View Poll Results: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    22 35.48%
  • No.

    31 50.00%
  • Other.

    4 6.45%
  • Who cares?

    5 8.06%
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76

Thread: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    The Constitution doesn't say Congress has the sole power, just that Congress has the power to declare war, and it doesn't deny that power to the President either.

    And the precedent is of the President to declare war without prior approval from Congress, as has happened on at least 125 occasions throughout US history, vs. the 5 times that Congress has declared war.

    Actually, yes indeed, the Constitution does reserve the power to declare war to the Congress. The job of the president is to enforce laws and engage in foreign policy... with the advice and consent of the US Senate.

    Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
    Hmmmm....not one word grants the president co-equal power to declare war.

    Certainly the Framers of the Constitution were aware that emergencies that may threaten the security of the United States may happen and no one suggests that if the British had invaded Charleston in 1789 that the president would be expected to wait for Congress to declare war before moving the Army and the Navy to respond.

    The little squabble in Libya presents no emergent or even delayed threat to the United States, it doesn't even alter the threats from Libya already in existence. In other words, we have no reason to intervene.

    And yet, because Obama is doing it, the Left is going to be predictably supportive of this nonsense.

    No, you're wrong, Mayor Snorkum had the sense to oppose Bush's urgings to attack Iraq, and for the same reasons, that Iraq wasn't presenting an new emergent threat and it's existing threats were being handled adequately. Just like in Libya.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    Congress has only declared war 5 times in US history, in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and World War 2, the precedent is for the President to decide, not Congress.
    And, by definition, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, were illegal wars.

    One can argue with some success that the Congressional authorization to use any and all force to remove Hussein from office was in fact a declaration of war. It would have been better if it had included the words "I de clare war", followed by the flipping of cards down on the table, but it didn't.

    The attacks on Afghanistan were sufficiently delayed that they should have been preceded by a declaration of war, but Congress no longer felt the need to obey the Constitution since the voters weren't paying any attention. So one can say that though justified in the extreme, our reprisal on Afghanistan was to some degree illegal.

    That being all beside the point, since no US interest is being served in Libya, even less than what was served in Iraq, it's more illegal and more heinous.

    And the hillarity of watching the militant pacifist left take the to the streets defending acts of war by their man in the White House after all the nonsense they did over Bush, well, that can't be overstated.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    Since there is no talk of putting boots on the ground, it appears we're just bombing for the sake of bombing. I don't see any way of changing the situation without forcibly removing the current dictator and replacing him with a puppet. I do not support such a proposition and I don't support the current bombing campaigns.

    There's really no good answer to the situation in Libya, but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary.

    What are your thoughts?
    Ummmm...."No blood for oil"?

    Ummmm...."No blood for oil France wants"?

  4. #24
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Actually, yes indeed, the Constitution does reserve the power to declare war to the Congress. The job of the president is to enforce laws and engage in foreign policy... with the advice and consent of the US Senate.
    You are right in that Congress has the sole power to declare war. But let's see what the Constitution says regarding the President's power over the military.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article Two, Section 2, Clause 1
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
    So while Congress has the sole power to declare war, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military. This is the case whether Congress declares war or not. So as Commander-in-Chief, the President can deploy troops whether Congress declares war or not.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Why dont you realize that its not the Americans that are taking the lead on this one, but it is in fact the UK and France that are doing the majority planning?
    yes.

    There's no better reason to sit in the bleachers and order up some more beer and peanuts than knowing the French are reaching out in another ill conceived military action.

    The first time we came out of the bleachers for France was 1917. Got tens of thousands of Americans killed to no purpose, becuase ...

    ...the second time we came out of the bleachers for France WE stormed the beaches at Normandie while the French troops waited safely behind the lines, which, somehow, gave the french enough faith in their military prowess that on

    ...the third time we came out of the bleachers for France, we left some fifty-fife thousand dead in Vietnam.

    We should have told Obama to sit down, order the tofu his wife lets him eat, and sat back and watched the show. Even if by some miracle no Americans wind up getting killed over Libya, the US taxpayer is still going to pay for the materiel consumed and since it's doubtful Gadhaffy will be deposed, we can expect more PanAm 103 situations.

    Since no US interests are served, since there is no gain to the US for acting and no loss for drinking beer and eating peanuts, we should be getting plastered now.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    You are right in that Congress has the sole power to declare war. But let's see what the Constitution says regarding the President's power over the military.



    So while Congress has the sole power to declare war, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military. This is the case whether Congress declares war or not. So as Commander-in-Chief, the President can deploy troops whether Congress declares war or not.

    Gee. you haven't defined the emergent crisis threatening the immediate security of the United States in your argument.

    You think maybe that the US military is a toy the president can use at whim, and the requirement that the Congress declare war nothing but a formality?

    As I said, you people are singing a predictably different tune when it's your foolish candidate in the White House than when the Republicans held that office.

    And you have not one shred of shame when it's pointed out.

  7. #27
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Our involvement is a bad idea for many conflicts. Let's go down the list

    1. THE REALPOLITIK ARGUMENT - Is it really such a no-brainer that the successor government will be better than Gaddafi's? Perhaps it only looks like that because the opposition is relatively amorphous at this point, unlike in Egypt. You can assign whatever motives you want to the opposition, but nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan convinces me that the US has a good grasp of nations' internal politics before intervening.

    2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?

    3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?

    4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.

    5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-21-11 at 09:26 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #28
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Our involvement is a bad idea for many conflicts. Let's go down the list

    1. THE REALPOLITIK ARGUMENT - Is it really such a no-brainer that the successor government will be better than Gaddafi's? Perhaps it only looks like that because the opposition is relatively amorphous at this point, unlike in Egypt. You can assign whatever motives you want to the opposition, but nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan convinces me that the US has a good grasp of nations' internal politics before intervening.

    2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?

    3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?

    4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.

    5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.
    A near perfect post. Saved me the trouble of typing it all out myself.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    The President can deploy troops for 60 days without congressional approval, it's only after those 60 days that he needs to get approval.
    The Mayor has explained it well, hats down.


    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    What's the point of that comment?
    See above.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-11 @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    116

    Re: Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

    The US is bankrupt and cant even win the first war she entered. Give it up boys.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •