Page 5 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 503

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

  1. #41
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?
    Not exactly. However, it is generally believed that the best way to determine who is in charge of another nation is through democratic means. And Gadaffi has usurp the democratic nature of Libya. And the Libyan people have risen up against him to challenge this. Which is why Libya is in a civil war to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Gadaffi accountable to Obama? Why?
    No. Gadaffi is not accountable to Obama. Rather, Gadaffi is accountable to the people of Libya. This is in line with the idea of a social contract between the governor and the governed. When the governor no longer has the consent of the governed, they have the duty to defy the tyrant in power.

    This ideal has most eloquently been expressed by our own Founding Fathers.

    The reason why the U.S. is inclined to aid the rebels is to assert a moral duty to do so. If we have our own political system based on a democracy with the consent of the governed then we should support those who work for the same for themselves.

    Just as the French provided aid to the rebels in the Colonies that allowed us to become our sovereign nation of the United States, so to should the U.S. provide aid to the rebels in Libya to help the people of Libya develop a democratic political system.

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    And last....Why the ****'s Obama such an idiot?
    He's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Enough of ME involvement!!!
    Libya is in Northern Africa.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  2. #42
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    I think the war powers act is stupid in the first place. It shouldn't even exist. It should be the congress approves a declaration of war, or that's it, they don't go anywhere. Of course in extreme circumstances, like if we are suddenly attacked, the President doesn't need anything from congress to be able to retaliate within minutes.

    I do think Obama is very hypocritical to say Bush was violating it, but I think we should lay off Biden. I don't think he likes this very much. He's been at odds with the President's foreign policy for a while, like with Afghanistan.
    I don't agree with you. Such a limitation on the President is too much when he needs to act quickly and decisively in a military manner.

    Also, it limits the President in other ways, such as in anti-piracy operations, or whether or not a declaration of war can be made against a non-governmental organization or not.

    Rather, I think a better way to do it is for Congress to reassert its power of the purse over the armed forces. If Congress doesn't like a military operation, then they shouldn't vote to fund it.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  3. #43
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

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

    Didya wanna prove that the Wiretaps were illegal....or did you simply wish to continue being a Parrot?


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Always good to see that old strawman pop up. It shows a complete lack of thought. But, no one said anything about the US being subject to the whims of the UN. Merely we've signed agreements, of our own free will, to act with them on UN missions.

    And congress did not declare war under Bush. Passing the buck to let him decide is nto equal to a declaration of war. And many of you did support Bush when he was breaking the law, repeatedly, from invading countries to illegal wiretapping to torture. All of this was against the best interests of this country and the people who live here.

    And yes, Bush supporters did often put party over America's interests. If you guys did not set the precedent, you certainly advanced it.
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  4. #44
    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: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Like waterboarding? Party politics has been th thing for a while now, and it's both parties.
    No, not like waterboarding. Like the War Powers Act, and only like the War Powers Act.

    Diversions don't support breaking the law. Start another waterboarding thread if that's your interest.

  5. #45
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    No, not like waterboarding. Like the War Powers Act, and only like the War Powers Act.

    Diversions don't support breaking the law. Start another waterboarding thread if that's your interest.
    So what you're saying then, is that it's only partisan if Liberals do it.

  6. #46
    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: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Always good to see that old strawman pop up.
    And what 'strawman 'is that???

    It shows a complete lack of thought. But, no one said anything about the US being subject to the whims of the UN. Merely we've signed agreements, of our own free will, to act with them on UN missions.
    The UN does not override US law, and never has. If you are claiming that the UN overrides US law then that goes well past any 'strawman' argument and well into lands of fantasy.

    And congress did not declare war under Bush. Passing the buck to let him decide is nto equal to a declaration of war. And many of you did support Bush when he was breaking the law, repeatedly, from invading countries to illegal wiretapping to torture. All of this was against the best interests of this country and the people who live here.
    Are you really not yet familiar with the Authorization passed by Conngree? I'm quite sure I sent it to you at least once. Have you still not yet read it???
    And yes, Bush supporters did often put party over America's interests. If you guys did not set the precedent, you certainly advanced it.
    You'd have to point out some facts to support that claim but, even if that were the case, are you claiming that that would allow BHO to break the law now? That seems a seriously foolish argument.

  7. #47
    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: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    So what you're saying then, is that it's only partisan if Liberals do it.
    What I'm saying, and I'll type this slowly, is that the subject is the War Powers Act and the question of Barrack Hussein Obama, the US President, breaking the law.

  8. #48
    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: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    My understanding is that Congress isn't exactly in a hurry to vote on it. Jon Kyl doesn't think that the War Powers Act applies. In fact, both he and his fellow Senator form Arizona think that Obama's not doing enough in Libya.
    It really doesn't matter what a couple of members of Congress think. They are responsible for following and upholding the law.

  9. #49
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The War Powers Act needs serious revision. It needs to be specifically limited to something like 6 months. Using to justify years of war as it has been recently seems to be a clear violation of Constitutional intent.
    I agree.

    Also, Obama has violated the War Powers Act in regards to Libya and Congress needs to take this to the Supreme Court ASAP
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.
    absolutely

    Obama sends 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan - World - CBC News

    good thinking

Page 5 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •