board is a Republican apologist but absolutely no one can argue that if a GOP president were acting like this there would be an uproar 1000x what we're currently seeing.


There's a good reason for that. The motives of the Iraq war were advertised as religious in nature by the right wing. Not by the president himself, but by the right wing population and supported by the right wing media. Anybody who knows how a liberal behaves knows that's like putting jet fuel on a camp fire. That's akin to the liberal media proclaiming that abortion is legal because it's okay to kill babies. That certainly is not the truth, but it would piss alot of conservatives off.

GRUMPY
06-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Unfortunately, we have no alternative at this time so we will be "meddling" in the Mid East for some time to come. In the meantime, we can increase domestic production and continue pursuing the potential alternatives. I'd like nothing better for our foreign policy than to leave that God forsaken sandbox in the dark ages.


I agree that we need to meddle in ME affairs for the purposes of national security, but I don't think it was a smart move to get involved in Libya. Not to mention the rebels' ties with aq and other jihadists. we just jumped in without proper due diligence imo.


Neither do I. I wonder if someone here can explain our national interest. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and it always turns into some silly partisan argument. Granted, I'm not sure the Iraq adventure was worthwhile either but it's 2011 and BO is in office. This was his decision.


Yes...I don't really see a partisan divide on this. Basically Obama got elected by proclaiming himself the anti-Bush, and here we have an example of him initiating military action all on his own for no particularly justifiable reason (human rights is the only one I can think of, but look at Egypt, Syria, etc). He's not only not what he portrayed himself to be, he's actually gone a step beyond what Bush did in attacking a sovereign nation with little connection to the US and doing so without the support of Congress.

Last thing I want to be labeled on this board is a Republican apologist but absolutely no one can argue that if a GOP president were acting like this there would be an uproar 1000x what we're currently seeing.


There's a good reason for that. The motives of the Iraq war were advertised as religious in nature by the right wing. Not by the president himself, but by the right wing population and supported by the right wing media. Anybody who knows how a liberal behaves knows that's like putting jet fuel on a camp fire. That's akin to the liberal media proclaiming that abortion is legal because it's okay to kill babies. That certainly is not the truth, but it would piss alot of conservatives off.

spunk now i am not going to label you and idiot for this nonsense, no i will not state emphaticly that spunk is an idiot....whew that was close....

MMC
06-26-2011, 04:27 PM
The Only regional security interest that I see would be a Concern, would be th Suez Canal. For the US. Otherwise there is currently no regional security interest for the US to have any involvement with North Africa.

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 06:15 PM
Grumpy, your bullheadedness requires no explanation. Nor censorship. If you need to express yourself, do it.

Mister D
06-26-2011, 06:26 PM
The Only regional security interest that I see would be a Concern, would be th Suez Canal. For the US. Otherwise there is currently no regional security interest for the US to have any involvement with North Africa.


Egypt is a regional power and controls the Suez so I can understand engagement with Egypt. But Libya?

MMC
06-26-2011, 06:50 PM
The Only regional security interest that I see would be a Concern, would be th Suez Canal. For the US. Otherwise there is currently no regional security interest for the US to have any involvement with North Africa.


Egypt is a regional power and controls the Suez so I can understand engagement with Egypt. But Libya?

Heya D.....how you today.Well you did say regional.....which strategically the Suez would be of importance with it's acecess to the Med. Sea. Libya also sports that oil production which is next to Egypt. Still as you can see there is no real Regional interest as of this moment in time for the US.

As the Misslie Defense program was scraped by the Czechs with Russia definately not going for that shit. The plan has been altered. Looks like the Neo Libs and Neo-Cons are about keeping a mobile defense shield within the Mediterrainian Sea.

Also the US is working on it's next carrier group. Which will then gives us a another task force thus compleing the goal of having one for every viable startegic point on the planet that would serve the interests of this country.

Juggernaut
06-29-2011, 02:19 AM
Obama is a war criminal if you think Bush is a war criminal as Obama has lied us into a pointless war in 2 countries while the feckless criminal liberal media underreport that we're engaged in Yemen and Libya. I'm sure the messiah would be offended that truth be reported but in Yemen our troops are training and fighting terrorists while the media play dumb.

The best way to settle Libya is to drop in weapons and ammo and teach them how to fight while letting the rebels do the dirty work of of hunting the Mad Dog. I don't see the Suez Canal being a problem as Egypt controls the canal and safe passage through their waters is guaranteed by their military and ours.

Obama uses the constitution like a role of toilet paper, he's a liar and a crook who tortures aka rendition while also being protected by all the media including FOX.

hotwire
07-22-2011, 12:32 PM
obama is a hypocrite war criminal.He gets us involved in a muslim civil war.I could not care less who wins.

Conley
07-22-2011, 12:43 PM
welcome to the site hotwire...how come you chose that name? ;)

MMC
07-22-2011, 05:04 PM
Welcome to the Rant.....hotwire.

You are correct.....he has allowed the US to become involved in another countries civil war.

hellraiser
07-24-2011, 09:23 PM
obama is a hypocrite war criminal.He gets us involved in a muslim civil war.I could not care less who wins.


he is saving lives by defending the rebels. weird how suddenly the republicans love libya. reagan bombed them remember?

MMC
07-25-2011, 12:50 AM
obama is a hypocrite war criminal.He gets us involved in a muslim civil war.I could not care less who wins.


he is saving lives by defending the rebels. weird how suddenly the republicans love libya. reagan bombed them remember?


What does that have to do with getting the US involved into another Countries Civil War? Why Should the Sunni be allowed to back a government in country they could never defeat militarily? Why Should the US recognize the Rebels now when gates had sais over his dead body in the first place? Think those bombs we drop can tell the difference between which berbers are on who's side? >:D

Mister D
07-25-2011, 08:26 AM
obama is a hypocrite war criminal.He gets us involved in a muslim civil war.I could not care less who wins.


he is saving lives by defending the rebels. weird how suddenly the republicans love libya. reagan bombed them remember?


Which Republicans love Libya?

hellraiser
07-25-2011, 12:15 PM
the ones that are saying we should leave and not take out the horrible monster that is quidafi. he is just as bad as saddam, he should be captured and libya should be free for democracy like iraq.

MMC
07-26-2011, 02:45 AM
obama is a hypocrite war criminal.He gets us involved in a muslim civil war.I could not care less who wins.


he is saving lives by defending the rebels. weird how suddenly the republicans love libya. reagan bombed them remember?


Which Republicans love Libya?


Exactly which Republicans would this be?

MMC
07-26-2011, 02:47 AM
the ones that are saying we should leave and not take out the horrible monster that is quidafi. he is just as bad as saddam, he should be captured and libya should be free for democracy like iraq.


How will Libya be free for Democracy? Think those Rebels can hold the country together. Try again. Do you even know who ruled Libya before Qadhafi? >:D

hellraiser
07-26-2011, 04:56 PM
why cant there be democracy in libya just like in iraq? you dont know if they can do it or not because qaddafi has been running things since before reagan got elected. we are bringing freedom to libya just like we did to iraq. its a good thing.

Conley
07-26-2011, 06:35 PM
why cant there be democracy in libya just like in iraq? you dont know if they can do it or not because qaddafi has been running things since before reagan got elected. we are bringing freedom to libya just like we did to iraq. its a good thing.


Just because a country becomes democratic doesn't necessarily mean they will become a U.S. ally, or even act in the best interests of our country. In fact I would argue the reason we have supported many of these undemocratic regimes around the world is for exactly that reason. The devil you know is sometimes better than the devil you do not.

Mister D
07-26-2011, 06:52 PM
why cant there be democracy in libya just like in iraq? you dont know if they can do it or not because qaddafi has been running things since before reagan got elected. we are bringing freedom to libya just like we did to iraq. its a good thing.


Just because a country becomes democratic doesn't necessarily mean they will become a U.S. ally, or even act in the best interests of our country. In fact I would argue the reason we have supported many of these undemocratic regimes around the world is for exactly that reason. The devil you know is sometimes better than the devil you do not.


Or that they will remain "democratic" for more than an election cycle.

MMC
07-26-2011, 11:27 PM
why cant there be democracy in libya just like in iraq? you dont know if they can do it or not because qaddafi has been running things since before reagan got elected. we are bringing freedom to libya just like we did to iraq. its a good thing.


What rights do the Sunni have to Libya? Again do you know who ran Libya before Qadhafi? Why should we be backing the French's Play here. Because Qadhafi is a bad-man? Thats not a good enough reason to involve us into another Civil War. Do you forget who had Qadhafi in their countries partying with him?

wingrider
07-27-2011, 06:08 AM
watch.. when this goes to pieces on Obama he will do what he always does


somehow it will be the Republicans, or Bushs fault that he invaded Libya..

The man has a talent for putting the blame on someone else and never owns up to his own mistakes.

hell check his voting record. as non comittal as you can get . voted present 80 percent of the time..

Conley
07-27-2011, 09:02 AM
Voting present...hmmph. On the other hand, the less he voted the less he screwed up I guess. Now that he's got power we all see what a disaster things have been. I'd like to see him move along to retired life, seems he is better suited to be president of Del Boca Vista. ;D

wingrider
07-27-2011, 11:41 PM
true that CL

Conley
07-27-2011, 11:46 PM
watch.. when this goes to pieces on Obama he will do what he always does


somehow it will be the Republicans, or Bushs fault that he invaded Libya..

The man has a talent for putting the blame on someone else and never owns up to his own mistakes.

hell check his voting record. as non comittal as you can get . voted present 80 percent of the time..


Yep, check out the chart the White House released about the current debt. I posted it earlier tonight. Basically it claims Clinton gave us a surplus of 2.3 trillion and then Bush put us 10T in the hole. ::)

wingrider
07-28-2011, 12:41 AM
now I know that is a LIE

Juggernaut
08-10-2011, 06:57 PM
Nope, Clinton gave us a surplus of $230 billion and debt of over $5 trillion. Surplus and deficit are 2 different things from debt. The gain Clinton produced was created with Newt Gingrich forcing the change down Clinton's throat. Some say the number is lower but that 230 billion was a gain on paper that would have translated into paying down the debt but there's no proof Clinton even paid down the principle debt.

Mister D
08-17-2011, 08:19 PM
Bagpipes and hip pop? That's a house of pain alright...

Conley
08-17-2011, 08:23 PM
Bagpipes and hip pop? That's a house of pain alright...


:o

Tell me that's not the first time you've seen and heard that song! ;D

Mister D
08-17-2011, 08:28 PM
Bagpipes and hip pop? That's a house of pain alright...


:o

Tell me that's not the first time you've seen and heard that song! ;D


;D Nah I remember when it first came out. Boy do I ever... ::)