• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

I actually largely agree with the current action in Libya, but my devotion to the rule of law and the Constitution trumps that and in a few hours, Obama will be in technical violation of both.

Only if you believe that he is violating the constitution and the war power act with what he has been doing in the Lybian effort about 1 week after it started. I'm not sure if direct NATO support such as providing refueling stations, intel, etc while not asking congress is either a violation of the war power act nor the constitution.

Why? What is our national interest?

Direct national interests aren't always the only thing thats important when making a decision. Things like ideals come to mind.
 
Direct national interests aren't always the only thing thats important when making a decision. Things like ideals come to mind.
Then I want my money back. The Constitution does not say it is okay to wage a war of choice if you can wave your hand in just the right way as you claim it is for "ideals".

Show me where I am wrong.
 
Why? What is our goal? How is the achievement of that goal in our national interest? Does the goal have a reasonable chance of accomplishment? What measures should we use to determine if we are on track to succeed or to fail?

1. Ask Obama what HIS goal is, but if it protects civilians from a brutal dictator, especially one that was a thorn in the side of the U.S., that is a benefit. Frankly, we should have shot him up back in the 80s.
2. Chance of accomplishment depends on the goal. If it is to protect civilians, that has already happened. If it is to overthrow Wacky Quaddafi, that would likely need more work.

However, having said that, as Obama did not follow legal and Constitutional procedures, that trumps whether or not I agree in the policy.
 
Then I want my money back. The Constitution does not say it is okay to wage a war of choice if you can wave your hand in just the right way as you claim it is for "ideals".

Show me where I am wrong.

1. Ask Obama what HIS goal is, but if it protects civilians from a brutal dictator, especially one that was a thorn in the side of the U.S., that is a benefit. Frankly, we should have shot him up back in the 80s.
2. Chance of accomplishment depends on the goal. If it is to protect civilians, that has already happened. If it is to overthrow Wacky Quaddafi, that would likely need more work.

However, having said that, as Obama did not follow legal and Constitutional procedures, that trumps whether or not I agree in the policy.

Tell me how offering NATO support, i.e. fueling stations, is not following the constitution.
 
Last edited:
"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

UN, NATO: None of that here!

Bush: Yes there is, WAAAARRRRR.

That's a lie.

Bush: Hmm, no WMD. Well, They're linked to Osama Bin Laden!

UN, NATO, U.S. Intelligence Agencies: No they're not.

Bush: YES THEY ARE, WAAAAARRRR.

That's a lie.

Bush lied, he got his war. It cost thousands upon thousands of lives and did almost no effing good whatsoever.



Yup. That's correct.

So...you just lied then. Right?

1-Iraq refused to comply with 17 UN resolutions mandating full disclosure on the disposition of their WMD programs. Not 1, not 2, 17 UN resolutions. Every intel agency, every democrat congressman, EVERYONE believed that he posessed WMDs. Many point to the undeniable fact that he had been developing WMDs for 30 years and that the US sold him tons of biological spores that REMAIN unaccounted for. Bush did not lie...he spoke the same truth as did Clinton and every elected democrat.

2-It was not ties to Bin Laden that indicted Hussein and led to the attack...it was 'ties to global terrorism"...again...another absolute fact

3-Clinton (and Obama during the Lybian involvement) cited only Bush's third primary reason for attacking Iraq...that is...genocide. That Hussein was a murderous tyrant is undeniable. Democrats support war to end genocide when it is a democrat president.

Your pants are on fire...
 
Tell me how offering NATO support, i.e. fueling stations, is not following the constitution.

He is "offerring support" in an area of hostilities. The US and Nato are engaged in hostilities against Libya. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to commit our armed forces to war, though Congress and the WPA did give away some of those rights to the president, but the President is now coming up to the limit of that leeway...
 
1. Ask Obama what HIS goal is, but if it protects civilians from a brutal dictator, especially one that was a thorn in the side of the U.S., that is a benefit.
Benefit perhaps but not a reason for Americans to go to war. Or do you recommend we start wars in all of the other countries where we could be protecting civilians? And what level of brutality is appropriate before we use the armed forces to intervene? Are there any other countries in the Middle East where the case could be made that dictators are brutal? Shall we wage wars against each serially? Or should we declare war on all of them? And what about Mexico? Should we extend this to say if a nation is exporting its poor and ill to the US that is a positive act of war against us?
It begins to get complicated, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
Tell me how offering NATO support, i.e. fueling stations, is not following the constitution.
A rose by any other name...
A war is still a war. Even if you try to deceive the people and the Congress by calling it something else.
 
1. Ask Obama what HIS goal is, but if it protects civilians from a brutal dictator, especially one that was a thorn in the side of the U.S., that is a benefit. Frankly, we should have shot him up back in the 80s.
2. Chance of accomplishment depends on the goal. If it is to protect civilians, that has already happened. If it is to overthrow Wacky Quaddafi, that would likely need more work.

However, having said that, as Obama did not follow legal and Constitutional procedures, that trumps whether or not I agree in the policy.

Going to war to get rid of a "brutal dictator" might have worked for Bush (after all the other reasons didn't pan out) but it won't work for Obama. Memory is fleeting and hypocracy runs rampant but I digress.

Still, Obama should get the hell out of Libya. Spend the money on roads and education and health care instead. Screw the defense industry and all the war dogs he golfs with.
 
3 working days?

1) That may be too long and 2) Which Congress are we talking about? :rofl

Standard working days, when Congress is in session. While they take a lot of time off, there could be details worked out to call emergency sessions should military intervention be absolutely necessary.
 
He is "offerring support" in an area of hostilities. The US and Nato are engaged in hostilities against Libya. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to commit our armed forces to war, though Congress and the WPA did give away some of those rights to the president, but the President is now coming up to the limit of that leeway...

Does the country have a legal requirement to maintain its commitment with NATO?

A rose by any other name...
A war is still a war. Even if you try to deceive the people and the Congress by calling it something else.

I'm not arguing that a war isn't taking place, I'm arguing that the US isn't directly involved and that maintaining our commitment to NATO does not constitute the need for congressional approval.
 
I'm not arguing that a war isn't taking place, I'm arguing that the US isn't directly involved and that maintaining our commitment to NATO does not constitute the need for congressional approval.
Would you say that our role today is very similar to the first half-year or so of our European involvement in WWII? We were in a supporting role there as well. So I guess FDR really did not need to ask for a declaration...And there was no war powers act.
 
Would you say that our role today is very similar to the first half-year or so of our European involvement in WWII? We were in a supporting role there as well. So I guess FDR really did not need to ask for a declaration...And there was no war powers act.

If FDR's plan was only to provide logistical support than an act of war from congress would not have been required if a treaty was already being honored. We know that both of those were not the case.
 
Benefit perhaps but not a reason for Americans to go to war. Or do you recommend we start wars in all of the other countries where we could be protecting civilians? And what level of brutality is appropriate before we use the armed forces to intervene? Are there any other countries in the Middle East where the case could be made that dictators are brutal? Shall we wage wars against each serially? Or should we declare war on all of them? And what about Mexico? Should we extend this to say if a nation is exporting its poor and ill to the US that is a positive act of war against us?
It begins to get complicated, doesn't it?

Didn't say it was easy and many factors need to be considered, including international support. However, in the case of Khaddafy, the fact that he committed crimes against the US and Americans in the past makes it a little easier...
 
Standard working days, when Congress is in session. While they take a lot of time off, there could be details worked out to call emergency sessions should military intervention be absolutely necessary.

Sorry, but I don't want to put the fate of the nation's security in the hands of Congress.
 
If FDR's plan was only to provide logistical support than an act of war from congress would not have been required if a treaty was already being honored. We know that both of those were not the case.

Twist as much as you like. The one term president Obama is prosecuting an illegal war for purposes not in our national interest.
 
Twist as much as you like. The one term president Obama is prosecuting an illegal war for purposes not in our national interest.

Are you saying the president has to get congressional approval for every action in support of an existing treaty?
 
If FDR's plan was only to provide logistical support than an act of war from congress would not have been required if a treaty was already being honored. We know that both of those were not the case.

FDR did provide strictly logistical support, prior to 7 December 1941 and he didn't have to seek Congressional approval to do so.
 
Are you saying the president has to get congressional approval for every action in support of an existing treaty?
If he intends war, yes. Even within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Had the Soviets crossed the Inter German Border we would have fought and the Congress would have declared war.

Libya is just a side show. Perhaps the one term president really is pro-Islamofascist. I cannot tell at this point. But why else help the rebels?
 
FDR did provide strictly logistical support, prior to 7 December 1941 and he didn't have to seek Congressional approval to do so.

In fact he did. Much of it was secret, of course. Some of it was done with a "wink". Some was strictly economic with very advantageous loan terms. This did not include aerial refueling, bombing targets in NAZI Germany or providing aircraft carrier-based intelligence gathering.
 
He is "offerring support" in an area of hostilities. The US and Nato are engaged in hostilities against Libya. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to commit our armed forces to war, though Congress and the WPA did give away some of those rights to the president, but the President is now coming up to the limit of that leeway...

And on that thought, if you think about it, lets say......Iran began bombing our cities. (I know it won't happen, but stay with me) Would we consider a country that was aiding Iran by providing them logistical support to be at war with us? Would bombing our cities be considered a "hostile action" or a flat out war? It's war, plain and simple. I support stopping Daffy duck. But I want his head. Go after him. Stop ***** footing around and get this son of a bitch. Then end the conflict.

But we are definitely at war. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
 
And on that thought, if you think about it, lets say......Iran began bombing our cities. (I know it won't happen, but stay with me) Would we consider a country that was aiding Iran by providing them logistical support to be at war with us? Would bombing our cities be considered a "hostile action" or a flat out war? It's war, plain and simple. I support stopping Daffy duck. But I want his head. Go after him. Stop ***** footing around and get this son of a bitch. Then end the conflict.

But we are definitely at war. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Totally agree with you. If Iran were bombing us and Cuba and Venezuela were providing logistical support, bomb the crap out of all three...
 
Are you saying the president has to get congressional approval for every action in support of an existing treaty?

No. But once congress pushes him on the issue, he then has to abide by the laws set forth. Congressional pushback is them asserting their ability to oversee Presidential decisions and revoke them if they step into congressional power boundaries. Its not pretty, but our form of government is rarely pretty or neat.
 
Back
Top Bottom