• 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!

NATO Uses Attack Helicopters for First Time in Libya

PeteEU said:
Any "advisor's" on the ground are British former SAS working for a private contractor.. aka mercenaries.
Click to expand...

PeteEU said:
Nope. The British and French (and Italians and others) sent people to Bengazhi to coordinate strikes and aid, but no trainers. Was yesterday or two days ago, that the British media "exposed" the use of former SAS mercenaries as trainers and so on, hired by the MOD...but paid by Gulf states..
Click to expand...

Seems semantics (advisors/trainers) caused the confusion. I thought you were remarking that only mercs were on the ground (I didn't know about the mercs).

DrunkenAsparagus said:
According to US law, if our forces are operating on foreign soil, airspace, or water, they need Congress's approval within 60 days. They could be launching a blitzkrieg or just doing reconnaissance, but the President is not allowed to act on his own.
Click to expand...

No, they need congressional approval within 60 days or must be withdrawn within 30 days of that deadline. Obama has not exceeded the 30 days to withdraw. He has not broken any rules.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
It is war and even Obama called it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's only war, if we're actually engaging the enemy with combat units. So far, I haven't seen anything of the sort. Stop with the hypocritical partisan hackery and come back with more facts, as to which units are operating in the area of operations and what their mission is.
 
ecofarm said:
No, they need congressional approval within 60 days or must be withdrawn within 30 days of that deadline. Obama has not exceeded the 30 days to withdraw. He has not broken any rules.
Click to expand...

It seems he has broken the rules regarding original US involvement and the situation might be iffy on the rest, depending on the legal interpretation.

War Powers Resolution of 1973
 
apdst said:
It's only war, if we're actually engaging the enemy with combat units. So far, I haven't seen anything of the sort. Stop with the hypocritical partisan hackery and come back with more facts, as to which units are operating in the area of operations and what their mission is.
Click to expand...

If the United States did to Canada what they are doing in Libya, I feel strongly that we would call it war and not overly care much what the Americans called it.
 
Grant said:
If the United States did to Canada what they are doing in Libya, I feel strongly that we would call it war and not overly care much what the Americans called it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, I'm not aware of any U.S. combat operations currently taking place in the Libyan theater of operations.

I don't agree that U.S. units filling a logistical support role can be considered, "combat operations".

Now, for the sake of clarity, I don't think we should be wasting time and money in Libya, however I don't think that O'Bama is breaking the law.
 
Grant said:
It seems he has broken the rules regarding original US involvement and the situation might be iffy on the rest, depending on the legal interpretation.

War Powers Resolution of 1973
Click to expand...

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...

He must prove that the safety of USAForces require the continued use of drones in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of the drones. As the US is obligated to support NATO via treaty... what are the options. He'll withdraw the drones before 90 days and then get funding to support the NATO operation, re-deploying them.
 
apdst said:
Agreed. However, I'm not aware of any U.S. combat operations currently taking place in the Libyan theater of operations.

I don't agree that U.S. units filling a logistical support role can be considered, "combat operations".

Now, for the sake of clarity, I don't think we should be wasting time and money in Libya, however I don't think that O'Bama is breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Who's wasting time. USA is helping steal a little OIL and gets an IOU from UK and EURO nations and strengthens those same reserve banks. It always has a little something to do with banks, don't you think? Centralized Distribution - of OIL - of Money - etc.
 
Of course they are rolling out the big guns.

Gotta protect the oil supply. :shrug:

It's the only reason why we go to war anymore.
 
ecofarm said:
He must prove that the safety of USAForces require the continued use of drones in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of the drones. As the US is obligated to support NATO via treaty... what are the options. He'll withdraw the drones before 90 days and then get funding to support the NATO operation, re-deploying them.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that US law and the Constitution should take precedence over any NATO actions. Not all NATO countries are involved and they are not being criticized for withholding their support.

The US, as the WPR states is necessary, was under no threat from Libya whatsoever. I'm not certain but I believe this is the first time important provisions of the WPR have largely ignored, and it sets quite a dangerous precedent.
 
Temporal said:
Of course they are rolling out the big guns.

Gotta protect the oil supply. :shrug:

It's the only reason why we go to war anymore.
Click to expand...

If it really is 'all about oil' let's just hit all the ME oil producing countries and take it.

In fact I'd be disappointed if it wasn't all about oil. At least there would then be an excuse.
 
apdst said:
It's only war, if we're actually engaging the enemy with combat units. So far, I haven't seen anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
So we were wrong in WW2 to consider Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor an act of war because they didn’t put any boots on the ground?

Please point to the law or court ruling or anything that so narrowly defines war using your definition. I would love to know upon what basis you reach such conclusions.



apdst said:
Stop with the hypocritical partisan hackery and come back with more facts, as to which units are operating in the area of operations and what their mission is.
Click to expand...
Don’t attempt to lecture me on partisan hackery while you are acting like a Republican tool apdst, my allegiance is to the US Constitution and I can back my talk up with articles therein, SCOTUS rulings and quotes from the elected officials you seem to have sold you soul to.

Let me offer the sinking of the USS Main (Spanish-American War), privateer attacks on U.S. shipping (Franco-American War), bombing of Pearl Harbor (World War II) and attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf (Vietnam War) as examples that contradict your position and support mine. These are examples of what the US has considered acts of war even though they didn’t involve boots on the ground.

To answer your question, the USS Kearsarge, USS Enterprise, USS Barry, USS Ponce, USS Stout, USS Providence, USS Scranton, USS Florida, USS Mount Whitney, USAF 48th Fighter Wing among many others are conducting attacks on Libya in the area of operations.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
So we were wrong in WW2 to consider Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor an act of war because they didn’t put any boots on the ground?

Please point to the law or court ruling or anything that so narrowly defines war using your definition. I would love to know upon what basis you reach such conclusions.



Don’t attempt to lecture me on partisan hackery while you are acting like a Republican tool apdst, my allegiance is to the US Constitution and I can back my talk up with articles therein, SCOTUS rulings and quotes from the elected officials you seem to have sold you soul to.

Let me offer the sinking of the USS Main (Spanish-American War), privateer attacks on U.S. shipping (Franco-American War), bombing of Pearl Harbor (World War II) and attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf (Vietnam War) as examples that contradict your position and support mine. These are examples of what the US has considered acts of war even though they didn’t involve boots on the ground.

To answer your question, the USS Kearsarge, USS Enterprise, USS Barry, USS Ponce, USS Stout, USS Providence, USS Scranton, USS Florida, USS Mount Whitney, USAF 48th Fighter Wing among many others are conducting attacks on Libya in the area of operations.
Click to expand...

<sarcasm on> Yes, but are you sure its not just another Obama kinetic military action ? <sarcasm off>

Back in the day, "Kinetic" was just a state next to Rhode Island that ESPN called home. :roll:
 
Last edited:
finebead said:
Apples and oranges.

Bush said Iraq had WMD, but Hans Blix went in and inspected and found NONE. Powell went to the UN, said Iraq had WMD, but Powell lied like the rest of the Bush admin. The problem with Iraq was not that we invaded, it was that we invaded under false pretense. Cheney irroneously tried to make the case that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but the 9/11 commission found "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda".


Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq - washingtonpost.com

That condemnation form Bush's own longtime friend, who could not stand the lies any longer.

On Libya, there was an uprising going on, that is not a lie. The US chose to support it, and to involve NATO in support of the rebels. You will note, those are NATO attack helicopters, not US.
Click to expand...

You can pretend not to be a liberal but your attitude gives you away. Try to get the facts right. Saddam Hussein said he tried to make the world believe that he has WMDs to keep Iran from attacking.

That means President Bush and most of the World at the time thought he had them. Most Liberals as I have said again, and again can't deal in facts and the truth.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
<sarcasm on> Yes, but are you sure its not just another Obama kinetic military action ? <sarcasm off>

Back in the day, "Kinetic" was just a state next to Rhode Island that ESPN called home. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, his “kinetic military action” is a simple rearranging of the structural mass of buildings, equipment and people belonging to or loyal to a dictator who “must go”.

It's like when he said he wanted to raise taxes but called it "reduce spending in the tax code".
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059540253 said:
I'm confused... Wasn't Obama highly critical of Bush invading Iraq? But now isn't Obama part of a coalition invading Lybia?
Click to expand...

While I have no qualms about taking out the tyrant Qaddafi he atleast did what Saddam didn't do IE completely cooperate with weapons inspectors proving that he was not an existential threat so we can not even pretend this is a preemptive war.
 
finebead said:
You will note, those are NATO attack helicopters, not US.
Click to expand...

So the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) must be a NATO carrier, not a US carrier too then right?
USSEnterpriseBowShot-sm.jpg
 
finebead said:
Apples and oranges.

Bush said Iraq had WMD, but Hans Blix went in and inspected and found NONE. Powell went to the UN, said Iraq had WMD, but Powell lied like the rest of the Bush admin. The problem with Iraq was not that we invaded, it was that we invaded under false pretense. Cheney irroneously tried to make the case that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but the 9/11 commission found "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda".
Click to expand...

Your historical revisionsim aside what was Obama's excuse for war? Without the consent of Congress mind you.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
I'm confused. Maybe that is the way it is for Independents. It seems to me that a hell of a lot of conservatives and Republicans were damn near joyous over Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats, by and large, were opposed.
Click to expand...

As memory fades history changes, however, the facts remain the same, the majority of Democrats in bolth houses of Congress voted for bolth AUMF's and polling data indicates that most Americans (including Democrats) were in favor of bolth wars. Facts are stubborn things.
 
SE102 said:
Sharp of you. But last I checked they were having a civil war, whereas in Iraq we created one.
Click to expand...

So intervention in civil wars are justified? On what grounds?
 
finebead said:
You are just wrong. It is NOT TRUE that liberals never support war. I know of NO substantive opposition to Bush I's war to throw Iraq out of Kuwait,
Click to expand...

(see Al Gore speech to congress circa 1992).
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
Who's wasting time. USA is helping steal a little OIL and gets an IOU from UK and EURO nations and strengthens those same reserve banks. It always has a little something to do with banks, don't you think? Centralized Distribution - of OIL - of Money - etc.
Click to expand...

Got any docs that show that the U.S. is stealing oil? No? When you do, come see us.
 
GPS_Flex said:
So we were wrong in WW2 to consider Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor an act of war because they didn’t put any boots on the ground?
Click to expand...

Obviously not, because Japanese combat forces were emplyed/deployed at Pearl Harbor. Do you understand the difference between combat arms and support arms?

Please point to the law or court ruling or anything that so narrowly defines war using your definition. I would love to know upon what basis you reach such conclusions.
Click to expand...

"war", occurs when combat units go on the offensive. Period.



Don’t attempt to lecture me on partisan hackery while you are acting like a Republican tool apdst, my allegiance is to the US Constitution and I can back my talk up with articles therein, SCOTUS rulings and quotes from the elected officials you seem to have sold you soul to.

Let me offer the sinking of the USS Main (Spanish-American War), privateer attacks on U.S. shipping (Franco-American War), bombing of Pearl Harbor (World War II) and attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf (Vietnam War) as examples that contradict your position and support mine. These are examples of what the US has considered acts of war even though they didn’t involve boots on the ground.

To answer your question, the USS Kearsarge, USS Enterprise, USS Barry, USS Ponce, USS Stout, USS Providence, USS Scranton, USS Florida, USS Mount Whitney, USAF 48th Fighter Wing among many others are conducting attacks on Libya in the area of operations.
Click to expand...

You're accusing O'Bama of committing a crime that he hasn't committed and I'm the Republican tool? :lamo
 
GPS_Flex said:
So the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) must be a NATO carrier, not a US carrier too then right?
USSEnterpriseBowShot-sm.jpg
Click to expand...

Enterprise is a part of the 6th Fleet, which has patrolled the Med for 40+ years now. Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom