NATO uses helicopters in Libya; British officials visit Benghazi - CNN.com
"The visit, which included a discussion of the country's possible future, followed helicopter attacks by British and French forces on the regime's military."
Blasts heard in central Tripoli - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
"Earlier, British Apache and French attack helicopters struck targets for the first time in NATO's campaign in Libya, hitting Gadhafi's troops near a key coastal oil city, the alliance said. "
NATO Choppers Pound Gadhafi - Combat gets up-close and personal after relying on bombers
"(AP) – British Apache and French attack helicopters struck targets for the first time in NATO's campaign in Libya, hitting Moammar Gadhafi's troops early today near a key coastal oil city"
AFP: UK defence chief defends use of choppers in Libya
Ennahar Online - Libya: English and French helicopters in action
Enough for you? It matters because President Obama kept his promise not to involve us in ground warfare, which chopper usage, IMO, is. Choppers are at risk for attack from the ground. Planes in Libya are not. They do not have the technology to knock down NATO airplanes.
Last edited by Gargantuan; 06-06-11 at 12:41 AM.
Constitution be damned so long as ground troops aren’t involved. US President’s now have the power to wage war without constraint so long as ground troops aren’t involved. Can’t wait till the next republican president levels Venezuela. This are going to be great using these new rules aren’t they?
Does this include nukes too? Can the president now nuke someone who isn’t doing what they should? The next Prez should nuke Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan, Syria, and France. Things will be much easier now that war isn’t war unless there are boots on the ground won’t they?
GPS, I never said anything about the legality of this operation. I simply told you that US helicopters are not involved in this operation. I have proven that they are not. If you have proof they are, go ahead and show it, otherwise, your comments and this whole thread is bull****.
Yes, this whole thread is bull**** but that is because people like you and apdst don’t care if your President violates the Constitution and takes huge steps towards an empirical executive branch. If you did, you would be outraged at both political parties right now.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”.
Prove that US choppers are involved. I have shown you that the only choppers involved are French & British. If you have any proof US choppers are involved, go ahead and post it, otherwise, admit you're wrong.
Oh my god. Are you REALLY going to even start with a president violating the constitution and making an "empirical" executive branch? Look at the previous administration. Lying to congress about torture, saying they don't have to answer to the legislative, etc.
As for this President, like I said, I believe that the war powers act is unconstitutional. No President has ever followed it since its enactment. That includes Reagan, your messiah. As for the constitution, I totally agree with you. I think Presidents should consult congress and a declaration of war should be passed before engaging in any foreign military operation. I do believe what he is doing is not constitutional, same thing with any other President who sent us overseas without a formal declaration of war.
Last edited by ecofarm; 06-06-11 at 02:23 AM.
As for disaster relief, that was not sending troops into combat.
Last edited by Gargantuan; 06-06-11 at 02:26 AM.