Page 44 of 66 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 657

Thread: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

  1. #431
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    And, just to be clear, you're talking about the War Powers Acts, correct?

    United States Code: Title 50,CHAPTER 33—WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
    This should cover it more easily here.

    War Powers Resolution (1973): Major Acts of Congress

  2. #432
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Last Seen
    03-22-16 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    In other news.....the White House today denied that Obama has dark skin and that gravity makes things fall down.

  3. #433
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,324

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And we take orders from Saudi Arabia? Good god man, have some pride. It doesn't matter what Saudi wants, our government does not serve them. It's us, our rights and sovereignty that our government is to protect.
    That is a wonderfully isolationist view you got going on there. I am sure that is part of the reason that China and Russia are gaining ground on oil supplies that used to come here, now under contract to go there.

    No one said that we are subservient to SA, but they have a relationship with us in the region, and are of American national interest. Hell, even Barry bows to the Saudi King.

    Neither of those were served in Iraq. There was no good reason to get bogged down in this quagmire that's killed more Americans than 9/11, and put us in debt to the Chinese up to our ears. It's a BS war waged on BS reasons and Iraq never had the capability to ever threaten our sovereignty. That's plan fact.
    "plain fact"? Why? Because you say so? Because you have over time, and arm chair quaterbacking come to this conclusion? Tell me, should we consult your crystal ball before we take any movement as a nation, to make you happy? Get outta here with that talking point crap.

    Defense should be use for defense, in defense of our own rights and our own sovereignty. Our government was not given the power to the be World's Police, it was never authorized to behave in this manner. Our military should be for our direct needs only, not others.
    Tell that to the liar n chief, Obama.

    If we are going to war against another sovereign nation, I believe it is important to have an official declaration of war issued by Congress.
    When is the last time that was in play? WWII? And how many demo's have used the military to advance their goals around the world since then?

    Seeing how at first we didn't have a standing army and it took an act of Congress to allow the President to raise one; now that we have a standing army it seems reasonable that we put more restrictions on how it can be used and under what conditions.
    You got no argument from me there.

    We aren't the empire here and I don't want my military scattered across the globe doing odd jobs for various countries.
    I see, so you are not in favor of being number one, you'd settle for 10th place or so....

    Let them deal with their own problems, we have problems of our own that need to be addressed. Like a ballooning debt in part caused by these wars.
    Another liberal mantra from you....Look, this country has wasted far more money in the past 40 years on social engineering, and progressive tripe than has ever cost with the military engagements.

    Of course, that's if we're sovereign and not just Saudi's attack dog taking out whomever they put pressure on us to take out, right? I mean, if Saudi wants it, we must do it.
    Hey, I'd like to drill our own oil and put our dependence to SA and the ME out of the picture all together, think we can do that though? Not a shot.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #434
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,964
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    This should cover it more easily here.
    War Powers Resolution (1973): Major Acts of Congress
    But this is what you were talking about when you said,""Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    "Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension.
    I may be wrong.

  5. #435
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    That is a wonderfully isolationist view you got going on there. I am sure that is part of the reason that China and Russia are gaining ground on oil supplies that used to come here, now under contract to go there.

    No one said that we are subservient to SA, but they have a relationship with us in the region, and are of American national interest. Hell, even Barry bows to the Saudi King.
    So it's isolationist to say that we shouldn't be forced into doing things by Saudi? By saying that we're sovereign, I'm being an isolationist? We can have all the friends we want in the area, but they still don't get to dictate our military. "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson. It's time to heed the words of Jefferson. Just because we're friendly with another nation does not make us that nation's attack dog. They're still on their own for their defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    "plain fact"? Why? Because you say so? Because you have over time, and arm chair quaterbacking come to this conclusion? Tell me, should we consult your crystal ball before we take any movement as a nation, to make you happy? Get outta here with that talking point crap.
    Get out of here with your deflection crap. Because all the data at the time said that Saddam not only DID NOT have a weapons delivery platform capable of hitting the United States proper, but also had demonstrated no actual intent to strike the United States proper. The FACT (maybe you forgot what that word means) is that Iraq was of minimal threat at best to the United States of America.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Tell that to the liar n chief, Obama.
    I would, but he's too busy reading "How to **** over the Republic" by George Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    When is the last time that was in play? WWII? And how many demo's have used the military to advance their goals around the world since then?
    The last proper war was indeed WW II. Last one we clearly won. Everything else we've named differently as to avoid any of the constraints and limitations the government is supposed to have upon it in regards to the use of our military. The military protects us. We created it, we man it, we fund it; it's for us. If other people want to be defended, they have to defend themselves. It is not our job. Our government is not authorized to play World Police.
    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I see, so you are not in favor of being number one, you'd settle for 10th place or so....
    Number 1 is great, but we don't need to try to take over the world to get it. We could...you know instead of spending trillions on wars (do you bitch about the deficit at all?), not do that and invest a portion of that into other things. All sorts of science and technologies which can be invested into which would make us number 1. Have the world's best, strongest military which is only used for actual defense (not made up defense for emperial forever war), the worlds best tech, the worlds best science. We don't need to be bombing Iraq and Libya till we're broke to be number 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Another liberal mantra from you....Look, this country has wasted far more money in the past 40 years on social engineering, and progressive tripe than has ever cost with the military engagements.
    We're spending massive amounts of money on the war. You want to take some programs we've had, aggregate it up for several decades, add in some other stuff, and say "hey look...this one is nearly 1/10 the number!" and pretend that means something? **** if it's between funding 50-60 years of "social engineering" or forever war....I'd take the social engineering (what ever the **** that's supposed to mean). I'd rather have neither, but social engineering is **** tons better than aggressive, offensive war.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Hey, I'd like to drill our own oil and put our dependence to SA and the ME out of the picture all together, think we can do that though? Not a shot.


    j-mac
    **** oil, we're America. You saying we can't come up with an alternative? Jesus, who doesn't want America to be number one now. "Hey guys, we can't do anything about this oil thing and we certainly aren't smart enough to find a way out of it, so hey let's do everything Saudi Arabia tells us! That sounds like a great plan, heeuck." Yeah...great plan.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #436
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    I have posted the irrefutable evidence to you and others on several occasions.

    Some of the intelligence was crappy and wrong. It’s the stuff they got right and the WMD programs missed by UN inspectors that’s a bit more difficult to explain away.

    UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and the ISG reports are irrefutable and provide overwhelming evidence.

    So far not a single one of you hoaxers have even tried to explain what was found in Iraq. You just ignore it.
    Irrefutable...No. It was a preventive war no matter how much evidence you think they had. I don't support preventive war. If you do support preventive war, then just say that. But your evidence does not refute my claim that it is, in fact, a preventive war.


    Kofi was not the President of the US. It doesn't matter what his opinion is.

    His weapons inspectors proved Saddam was in violation of numerous resolutions.

    The "illegal war" nonsense was a hoax. We don't need UN approval to do anything. Get over it.
    By calling "illegal war" a hoax, you misunderstand people's use of the term. It has nothing to do with U.S. law. International law holds standards for legal war - preemptive war is legal and preventive war is not. We can debate over whether or not it was or wasn't a preventive war. But I believe it was since Iraq posed no imminent threat to the U.S. - therefore, it was not legal.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 04-11-11 at 02:03 PM.

  7. #437
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    The only thing these dictators, terrorist scumbags, etc, etc respect is strength. If America is strong, they have do deal with us from a position of disadvantage. If America hobbles itself into a position of weakness through *nuanced diplomacy*, or whatever verbal diarrhea you want to dress up words like *lack of resolve* or “cowardice” in, ...than so much the better for those countries who are attempting to compete with us on any level.

    President Bush with all his faults is a man of character who did what he thought was right for America....

    He was the right man at the right time. Definitely miss him.
    I haven't made any arguments that address these points. I have only said that the Iraq War, by definition, was a preventive war. No one has shown any evidence to refute this, not even George Bush tried to refute this statement. If you believe preventive war is justified, that's on you. I, however, do not. In my opinion, preemptive war is justified. Preventive war is not.

  8. #438
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,324

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So it's isolationist to say that we shouldn't be forced into doing things by Saudi? By saying that we're sovereign, I'm being an isolationist? We can have all the friends we want in the area, but they still don't get to dictate our military. "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson. It's time to heed the words of Jefferson. Just because we're friendly with another nation does not make us that nation's attack dog. They're still on their own for their defense.
    First of all, I never said anything about SA "forcing us" to do anything as far as Iraq goes, but you can not deny that the alliance we made with them has to go deeper than what can you do for us, and other than that go **** yourself.

    Get out of here with your deflection crap. Because all the data at the time said that Saddam not only DID NOT have a weapons delivery platform capable of hitting the United States proper, but also had demonstrated no actual intent to strike the United States proper. The FACT (maybe you forgot what that word means) is that Iraq was of minimal threat at best to the United States of America.
    "All of the data at the time"? Bull ****! I'd sure like to see you prove that empirically.

    I would, but he's too busy reading "How to **** over the Republic" by George Bush.
    don't blame me I sure didn't vote for the liar.

    The last proper war was indeed WW II. Last one we clearly won. Everything else we've named differently as to avoid any of the constraints and limitations the government is supposed to have upon it in regards to the use of our military. The military protects us. We created it, we man it, we fund it; it's for us. If other people want to be defended, they have to defend themselves. It is not our job. Our government is not authorized to play World Police.
    I noticed how you conveniently skipped over the "who" part of my question to you....The answer to that one would be demo Presidents.

    Number 1 is great, but we don't need to try to take over the world to get it. We could...you know instead of spending trillions on wars (do you bitch about the deficit at all?), not do that and invest a portion of that into other things. All sorts of science and technologies which can be invested into which would make us number 1. Have the world's best, strongest military which is only used for actual defense (not made up defense for emperial forever war), the worlds best tech, the worlds best science. We don't need to be bombing Iraq and Libya till we're broke to be number 1.
    that's just great, Sounds like it came straight out of an A.N.S.W.E.R. pamphlet.....

    We're spending massive amounts of money on the war. You want to take some programs we've had, aggregate it up for several decades, add in some other stuff, and say "hey look...this one is nearly 1/10 the number!" and pretend that means something? **** if it's between funding 50-60 years of "social engineering" or forever war....I'd take the social engineering (what ever the **** that's supposed to mean). I'd rather have neither, but social engineering is **** tons better than aggressive, offensive war.

    come on sing along people....'I'd love to buy the world a coke....da, da da da, da da....'


    **** oil, we're America. You saying we can't come up with an alternative? Jesus, who doesn't want America to be number one now. "Hey guys, we can't do anything about this oil thing and we certainly aren't smart enough to find a way out of it, so hey let's do everything Saudi Arabia tells us! That sounds like a great plan, heeuck." Yeah...great plan.
    Come up with? no, I am not saying we can't do it, but rather we don't have one now, and by most projections, nothing for decades that could replace oil, and coal, and NG as our sources of energy. To claim otherwise, or hold the argument that we don't need to drill, or we can't drill our own because there is this mythical abundant, and easy energy just waiting out there to be used is foolish.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #439
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Irrefutable...No. It was a preventive war no matter how much evidence you think they had. I don't support preventive war. If you do support preventive war, then just say that. But your evidence does not refute my claim that it is, in fact, a preventive war.

    International law holds standards for legal war - preemptive war is legal and preventive war is not. We can debate over whether or not it was or wasn't a preventive war. But I believe it was since Iraq posed no imminent threat to the U.S. - therefore, it was not legal.
    OK TPD. I'm talking about what was found in Iraq related to WMD.

    If you want to believe Iraq was a "preventive war" then so be it.

    You can disagree with Bush and several dozen other nation's decision to liberate Iraq. You are definitely not alone.

    It was by no means illegal despite your intellectual gymnastics about a "preventive war" to prove otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    By calling "illegal war" a hoax, you misunderstand people's use of the term.
    No I don't. Not for a minute. I know exactly what the "illegal war" hoax was about. Destroying President Bush. Nothing more.

    Bush followed the law every step of the way.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  10. #440
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    First of all, I never said anything about SA "forcing us" to do anything as far as Iraq goes, but you can not deny that the alliance we made with them has to go deeper than what can you do for us, and other than that go **** yourself.
    Nice little personal insult. Good to see you're debating skill hasn't improved. You used as justification of our act that SA put a lot of pressure on us. But that's a horrible, theocratic dictatorship. The majority of the 9/11 bombers came from there. They have oil, that's it. We are not ideologically aligned with them. You can make maybe a bit of an argument for that with Israel given its government, but not SA. SA is a hellhole of a country with a brutal government. But don't let that stand in the way of your little petty insults you're left with since apparently your argument vaporized.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    "All of the data at the time"? Bull ****! I'd sure like to see you prove that empirically.
    It's already been in threads, it may have been this one. Are you trying to tell me Mr Deflection, that at the time we went into Iraq, Iraq had the capability of say launching a WMD from Iraq and hitting New York or LA? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    don't blame me I sure didn't vote for the liar.
    Obama is the same as Bush. They're both as greedy and incompetent. Support of the status quo is support of the status quo. You may not vote for one side of the same coin, but you support the coin.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I noticed how you conveniently skipped over the "who" part of my question to you....The answer to that one would be demo Presidents.
    It doesn't matter Who. The Republocrats all act the same, you're not going to get anything different from one that you'd get from the other. What matters is the misuse and abuse of our military by a single man, the President. We weren't meant to ever have 1 man that powerful.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    that's just great, Sounds like it came straight out of an A.N.S.W.E.R. pamphlet.....
    It's things we can do. If you just want to belittle and deflect instead of making an actual argument; then so be it. But that just reflects on your own intellect.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    come on sing along people....'I'd love to buy the world a coke....da, da da da, da da....'
    You seem to misunderstand, I don't want to buy any other State anything. We can have good economic and diplomatic relationships, we'll sell things and buy things; but that's where it ends. You want to pretend (and again, this comment of yours here is just deflection and devoid of anything useful. You're really looking more and more like a monkey randomly hitting keys than a human intelligently responding to a post) that the social engineering is the worst part. It's not ideal, and it's best to control and constrain the government so that we can keep it in check. But nothing threatens long term liberty and freedom more than forever war, which is the situation we are setting up currently. Not only that, but forever war is costly as well. Y'all like to sit there and bitch left and right about our deficit, but the things which make the most sense to cut like these unnecessary wars, are the things your ilk will support. It's all "Cut NPR even though it will have no effect what so ever on our spending, but let's keep up with the wars we wasting trillions on and 1000's of American lives for no real purpose other than to establish a forever war thus lending credibility to the rapid expansion of government on all fronts".

    It's as dumb as it gets. Babies whom have consumed lead paint can see how dumb it is. But whatever floats your boat I guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Come up with? no, I am not saying we can't do it, but rather we don't have one now, and by most projections, nothing for decades that could replace oil, and coal, and NG as our sources of energy. To claim otherwise, or hold the argument that we don't need to drill, or we can't drill our own because there is this mythical abundant, and easy energy just waiting out there to be used is foolish.

    j-mac
    There's plenty of research to fund and technologies to improve. Drilling is only a short term solution. While we can certainly engage in it to immediately try to reduce dependencies, we need to also note that it is not the final solution. Merely a step in the direction of energy independence that will one day be replaced with something else.
    Last edited by Ikari; 04-11-11 at 02:39 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 44 of 66 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •