Page 9 of 51 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 503

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

  1. #81
    User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    06-05-11 @ 11:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

    Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.
    Shouldn't Congress somehow authorize war even within un scope?

  2. #82
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Regime Change View Post
    Shouldn't Congress somehow authorize war even within un scope?
    The UN treaty isn't the issue here, its the NATO treaty.

  3. #83
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,862
    Blog Entries
    16

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

    Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.
    Bush did not invade two countries on his own. He had Congressional approval... of course the Lib vote was a vile one... after 911 they used it to cover for years of hostility to the military and intel services. That was a politically expedient vote, and then the Leftist scum turned on our troops when things got tough.

    Bush went to the UN, got the votes necessary and gave the UN a role. Remember, the UN was in Iraq when Sérgio Vieira de Mello died on 19 August 2003 in a terrorist bombing of the UN building in Baghdad?

    Fact is we don't need no stink'in UN to go to war. Congressional approval is needed though.



    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 05-22-11 at 02:24 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #84
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,890

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

    So...with the NATO strikes at Libya, doesnt that mean they have gone beyond preventing civilians from being targetted and have moved on to an undeclared war against the government of Libya?
    Last edited by VanceMack; 05-22-11 at 05:01 AM.

  5. #85
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    So...with the NATO strikes at Libya, doesnt that mean they have gone beyond preventing civilians from being targetted and have moved on to an undeclared war against the government of Lybia?
    Pretty much, but unless Russia or China say anything, the UN security council won't bring up the issue, especially when most of the rest of the world approves of the actions. Hell, the ICC just indicted Gaddafi for crimes against humanity

  6. #86
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,890

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Pretty much, but unless Russia or China say anything, the UN security council won't bring up the issue, especially when most of the rest of the world approves of the actions. Hell, the ICC just indicted Gaddafi for crimes against humanity
    ANd who could blame them. And since Obama went before thew world and said that a country's leader cant kill civilians and that it goes against Americas morals, then I have no doubt we will be attacking Syria imminently...

  7. #87
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    ANd who could blame them. And since Obama went before thew world and said that a country's leader cant kill civilians and that it goes against Americas morals, then I have no doubt we will be attacking Syria imminently...
    Thats what liberals would want, but Syria is a thorny issue due to Iran. You have to have a nuanced stance on military intervention in domestic affairs, even if a leader is slaughtering his own people, or else you never stop or you get drawn into major international conflict.

  8. #88
    User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    06-05-11 @ 11:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    So...with the NATO strikes at Libya, doesnt that mean they have gone beyond preventing civilians from being targetted and have moved on to an undeclared war against the government of Libya?
    Moved on and moved up, Gaddafi's grandchildren were even killed in a NATO/US strike.

  9. #89
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-17-18 @ 05:08 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,828

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    You have to have a nuanced stance on military intervention in domestic affairs
    nuance

    Clinton calls Syrian tyrant a reformer

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 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 VanceMack View Post
    ANd who could blame them. And since Obama went before thew world and said that a country's leader cant kill civilians and that it goes against Americas morals, then I have no doubt we will be attacking Syria imminently...
    Right!



    "The President does not have 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" -- candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

    "No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are. . . . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers" -- candidate Barack Obama, August 1, 2007

Page 9 of 51 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •