Page 22 of 51 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 503

Thread: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

  1. #211
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,360

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by shades View Post
    stop being silly, come on...
    he attacked another countries army, with American troops, with Amercian dollars..

    doesnt matter how you dress that, working with the UN, not putting boots on the ground, whatever.... it needs to have approval after 60 days.
    You dont play with American lives with a "technicality"

    American soldiers, peoples sons a daughters could die carrying out these acts, THATS why we have this 'law'..

    so stop it, stop mincing words, so to speak
    I never said he didn't. However, as Khandahar pointed out, the president must--by law--seek Congressional approval to continue an operation beyond 60 days. The operation that Obama ordered ended in less than 30 days and as far as I know American units haven't participated in combat operations, since.

    Khadahar posted the names of the commanders of USAFCOM, which is headquartered in Stuttgart as evidence of...something, which turned into a massive fail.

  2. #212
    Advisor shades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-16 @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    322

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I never said he didn't. However, as Khandahar pointed out, the president must--by law--seek Congressional approval to continue an operation beyond 60 days. The operation that Obama ordered ended in less than 30 days and as far as I know American units haven't participated in combat operations, since.

    Khadahar posted the names of the commanders of USAFCOM, which is headquartered in Stuttgart as evidence of...something, which turned into a massive fail.
    so by your "assertion", were done in Libya, no further action required...
    FAIL

    yes?

  3. #213
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    no, I'm saying Obama is working with the UN and as such is different. Bush was both outside the UN and without a declaration of war, giving little to no legitimacy to his actions.

    and no, I don't believe Obama has broken his oath even though I would have prefered he went to congress.
    What are you talking about Boo? Bush got authorization from Congress and the UN has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Presidential use of force.

    As for Obama not breaking his oath, did you read what he wrote to the Boston Globe before he became President?

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  4. #214
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,360

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Your article is dated 19 March.

  5. #215
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,360

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Are you claiming that makes a difference?
    That's exactly what I'm claiming. Did the War Powers Act apply when we sent the 82nd Airborne Division to Haiti last year?

    The War Powers Act referrs to the president's authority to wage war. If American units aren't currently waging war in Libya, then Obama isn't in violation of the law.

  6. #216
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,360

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by shades View Post
    so by your "assertion", were done in Libya, no further action required...
    FAIL

    yes?
    No! That's not what I said. What I'm saying, is that if there are no American combat units currently operating in the LTO, Obama isn't in violation of the war powers act.

    Anyone wanna start a pool about how many times I have to make that same statement and still, no one will be able to tell us which American combat units have been engaged in Libya for more than 90 days?

  7. #217
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If Obama is allowed to get away with this, let's make no mistake about it: It will mean that the War Powers Act is dead, because every future president will simply cite Obama's Libyan adventure as a precedent. It will mean that the president will have the power to wage war anywhere in the world, for any reason, on any scale, for any length of time, without any checks or balances on his power. This is NOT a path that the United States of America should go down.
    Much respect Kandahar. Consistency is worthy of respect.

    If Bush had tried to go into Iraq or Afghanistan without congressional approval I would have adamantly opposed it. I wouldn’t have opposed him bombing the nuke facilities in Iran because I feel they are a threat to the US and that wouldn’t have gone on beyond the 60 day limit provided with the WPA but other than that, I agree completely with what Obama wrote to the Boston Globe.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  8. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No! That's not what I said. What I'm saying, is that if there are no American combat units currently operating in the LTO, Obama isn't in violation of the war powers act.

    Anyone wanna start a pool about how many times I have to make that same statement and still, no one will be able to tell us which American combat units have been engaged in Libya for more than 90 days?
    There doesnt need to be any single unit there for more than 90 days, there needs to be just one there now in order to require The Obama to get an OK from Congres or to force Him to withdraw.

    Your point is that there are none there now? If there are none there, then the point is moot.
    The Administrarion's reaction to all of this illustrates that the point is not moot, and so there must be some unit somewhere in the area doing something that falls under the WPA.

  9. #219
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,360

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    There doesnt need to be any single unit there for more than 90 days, there needs to be just one there now in order to require The Obama to get an OK from Congres or to force Him to withdraw.
    Ok, Panzer IV, which combat unit is currently operating in the LTO?

    Your point is that there are none there now? If there are none there, then the point is moot.
    The Administrarion's reaction to all of this illustrates that the point is not moot, and so there must be some unit somewhere in the area doing something that falls under the WPA.
    I don't think Obama is smart enough to figure that out.

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Ok, Panzer IV, which combat unit is currently operating in the LTO?
    Beats me - but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
    The fact that the Administration finds the need to respond speaks far more to the issue that no one being able to answer your question to your satisfaction.

Page 22 of 51 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... 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
  •