• 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!

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

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

Are you implying that this action doesn’t fall under the War Powers Act simply because Obama hasn’t sent ground forces into Libya?
That's the same excuse The Obama has made.
It doesn't hold water. Nothing in the WPA limits its effect to ground troops.

If so, Obama obviously disagreed with you prior to being elected President but now that he is President he has changed his mind.
As have many of His supporters, as evidenced by their towing the line.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

And no, I don't believe Obama has broken his oath even though I would have prefered he went to congress.
Of course not. The (D) next to the name changes everything.

no, I'm saying Obama is working with the UN and as such is different
Not in terms of US law.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

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.

First off Boo, in what context are you speaking of Bush acting without UN resolution to do such? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Second, do you believe that the US must gain UN approval before they act as a sovereign country?

Lastly, why would we wait for the UN to approve of what we do when they clearly have a bias against the US.

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

I would have prefered he went to congress.

dept chair, eh?

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

Net effect is the same. You can cite no such defintion, and so your defintion has nothing other than your preference behind it.


Please cite the constitional/legislative text to that effect.

I ask again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?

Not true. I cited the defintion. You seem to think that the constitution holds different meanings for words. I see no reason to believe that.

And again, one declares we are at war, now. The other says if the president chooses to be he can take us to war. These are two different things. The Constitution gives this power to congress and not the president. If congress passes it on to the president, they are not living up to their responsibilities.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

dept chair, eh?
LOL!
Yes - in the College of Remediation.
Those who cannot do, teach.
:lol:
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That's completely ridiculous and ignores reality. The reason that the Arab Spring is occurring is because people are tired of dealing with crappy, oppressive governments that only care about themselves.

If things go as I hope, which now look quite iffy, the people of the Middle East will be functioning democracies.

These government have yet to replaced with anything better. So far, all I see are bad dictators being replaced with really bad dictator. There's the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the pro-AQ clowns in Libya and there's no telling who is going to take over Syria, if there is the successful overthrow of that government.

I believe anyone that foresees a warm, peaceful democratic movement in the ME is living in a fantasy world.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Or that it has been reported, but your bias has not been prominate, and you want the media to reflect your bais. :coffeepap

Its not a matter of bias,
its a matter of black and white, my standard regardless

you cant go to war witha nother nation without approval from congress,

In matters of national emergency, his call, but within 60 days you have to present such call, and have it approved by congress.

Theres no bias in that written requirment.

the bias is in that the media hasnt made it front page news, at least as prominent as say a Donald trump calling for his BC.
which they reported as if it was the second coming

play on my friend, your play dates are numbered though, take heed
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Its not a matter of bias,
its a matter of black and white, my standard regardless

you cant go to war witha nother nation without approval from congress,

In matters of national emergency, his call, but within 60 days you have to present such call, and have it approved by congress.

Theres no bias in that written requirment.

the bias is in that the media hasnt made it front page news, at least as prominent as say a Donald trump calling for his BC.
which they reported as if it was the second coming

play on my friend, your play dates are numbered though, take heed

Congress ahs supported our involvement with the UN, so you're not exactly correct. And as I have stated, this has been covered, just not with your bais. I still believe that is what you want to see.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Not true. I cited the defintion.
False.
You cited your preferred definition, not "the" defintion.
You have admitted that there is no Constitutional or legislative defintion.
As such, your argument stands on nothing other than your preference, which means nothing to anyone but you.

I ask again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

And as I have stated, this has been covered, just not with your bais. I still believe that is what you want to see.


Bit of projection going on here me thinks.

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

False.
You cited your preferred definition, not "the" defintion.
You have admitted that there is no Constitutional or legislative defintion.
As such, you have nothing to stand on other than your preference, which means nothing to anyone but you.

I ask again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?

Perefered? Yes, a dictionary definition is what I used. Yes, that is what we normally used to define words.

And I've answered you. Re-read it carefully. Being in a state is different than letting someone else decide if we can be in that state. One is active and now, declared by the proper body. The other is saying we won't do our job, so you do it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

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

Bit of projection going on here me thinks.

j-mac

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

We ahven't invaded nor occupied any country here. As an element of UN support, I'm not sure it is needed. But, I ahve stated I would have prefered he asked for a specific mission and got that mission approved, and not a blanket passing of the buck.

The US has not bombed Libya?? There are no US troops in Libya?

Are you serious or are you joking?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

False.
You cited your preferred definition, not "the" defintion.
You have admitted that there is no Constitutional or legislative defintion.
As such, your argument stands on nothing other than your preference, which means nothing to anyone but you.

I ask again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?

of course its a definition of war, and he knows it too.

My point concerning media bias, is that attacking another country should be page 1, top of page, every day page 1 top of page until Obama acts in a manner the office requires he acts.

he is kiling people under our flag, youd think that following the rules is the least he could do..

I am preparing myself for more liberal "hes our man, if he cant do it nobody can" for an entire campaign cycle from the media.. because its going to happen, I'm just praying to God, our creator, the same God that the people that started this great country believed in nd openly worshipped, that the GOP puts up the right candidate, thereby making it easy to knock clown boy back to a community leader or whatever it is an ousted president goes and does in his late 40's. write books I suppose about how racism cost him his second term...

theres a change a comin, change and hope to quote an ex president.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That's completely ridiculous and ignores reality. The reason that the Arab Spring is occurring is because people are tired of dealing with crappy, oppressive governments that only care about themselves.

If things go as I hope, which now look quite iffy, the people of the Middle East will be functioning democracies.

That was the same argument used with the Shah in Iran!
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

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.

The only thing wrong with your post, is that Obama hasn't violated the war powers act.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Perefered?
Yes. You use it because it suits you and the postion you have chosen to take.
As I said - you have a conclusion and have found 'facts' to support it.

Yes, a dictionary definition is what I used.
A dictionary defintion is not a binding legal defintion, especially of concern when discussing constitutional and legal issues, as we are here.
There is, as you have admitted, no constitutional or legislative specification as to the contents of a declaration or war, and so the condtiitons and requirements you have tried to place here have absolutely no constitutional or legal basis to them.

As such, while your definion has meaning to you, it is in no way compelling to anyone who posesses a clue.

And I've answered you
Not with any degree of efficacy, as your answer cites conditions that do not exist in the question.

You may try again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The text is in declaring war. Declaring war has a definition and isn't subject to whatever you want it to mean. Believe it or not, there is an assumption that you look up what words mean. They rarely stop and define words for you for every sentence. The text says congress is charged with declaring war and not that it can pass the buck to the president and let him declare. But hell, he didn't do that either. He just invaded.

But hell, he didn't do that either. He just invaded

You are referring to Barrack Obama, the subject of this thread, right??
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

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.
Certain people used to care about these things.
The Obama, with a (D) next to His name, changed all that.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

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.

Both of those assertions are false.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Perefered? Yes, a dictionary definition is what I used.

perefered?

are you DRUNK?

Yes, that is what we normally used to define words.

oh, what's funk and wagnalls say about promenate?

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

The only thing wrong with your post, is that Obama hasn't violated the war powers act.

you have been removed from any serious converstaion in this regard..

so go play in another thread..
but please feel free to check back in from time to time
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

you have been removed from any serious converstaion in this regard..

so go play in another thread..
but please feel free to check back in from time to time

Ok. Question: are U.S. combat units--of any branch, or arm--currently operating in Libya?
 
Back
Top Bottom