• 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!

U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

Approval from the UN is certainly not required.

I didn't say it was required, I said it was the smart thing to do.

Approval from Congress, for a lengthy engagement, is more highly desirable. Since we don't plan to have significant assets in play for long, Congressional approval probably wasn't needed. Since we aren't leading the effort, others countries, France, Britain and especially participation by Arab countries, a UN resolution makes perfect sense and was well done.

I agree.

We'll see if the coalition can hold together.

Yep.
 
Do you mean right wing evangelicals in general, or the one dimensional bigoted cartoon-like caricature I am beginning to believe you hold in your own mind?

Love Your Muslim as Yourself | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Peacemakers Seek to Show War from Point of View of Iraqi Civilians | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
"Weblog: Will War Breed Hate Crimes Against Muslims, Christians, or Both?" | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Many Christians and non believers alike are in favor of the war(s). Few people of any stripe just want to "kill Muslims".

And many believers would like to see the wars end.

But I have no doubt you'll have a hard time giving up the drug of hating those you don't understand. A bit ironic in light of your argument don't you think?

I'm talking about "Christians" that can justify the killing of tens of thousand of innocent civilians as we have done in Iraq, a country that never attacked us. They claim their ends justified their means, just as do the radical Islamists.
 
december, 07:

“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,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Obama: president does not have power under constitution to unilaterally attack

today:

President Barack Obama is facing growing anger from lawmakers who believe he overstepped his authority by launching missile strikes into Libya without first seeking the consent of Congress.

The criticism is from all directions: from moderates, like Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.); from those on the far left and right, like Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), who believe the president acted outside the Constitution; and from the establishment on both sides, including House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan, a self-described “hawk.”

Did Obama lose Congress on Libya? - Jonathan Allen and Marin Cogan - POLITICO.com

if it's a no fly zone, why are we attacking ground forces?

if the mission is merely to protect civilians, why is gadaffi a bullseye?

mission creep, anyone?

if we're really in a support role, why are so many us missiles flying?

why did hillary call the white house a bunch of amateurs?

can you deny it?
 
I didn't say it was required, I said it was the smart thing to do.

To clarify, do you agree that the US reserves the right/privilege/authority (whatever) to unilaterally enter combat? With or without Congressional approval?
 
To clarify, do you agree that the US reserves the right/privilege/authority (whatever) to unilaterally enter combat? With or without Congressional approval?

No, I agreed with you that I think Obama should have gotten Congressional approval as well as UN approval. Obama is more of a war hawk than i would have liked in a president, but the only other viable choice was someone even more of a war hawk, so what are you gonna do?

Do you think Congress should cut off funding for this endeavor until they've had a chance to make their decision on the matter? I will support you in that call if you like.
 
Hmm, the various definitions of Islamism and don't appear to have anything to do with terrorism or denying rights and freedom of religion to others. . .

Actually it does, though Wiki never mentioned the terrorism part. Perhaps they suffer from "Islamophobia" themselves and wer3 fearful to offend.

Bill O'Reilly???
 
their range has been proven by presdient Clinton to be able to penetrate a camel's ass inside Osama bin Laden's summer vacation camp
you know when you stop and think about it, it's really sad that innovation and technology is driven by war. imagine the wonderful things we could create and achieve if war wasn't motivating us and peoples brains were used for something worthwhile.
 
I'm talking about "Christians" that can justify the killing of tens of thousand of innocent civilians as we have done in Iraq, a country that never attacked us. They claim their ends justified their means, just as do the radical Islamists.

Do you have a link as to which Christians you're referring to?
 
OK, then please tell us what "jihad" means.

After all, you wouldn't all my "puff and bluster" getting in the way of the correct definitions.

You really don't know the meaning of many words, do you?

Is it safe to say English is not your first language?
 
People die in civil wars. Look at our own civil war.

This is the excuse for waiting so long? People die in a revolution?

The plain truth is that 0bama dithered while Libyans were fighting and dying and begging for help. I support the President on this one and was very glad to see the US air strikes on Gaddafi's ground units south of Benghazi. It's 11th hour and should have been done weeks ago. Gaddafi's tanks were literally on the doorstep.

If a handful of Harriers can make a difference just imagine what 2 carrier air groups could have done three weeks ago. They are vulnerable in the desert. Heavy bombing of his ground forces will weaken them enough for the rebels to defeat them and drive out Gaddafi. Short of sending in large numbers of ground troops, which I do not favor, that is the best outcome for the actions we are taking. If the rebels fail and Gaddafi stays in power this will be for nothing.

From a point about five miles from the northern entrance to Ajdabiya, rebels jumped into dozens of vehicles and made a massive push toward the city Monday when they heard jets in the air and the sounds of bombardment. But after about half a mile, the rebels came under fire from loyalist tank and mortar shelling and promptly turned back.

Afterward, rebel commanders said they plan to wait for more allied airstrikes against Gaddafi’s forces before pushing forward again.
U.S. jets strike Gaddafi’s forces; coalition continues hitting Libyan air defenses - The Washington Post
 
This is the excuse for waiting so long? People die in a revolution?

The purpose for waiting was so that we do not create another whole round of terrorists by the way we've been waging wars unilaterally in the Middle East without UN approval.

Yes, people die in revolutions and civil wars, is this the first you have heard about this?
 
The purpose for waiting was so that we do not create another whole round of terrorists by the way we've been waging wars unilaterally in the Middle East without UN approval.

Yes, people die in revolutions and civil wars, is this the first you have heard about this?

People die in traffic accidents also, Catawba, but few feel the necessity of pointing it out.

What was your point in mentioning that people die in civil wars?
 
People die in traffic accidents also, Catawba, but few feel the necessity of pointing it out.

What was your point in mentioning that people die in civil wars?

I meant to say revolutions.
 
No, I agreed with you that I think Obama should have gotten Congressional approval as well as UN approval. Obama is more of a war hawk than i would have liked in a president, but the only other viable choice was someone even more of a war hawk, so what are you gonna do?

I know you agreed with my other statement, I was asking if you agreed that we reserve the right to enter combat without UN approval.

The statement I made you agreed with:
Approval from Congress, for a lengthy engagement, is more highly desirable. Since we don't plan to have significant assets in play for long, Congressional approval probably wasn't needed. Since we aren't leading the effort, others countries, France, Britain and especially participation by Arab countries, a UN resolution makes perfect sense and was well done.

So it seems you agree that not only is UN approval not required, but due to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 means we can enter combat without UN approval, without Congressional approval and without a declaration of war. Do you agree?

Do you think Congress should cut off funding for this endeavor until they've had a chance to make their decision on the matter? I will support you in that call if you like.

No. It is not their decision to make.
 
Diplomacy=looking weak and indecisive to the world.

That would be something a liberal would be proud of.

Nice response, cowboy. Nothing better than a guy who's solution to everything is a bullet. Maybe one day you will be welcome to civilization.
 
I know you agreed with my other statement, I was asking if you agreed that we reserve the right to enter combat without UN approval.

Don't really care as it has nothing to do with the point I made that it was smart to get UN approval.

So it seems you agree that not only is UN approval not required,

(No we would just be incredibly stupid to go it alone, as we were in Iraq)


but due to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 means we can enter combat without UN approval, without Congressional approval and without a declaration of war. Do you agree?

The war powers act says Congress shall be notified. Do you have knowledge that Congress was not aware of our part in the attack wihin 48 hours as required? Has Congress stated they do not authorize our actions?

Are you opposed to our actions? Or, are you just trying to score some partisan points here?
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. He stated that Gaddafi must go and it appears the UN has bullied him out of it. We've heard nothing about 0bama's "Gaddafi must leave" policy lately. In fact the WH and military leaders are stating there is a time limit to the operations in Libya. This is a major mistake. Gaddafi is going to wait it out and this military campaign will be for nothing.

Cleverly? Sitting on his hands for weeks waiting for political cover from the UN while Gaddafi slaughtered innocent people was clever of 0bama? I doubt the people of Libya would agree.

If this was the right decision today than it was the right decision weeks ago.

Its a civil war. Yes, people get hurt, but its not of our business. We do not have a dog in the fight....and to run with that metaphor, stepping into the middle of a civil war is analagous to stepping into the middle of a dog fight; one thing for sure is you are going to get hurt and the dogs will never notice.

Second, what is our end game in such a proposition? We have been fine with the status quo. He is just another two-bit dictator. Why risk being dragged into a greater conflict for which we have neither the man power nor the financial resources (I better not find any posts of your's complaining about the deficit)? Instead, let the French, Brits and Saudis do some work for once and let us sit back and enjoy the benefit. As a UN action, we are far less likely to have the downside consequences than if we simply went in with guns ablazin'.

Nice work, BHO.
 
Don't really care as it has nothing to do with the point I made that it was smart to get UN approval.

(No we would just be incredibly stupid to go it alone)

In fact, UN approval is not necessary. Prudent perhaps, but we see the cost of diplomacy is the lack of more immediate action that could have saved lives. It's the difference between executive decision making and legislative/diplomatic consensus building.

The war powers act says Congress shall be notified. Do you have knowledge that Congress was not aware of our part in the attack wihin 48 hours as required? Has Congress stated they do not authorize our actions?

I believe they were notified prior to action. I have heard some Democrats asking for impeachment of Obama, if you can believe it, for violating the Constitution. I do not know in what capacity Obama may have violated the Constitution, but I just think this is absolutely hilarious.

Are you opposed to our actions?
Not at all, as my previous post stated. I think we played it perfectly, and as long as Obama's assertion holds true, that we will mostly disengage and let the French, English, Italians and Arabs deal with it, then I say well done. The USS Mount Whitney will still provide C4I for the coalition, I expect (and what a badass ship she is!).

Or, are you just trying to score some partisan points here?
I am not really a partisan at all, and don't easily fit conservative/liberal labels. I am all for liberal social stances on gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, polygamy, polyandry, clan marriages... Conservative fiscally which includes social spending restraints, "neocon" foreign policy (keeping in mind there is a WIDE RANGE of opinion in the neocon world) in support of active involvement in spreading democracy. I don't score points. I am not even playing.
 
The purpose for waiting was so that we do not create another whole round of terrorists by the way we've been waging wars unilaterally in the Middle East without UN approval.

This "create another whole round of terrorists" nonsense is an old and worn out hoax. Get another slogan.

The US did not act unilaterally in Iraq or Afghanistan as you know.

Yes, people die in revolutions and civil wars, is this the first you have heard about this?

Is this seriously your excuse for what took 0bama so long? People die in a revolution? Really?
 
I do not know in what capacity Obama may have violated the Constitution, but I just think this is absolutely hilarious.


Thanks, we don't get enough partisan comments.
 
Its a civil war. Yes, people get hurt, but its not of our business. We do not have a dog in the fight....

Then take it up with 0bama, France, Italy etc. as well. They disagree with you. So do I.

Second, what is our end game in such a proposition? We have been fine with the status quo. He is just another two-bit dictator. Why risk being dragged into a greater conflict for which we have neither the man power nor the financial resources (I better not find any posts of your's complaining about the deficit)? Instead, let the French, Brits and Saudis do some work for once and let us sit back and enjoy the benefit. As a UN action, we are far less likely to have the downside consequences than if we simply went in with guns ablazin'.

According to 0bama the end game is regime change in Libya.

The US has the assets and money to destroy Gaddafi's ground forces and air defense. It wouldn't take long.

You will find lots of posts where I criticize 0bama for wasting trillions of tax dollars and deficit spending. Two separate issues. Nice try though.

simply went in with guns ablazin'? Nobody ever suggested such a thing.
 
Thanks, we don't get enough partisan comments.

That's partisan? You don't find it funny? Its as funny as a Republican taking a wide stance.
 
Back
Top Bottom