O b

[CoeburnCane]

I think the splitting of hairs is that Bush threw us into the Iraq war unilaterally. The no-fly zone over Libya was the UN's idea, and there's no official requests to go to war coming from the White House to the US Congress. So--the declaration of war that the no-fly zone indicates is done by the UN--not the United States.

Yet another reason why us being in the UN is dumb. It over-reaches our already spread thin military by engaging us in another combat operation that we have to pay for w/o proper allocation of funds.

I understand Gadhafi is not a good guy. He's a tyrannical leader and has lost the legitimacy to govern. BUT--it's up to the people to oust him, not the US, nor the UN.

[TheBeast]

I think the splitting of hairs is that Bush threw us into the Iraq war unilaterally. The no-fly zone over Libya was the UN's idea, and there's no official requests to go to war coming from the White House to the US Congress. So--the declaration of war that the no-fly zone indicates is done by the UN--not the United States.

Bush didn't do anything without asking for and getting consent from congress, besides he was well within bounds to react without addressing congress first since we were attacked and the president can retaliate and send our military to war without congress for 60 days. What Obama has done is the definition of unilateral action. We had no threat of violence against us by Lybia and had no reason to believe they would attack us.

At least we can agree that the UN is absolutely useless and we should have nothing to do with them.

[MikeJones]

2) This isn't attacking anyone, this is enforcing a no-fly zone and assisting allies/helpless civilians. This isn't a war, some of you can't seem to grasp that. It's funny too, we all know this is a personal problem with Obama and any decision he makes...even the dumb big gopers don't argue this needed to be done, their only gripe is he wasn't quicker doing it.

So you think we just say "hey guys you cant fly here" and that's what a no fly zone is? It involves attacking and destroying targets.

[CoeburnCane]

What Obama has done is the definition of unilateral action. We had no threat of violence against us by Lybia and had no reason to believe they would attack us.

The issue with what you're saying here is that you're acting like Obama was the sole person setting this deal into motion--it's the UN using our forces as their own. Due to being a member of the UN, when they call--we pretty much have to answer. So, to attribute this to Obama isn't right--it's ultimately the UN's fault for calling on our troops, and our fault as a country in the end for being a part of the UN to being with. Blaming Obama for this is a major stretch. It's all a by-product of us being a part of the UN.

[TheBeast]

The issue with what you're saying here is that you're acting like Obama was the sole person setting this deal into motion--it's the UN using our forces as their own. Due to being a member of the UN, when they call--we pretty much have to answer. So, to attribute this to Obama isn't right--it's ultimately the UN's fault for calling on our troops, and our fault as a country in the end for being a part of the UN to being with. Blaming Obama for this is a major stretch. It's all a by-product of us being a part of the UN.

And you are wrong, we don't have to do the bidding of the UN. It would be as simple as him saying we can't go do that, that is an act of war and the constitution of our country prohibits us from doing that and I am sworn to uphold our constitution above all else.

He!! even uber left Dennis Kucinich has called for his impeachment for this.

"If this was so grave, Congress is still in session. The President could have said 'don't go home, I've got to talk to you about what's happening here. I may need your approval.' This is about the Constitution and if we don't abide by our Constitution, everything falls apart here. This is about the Constitution, not about whether you like President Obama or not. I like President Obama, but I love the Constitution," Rep. Dennis Kucinich

[CoeburnCane]

And you are wrong, we don't have to do the bidding of the UN.

If that's the case, then you agreeing with me that being in the UN is useless and a bad thing for us doesn't make any sense. This is the exact reason why us being in the UN is stupid. It forces us to toss in our resources (mainly military) for whatever whims the other countries have via a popular UN vote on resolutions.

The UN decided on the no-fly zone over Libya, headed up by the French. BUT--they all assumed they'd have the US's help. Now--does Obama turn his back on the allies of this country in a united resolution to do this and hurt our already tarnished international image, or does he go along with it and take the beating at home. He picked the latter. I don't agree with it and I think we should be making sure our own war in Afghanistan is done before we do anything else anywhere in the world, but that was the choice.

Obama doesn't have to get Congress's OK on ordering troops to assist in UN operations. So it's not illegal nor unconstitutional. Is it the right choice? In my opinion, no. BUT--Is it impeachable? No.

If we want to open up the can of worms on impeachment or prosecuting presidents for war crimes, then let's talk about when we can start a tribunal against Cheney and Bush for authorizing the use of torture techniques. You can't have it both ways, just because the party of one or the other doesn't agree with your party loyalties.

[R13]

Not the quote you asked for but a very relevant one.

"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." Guess who said that. Even one of your own Dennis Kucinich says that Odumbass was wrong and went against the constitution.



Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that enforcing no-fly starts with bombing Libya's air defenses back to the stone age so they can't shoot at our planes. That's an act of war.


This is just bizarre. President Obama's rationale for bombing Libya is exactly the same as Bush's for invading Iraq: to liberate people from a ruthless dictator.


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...-from-congress

Then I'll take that it doesn't exist. Kucinich is probably the largest anti-war member of congress, he's going to object to basically anything like this, that's not a surprise.

Only problem is, this isn't a military attack, sort of throws out that whole argument. But if the only argument you have is from Mr. Looney Tunes himself Paul, then I was right about what was being passed around in right-wing blog land. He even says it's no official act like you said, that becase a no-fly zone usually leads to a war that it should be considered an act of war, not that it is now.

Yet another reason why us being in the UN is dumb. It over-reaches our already spread thin military by engaging us in another combat operation that we have to pay for w/o proper allocation of funds.

I understand Gadhafi is not a good guy. He's a tyrannical leader and has lost the legitimacy to govern. BUT--it's up to the people to oust him, not the US, nor the UN.

That's just as bad of a statement as these other gems, the US can opt out, being apart of the UN doesn't you have to be involved in everything...there's many conflicts we haven't involved ourselves in or really have much of a role. We see what happens when there hasn't been a UN or something like it, or even one the US wasn't part of. We sure did whine a lot when drumming up support for our wars. But yeah, lets have a coalition of nations that all of our allies are part of, but we the most powerful nation in the world sits out. Wow.

There's no thinly spread military, that's really a joke of a notion, we're talking the most advanced military in the world and has the second largest manned military...it's NEVER thin.

The people don't have the resources to go against him, he has his military and weapons plus outside resources and they have what? Give me a break with that, that's not possible and if I myself lived in a situation like that, I'd want someone to help me...esp. from a country like the US and what we're SUPPOSED to stand for.

He's completely wrong with the Iraq comment, as anyone who has tried to draw those connections. Bush's reason for war was to find those WMD's, that was his whole basis, not to take Saddam down...only when they came up empty did the ones on the right claim it was to take Saddam down. Taking him out made the world a better place, I nor really anyone had any opposition to that, if Bush had went with that from the get-go it would have been a lot better. He didn't, Saddam was out of power immediately after the war began and was hanging from a rope shortly after...that was how many years ago though? The war in Iraq wasn't anything close to this, nor will it ever be.

We had no threat of violence against us by Lybia and had no reason to believe they would attack us.

So we did with Iraq? You just caught yourself there. Iraq and Saddam was no more of a threat than Libya, Iraq never threatened, killed a single US citizen or showed any act of aggression...there wasn't even a situation as there is in Libya where the citizens were revolting/needed assistance. You supported taking Saddam out, but not this guy? I support both, this one just isn't a war with combat troops being sent over there to find weapons that aren't there.




Some obvious things seem to be escaping some of you with the UN and assisting these other countries, they have been right there with us in Iraq and Afghan - including France and a landry list of other countries. So they can send ground troops to fight OUR wars, but when we do a fraction of that in this situation, it's such a burden? A lot of screwed logic, as usual, it's only okay when we have our hand out I guess.

[1inStripes]

The one issue about WMDs, and invading Iraq was that fact that he wasn't allowing inspections violating a UN resolution. That alone was enough reason to attack to verify since he was breaking his treaty since he had not allowed inspectors into Iraq since 98. Truthfully action should have taken place then instead of letting it go on and on.


Its true that we do not have to do the UN's bidding, but generally we will. Germany tends to hold out of UN sanctioned operations it seems like, and France gets to run them, which is the equivalent of letting a 3 year old run with a scalpel.

[TheBeast]

I never said that kadaffy didn't need to be taken out. The problem is I keep hearing that yhis the UN and France and we are just giving them limited help. Problem is that over half the actionbeing taken is being done by us at the order of the UN.

You just said it yourself we are the most powerfull nation in the world and the fact is we don't need to rely on any of these other nations in the UN for anything. Whereas they do have to depend on us and we can not be in the UN and still have all the allies and be able to pick and choose where we intervene if needed. I gaurantee the UN doesn't go around starting stuff like this without having the U.S. setting there that can say well go bail us out we stepped in ovr our heads again.


I put the quote from Gates saying this was an act of war in that response and you even requoted it, so I guess it does exist.

[R13]

You just said it yourself we are the most powerfull nation in the world and the fact is we don't need to rely on any of these other nations in the UN for anything. Whereas they do have to depend on us and we can not be in the UN and still have all the allies and be able to pick and choose where we intervene if needed. I gaurantee the UN doesn't go around starting stuff like this without having the U.S. setting there that can say well go bail us out we stepped in ovr our heads again.


I put the quote from Gates saying this was an act of war in that response and you even requoted it, so I guess it does exist.

We do rely on them, we may not as much as they do us, but we rely on them...with two wars going on, the death toll of our troops would be much higher and we'd be exhausting our resources at a higher rate. We can't do it all our own, yes we are the most powerful because we spend(blow) so much on the military budget, but we know good and well how important these allies are. These countries aren't the damn Vatican City, they're plenty powerful and incredibly advanced.

You said official act, which would mean he broke the law, not the opinion of some. The quote doesn't even relate to this, he's speaking of declaring war when there is no threat, this is far from a declaration of war and IMO will never be any closer.