- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,517
- Reaction score
- 3,927
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I thought the UAE was also participating.
The UAE's role is only humanitarian and Jordan is helping to provide logistics.
I thought the UAE was also participating.
Approval from the UN is certainly not required.
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.
We'll see if the coalition can hold together.
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?
“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.”
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.”
I didn't say it was required, I said it was the smart thing to do.
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.
To clarify, do you agree that the US reserves the right/privilege/authority (whatever) to unilaterally enter combat? With or without Congressional approval?
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. . .
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.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
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
Diplomacy=looking weak and indecisive to the world.
That would be something a liberal would be proud of.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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?
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!).Are you opposed to our actions?
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.Or, are you just trying to score some partisan points here?
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?
I do not know in what capacity Obama may have violated the Constitution, but I just think this is absolutely hilarious.
Its a civil war. Yes, people get hurt, but its not of our business. We do not have a dog in the fight....
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'.
Thanks, we don't get enough partisan comments.
Thanks, we don't get enough partisan comments.