Are we doing the right thing in Libya?

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?

I agree with where you said "but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary", and it seems that the means is enlisting the aid of the UN. I think the right thing is being done in Libya, they're equalling the terms so that the rebels have a chance to win.

It's a revolution. It is two sides battling it out for their own country.
Let them get to it, if they lose. They never had the immense broad support that was seen in Egypt and Tunisia.
If they win, then we welcome them into the fold.

It is not our responsibility or our duty. We are not the world's police and I wonder what BS excuse will come out of our politicians mouths when more dead soldiers start arriving.

Why don't Americans obey the Constitution and declare war through Congress approval before they trow tomahawks in other peoples land? Oh, wait, it not a war, just a "protect the good people from their evil dictator" operation.
What has happened to the world?

Canell said:

Why don't Americans obey the Constitution and declare war through Congress approval before they trow tomahawks in other peoples land? Oh, wait, it not a war, just a "protect the good people from their evil dictator" operation.
What has happened to the world?

Click to expand...

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?

Caine said:

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?

Click to expand...

So? I know it's a UN resolution but shouldn't the US decide in Congress first whether they must participate? It's nothing to do with who is in the lead.

ElijahGalt said:

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?

Click to expand...

It's a cruise missile into a tent approach. It's ****ed.

Canell said:

So? I know it's a UN resolution but shouldn't the US decide in Congress first whether they must participate? It's nothing to do with who is in the lead.

Click to expand...

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.

spud_meister said:

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.

Click to expand...

Meaning the US Constitution is just a piece of paper as G.W. Bush once said?
And what precedent is that?

Canell said:

Meaning the US Constitution is just a piece of paper as G.W. Bush once said?
And what precedent is that?

Click to expand...

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.

Our actions so far would qualify as a right thing. The world is not all black and white. Extremely complex situations cannot be broken down into "right" or "wrong". We are going in supporting the UN action, which may include boots on the ground from nations other than us. Diplomatically, it is a good thing for the US. Maybe not the best thing, but a good thing. Militarily, it is far from the worst thing we could do. For the rebels, it is hard to say.

spud_meister said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the War Powers Resolution sugests otherwise. At least, I can't see "serious threat" or attack.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

Click to expand...

Canell said:

I think the War Powers Resolution sugests otherwise. At least, I can't see "serious threat" or attack.

Click to expand...

You left out this bit.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period,

Click to expand...

So Obama's within his rights to commit forces, but can't keep them there for more than 60 days without approval.

spud_meister said:

So Obama's within his rights to commit forces, but can't keep them there for more than 60 days without approval.

Click to expand...

OK, dude, where is the "serious threat" for the US now? Or we can twist terms as to fit whatever we want? If so, the legislation is really just a piece of paper.

Canell said:

OK, dude, where is the "serious threat" for the US now? Or we can twist terms as to fit whatever we want?

Click to expand...

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 text of the War Power Resolution states:

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Click to expand...

The President can deploy troops, but if he does, must report all their actions and such to Congress, and if he doesn't have approval after 60 days, has to cancel the deployment.

If so, the legislation is really just a piece of paper.

Click to expand...

What's the point of that comment?

I support the US President acting on behalf of the Libyan people but I have lots of problems with our actions to date.

We should have acted weeks ago with or without the UN. 0bama's dithering is a sign of weakness on his part. Other tyrants are taking notice.

Gaddafi's ability to conduct ground offensives against civilians must be stopped and so far little has been done to achieve that.

0bama put a time limit of "days not weeks" on US involvement. This will only encourage Gaddafi to stay.

0bama publicly stated "Gaddafi must leave" and that policy apparently has been put on the back burner. Why?

Laila said:

It's a revolution. It is two sides battling it out for their own country.
Let them get to it, if they lose. They never had the immense broad support that was seen in Egypt and Tunisia.
If they win, then we welcome them into the fold.

Click to expand...

This is a revolution and the Libyan rebels have been fighting all alone and they are losing. They have very little to stop tanks and nothing to stop artillery battery’s shelling their cities. If the airstrikes had not happened I firmly believe Benghazi would be under attack by Gaddafi's butchers or already captured.

The difference between Libya and the uprisings in Egypt-Tunisia is that their military didn't slaughter innocent men, women and children or hire mercenaries to do it.

The support for the Libyan rebels is alive and well in Benghazi and elsewhere. The visible support for the rebels in Gaddafi controlled areas is non-existent for obvious reasons. They saw what happened to the last folks who protested.

ElijahGalt said:

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?

Click to expand...

If it wasn't for foreign intervention, the United States probably would not have been created, as the colonies relied on foreigners in order to help secure their independence from Great Britain.

The most well-known is the alliance the colonies formed with France, who 1) provided ammunition and supplies, 2) provided infantry reinforcements, 3) had it's navy engage the British navy off the American coast, and 4) engaged the British military in Europe and and in possessions in India.

Without this intervention on behalf of France, it is dubious as to whether the colonies would have been able to wear down the British military so much as to make them want to leave the colonies.

Not as well known were the efforts of Friedrich von Steuben, a Prussian military officer. He traveled to the colonies and found the soldiers of the Continental Army woefully untrained and undisciplined. So he developed a training program and had 120 men go through it. Those 120 men trained other groups, and so on and so on. Because of von Steuben's efforts, the Continental Army was transformed from a ragtag militia of agrarian volunteers to a corps of soldiers with a high degree of professionalism, enough so to go up against the mightiest military at that time.

So yes, I am all for foreign intervention, considering the U.S. was founded only with the help of it. Or rather I don't dismiss it out of hand.

And because the people of Libya want foreign aid in order to bring down the dictator who is willing to mass murder his own people, I believe that we are justified in doing so.

And those people are not equipped or prepared to do it on their own. They don't have the armament, they don't have the training, and they don't have the discipline. And they are going against death squads who are killing everyone they see just to make a buck.

And considering the importance of the petroleum in Libya to the world stage and to the allies of the U.S. it is in the interest of the U.S. to help stabilize that region even if military force must be used. The U.N. support gives formal legitimacy for action and support from the Arab League only increases that legitimacy.

So everything that is going on there demands that the Libyan people get help from somewhere. I am glad that the U.S. is providing that help. I'm also glad that other nations are helping too.

No. Of course not.

No US interest is served by wasting time and resources in Libya. They're having a little civil war, let them enjoy it while they can, and let's try to back away from the foolishness of following the lead of the French.

Also, I would like to say I voted "Other."

Your question asked "If we're doing the right thing in Libya." I agree that the U.S. with the help of other nations needs to support the rebels. However I disagree that the only thing we should do is to create a no-fly zone or a no-drive zone.

Eventually, at some level, we're going to need to put boots on the ground. The nightmare scenario is that we're going to have to send large numbers of troops to fight for and defend the rebels directly. A more acceptable alternative is that we send military advisers to train the rebels so they are better able to defend themselves.

So I voted "other" because while I think the U.S. should support those rebels I think it is inevitable that we're going to have to go a few steps farther, and those steps should not be dismissed out of hand.

spud_meister said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

spud_meister said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ElijahGalt said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

Mayor Snorkum said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Article Two said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Caine said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.