• 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!

U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

Doesn't really explain to me why CONGRESS hasn't brought the issue up...

Many on Obama's side are not happy about his not getting authority. But I haven't seen any protesters. No signs with the guy ordering 5-beers either.

.
 
Many on Obama's side are not happy about his not getting authority. But I haven't seen any protesters. No signs with the guy ordering 5-beers either.

.

He did have authority. The UN told him to do it. They're our new decision makers now.
 
Many on Obama's side are not happy about his not getting authority. But I haven't seen any protesters. No signs with the guy ordering 5-beers either.

.

I personally don't support the intervention, but really the rationale for getting involved in Libya is a lot more sound than the rationale for invading Iraq. I suspect that's why there aren't crazy protesters out there.

But I think after the UN voted to enforce an NFZ, then Congress should have at least VOTED on a declaration of war, as the imposition of an NFZ is essentially an act of war. Where the **** is Congress in all this? At least we should've gotten a reading up or down.
 
Last edited:
Nope, not at all. Just noting that I have been rather disappointed with the President I voted for in recent months, compared to when I was nodding my head at every great speech he made.

I am not surprised. I had read much about Obama before deciding to vote for him. I learned that he was not near as left leaning as I would have preferred. He has always been very much a pragmatist, nevery letting perfection get in the way of a smaller than ideal gain. Given that, the mess he inherited from the last administration, and everything he's done having to get a super-majority in Congress, I am more surprised that he has been able to accomplish what he has.
 
I am not surprised. I had read much about Obama before deciding to vote for him. I learned that he was not near as left leaning as I would have preferred. He has always been very much a pragmatist, nevery letting perfection get in the way of a smaller than ideal gain. Given that, the mess he inherited from the last administration, and everything he's done having to get a super-majority in Congress, I am more surprised that he has been able to accomplish what he has.

Oh, you mean the mandatory health care thing? Yea, that would definitely require a super majority in congress, because certainly the super majority of Americans don't support it. Funny how the representatives are supposed to represent us, yet their votes don't. Who the hell are they voting on behalf of?
 
Everyone was informed as to what would be involved in establishing a no-fly zone. I am not saying it was the right decision for NATO to take, but you can't claim anyone, that has been paying attention, didn't know what it would involve. If Congress is opposed to our support in the NATO action, I think they should defund it.

It's not a NATO action as far I could understand.

Brussels, 21 March - The US administration's hopes to steer NATO into taking responsibility for the military aggression against Libya ...

...Given that NATO decisions must be taken unanimously, the fact that Germany and Turkey, as non-permanent members of the Security Council had not voted in favour of resolution 1973 authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libya

...France, which had taken the lead in attacking Libya and quite bluntly throws its military weight into the camp of the anti-government militias, refuses to continue its campaign against the North African country under a NATO umbrella instead of under its own supreme command.

Arab Monitor - Sito di informazione dal mondo arabo
 
Oh, you mean the mandatory health care thing? Yea, that would definitely require a super majority in congress, because certainly the super majority of Americans don't support it. Funny how the representatives are supposed to represent us, yet their votes don't. Who the hell are they voting on behalf of?

That was just one of his many accomplishments, but this isn't the thread for a disscusion of Obama's accomplishments. There are many threads related to that. I will be happy to discuss it with you in one of those threads if you wish. Just PM the link to me when you have posted.

Are you opposed to the NATO mission to create a no fly zone over Libya?
 
It's not a NATO action as far I could understand.

UN approves no-fly zone over Libya

"UNITED NATIONS -- Moving swiftly in response to a request by Arab nations, the U.N. Security Council on Thursday paved the way for international air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, voting to authorize military action to protect civilians and impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

The council acted five days after the Arab League urged the U.N.'s most powerful body to try to halt Gadhafi's advancing military and reverse the realities on the ground, where rebels and their civilian supporters are in danger of being crushed by pro-government forces using rockets, artillery, tanks and warplanes.

The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. Russia and China expressed concern about the United Nations and other outside powers using force against Gadhafi, and Germany expressed fear that military action would lead to more casualties."
 
with hamlet in the white house here's what happens:

the uk insists gaddafi is a legitimate target, but robt gates says no

obama wants to "cede control to nato," but france objects

turkey says the alliance has already gone too far

"many" members feel no need for a no fly zone

italy threatens to withdraw use of its airbases

the arab league is "suspicious"

germany is "balking"

china and brazil abstained

russia says we're targeting civilians and makes comparisons to THE CRUSADES

"obama has not directly discussed the military action with david cameron," a STUNNING admission

"obama made it clear he wants no part of any leadership role"

he's "already criticized for continuing his tour of latin america"

the "GREAT VACILLATOR," an appellation rarely heard since smiling jimmy carter so fully embodied it

congress is critical, obama says he consulted em, they say no

their names include JERROLD NADLER, BARBARA LEE, MIKE CAPUANO, ROSCOE BARTLETT---are you familiar with their progressive dispositions?

everyone's talking about MISSION CREEP

a "heated nato meeting yesterday failed to resolve" any of these dilemnas

bottom line---the rebels a few weeks ago were just miles outside tripoli

if ACTION were called for, THEN was the TIME

but obama, his whole function suiting with forms to his conceit, DITHERS

Libya: Obama's 'coalition of the unwilling' asks does the West have the right to kill Gaddafi? | Mail Online

this one, too, aint goin away, folks

strap in, it's gonna be quite a ride

meanwhile, the entire middle east is watching

U.S. Says Libyan Campaign to Ease as No-Fly Zone Secured - Bloomberg
 
Last edited:
I personally don't support the intervention, but really the rationale for getting involved in Libya is a lot more sound than the rationale for invading Iraq.
Not even close. I'm going to use this as a one-stop-shopping argument over and over:

1. You folks complained Bush 41 didn't go all the way to Baghdad. He should have but the UN Res didn't permit it. What happened? Saddam cleansed those who tried to overthrow him. Where were you Libs then?

2. Clinton, the Dem leadership warned about Saddam and Clinton sent Cohen around to prepare the nation for war. Clinton preferred to watch the Inspectors get their asses kicked out.

3. Blix testified about Saddam's lack of cooperation, the fact they found weaponized WMD when he said they hadn't any, and the unbelievability of Saddam.

4. David Kay reported to the Senate ASC that the state was so degraded the likelihood of a terrorist getting WMD in Iraq was a real possibility, if it didn't happen already.

5. Saddam was going to reconstitute his weapons program.

6. Learn the lessons of history. Had Churchill been listened to in the early 30's WWII may have been averted. We know not what Bush43 averted, but we do know Saddam isn't a threat and they don't have WMD.

7. Two benefits from that war were: the finding and ending of nuke blackmarket and getting all of Gaddafi's nuke technology.

Now, did you want to say something about your Lib Warmonger?

.

I suspect that's why there aren't crazy protesters out there.
I'll tell you why. Obama's a Lib. It's that simple. If this were Bush or Reagan... it would be worldwide... right now.

But I think after the UN voted to enforce an NFZ, then Congress should have at least VOTED on a declaration of war, as the imposition of an NFZ is essentially an act of war. Where the **** is Congress in all this? At least we should've gotten a reading up or down.
I'm not going to disagree, and it should have been done weeks ago when the rebels were making progress.

With the current multiple explanation scheme by King Hussein Obama, we should be in a whole bunch of places putting down thugs. For a guy that shot his mouth off during the election about his superior judgment and stupid wars etc... he's really looking the hypocrite at the moment.

.
 
We know the American religious far right views diplomacy as weakness. Whether or not their Islamic cousins do so or not is less certain.

Unless it's diplomacy from a position of strength.
 
Think he'll send Khadaffi to Gitmo?
 
No, I agreed with you that I think Obama should have gotten Congressional approval as well as UN approval. Obama is more of a war hawk than i would have liked in a president, but the only other viable choice was someone even more of a war hawk, so what are you gonna do?

Do you think Congress should cut off funding for this endeavor until they've had a chance to make their decision on the matter? I will support you in that call if you like.

In the last 50 years, the US has seldom abided by laws or even its own Constitution, both internationally (when it comes to treaties) and domestically. Pols routinely break laws (tax evasion, bribes, underage sex, etc.) and several of the laws on the books are blatantly unconstitutional (i. e. warrantless wiretapping).

Nevertheless, if anyone wants to get technical, the WPA's Congressional consultation requirement can be loosely interpreted. If Obama merely told Congress, "Oh, BTW, I went to war yesterday" that would be sufficient to meet the legal requirements of the Act.

Furthermore, even if Obama wages war for more than 90 days without formal Congressional authorization or a declaration of war, it's unlikely he'd ever be impeached for it. So, for all practical purposes, the POTUS can bomb any country he wants any time as long as he wants. . .

. . .as long as he stays within the limits of the conditions stipulated by the PACs and corporations that have an ownership stake in his office. If he breaks those limits, he'll be impeached immediately, convicted, and sent to prison for a very long time. In America, no politician is above the oil companies.
 
Last edited:
They all know that Obama is a *****. When the leader of The Free World is a *****, it invites the assholes of the world to start trouble.

I thought Julian Assange is the current leader of the Free World. When did Obama take that job?
 
I thought Julian Assange is the current leader of the Free World. When did Obama take that job?
Julian Assange can't even put on a condom without leaking.
 
Not even close. I'm going to use this as a one-stop-shopping argument over and over:

There are some similarities between Libya and Iraq; there are a hell of a lot of differences. For one, in invading Iraq we couldn't get any but a few of our strongest allies on board, talk about "Coalition of the Willing." Whereas the UNSC voted 10-0 to enforce a no-fly zone. The degree of consensus regarding a particular military involvement goes a hell of a long way in telling you how legitimate your cause is.

As a side note, I certainly do believe that Bush 41 did the smart thing in not going all the way to Baghdad.

I'll tell you why. Obama's a Lib. It's that simple. If this were Bush or Reagan... it would be worldwide... right now.

Don't really buy that argument, for the reasons stated above. The situation is different, our degree of involvement is different. It's really not that simple. At the end of the day though I'm not really a fan of what we're doing in Libya.
 
"The President does not have the 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."-Barack Obama, 2007

whats going on with this? is this hypocritical?
 
Oh nice way to twist the facts. Resolution 1441 had a 15-0 vote so more support than obummer has. But don't let facts get in the way!
 
Oh nice way to twist the facts. Resolution 1441 had a 15-0 vote so more support than obummer has. But don't let facts get in the way!

Resolution 1441 explicitly authorized the use of military force...oh wait no it didn't. Way to compare apples and oranges.
 
Back
Top Bottom