• 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

Sorry, but I don't want to put the fate of the nation's security in the hands of Congress.

Well I don't want a king, so it looks like we're at odds. Congress writes the laws and sets the budget and is supposed to have the most power of all the branches of government. This is just its check on the Presidents power to ensure proper usage of the military. I don't want to put the fate of the nation's security in the hands of one man.
 
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....

I agree that it would be seen as an act of war, but I just don't think these actions require congress approvals since they already approved of supporting NATO in its mission and we don't have boots on the ground and aren't leading the bombing campaign.


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?

The more democracies in the middle east the better.


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.

I know what congress is doing (I think the lawsuit is over board) and I commend it. I just think the presidents argument would win in court. Lets hope it doesn't make it to that point.
 
The more democracies in the middle east the better.

Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, where I believe the situation exists for a resonable chance for working democracies, what makes you think that this is even a possibility in Libya? On the one hand, Khaddafy is an unstable monster who has to go, but on the other hand, I don't hold out much hope of a working democracy taking his place.
 
The more democracies in the middle east the better.

You are taking the flawed position that everyone can be democratic. That they want to be democratic and they will be better off with a democratic form of government.

A 12th century tribal Arabic culture is not compatible with modern democracy. Islam exclusionism is not compatible with the human rights and tolerance inherent in a democratic society.

In this day and age, "radical" Islam, or as I think is more accurate, *fundamental* Islam is on the rise. I think it more likely that they will seize control of the revolutions as the Bolsheviks seized the Russian revolution in 1917.
 
Well I don't want a king, so it looks like we're at odds. Congress writes the laws and sets the budget and is supposed to have the most power of all the branches of government. This is just its check on the Presidents power to ensure proper usage of the military.

No, it's not. The three branches are supposed to be co-equal.

I don't want to put the fate of the nation's security in the hands of one man.

I don't want to put the nation's security in the hands of 300 clowns that can't even agree on what color the carpet should be.
 
No, it's not. The three branches are supposed to be co-equal.

No, they're supposed to be at odds with each other. Congress, which holds power of legislation and purse and composed of the most people chosen to represent State and People is to be the strongest branch. The President enforces the laws Congress passes. The Courts keep both in check. Power was not meant to be consolidated in any one man or body, which is why there are 3. However, Congress is supposed to have the most power.

I don't want to put the nation's security in the hands of 300 clowns that can't even agree on what color the carpet should be.

That's the point. They'll agree when it's necessary to agree and not before that. It ensures proper use of our military. 300 clowns who have to agree by majority is better than 1 clown with all the power. Statistically speaking, the 300 should fair better than the 1.
 
In this day and age, "radical" Islam, or as I think is more accurate, *fundamental* Islam is on the rise. I think it more likely that they will seize control of the revolutions as the Bolsheviks seized the Russian revolution in 1917.

I disagree. The Arab spring is anti-fundamentalist.
 
Originally Posted by Misterveritis
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?
The more democracies in the middle east the better.
True. Do you think the rebels are likely to create a democracy? I do not see it.
 
I disagree. The Arab spring is anti-fundamentalist.

Sectarian violence within a religion is probably some of the worst and the hatreds and and violence last the longest. In addition to the Shia-Sunni sects of Islam, you can look at Roman Catholic v. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic v. Protestant. Taking a look very briefly at Christian nations in comparison to the Muslim nations, we went through our sectarian violence quite a long time ago for the most part, and we went through them relatively quickly.

Roman Catholic v. Eastern Orthodox never really got into a religious war. I think it was the 5th Crusade that decided to sack Byzantium instead of going all the way to Jerusalem, but that was probably commercial as much as religious. Catholic v. Protestant peaked with the 30 years war and then pretty much died out except with the Spanish. The Inquisition and their wars with England kept it alive for awhile, but really pretty localized. You can look at Catholic v. Protestant in N. Ireland, but that was merely one aspect of Irish opposition to English occupation and it never spread or was reflected anywhere else where Catholics and Protestants were mixed.

In comparison, the Shia - Sunni split occurred what, less than 100 years after the founding of the religion and the tensions still remain. Mixed with that is the fact that the Arab world is still strongly tribal and clan/family oriented and in many ways, artificially national. I say artificial because Europeans created the national boundaries and that really helped **** things up. Boundaries were first created based on colonial boundaries, and then the political concerns following WWII. Britain pretty much drew up the ME boundaries and they did it without a strong understanding of the tribal boundaries and areas. Then to reward the Arabs who had helped them against the Turks, they took Arabs out of the Arabian peninsula and made them Kings in Jordan (Trans-Jordan), Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
 
No, they're supposed to be at odds with each other. Congress, which holds power of legislation and purse and composed of the most people chosen to represent State and People is to be the strongest branch. The President enforces the laws Congress passes. The Courts keep both in check. Power was not meant to be consolidated in any one man or body, which is why there are 3. However, Congress is supposed to have the most power.

Hence, the co-equal part.



That's the point. They'll agree when it's necessary to agree and not before that. It ensures proper use of our military. 300 clowns who have to agree by majority is better than 1 clown with all the power. Statistically speaking, the 300 should fair better than the 1.

But, when will they agree that it's neccessary to agree? Are we really supposed to trust goofballs like Dennis Kucinich to protect our country?
 
While I find the motives of some of those who are supporting this lawsuit questionable, overall this is a good thing.
 
True. Do you think the rebels are likely to create a democracy? I do not see it.

They already have. Most of the towns that are controlled by the rebels are functioning democracy with free trade happening. The problem is, the only place you tend to hear about this are on programs on NPR, the BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc. If you only get your news from local and national sources on television, you won't hear about it.

Sectarian violence within a religion is probably some of the worst and the hatreds and and violence last the longest.

In comparison, the Shia - Sunni split occurred what, less than 100 years after the founding of the religion and the tensions still remain. Mixed with that is the fact that the Arab world is still strongly tribal and clan/family oriented and in many ways, artificially national. I say artificial because Europeans created the national boundaries and that really helped **** things up. Boundaries were first created based on colonial boundaries, and then the political concerns following WWII. Britain pretty much drew up the ME boundaries and they did it without a strong understanding of the tribal boundaries and areas. Then to reward the Arabs who had helped them against the Turks, they took Arabs out of the Arabian peninsula and made them Kings in Jordan (Trans-Jordan), Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I know the history. But the conflict that is going on today is trans-tribal in the sense that all the tribes without power are uniting against the tribes with power. Sectarian violence is going to continue to exist in the middle east as long as freedom is supressed by a dominating faction. That's why democracy is good, because it aims to decentralize power and that's why all the movements favor it. They are all comprised of the powerless, and the powerless fear any one side getting more power than the other. Power, unlike most things, is a zero sum game. Unless everyone gets a piece, everyone who doesn't is a loser by default.
 
Hence, the co-equal part.

But they're not supposed to be equal, just different. The body to have the most power, Congress, which can legislate and holds power of purse (the two most important powers) is composed of the most number of people. This was done on purpose. The President is just the executive and should be doing what Congress tells him to do. He gets to create the agencies to enforce the laws Congress passes. The Courts were to be the outside observer keeping everyone in line. Well as it stands, the Courts have usurped a surprisingly large amount of power, so has the President, where as Congress has abdicated some of its power. But the powers were broken up as they were for a reason. And only Congress was given the power to declare war. Thus in today's modern era where we may need to act quicker, the Congress is still the source of the apporpriate check against the President's ability to wield our military.

But, when will they agree that it's neccessary to agree? Are we really supposed to trust goofballs like Dennis Kucinich to protect our country?

They will agree when it becomes necessary to agree. It's when we have no other choice but to use our military. That's the point. Since there's so many, they're not going to go off the handle and start bombing any ol' country they want like our last few Presidents have done. I'll take the aggregated goofballs over the isolated goofball.
 
They already have. Most of the towns that are controlled by the rebels are functioning democracy with free trade happening. The problem is, the only place you tend to hear about this are on programs on NPR, the BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc. If you only get your news from local and national sources on television, you won't hear about it.

Well, I don't think so. The rebels are a rag-tag bunch of Islamist terrorists and others. It will end badly for the west.
Islamic Terrorists Join Libya's Pro-Democracy Opposition | Scoop News
 
Back
Top Bottom