Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

USA's Liberation of Libya has begun.


  • Please log in to reply
469 replies to this topic

#101 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,882 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:08 PM

Yet we still hear nothing on who these rebels, that we are protecting, are. Someone is calling the shots, who?????

and didn't they take to arms right away? Not that I agree necessarily someone must be calling the shots, but it's certainly plausible that someone is

#102 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:14 PM

Cite source?

Also, I can't manage to find one single news article, blog, or other that indicates civilain deaths over a few here and there from Gadhafi forces. Yet I see our bombings caused quite a few civilian casualty..... :undecided:

#103 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:18 PM

http://www.bloomberg...es-at-risk.html

Allied Forces
U.S. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney said Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Qatar have joined the coalition. The U.S., the U.K., France, Italy and Canada have at least 25 ships off the coast of Libya, including the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and the Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Obama and other alliance leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, have declared that their political objective is to force Qaddafi from power after more than four decades. Ham said it is “possible” the Libyan dictator would remain in power for some time.

China today called for an immediate cease-fire in the North African country. The United Nations resolution authorizing the military action was meant to “protect the safety of civilians,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing in Beijing today.

“The military actions taken by relevant countries are causing civilian casualties,” Jiang said. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin yesterday described the allied offensive as a “crusade.”

#104 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,882 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:11 PM

Gates denied the civilian casualties
Mr. Gates rejected assertions that military strikes in Libya were responsible for any significant number of civilian casualties, as was suggested by his Russian hosts.
“It’s perfectly evident that the vast majority — if not nearly all civilian casualties — have been inflicted by Qaddafi,” Mr. Gates said.
“We have been careful about this,” he added. “It’s almost as though some people here are taking at face value Qaddafi’s claims about the number of civilian casualties, which, as far as I’m concerned, are just outright lies.”
He said the airstrikes had focused on air defense sites and surface-to-air missile batteries, most of which have been away from population centers.

#105 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:14 PM

So, who to believe here....... :dunno:

#106 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,882 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:15 PM

Cite source?

Also, I can't manage to find one single news article, blog, or other that indicates civilain deaths over a few here and there from Gadhafi forces. Yet I see our bombings caused quite a few civilian casualty..... :undecided:

Did you try http://www.google.co...ting protesters

#107 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,882 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:16 PM

So, who to believe here....... :dunno:

:dunno:

#108 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,009 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:18 PM

So, who to believe here....... :dunno:




The truth is most likely somewhere between the two extremes.

#109 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:24 PM

[quote name='Deadshow Dan']Gates denied the civilian casualties
Mr. Gates rejected assertions that military strikes in Libya were responsible for any significant number of civilian casualties, as was suggested by his Russian hosts.


#110 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:34 PM

Wait... You're aware that Gadhafi's been using fighter jets and helicopters to fire indiscriminately into his own people but you haven't heard reports of Libyan deaths due to these actions?

And, you'd take China's word over somebody in the US state department's? China? Who faked the opening ceremony of the Olympics? China, who has no problem committing infanticide and treat women as second class citizen? Yes, surely they're more likely to speak the truth on this matter...

#111 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:36 PM

Cite source?

I also never indicated I believe anyone at all. I'm after the information. Please dont attempt to muck my investigation with fluff and rhetoric. Thanks.

#112 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:40 PM

Cite source for.... Which part of my post?

#113 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:41 PM

Furthermore, what i read is that he was using helicopter and fighter jets against rebels. Rebels, are not civilians. They are rebels.

#114 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:41 PM

Cite source for.... Which part of my post?


The parts that arent fluff or rhetoric.

#115 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:49 PM

Furthermore, what i read is that he was using helicopter and fighter jets against rebels. Rebels, are not civilians. They are rebels.


Aren't rebels still CITIZENS?

Doesn't that take precedent?

How would you feel if Obama deployed the 82nd airborn on the Tea Party movement just for exercising their right to free speech? 'Cause that's essentially what's happening in Libya..

These rebels didn't just one day show up and started shooting up a storm. There were lengthy peaceful protests in the same manner as happened in Tunisia and Egypt. These protesters didn't become "rebels" until Gadhafi started shooting at them. Indiscriminately. With helicopters and jet fighters...

I don't understand where your outrage comes from? That the United States is involved along with a wide group of other countries in supporting basic human rights, and standing against mass genocide?

Fuck me. What an awful thing to do, promoting the same civil liberties we cherish here in America.

#116 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:51 PM

it is called civil war. There is a big difference between firing on unarmed civilians and firing on armed rebels.

And attempting to compare Libya with the United States is absolutely proposterous at best. Again leave the rhetoric out of it. Your Fox News shit is garbage. I'm not going to play into "What ifs" and other ridiculous heart string pullers.

#117 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:52 PM

Fox news is anti- US involvement in Libya, tbch.

#118 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:56 PM

it is called civil war. There is a big difference between firing on unarmed civilians and firing on armed rebels.


Again...

These armed rebels were once upon a time peaceful protesters, AKA unarmed civilians. And, instead of allowing his people the right the express themselves, which many countries around the world believe should be an universal right, Gadhafi sent his army after them.

Them's the facts.

This is why the world started taking a close look at what was going on in Libya because a lot of countries around the world seem to think that's like a bad thing, or something.

#119 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:57 PM

:lol:

Dude, I am not interested in your speculations and other irrational nonsense. I'm trying to discuss the current events as I read about them and what I am seeing. I'm not interested in "what if Obama attacked the tea party?" or any other garbage that is nonsensical. Hence the Fox news comment.

Please stay on topic. tbch

#120 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:01 PM

Posted Image

:coffee:

#121 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:05 PM

:lol:

:rolleyes:

Always have to resort to this kind of behaviour when you have nothing logical and or insightful to add to a discussion?

#122 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:10 PM

Posted Image

thankfully, civilians don't drive cars in libya:rolleyes:

#123 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:12 PM

Context? Source?

Is this Allied bombings, or is this Gadhafi bombings?

#124 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:13 PM

vic, where did you pull that?

#125 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:14 PM

Context? Source?

Is this Allied bombings, or is this Gadhafi bombings?


Oh, look. The great speculator decided to join the discussion....

#126 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:38 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk...africa-12814792

There was something familiar in the night-time television images of broken concrete and twisted metal from Col Muammar Gaddafi's Tripoli compound - the shadow of Iraq.

The largest military intervention in the Middle East since the Iraq war is now well under way, and to many the goal looks the same - regime change.

Even as the Pentagon was saying the Libyan leader is not a target, American missiles had just struck his heavily protected compound - for a second time in 25 years.

Two weeks ago, US President Barack Obama made his objective clear. Col Gaddafi, he said, "must leave".

But now Operation Odyssey Dawn has begun, the US and its coalition allies say they are simply protecting Libyan civilians and enforcing the no-fly zone, as called for by UN Security Council resolution 1973.

The resolution would never have been passed if it had called for regime change....................

I believe in history, a "no-fly-zome" is simply a DMZ. It seems reasonable that the UN alliance would have worked to maintain none of Gaddafi's fighter planes or helicopters engaged "civilain" or in this case, rebel forces. I'm still trying to figure out why we bombed his compound. It seems we've taken the no fly zone a few steps passed what it really means....

#127 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:39 PM

shit, i pulled it from a link on reddit.com that i can't find again:bang:

anyways, the first day of these airstrikes cost over $100 million, close to around the price gov. walker said wisconsin's budget deficit that made it neccesary to crush labor rights :bang:

http://www.alternet....is_it_worth_it/

#128 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:42 PM

I'm not suggesting that the US' decision to support the UN resolution is fiscally good for the economy.

I was against the war in Iraq for several reasons and the financial impact on the US was one of them.

#129 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,882 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:42 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk...africa-12814792

The resolution would never have been passed if it had called for regime change....................

That .... immediately continues with:
The resolution would never have been passed if it had called for regime change.
But coalition leaders are going out of their way to say Col Gaddafi is not on their hit list - so far.
What they attacked inside his compound, they say, was a military command centre - not his home.

#130 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:44 PM

Thanks, DD. I thought I grabbed the whole thing...didnt intend to mislead.

#131 jg

jg
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,919 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:45 PM

I wouldnt be surprised if they build statues of Obama in Libya once the liberation is over.


I wouldn't count on it...

http://www.rollingst...adists-20110321

U.S. Bombs Libya, Helps... Jihadists?!

America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.

In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.

By imposing a no-fly zone over Eastern Libya, the U.S. and its coalition partners have effectively embraced the breakaway republic of Cyrenaica. As you can see on the map above, Libya is a mashup of three historically distinct provinces. As recently as the 1940s, Cyrenaica was an independent emirate, with its capital in Benghazi.

The emnity between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania runs deep. The Emir of Cyrenaica awkwardly cobbled together modern Libya and ruled as its monarch. This is the same king that Qaddafi deposed in his coup of 1969. And the Qaddafi regime has seen the former king's homeland as a threat ever since, as this Wikileaked cable from our Tripoli embassy explains:

Eastern Libya had suffered ... from a lack of investment and government resources, part of a campaign by the al-Qadhafi regime to keep the area poor and, theoretically, less likely to develop as a viable alternative locus of power to Tripoli.

Another cable reports that the disrespect is mutual:

Residents of eastern Libya ... view the al-Qadhafa clan [Qaddafi's tribe] as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have "stolen" the right to rule in Libya.

That's the background. Flash forward to 2008: A West Point analysis of a cache of al Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya nearly doubled Saudi Arabia as the top source of foreign fighters.

The word "fighter" here is misleading. For the most part, Libyans didn't go to Iraq to fight; they went to blow themselves up — along with American G.I.'s. (Among those whose "work" was detailed in the al Qaeda records, 85 percent of the Libyans were listed as suicide bombers.) Overwhelmingly, these militants came "from cities in North‐East Libya, an area long known for Jihadi‐linked militancy."

A WikiLeaked cable from 2008 explained that Cyrenaicans were waging jihad against U.S. troops as "a last act of defiance against the Qadhafi regime." After the U.S. normalized relations with Qaddaffi in 2006, Cyrenacians believed they no longer had any shot at toppling him:

Many easterners feared the U.S. would not allow Qadhafi's regime to fall and therefore viewed direct confrontation with the GOL [Government of Libya] in the near-term as a fool's errand.... Fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers.

The epicenter of Libyan jihadism is the city of Derna — the hometown of more than half of Libya's foreign fighters, according the West Point analysis. The city of 80,000 has a history of violent resistance to occupying powers — including Americans, who captured the city in the First Barbary War.

A surprisingly readable cable titled "Die Hard in Derna" makes clear that the city "takes great pride" in having sent so many of its sons to kill American soldiers in Iraq, quoting one resident as saying: "It's jihad — it's our duty, and you're talking about people who don't have much else to be proud of."

#132 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:46 PM

Troll's a few days late with his information. That happened Sunday night (EST). And, as Deadshow Dan points out, the UN coalition is using a technique that attempts to isolate Gadhafi from his troops so that military movement and coordination becomes difficult.

Let me guess, next we'll hear how Gadhafi invited CNN and Reuters to his palace to avoid further attacks on his palace?

#133 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,106 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:48 PM

I wouldn't count on it...

Libya: For U.S., Yesterday's 'Extremists' Are Today's Freedom Fighters

http://www.rollingst...ghters-20110318


Share43 There's no small irony in the fact that the U.S. is now leading the international cavalry to rescue Libyan freedom fighters in Benghazi.


WTF is with this "leading" bullshit? France led the way.

Just like Tunisia's revolution paved the way for the rest of the uprising in North Africa and the Middle East. Not Egypt's.

#134 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:49 PM

Welcome to the ignore list, Great Speculator. :wink:

#135 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:56 PM

I wouldn't count on it...

http://www.rollingst...adists-20110321

U.S. Bombs Libya, Helps... Jihadists?!


yeah, that was kind of a give in.......

#136 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,882 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:00 PM

the First Barbary War.

As I recall this is why the Marines' song has "to the shores of Tripoli"

That's an early US military action, Arrrrrr?

Edited by Deadshow Dan, 22 March 2011 - 06:06 PM.
Heh, edited to change eh into Arrrrrr


#137 Tainted703

Tainted703
  • VibeTribe
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:09 PM

My point in bringing up Rwanda is based on humanitarian effort. That is what Libya is about. Why didnt anyone give a shit (and not just the US) about Rwanda, or Darfur then? Those were atrocious genocides and we turned a blind eye....what makes Libya so special if this is about human rights??


I don't think that anything particularly makes Libya special. My point was just that people should have given a shit about Rwanda and it's terrible that nobody did, but attitudes change. They are both bad situations, Rwanda admittedly, much worse.


i can't see how bombs that blow shit up indescriminately from above can be used to protect civilians...but there will conveniently be a lot to rebuild afterwards, which is where the nationbuilding vultures will come in...protecting civilians has always been a convenient excuse and never an intention of virtue...make no mistake, money will be made

and hey, europe don't want those damn dirty muslim refugees either now do they


Indescriminately? How does that make sense? We have precision bombs that are taking out precision targets. We aren't bombing school houses. We've bombed an Airport that was sending out planes to bomb Libyan citizens, we've taken out military facilities that store tanks, and we've bombed Qadafi's compound. I don't think anyone is going to pay them to rebuild their military facilities.

Iraq is different in the sense that we leveled Baghdad. We sent ground forces in and were hunting Saddam. The point in Libya is to allow the rebels the ability to protest and potentially form a new government without the fear of being gunned down in the streets on order of their dictator.


Yet we still hear nothing on who these rebels, that we are protecting, are. Someone is calling the shots, who?????


I don't think it's quite as simple as that. This is very similar to what's been going on in Egypt. A large group of people with differing views, that share one goal, to overthrow the tyyrant which has opressed it's citizens for too long. It's very possible Qadafi could be overthrown and something like the Muslim Brotherhood will take power (not sure if their in Libya, but the point stands.) It's not One party V. the Other. It's people for Qadafi, and people for anyone but Qadafi.


http://www.bloomberg...es-at-risk.html


“The military actions taken by relevant countries are causing civilian casualties,” Jiang said. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin yesterday described the allied offensive as a “crusade.”


Qadafi's strategy has been to surround his compound and military locations with supporters. He started putting civillians that support him around the bunkers so we would stop bombing them.

AND FINALLY:

http://www.dailymail...bomb-order.html


By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 4:26 PM on 23rd February 2011
Comments (142)
Videos
Add to My Stories
Gaddafi's supporters vow 'We will fight until death'
Italian government says estimated 1,000 have died in Libyan violence
Opposition forces claim to control east of the country
Gaddafi's number two resigns and urges army to 'heed people's demands'
Former British diplomat says Gaddafi's regime 'in death throes'
Fears 'unstable' leader could use chemical weapons on own people
A Libyan pilot deliberately crashed his fighter plane after being ordered to bomb protesters in the city of Benghazi.
The officer ejected from his jet along with his crew before the crash, according to a report by news agency Reuters.
His extraordinary action came as the country teetered on the brink of civil war as forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi pledged to fight for the dictator ‘until death’ while protesters seized control of the eastern region.
Gaddafi’s rule is becoming increasingly fragile after his number two stepped down and the United Nations called for an end to violence.

-------

It has led to tanks and other armoured vehicles retreating west, where military loyalists continue to murder opponents under Gaddafi’s orders.
‘We will fight until death,’ said a soldier in his early 20s outside a military compound close to Tripoli’s Green Square, which has been cleared of demonstrators.
‘The country needs stability at a time like this, and this is what we are providing. The people are on our side.’
Despite such words, bodies continued to pile up in city hospitals following massacres carried out by snipers with high velocity rifles, secret servicemen with machine gun, helicopter gunships, and even fighter bombers.


To respond to Takeastepback, It really doesn't seem like we are within the limits of the U.N. resolution for the no-fly zone to be bombing them. I'll agree with you on that. I won't say that it's not the right thing to do though. Bombing his compound, maybe only if there are actual military weapons of death we are specifically targetting, tanks, jets, whatever. But, taking out his fighter jets and tanks, regardless of the U.N. resolution, is the right thing to do here.

Also, I don't want to quote it in this post because it's long already, but Ghadafi has been threatening to arm his civillian supporters and some terrorist groups to increase the bloodshed on his own people.

#138 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:17 PM

Yeah, I read about him using human shields to try and repel bombings. it seems reasonable to believe that the only scope of targets (at least in my opinion) would be anti-aircraft targets so that U.N planes can patrol the no fly zone. Taking action to try and squash gaddafi's army is more in the way of direct conflict vs. enforcing a no fly.

#139 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:24 PM

http://www.cbsnews.c...sMainColumnArea

Members of Congress have been expressing increasing frustration over President Obama's decision to launch missile strikes against Libya without congressional approval. Liberal Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich suggested the action was impeachable; Sen. Jim Webb, another Democrat, complained on MSNBC that Congress has "been sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now, in terms of presidential authority, in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress."


Some Republicans, meanwhile, are also calling for congressional approval if America is going to war, among them Sen. Richard Lugar. GOP Rep. Walter Jones has complained that Congress has effectively been "neutered."


"I wish the president had not gone into Libya without first coming to Congress," Jones told Politico. "We have for too long, as a Congress, been too passive when it comes to sending our young men and women to war."


Added Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett: "The United States does not have a King's army. President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution."


Which raises the question: Is it Congress or the president that has the power to authorize military action?


The answer is that, to some extent, they both claim it. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, explicitly states that "The Congress shall have Power To...declare War." But in Article II, Section 2, the Constitution says that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." So while only Congress can technically declare war, the president is in charge of the military - and can decide when and where it is deployed.



President Obama speaks from Chile on the Libya offensive.
(Credit: CBS) Which helps explain why America hasn't actually declared war since World War 2. President Harry Truman didn't go to Congress for a formal declaration of war in Korea, mandating that the U.S. involvement was simply a "police action." That example has been followed in the years since.


In 1973, in response to the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which mandates that a president obtain congressional approval within 90 days of introducing troops into battle. Yet it too has largely been ignored, in part because it does not provide any recourse if a president violates it. On Monday, Kucinich said he would try to use Congress' power of the purse to stop the U.S. intervention in Libya, saying he would introduce an amendment to defund the action.


Others on the left, meanwhile, are warning that the current situation sets a dangerous precedent.


"To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization," wrote Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy. "If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime."



Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
(Credit: AP Photo/Harry Hamburg) Critics of Mr. Obama's action are using the president's own words against him; in a 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, the then-senator said this about a president's authority to bomb Iran without approval from Congress: "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."


"As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States," he added. "In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."


Mr. Obama sent a letter on Monday notifying Congress he had acted in Libya. He said he authorized the action as part of a response authorized under the U.N. security council demanding that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi change course or face consequences; the goal, he said, is "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya."

"I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive," he added.



I'm torn on exactly how this works.......

#140 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:31 PM

""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."


"As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States," he added. "In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."


who is that imposter?:shocked:

#141 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:34 PM

""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."


"As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States," he added. "In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."


who is that imposter?:shocked:


It was pretty clear from get go he wasn't going to do what he said he would on the campaign trail. That sort of behaviour is far from new though. At this point, it's a little late to start second guessing it. We've already dropped 100 million duckets on bombing Libya...congressional oversight or not.

We certainly wont impeach him......

#142 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:07 PM

"To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization,"

:one:

#143 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:11 PM

"President Palin."

She might as well be the next puppet....what difference does it make? :dunno:

#144 Tainted703

Tainted703
  • VibeTribe
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:12 PM

It was pretty clear from get go he wasn't going to do what he said he would on the campaign trail. That sort of behaviour is far from new though. At this point, it's a little late to start second guessing it. We've already dropped 100 million duckets on bombing Libya...congressional oversight or not.

We certainly wont impeach him......


I really don't get why obama gets so much flack. He does need to grow a backbone and stop caving to Republicans and do more of what he promised, but this whole thing with Libya, look at the articles I've posted. Tanks firing on crowds, fighter jets being ordered to bomb them. It is the right thing to do.
Not to mention, this country works on PRECEDENTS. The law says he can take military action and has 90 days to get approval. Not once has a president declared war, as the article says, since WW2. Why is this such a big deal now, for a limited military engagement.

Also, I know this is horrible reasoning, but there is very little industrial left in our economy. That 100 million spent on those missiles is creating jobs. The city I live in has several large businesses that employ almost every middle class household: Kennedy Space Center, Northrum Grumman Fire Systems, Harris, DRS. All, but one of those, makes missiles, targetting systems, tanks.

At the end of the day, for better or worse, our economy is heavily Dependant on the military-industrial complex. I think it needs to be scaled back and these commercial military companies converted to something useful, but I'm just trying to point out that $100 million spent on missiles is going back into circulation in this country. Military spending profits middle class America.

edit: President Palin. If that happens, I'm heading to Canada and preparing for Nuclear Winter.

#145 Uncle Coulro

Uncle Coulro
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,512 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:15 PM

When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

#146 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:23 PM

"President Palin."

She might as well be the next puppet....what difference does it make? :dunno:

I can definitely see a woman president next, if for no other reason than to let the masses feel good about "progress" being made.

You're right though, it won't make any real difference :bang:

#147 Uncle Coulro

Uncle Coulro
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,512 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:26 PM

The law says he can take military action and has 90 days to get approval. Not once has a president declared war, as the article says, since WW2. Why is this such a big deal now, for a limited military engagement.

Every time a president deploys US forces to fight within another nation's borders when the US is not under threat, it's a very big deal.

That 100 million spent on those missiles is creating jobs. The city I live in has several large businesses that employ almost every middle class household: Kennedy Space Center, Northrum Grumman Fire Systems, Harris, DRS. All, but one of those, makes missiles, targetting systems, tanks.

Military spending profits middle class America.

Wow! Yet, Palin scares you?

#148 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,371 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:33 PM

IAlso, I know this is horrible reasoning, but there is very little industrial left in our economy. That 100 million spent on those missiles is creating jobs. The city I live in has several large businesses that employ almost every middle class household: Kennedy Space Center, Northrum Grumman Fire Systems, Harris, DRS. All, but one of those, makes missiles, targetting systems, tanks.

At the end of the day, for better or worse, our economy is heavily Dependant on the military-industrial complex. I think it needs to be scaled back and these commercial military companies converted to something useful, but I'm just trying to point out that $100 million spent on missiles is going back into circulation in this country. Military spending profits middle class America.

edit: President Palin. If that happens, I'm heading to Canada and preparing for Nuclear Winter.


There are much better ways to employ middle class workers in this country. Building bombs to kill people isnt one of them in my opinion.

Also, I missed the reporting on Gaddahfi shelling civilians and sending fighter planes after them. All I see is that he is using military force against the rebels. While I do not support that behaviour, in a country like Libya, that is what will happen in a civil war.

Amazing all this spooge over Libya and yet the Israel/Palistine conflict of...god knows how long....gets by without much support in the humanitarian dept....same as Rwanda. It makes me skeptical of the motives at hand. As I believe it should anyone....just my useless two cents.

#149 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:33 PM

Also, I know this is horrible reasoning, but there is very little industrial left in our economy. That 100 million spent on those missiles is creating jobs. The city I live in has several large businesses that employ almost every middle class household: Kennedy Space Center, Northrum Grumman Fire Systems, Harris, DRS. All, but one of those, makes missiles, targetting systems, tanks.

At the end of the day, for better or worse, our economy is heavily Dependant on the military-industrial complex. I think it needs to be scaled back and these commercial military companies converted to something useful, but I'm just trying to point out that $100 million spent on missiles is going back into circulation in this country. Military spending profits middle class America.

edit: President Palin. If that happens, I'm heading to Canada and preparing for Nuclear Winter.



ok, so our economy tanked during 2 undeclared wars, surely a 3rd will boost it...i'm beginning to see the light:shocked:

#150 kramer

kramer
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,881 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:37 PM

it is called civil war. There is a big difference between firing on unarmed civilians and firing on armed rebels.

And attempting to compare Libya with the United States is absolutely proposterous at best. Again leave the rhetoric out of it. Your Fox News shit is garbage. I'm not going to play into "What ifs" and other ridiculous heart string pullers.


i disagree, i think the Tea Party comparison is a good one.

these "rebels" are actually concerned citizens who are calling for a Democratic regime because they are sick of being oppressed under a corrupt dictatorship...