• 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

Congress needs to pass a resolution immediately condemning the violation of the War Powers Act and demanding that Obama withdraw all military assistance to NATO in Libya. This is a bull**** power grab, and the nation will be worse off if the executive branch is allowed to get away with this. If possible, Congress should take this before the Supreme Court so that they can order military operations to cease.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Kandahar said:
Congress needs to pass a resolution immediately condemning the violation of the War Powers Act and demanding that Obama withdraw all military assistance to NATO in Libya. This is a bull**** power grab, and the nation will be worse off if the executive branch is allowed to get away with this. If possible, Congress should take this before the Supreme Court so that they can order military operations to cease.
Click to expand...

I agree but I doubt it will get through the Senate due to partisanship. Most of the democrats will vote against it because they won’t want to harm the President’s re-election chances and enough republicans will join with them (like McCain) because they have never met a war they don’t love.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
I agree but I doubt it will get through the Senate due to partisanship. Most of the democrats will vote against it because they won’t want to harm the President’s re-election chances and enough republicans will join with them (like McCain) because they have never met a war they don’t love.
Click to expand...

I guess it remains to be seen whether the legislature's reluctance to give up power to the executive will trump their partisanship. The historical record is a bit mixed on that point.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I ask again, where the declaration of war? Bush had to get Congressional resolutions, UN approval....but Obama needs nothing. No double standard here, no hypocrisy.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

ric27 said:
Are Americans being bombed, killed?...No? Then its not our ****ing problem
Click to expand...

I think that if we don't become involved in these areas and at least attempt to nudge them in the right direction, that it will eventually result in Americans being bombed and killed.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
I think that if we don't become involved in these areas and at least attempt to nudge them in the right direction, that it will eventually result in Americans being bombed and killed.
Click to expand...

but involved how, that's the question.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

liblady said:
but involved how, that's the question.
Click to expand...

Whatever is needed for a particular situation.

There has been a movement for well over 60 years in the ME to united all Arab countries under one flag. If this ever happens, the fit is going to hit the shan and we should do everything possible to prevent it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
Whatever is needed for a particular situation.

There has been a movement for well over 60 years in the ME to united all Arab countries under one flag. If this ever happens, the fit is going to hit the shan and we should do everything possible to prevent it.
Click to expand...

i don't see how that could be a legitimate concern, really. they don't have stability in even their individual countries.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

American said:
I ask again, where the declaration of war? Bush had to get Congressional resolutions, UN approval....but Obama needs nothing. No double standard here, no hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

No, Bush needed a declaraion of war and did not get one. His was not a case of working with the UN to stop killing civilians, but an invasion of a country without justification, proper justification. The two don't compare.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

liblady said:
i don't see how that could be a legitimate concern, really. they don't have stability in even their individual countries.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I don't think the strategy of hoping they never get their **** together is a winner. The revolutions we're seeing, now, is another attempt at uniting all the Arab states.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
That's true, but I don't think the strategy of hoping they never get their **** together is a winner. The revolutions we're seeing, now, is another attempt at uniting all the Arab states.
Click to expand...

i agree.......but i'm about done with spending our dollars and our lives in places we don't belong. the me is a never ending clusterf*ck.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

liblady said:
i agree.......but i'm about done with spending our dollars and our lives in places we don't belong. the me is a never ending clusterf*ck.
Click to expand...

That was U.S. policy in the 1930's. How did that turn out?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Chappy said:
Example? 123…
Click to expand...


Oh, so you were fine with Bush using force in Iraq? Don't make me laugh.

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

apdst said:
That was U.S. policy in the 1930's. How did that turn out?
Click to expand...

how are things in afghanistan?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

liblady said:
how are things in afghanistan?
Click to expand...


If it is going badly, no one to blame at this point but Obama. It is after all his war now.


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

j-mac said:
If it is going badly, no one to blame at this point but Obama. It is after all his war now.


j-mac
Click to expand...

isn't that cute........chiming in, and completely off topic.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
That was U.S. policy in the 1930's. How did that turn out?
Click to expand...

Germany's rise and its impact on the balance of power in Europe in the 1930s posed a growing and serious threat to critical U.S. interests and allies in the region. In contrast, the civil war in Libya is of little consequence. Although the rebels might be marginally better than the Gadhafi dictatorship (quite uncertain given their gross political and military incompetence, lack of coherent policy program, recent evidence of their own human rights abuses, etc.,) the outcome won't have a material adverse impact on critical U.S. interests and allies.

IMO, U.S. foreign policy should be anchored in its interests. Priority should be given where critical interests and allies are at stake. An example would be a more robust policy for dealing with Iran's nuclear activities. Libya, though, simply does not rise anywhere close to that level.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

liblady said:
isn't that cute........chiming in, and completely off topic.
Click to expand...


Oh I am truly sorry, I could have swore that you injected some snarky little, attitude ridden snipe about how Afghanistan was going. I was just pointing out how at this moment it is the Obama administration that is prosecuting that war, and any set backs, or losses in it are laid at his feet. If being off topic is actually addressing what you said maybe you could talk the moderators into a liblady only section where you can spend the day talking to yourself.

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

j-mac said:
If it is going badly, no one to blame at this point but Obama. It is after all his war now.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, as off topic as you may be, allow me. Afghanistan may well have been different today had Bush not lost focus and went on the snipe hunt in Iraq. You may recall that Afghanistan got much worse under Bush over the years. So whiel I don't agree with much of Obama's action in Afghanistan, it isn't like he took over a good situation and drove it down hill. In fact, he rightly brought the focus back to that country. it may well have been too little too late, but i wouldn't absolve Bush of all blame. After all, his actions were his actions.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
No, Bush needed a declaraion of war and did not get one. His was not a case of working with the UN to stop killing civilians, but an invasion of a country without justification, proper justification. The two don't compare.
Click to expand...

The unanimous vote he got on the UN resolution disagrees with YOUR assessment of justification. Bush got what Congress decided to give him, which is sufficient under the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

j-mac said:
Oh I am truly sorry, I could have swore that you injected some snarky little, attitude ridden snipe about how Afghanistan was going. I was just pointing out how at this moment it is the Obama administration that is prosecuting that war, and any set backs, or losses in it are laid at his feet. If being off topic is actually addressing what you said maybe you could talk the moderators into a liblady only section where you can spend the day talking to yourself.

j-mac
Click to expand...

if you don't like my posts, don't read them. and of course, afghanistan is right ON topic as we are engaged in war there, right now, and we were discussing the me. we were not discussing obama. i'm beginning to think you like me, j-mac. you sure seem to read my posts very thoroughly.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

American said:
The unanimous vote he got on the UN resolution disagrees with YOUR assessment of justification. Bush got what Congress decided to give him, which is sufficient under the law.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Congress did not declare war and the UN did not sanction our invasion. These are facts. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
Well, as off topic as you may be, allow me. Afghanistan may well have been different today had Bush not lost focus and went on the snipe hunt in Iraq. You may recall that Afghanistan got much worse under Bush over the years. So whiel I don't agree with much of Obama's action in Afghanistan, it isn't like he took over a good situation and drove it down hill. In fact, he rightly brought the focus back to that country. it may well have been too little too late, but i wouldn't absolve Bush of all blame. After all, his actions were his actions.
Click to expand...


First of all how is it 'off topic' to address a direct quote from another member?

Second, 'Blame it on Bush'? Really? that's all you got? Any reasonable person would have to say at this point that with responses like that, debating the issue with people like you is a useless exercise.

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

liblady said:
if you don't like my posts, don't read them. and of course, afghanistan is right ON topic as we are engaged in war there, right now, and we were discussing the me. we were not discussing obama. i'm beginning to think you like me, j-mac. you sure seem to read my posts very thoroughly.
Click to expand...

To discuss Afghanistan and leave the current Commander n Chief out of the discussion is not only void of reality, but disingenuous to the extreme.

I have no problem with you liblady, I don't know you. Just as you don't know me, however, whether or not I enjoy jousting with you on these boards is what is really off topic here. You accuse me of injecting an off topic remark, when the whole thread is on how Obama says he doesn't need Congress to approve his actions in Lybia, and YOU injected Afghanistan into the discussion.

This really is some kind of alternate universe you libs live in isn't it?

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

j-mac said:
To discuss Afghanistan and leave the current Commander n Chief out of the discussion is not only void of reality, but disingenuous to the extreme.

I have no problem with you liblady, I don't know you. Just as you don't know me, however, whether or not I enjoy jousting with you on these boards is what is really off topic here. You accuse me of injecting an off topic remark, when the whole thread is on how Obama says he doesn't need Congress to approve his actions in Lybia, and YOU injected Afghanistan into the discussion.

This really is some kind of alternate universe you libs live in isn't it?

j-mac
Click to expand...

yeah, but we weren't discussing afghanistan per se. you just felt the need to bash obama, as you always do. that's ok, it must suck to be impotent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom