• 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!

White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

ric27 said:
Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?
Click to expand...

Oh, certainly, when the other nation is a totalitarian despotism. That is not a legitimate government selected by the people, and if the despot can ascend his throne by force of arms, he has no moral basis for objecting when someone else uses force of arms to pull him down.

Democracies cannot legitimately war against each other for the purpose of overthrowing governments, but any democracy can, quite legitimately, elect to overthrow any dictatorship. That's if, of course, the democratic process is used to promote and engage the war. By exceeding the 60 day limit, the "President" is stepping outside the democratic process and showing himself to be a despot, not an official subject to the laws of the nation.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I think the war powers act is stupid in the first place. It shouldn't even exist. It should be the congress approves a declaration of war, or that's it, they don't go anywhere. Of course in extreme circumstances, like if we are suddenly attacked, the President doesn't need anything from congress to be able to retaliate within minutes.

I do think Obama is very hypocritical to say Bush was violating it, but I think we should lay off Biden. I don't think he likes this very much. He's been at odds with the President's foreign policy for a while, like with Afghanistan.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Gargantuan said:
I think the war powers act is stupid in the first place. It shouldn't even exist. It should be the congress approves a declaration of war, or that's it, they don't go anywhere. Of course in extreme circumstances, like if we are suddenly attacked, the President doesn't need anything from congress to retaliate within minutes, but of course a formal declaration is necessary for sending our troops anywhere overseas.

I do think Obama is very hypocritical to say Bush was violating it, but I think we should lay off Biden. I don't think he likes this very much. He's been at odds with the President's foreign policy for a while, like with Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you concerning congress. While I don't see this as equal to what Bush did, I do wish more republicans saw the problem when Bush was invading two countries. War should have to be declared before we engage in it, and that should be true regardless of who is president.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

winston53660 said:
A vision of a democratic Libya
Click to expand...

So it is a "vision" and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

It's like a campaign promise designed to get the desired response from the West.

It's bunk!
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
So it is a "vision" and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

It's like a campaign promise designed to get the desired response from the West.

It's bunk!
Click to expand...

Maybe it is bunk maybe isn't unless you have a crystal ball or something.

In the mean time I do think we should help them achieve this vision that they started on their own.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Mayor Snorkum said:
Let's see.

Does the phrase "war of choice" apply only to Republicans? Apparently. No one is using it in this instance.

Does the phrase "nation building" apply only to Republicans? Apparently. What else can it be called when the "President" takes sides in a civil war in which both sides are completely inimical to the United States?

Does the phrase "Obama lied and people died" have any legs? It should. Obama is killin people in Libya right now.
Click to expand...

All true and, unlike Bush, all without the approval of Congress.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Mayor Snorkum said:
Let's see.

Does the phrase "war of choice" apply only to Republicans? Apparently. No one is using it in this instance.

Does the phrase "nation building" apply only to Republicans? Apparently. What else can it be called when the "President" takes sides in a civil war in which both sides are completely inimical to the United States?

Does the phrase "Obama lied and people died" have any legs? It should. Obama is killin people in Libya right now.
Click to expand...

While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

winston53660 said:
Maybe it is bunk maybe isn't unless you have a crystal ball or something.

In the mean time I do think we should help them achieve this vision that they started on their own.
Click to expand...

In reality you have no idea what that vision is, despite what is on this paper. They can tell you whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Never have I heard of any Mid East nation, apart from Israel, having these ambitions. The Muslim Brotherhood knows just what they want and will design whatever they say to what we want to hear. Now we are breaking laws in our own countries to follow Muslim Brotherhood ambitions.

I would dearly love to be wrong, but don't beleive I am.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Is the United States now subject to the whims of the UN rather than subject to its own laws?

George Bush had the approval of the US Congress to do what he did. Barrack Obama is doing it on his own.

The moment you support your leader while he is breaking American law is when the Republic is in its greatest danger. It seems you are unaware of what a precedent this sets. Party politics now trumps America's interests,
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

My understanding is that Congress isn't exactly in a hurry to vote on it. Jon Kyl doesn't think that the War Powers Act applies. In fact, both he and his fellow Senator form Arizona think that Obama's not doing enough in Libya.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
The moment you support your leader while he is breaking American law is when the Republic is in its greatest danger. It seems you are unaware of what a precedent this sets. Party politics now trumps America's interests,
Click to expand...

Like waterboarding? Party politics has been th thing for a while now, and it's both parties.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
Is the United States now subject to the whims of the UN rather than subject to its own laws?

George Bush had the approval of the US Congress to do what he did. Barrack Obama is doing it on his own.

The moment you support your leader while he is breaking American law is when the Republic is in its greatest danger. It seems you are unaware of what a precedent this sets. Party politics now trumps America's interests,
Click to expand...

Always good to see that old strawman pop up. It shows a complete lack of thought. But, no one said anything about the US being subject to the whims of the UN. Merely we've signed agreements, of our own free will, to act with them on UN missions.

And congress did not declare war under Bush. Passing the buck to let him decide is nto equal to a declaration of war. And many of you did support Bush when he was breaking the law, repeatedly, from invading countries to illegal wiretapping to torture. All of this was against the best interests of this country and the people who live here.

And yes, Bush supporters did often put party over America's interests. If you guys did not set the precedent, you certainly advanced it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I support the three waterboardings and I support Obama kicking ass.

No party politics here.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

ecofarm said:
I support the three waterboardings and I support Obama kicking ass.

No party politics here.
Click to expand...


That just made me think of the 12 of Christmas:lol:
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

ecofarm said:
Who said we're gonna pick someone? Do we have the right to take out dictators who use their Air Force against their own people? Yes.
Click to expand...

Are Americans being bombed, killed?...No? Then its not our ****ing problem
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

ric27 said:
Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. However, it is generally believed that the best way to determine who is in charge of another nation is through democratic means. And Gadaffi has usurp the democratic nature of Libya. And the Libyan people have risen up against him to challenge this. Which is why Libya is in a civil war to begin with.

ric27 said:
Gadaffi accountable to Obama? Why?
Click to expand...

No. Gadaffi is not accountable to Obama. Rather, Gadaffi is accountable to the people of Libya. This is in line with the idea of a social contract between the governor and the governed. When the governor no longer has the consent of the governed, they have the duty to defy the tyrant in power.

This ideal has most eloquently been expressed by our own Founding Fathers.

The reason why the U.S. is inclined to aid the rebels is to assert a moral duty to do so. If we have our own political system based on a democracy with the consent of the governed then we should support those who work for the same for themselves.

Just as the French provided aid to the rebels in the Colonies that allowed us to become our sovereign nation of the United States, so to should the U.S. provide aid to the rebels in Libya to help the people of Libya develop a democratic political system.

ric27 said:
And last....Why the ****'s Obama such an idiot?
Click to expand...

He's not.

ric27 said:
Enough of ME involvement!!!
Click to expand...

Libya is in Northern Africa.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Gargantuan said:
I think the war powers act is stupid in the first place. It shouldn't even exist. It should be the congress approves a declaration of war, or that's it, they don't go anywhere. Of course in extreme circumstances, like if we are suddenly attacked, the President doesn't need anything from congress to be able to retaliate within minutes.

I do think Obama is very hypocritical to say Bush was violating it, but I think we should lay off Biden. I don't think he likes this very much. He's been at odds with the President's foreign policy for a while, like with Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you. Such a limitation on the President is too much when he needs to act quickly and decisively in a military manner.

Also, it limits the President in other ways, such as in anti-piracy operations, or whether or not a declaration of war can be made against a non-governmental organization or not.

Rather, I think a better way to do it is for Congress to reassert its power of the purse over the armed forces. If Congress doesn't like a military operation, then they shouldn't vote to fund it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Didya wanna prove that the Wiretaps were illegal....or did you simply wish to continue being a Parrot?


Boo Radley said:
Always good to see that old strawman pop up. It shows a complete lack of thought. But, no one said anything about the US being subject to the whims of the UN. Merely we've signed agreements, of our own free will, to act with them on UN missions.

And congress did not declare war under Bush. Passing the buck to let him decide is nto equal to a declaration of war. And many of you did support Bush when he was breaking the law, repeatedly, from invading countries to illegal wiretapping to torture. All of this was against the best interests of this country and the people who live here.

And yes, Bush supporters did often put party over America's interests. If you guys did not set the precedent, you certainly advanced it.
Click to expand...
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

rocket88 said:
Like waterboarding? Party politics has been th thing for a while now, and it's both parties.
Click to expand...

No, not like waterboarding. Like the War Powers Act, and only like the War Powers Act.

Diversions don't support breaking the law. Start another waterboarding thread if that's your interest.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
No, not like waterboarding. Like the War Powers Act, and only like the War Powers Act.

Diversions don't support breaking the law. Start another waterboarding thread if that's your interest.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying then, is that it's only partisan if Liberals do it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
Always good to see that old strawman pop up.
Click to expand...
And what 'strawman 'is that???

It shows a complete lack of thought. But, no one said anything about the US being subject to the whims of the UN. Merely we've signed agreements, of our own free will, to act with them on UN missions.
Click to expand...

The UN does not override US law, and never has. If you are claiming that the UN overrides US law then that goes well past any 'strawman' argument and well into lands of fantasy.

And congress did not declare war under Bush. Passing the buck to let him decide is nto equal to a declaration of war. And many of you did support Bush when he was breaking the law, repeatedly, from invading countries to illegal wiretapping to torture. All of this was against the best interests of this country and the people who live here.
Click to expand...

Are you really not yet familiar with the Authorization passed by Conngree? I'm quite sure I sent it to you at least once. Have you still not yet read it???
And yes, Bush supporters did often put party over America's interests. If you guys did not set the precedent, you certainly advanced it.
Click to expand...

You'd have to point out some facts to support that claim but, even if that were the case, are you claiming that that would allow BHO to break the law now? That seems a seriously foolish argument.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

rocket88 said:
So what you're saying then, is that it's only partisan if Liberals do it.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying, and I'll type this slowly, is that the subject is the War Powers Act and the question of Barrack Hussein Obama, the US President, breaking the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

rocket88 said:
My understanding is that Congress isn't exactly in a hurry to vote on it. Jon Kyl doesn't think that the War Powers Act applies. In fact, both he and his fellow Senator form Arizona think that Obama's not doing enough in Libya.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what a couple of members of Congress think. They are responsible for following and upholding the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Simon W. Moon said:
The War Powers Act needs serious revision. It needs to be specifically limited to something like 6 months. Using to justify years of war as it has been recently seems to be a clear violation of Constitutional intent.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Also, Obama has violated the War Powers Act in regards to Libya and Congress needs to take this to the Supreme Court ASAP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom