- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,982
- Reaction score
- 60,541
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Moderator's Warning: |
reefedjib is now thread banned. |
Moderator's Warning: |
reefedjib is now thread banned. |
Then take it up with 0bama, France, Italy etc. as well. They disagree with you. So do I.
According to 0bama the end game is regime change in Libya.
The US has the assets and money to destroy Gaddafi's ground forces and air defense. It wouldn't take long.
You will find lots of posts where I criticize 0bama for wasting trillions of tax dollars and deficit spending. Two separate issues. Nice try though.
simply went in with guns ablazin'? Nobody ever suggested such a thing.
He's assisting the UN forces humanitarian effort in protecting civilians, not making war.
how is it very limited its 112 rockets onto libya . that is not limited all the usa can do now is pray that the libyan presidant does not have nuclear warfare missiles because he is just crazy enough to use that stuff
Could have fooled me, since he knew to go about this the right way, getting approval from the UN and providing a supporting role so as not to continue to propagate the Arab view of the US as the great Satan, which only fuels creation of more terrorists and strenghens hardliner's case against the US.
I'm still waiting to hear about the support from Congress. Where's the Declaration of War?
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income." B-O 2 October 2002
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected...
The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it’s real--and we’ve got finite resources. We don’t have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That’s the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That’s what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.143 Mar 27, 2007
I'm still waiting to hear about the support from Congress. Where's the Declaration of War?
I don't remember NATO declaring war, but I do think Congress should be required to vote as to whether we continue to provide support to the NATO mission to protect the Libyan people.
In a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, Obama was asked about the president's constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking authorization 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," Obama said four years ago. "As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
In a letter to Congress on Monday, Obama said he authorized the involvement of the U.S. military as part of a "multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973."
"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 said.
Well, aside from Obama saying this while campaigning....
As President, he says this:
Huh. Saying something as a candidate, then acting differently when elected. Unheard of.
im pretty sure obama just bit off more than he can chew. its not that he is a moderate war hawk it is just that he is a confused person. He doesnt know what to do so he made a rash decision. In my opinion a bad decision.
It was a NATO decision that even the Arab League signed on to. Congress has the option to defund our participation in the NATO action. I think they should vote on it.
Do you think that liberals are surprised that Obama is not the liberal that those on the right thought he was? We've known since his campaign when he made the speech below that he was not liberal when it came to war. However, our choice was between a candidate who was a moderate war hawk or a candidate who was an extreme war hawk. We chose the moderate.
I've already stated that I think Congress should take a vote as to whether we continue to support this NATO action.
"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Flashback: Obama's 2002 anti-war speech | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
It was a NATO decision that even the Arab League signed on to. Congress has the option to defund our participation in the NATO action. I think they should vote on it.
Man...what a great ****ing speech. It's too bad being President and giving great speeches are two different skill sets.
I thought they where for a no-fly zone? As in shoot down any plane that takes to the skies. This was a bombing mission and elites simply used "No-Fly Zone" to get it started. Any "accidental" civilian deaths from our planes should be considered terrorism and whoever marked the site for bombing needs to be brought into justice.
And you are thinking McCain would have done better???
I haven't really been keeping up with Libya, but I'm curious as to why this issue hasn't been brought before Congress yet?
King Hussein Obama was on vacation and thought it would be nice if our forces dropped in on Wright & Farrakhan's buddy Gadaffi Duck.
No biggy. Only cost us a few hundred million for the first day's firework show.
It's great to be the King.
.