• 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

You don't even need to explain with these answers. All you need to do is say you agree or dissagree.

1. Candidate Obama submitted a written response to the questions so it would be reasonable to expect that he was clear and complete on his positions/opinions. Agree or disagree?

2. Candidate Obama was clearly asked to assume that the theoretical bombing was not a situation that involved stopping an imminent threat. Agree or disagree?

3. Candidate Obama clearly stated that the President does not have the power “under the Constitution” to “attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. Agree or disagree?

4. Candidate Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard University so it would be reasonable to expect that he understands that the War Powers Resolution can’t supersede the Constitution unless it is an actual amendment to said Constitution. Agree or disagree?

The trouble with your questions are again the apple and tree frog type comparisons. The US is not invading Lybia on a pretext, outside the UN. As linked some time ago, there is question about what he has to as part of a UN mission. HAd he invaded Lybia like Bush did, sought to occupy the country and change regimes, building a base there, like Bush did, then you would have a proper comparison.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Obama is once again playing fast and loose with the Laws of the Nation, and it's time he got shut down.

Wrong... Obama was well within his legal rights.

When he took out OBL it was to protect the United states from more attacks from a sworn enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and was capable of doing it again.

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

The trouble with your questions are again the apple and tree frog type comparisons. The US is not invading Lybia on a pretext, outside the UN. As linked some time ago, there is question about what he has to as part of a UN mission. HAd he invaded Lybia like Bush did, sought to occupy the country and change regimes, building a base there, like Bush did, then you would have a proper comparison.

Two questions,

1. Do we now answer to the UN?

2. Is Obama's goal to see Gaddaffi out of power?

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

Two questions,

1. Do we now answer to the UN?

2. Is Obama's goal to see Gaddaffi out of power?

j-mac

Question one. That's a silly strawman. You can have agreements, those we signed and ratified, and not be answering to the UN. We're only upholding our agreements. Many consider doing this to be proper.

I don't know know if that is Obama's ultimate goal. If so, it is a mistake. We should never be in the business of enforcing regime change. That belongs to each individual nation and not from those outside. however, if the UN or even NATO undertakes a UN or NATO mission, and we have agreements to assist, that is not equal to what Bush did. The two are not comparable.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Question one. That's a silly strawman. You can have agreements, those we signed and ratified, and not be answering to the UN. We're only upholding our agreements. Many consider doing this to be proper.

First of all, This overuse of accusation of using "strawman" arguments is a lazy tactic to avoid answering honestly. I thought you were smarter than that.

Second, We can, and do have agreements with the UN that were ratified, however, that in NO WAY binds us to subjecting our military, or lives as dictated under UN mandate. Let them raise their own military.

I don't know know if that is Obama's ultimate goal. If so, it is a mistake. We should never be in the business of enforcing regime change. That belongs to each individual nation and not from those outside. however, if the UN or even NATO undertakes a UN or NATO mission, and we have agreements to assist, that is not equal to what Bush did. The two are not comparable.

You don't know if Obama want's Gaddaffi out of power? Where do you live? Do you see the news? Read a paper? Come on man, no one believes that. Sorry, try again.

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

First of all, This overuse of accusation of using "strawman" arguments is a lazy tactic to avoid answering honestly. I thought you were smarter than that.

No overuse. The fact is this is common. From the begining you and others jump all the way to being subervant to the UN when any arguement suggest we adhere to our agreements. This is a classic strawman. Poor argument. period.

Second, We can, and do have agreements with the UN that were ratified, however, that in NO WAY binds us to subjecting our military, or lives as dictated under UN mandate. Let them raise their own military.

it does bind us within our agreements. In those agreeements we spelled out exactly when we would and could use force. We weren't held at gun point. No one forced us. We said these agreements were reasonable and signed on to them. And through the UN held others accountable who did not do the same, like Iraq. Breaking an agreement is breaking the law. No one being willing or able to enforce the law doesn't mean it wasn't broken.

Still, the point here is that Bush's action in iraq is not equal to Obama's action in Lybia, and i've spelled out why.


You don't know if Obama want's Gaddaffi out of power? Where do you live? Do you see the news? Read a paper? Come on man, no one believes that. Sorry, try again.

j-mac

Much like Bush supporters did with Saddam, you're trying to equate wanting to doing. They are not the same thing. I want to win the lottery, but I've never won. Hell, I've never even bought a ticket. Surely the error in your thiinking isn't that hard to understand? :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

No overuse. The fact is this is common. From the begining you and others jump all the way to being subervant to the UN when any arguement suggest we adhere to our agreements. This is a classic strawman. Poor argument. period.


Nah, just another intellectually lazy, and transparent tactic from liberals that refuse to debate honestly. But I covered that already.

it does bind us within our agreements. In those agreeements we spelled out exactly when we would and could use force. We weren't held at gun point. No one forced us. We said these agreements were reasonable and signed on to them. And through the UN held others accountable who did not do the same, like Iraq. Breaking an agreement is breaking the law. No one being willing or able to enforce the law doesn't mean it wasn't broken.


I don't believe that the UN can tell us what to do. If they think that we are breaking some law, let them try and enforce it.

Still, the point here is that Bush's action in iraq is not equal to Obama's action in Lybia, and i've spelled out why.

I never said it was. That is a strawman on your part, and a very dishonest one to boot.

Much like Bush supporters did with Saddam, you're trying to equate wanting to doing. They are not the same thing. I want to win the lottery, but I've never won. Hell, I've never even bought a ticket. Surely the error in your thiinking isn't that hard to understand?

When you see that a NATO mission was undertaken, who's military do you think is predomenant in that mission? I don't buy lottery's so your analogy is lacking.

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

Nah, just another intellectually lazy, and transparent tactic from liberals that refuse to debate honestly. But I covered that already.

Actually j, that is exactly what you're doing with the strawman. You skip debating the issue to make fight the strawman that we want the US subject to the UN. That's why I bring up the use of this strawman of yours. it is intellectually lazy and little more than a poor tactic to avoid debate.


I don't believe that the UN can tell us what to do. If they think that we are breaking some law, let them try and enforce it.

No one said they can. No one made us sign the agreement. I can't make you take out a loan for a care, but once you do, sign the paper, the law says you have to pay the note. That is the nature of agreements.


I never said it was. That is a strawman on your part, and a very dishonest one to boot.

J, that's exactly where we started. Go back and read. You interupted a discussion concerning this being equal to what Bush did. You interjected yourself into.


When you see that a NATO mission was undertaken, who's military do you think is predomenant in that mission? I don't buy lottery's so your analogy is lacking.

j-mac

It doesn't matter at all. We've agreed to give that support. If you don't like it, and many don't, encourage your representatives to go back to the table and write a new agreement.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Actually j, that is exactly what you're doing with the strawman. You skip debating the issue to make fight the strawman that we want the US subject to the UN. That's why I bring up the use of this strawman of yours. it is intellectually lazy and little more than a poor tactic to avoid debate.


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the "Pee Wee Herman defense"

"I know you are, but what am I".....lol

No one said they can. No one made us sign the agreement. I can't make you take out a loan for a care, but once you do, sign the paper, the law says you have to pay the note. That is the nature of agreements.

And if you as the bank are violating the contract I have recourse as well.

Do you believe that we should answer to the UN?

J, that's exactly where we started. Go back and read. You interupted a discussion concerning this being equal to what Bush did. You interjected yourself into.


"Interjected"???? Hey, pal! It's an open forum. You want a private conversation use the little button provided for that. Otherwise, stop whining....

It doesn't matter at all. We've agreed to give that support. If you don't like it, and many don't, encourage your representatives to go back to the table and write a new agreement.

I have, and do write my reps. on this, I can tell you I always start out with US out of the UN, and UN out of the US!

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

You can have agreements, those we signed and ratified, and not be answering to the UN. We're only upholding our agreements.

you think libya is a un mission?

LOL!

I don't know know if that is Obama's ultimate goal.

you don't know?

LOL!

where ya been?

in south wales again?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

there is question about what he has to as part of a UN mission

From the begining you and others jump all the way to being subervant to the UN when any arguement suggest we adhere to our agreements.

I can't make you take out a loan for a care, but once you do, sign the paper, the law says you have to pay the note.

You interjected yourself into.

ah, detroit...

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

back to substance, ft today:

Libya’s western-backed rebels have used up their stock of crude oil, with no certainty about when production can resume from vulnerable south-eastern oil fields, the main exporting company under opposition control has said.

The small refinery at Tobruk, the maritime export terminal near the Egyptian border, shut down late last week after using up the last oil in storage, according to Abdel Jalil Mayouf, spokesman for Arabian Gulf Oil Co (Agoco).

The new authorities in eastern Libya have held major oil fields roughly 500 kilometres to the south since the February uprising, including the country’s largest, Sarir, with potential output of more than 200,000 barrels a day in normal circumstances.

But forces loyal to Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libya’s ruler for nearly 42 years, hold nearby towns to the west, keeping the rebel oil fields exposed to surprise attacks across the open desert. Lightly armed mercenaries in small 4x4 vehicles have slipped through despite Nato air cover for anti-Gaddafi forces.

FT.com / Middle East & North Africa - Libya rebels running out of crude stocks

days, not weeks?

nato, not the united states?

limited, not war?

nation building, anyone?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

It is absolutely nation building. From a different tact ofcourse. Obama is making alliances in some very dangerous ways, with some very dangerous people. And future Presidents trying to undo the harm that Obama is now building will damage the region for a good long time.


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

It is absolutely nation building. From a different tact ofcourse. Obama is making alliances in some very dangerous ways, with some very dangerous people. And future Presidents trying to undo the harm that Obama is now building will damage the region for a good long time.


j-mac

Indeed. It could be worse than losing Iran.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

What wordin of the War Powers Act differentiates between "lots of action" and "limited action", granting an exemption for the latter?

Oh.

There isn't any.

Ergo, the "President" is currently conducting an illegal war of personal choice on the side of al qeada in Libya.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541
§ 1541. Purpose and policy
.....

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

You seem to have ignored subparagraph (2) in which the President used by virtue of obtaining 3 UN Resolutions to commit armed forces to Libya.

Either way, as I've already made clear, the President did not envoke the Constitution in this situation. He envoked the War Powers Act.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

You seem to have ignored subparagraph (2) in which the President used by virtue of obtaining 3 UN Resolutions to commit armed forces to Libya.
You are joking right? You aren’t seriously claiming that Congress was referring to the United Nations when it said “specific statutory authorization” are you?

Either way, as I've already made clear, the President did not envoke the Constitution in this situation. He envoked the War Powers Act.

So what you are saying is that Obama thought it would be unconstitutional for Bush to invoke the War Powers Act to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities but NOW thinks it is constitutional for him to bomb the crap out of Libya for many months without congressional approval right?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The trouble with your questions are again the apple and tree frog type comparisons. The US is not invading Lybia on a pretext, outside the UN. As linked some time ago, there is question about what he has to as part of a UN mission. HAd he invaded Lybia like Bush did, sought to occupy the country and change regimes, building a base there, like Bush did, then you would have a proper comparison.

You didn’t even read my questions did you? If you did, you are such a political hack that you can’t even answer them because to do so would force you to admit that Obama is engaging in an act of war that he said was unconstitutional while he was running for President.

I won’t waste my time with you in the future unless it involves pointing out your hypocrisy.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

You didn’t even read my questions did you? If you did, you are such a political hack that you can’t even answer them because to do so would force you to admit that Obama is engaging in an act of war that he said was unconstitutional while he was running for President.
Partisan hacks are indeed forced to such things, and Boo is the picture included w/ the dictionary defintion.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

You seem to have ignored subparagraph (2) in which the President used by virtue of obtaining 3 UN Resolutions to commit armed forces to Libya.
UN resolutons, not being US law, are not statutory authorizations.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Partisan hacks are indeed forced to such things, and Boo is the picture included w/ the dictionary defintion.


In Boo's defense, and I don't agree with him on much of anything, but I am sure we all have blocks to ideas that differ from what we believe, and that is what makes this experiment in debate fun. I for one hope he never changes, although I did like the earlier Boo when he was more analytical and less entrenched in deep liberalism.

But I am sure he would say the same of me. So we go on.


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

You didn’t even read my questions did you? If you did, you are such a political hack that you can’t even answer them because to do so would force you to admit that Obama is engaging in an act of war that he said was unconstitutional while he was running for President.

I won’t waste my time with you in the future unless it involves pointing out your hypocrisy.



Yes, I did. But I'm not interested in diversions. And as I noted a couple depend on acceptance of the false comparison. To answer, you would have to accept your comparison, which simply isn't a valid comparison.

And that would apply to what you see as hypocracy. You see it that way because you seen unequal things as equal. As they are not, there is no hypocracy. Instead, there is an error in your reasoning.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

In Boo's defense, and I don't agree with him on much of anything, but I am sure we all have blocks to ideas that differ from what we believe, and that is what makes this experiment in debate fun. I for one hope he never changes, although I did like the earlier Boo when he was more analytical and less entrenched in deep liberalism.

But I am sure he would say the same of me. So we go on.


j-mac

J, I'm the same guy thinking the same way. The only real change is that I meet silliness with silliness more than I did when trying to enforce up2date's vision of WS.

And no, I wouldn't say the same of you. I always have seen you as a decent fellow who feeds himself junk (AT and such) and often reasons poorly. I wish you would try to understand more and seek sterotypical nonsense to excuse your errors less.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the "Pee Wee Herman defense"

"I know you are, but what am I".....lol

Now, this is you dodging the point. Going with the personal attack as opposed to assessing the accuracy of the point. As no one has every claimed we be subserviant to the UN, you merely throw up a strawman. there is little other word for it.

And if you as the bank are violating the contract I have recourse as well.

Do you believe that we should answer to the UN?

yes, there is recourse. But ignoreing it and pretending it doesn't exist isn't one of them. And no one says we answer to the UN. We answer to our agreements, our word, or signed agreements. Agian, you're failing to address the point and instead want to throw up something easier to beat. This is the very definition of strawman.



"Interjected"???? Hey, pal! It's an open forum. You want a private conversation use the little button provided for that. Otherwise, stop whining....

No one said you couldn't interject. Only noted that you did jump in. As someone jumping in, there is an expectation that your discussion is in that context.

I have, and do write my reps. on this, I can tell you I always start out with US out of the UN, and UN out of the US!

j-mac

Which is quite proper. But until the proper recourse has occured, we're obligated to our agreements. Pretending that they don't exist is not proper recourse.
 
Back
Top Bottom