| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
You guys make it sound like we didn't just declare war against a sovereign government that wasn't even threatening us.  | ||
| Hootowl |
If your implication is that Bush "rushed" into Iraq, please explain how 13 years of failed UN resolutions is rushing. But I agree, Obama, in my opinion, was just being prudent. If one of my Generals tells me that establishing a no-fly zone is the same thing as declaring war (taking out air force and air defense) I guess I'd tend to believe them, and not pander to the folks crying for a no fly zone who have no real idea of what it takes to put in place. John McCain is one of these. I'm fairly disappointed in him since he should know better (and since he was my horse in the last election). No, I think that thinking about sending in the military for week or so was probably a smart move. Whether that was a deliberate action, or just the result of an inability to make a decision, I don't know. But I would like to know what's next. How long are we going to keep this up? Maybe we don't have to. Libya doesn't have an unlimited supply of aircraft, and they didn't fly to Iran when the shooting started like Saddam's boys did. There may not be any left for us to keep from flying. | ||
| Blake |
I think the thread title is out of line too. >>> also is there any country we've helped that is thankful for that help? More than I can name. Some off the top of my head include Great Britain, China, the Philippines, Guam, France, Holland/Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Czech Republic, Poland, Israel, S. Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq (Kurds and Shia), Ukraine. Some we should be thankful to for their help include many of the above plus Russian people. I have no idea if what we are doing via the no-fly zone over Libya is the best course. It seems like it could be. What is bewildering are comments from partisan Dems like... >>> Why should more of my friends lose limbs needlessly. "Needlessly"? I reject that premise. Go shove it up your miserable partisan bung hole. Why should we stand idly by as terrorist despots commit mass murder? >>> +1000 for Obama not rushing in to every situation like a warmonger "every situation?" Inane exaggeration like that pretty much declares to all the author's incompetence or dishonesty. I have no use for it or for debating those who employ it. Good advice to practiced deceivers is that they would do well to get some integrity. Truth matters. The effort in Libra seems like an incredible rush to war to me, at least compared to the years of sanctions against Saddam Hussein while he continued to murder untold thousands. Or our unending diplomatic efforts concerning N. Korea. Concerning Saddam Hussein, what we heard then... "Why not give peace a chance?" "Why not let the sanctions have time to work?" "A decision of this magnitude ought to be approved by congress." In the case of Libya, we have not tried sanctions, not received any congressional approval, not even defined the mission objective. What is the exit strategy? Iraq invaded Kuwait and attacked Israel. What nation has Libya invaded or attacked to provoke our war against them? Saddam Refused to cooperate with WMD disarmament. Gadafi turned over his entire stock of nuke fuel and equipment years ago. Why are we there? What is the mission? The blinding hypocrisy and dishonesty is beyond the pale. Give peace a chance? Unless the president is a Democrat. Then rush in with no stated objective at the behest of the most incompetent failure-plagued organization known to mankind, ever, the United Nations. It's enough to make a man vomit. | ||
| Sifo |
If that week or so deciding on this was a good move, it should have been done in congress. They are the ones that have the Constitutional authority to declare war. The CIC has limited authority when our country is under direct threat. I can't see anyway that you can claim the US was under direct threat of Libya. It's one more example of BO going beyond his powers as President. This from a man who has defined his whole political career as an anti-war politician. This is a man who has a lot to explain. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Yes Hootowl, just about everyone forgets about the 13 years of failed U.N. resolutions. And the occasional shot at our planes in the no-flyzone. Short of any U.N. Pilots getting shot down and held prisoner by the greenies I don't see any troops setting foot in Libya. However, the hole situation in scary. Are we gonna truly "back" the rebels?...upon request too? I guess I should say "they" not "We",..because it will be the U.N. coalition. We started with the missile's because we are capable. Alot of other U.N. countries can take it from here. What ever happened to that new Iranian torpedo? 230 mph in the water??? Aren't their ships in the mediterranean sea too? This could blow up into a crazy world war with one false move. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
+1 to several folks Put simply the US is the not global 911 service. We have our own problems to deal with here so let them kill each other if they want to. If they have to bleed for their freedom then maybe they'll realize how important it is. That vision of how vital freedom is, and how fragile, has been lost in the US unfortunately IMHO. To test this theory think of a topic, any topic, and I bet you can think of any number of LAWS relating to it, limiting you from it etc etc... Take riding a motorcycle; legal requirements 1. sales tax 2. vehicle tax 3. state/county/city taxes (Omaha has 'wheel' tax for example) 4. income tax on the money you made in the first place to pay for 1-3 5. insurance (mainly so you can handle a lawsuit) 6. helmet laws, yes a safety device is a no brainer but it's another LAW, we are not FREE to choose not to wear a special hat in many states 7. license plate orientation, in SD it's illegal to have it mounted sideways... another LAW 8. drivers license requirements 9. motorcycle license endorsement 10. know and obey the countless traffic laws that vary from town to town and state to state *Sioux Falls has a law against tinted windows, I had a buddy get a fix it ticket for a FACTORY tinted windscreen on his stock FLHX. His Rinehart's were also too loud and thus illegal as well. That's just a few points on ONE topic, I could go on but you get the point... so who exactly is FREE again? Yes I will admit many laws are good ideas but does the gov't really need to enact legislation for all of them? superdave | ||
| Hootowl |
"Gadafi turned over his entire stock of nuke fuel and equipment years ago." Yes, interestingly enough, it was right after we PLOWED through the Iraqi army in 2003 in a very short period of time. Libya very nearly threw their nuclear program at us, as if to say, "What? No! These aren't mine. I don't know whose they are. Must have been one of my old room mates nuclear material. Take it, I don't care." "And the occasional shot at our planes in the no-flyzone" Yep. Happened not irregularly. Only made the news once though. It didn't fit the narrative. Same with Iran shooting at ships as they go through the straits of Hormuz. We sank an Iranian gun boat that had fired on our battle group in 1993. Never made the papers. They made some threatening gestures a couple of years ago and you'd think the world was coming to an end. Newsies...you never know what they'll get excited about. | ||
| Fahren |
Blake, you made me laugh, sounding like an astrologist: The effort in Libra seems like an incredible rush to war to me Dude, that's like, so Supermoon, man. LOL :-) | ||
| Budgolf |
Right or wrong, speaking as one of the guys that has to go do the shooting, I'm getting tired of fighting, and losing friends for ungrateful people in other countries. All of the bastards can kill each other off as far as I'm concerned. Time to stay home and take care of US. | ||
| Hootowl |
I am so feeling ya brother. | ||
| Sifo |
And the occasional shot at our planes in the no-flyzone As I understand it this was pretty much a daily occurrence. Fortunately they were terribly infective. Yes, interestingly enough, it was right after we PLOWED through the Iraqi army in 2003 in a very short period of time. Libya very nearly threw their nuclear program at us, as if to say, "What? No! These aren't mine. I don't know whose they are. Must have been one of my old room mates nuclear material. Take it, I don't care." Exactly! And in a few short years we have gone from Gaddafi fearing our intervention to mocking our intervention. This comes from having a weak and ineffective leader. Blake, you need to add this one to your list... "It's an illegal war!" The sad thing is that in this case it really is an illegal war. BO has no authority to do what he did. Being asked by the Arab League doesn't make it legal. Going to the UN doesn't make it legal. The authority to make it legal has to come from Congress. Failing to do so makes it illegal. Add to that we have already overstepped the no-fly zone and are attacking ground troops that are no threat at all to enforcing the no-fly zone. Does BO really think we can walk away from this in a matter of days as he has stated? He hasn't stated who is going to take over for us. I guess he didn't have time to work that out in his rush to an illegal war. I really don't know who is going to step up to the plate with the ability to enforce a no-fly zone. Egypt is about the only neighbor that could ever have stood a chance in doing so. Of course right now they really aren't in a position to do so. Maybe Chad will step up to the plate. Or perhaps another country that can project air power from a carrier fleet. Then again maybe BO will do it himself on his flying unicorn. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I say we arm both sides and kill the winners. | ||
| Hootowl |
"on his flying unicorn." Ain't gonna happen. Libya has griffins, mortal enemies of the unicorn. As awesome as unicorns are, he will be overwhelmed almost immediately. | ||
| Sifo |
Ain't gonna happen. Libya has griffins, mortal enemies of the unicorn. As awesome as unicorns are, he will be overwhelmed almost immediately. I would still be in favor of that! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The LAST thing Obama wanted to do was to take any sort of military action. Use of the military is pouring poison on the trees at Auburn. The far left political base like Code Pink and Moveon.org detest the military. They are already pissed that we are still in Iraq, Obama approved an expansion of the troop levels in Afghanistan, and Gitmo is still open for business. Adding "physical violence" in Libya is just icing on the cake. | ||
| Sifo |
I really hate when I'm in agreement with Dennis Kucinich. I think I just threw up a little. | ||
| Xodot |
Uhhhh - hate to tell you, you are in the wrong war D'oh. nevermind... Hey I'm just a Canuk and no expert on US history, but didn't France support the south during the civil war??? | ||
| Sifo |
They supported us in the revolutionary war. Personally I think it was just an excuse to shoot at some British soldiers. I don't think they had anything to do with the civil war though. I could be wrong on this, but it would really surprise me. | ||
| Xodot |
Yea I thought it was about natural resources and agricultural products the French were interested in securing for their home market. I am led to believe their assistance was not huge, but was present. Maybe a left over sentiment from the other tiff in the colony 90 years earlier????} | ||
| Cowboy |
lying Ba2345ds promised all the suport we needed but never showed up with any thing. I thank we can count on the same kind of suport this time.(A leopard just dont change his spots.) | ||
| Cowboy |
By the way I dont know if he is a coward or not. But I do know he could manage a smow-cone stand. | ||
| Doerman |
Very difficult to figure this one out. The FoxNews clip with Kucinich highlights the Constitution angle. Dennis is probably right in that a violation of the Constitution has probably been committed. That will blow over and swept under the carpet after a while. Probably after a lengthy debate over whether US forces were committed to an act of war or not. As in define: “War”. My question is more along the line of, why did The President jump into this so quickly? The only reason I can see is to gain respect for his persona (he sees it synonymous with US) in the international community. I believe that to be the rationale. However… Getting mixed up in a civil war is not a good thing. And many previous conflicts were started on the premise that luring the US into it helps the “tribal cause”. I read a good opinion piece in USAToday on this subject. Here’s an excerpt: In Bosnia's conflict of the early 1990s, for example, the most influential Muslim politician, Omer Behmen, later told me that his whole strategy was to " put up a fight for long enough to bring in the international community." The result? Three years of war and 100,000 dead. So now the question is: What’s next? I am personally on the fence on this one; fearing the worst (protracted action and US involvement) and hoping for a speedy end to Gadaffi’s rule. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
This is the third violation of the Constitution thus far under Obama: Signing into law Obamacare (and later ignoring a clear judge's order to cease and desist implementation of the law) Unilaterally determining NOT to defend the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that HE determined that it wasn't Constitutional (abrogating his responsibility as top enforcer of US law) Unilaterally taking the US into war without a declaration of war by Congress. I'm sure there are more I am forgetting, and I'm sure he isn't done yet. Where are all the lefties bitching about violations of the Constitution now when REAL violations are clearly taking place? Hypocrite phonies.  | ||
| Aesquire |
A few comments...I'll start here. What nation has Libya invaded or attacked to provoke our war against them? The United States. Germany. England. Scotland.... I'm sure the list is longer. Gaddaffi is a terrorist, mass murderer, and we now have confirmation he ordered the nightclub bombing in Germany and the 747 bombing & crash. (his agent just got out of jail and sent home because he was "sick". They had a party. He's made an awesome recovery. Perhaps I should go for Libyan Medicine. ) Wasn't there a Brit Policewoman murdered from his Embassy in London? Yep. here's her pic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/a pril/17/newsid_2488000/2488369.stm Bad dude, I'd be happy if he was no longer around. He seems to have surrounded himself with hostages. I say, put a price on his head. I'm not usually in agreement with Obama on his foreign policy. I'm probably still not, since I have no clue what it is. He won't tell. Looks like Hillary has done a great job getting the Coalition together. ( damn, i hate to say that )  As to the constitutionality of Obama's actions in this war? I'm not sure he's actually in violation. SOP is the Prez has a certain time frame where he can act without congressional approval, since you can't get that mob of primadonnas to do much fast, unless it looks real good on TV. That's how we got the Patriot Act, and the scum complaining about a law they voted for and claimed not to have read. Come on, you jerks, it was what? 7 pages? Any congressman who votes on a bill that short & simple without reading it to at least check that it's not evil should be sent to gitmo, and a special election called with the headline, "your congressman was an idiot and too lazy to not be a traitor. Pick someone with honor this time please." So Obama or any Prez should, IMHO be able to blow up a few things without asking first. Commit his nation to a long term war? No. That's the law. For anyone who comes up with the BS, "why are we fighting X when there is terrible stuff happening at Y?" Grow up. Do YOU want us to be planetary police? Do You want to send troops to Y? I'll give you this, I don't agree with who we let murder people and who we try and stop either. Bet you we disagree on who. As for "its all about the oil" well, duh! As for "it's so we can steal the oil" you are a liar and a fool. When have we? go back to porn, jerk. ( I WISH we'd steal the oil. Then we could afford to give the Troops a raise. ) Now, I'm still on the fence about Libya. Gaddaffi deserves a noose, but I don't know the people he's killing, today, or if I want to be associated with them. Lot to be said for letting people settle their own affairs. Pity it seldom comes out with good people in charge. My objections are simple. Not as to the IF we should intervene, that discussion was never had with the American people, and we already have started shooting. I have major issues with the "signals" the Generals and politicians are putting out. How the heck can you tell a dictator you are not going to insist he loses, while you bomb his troops? WTF? It's like giving him permission to slaughter. Norway, ( a damned sensible Country, sometimes, and a willing ally in a lot of things they get zero credit for ) turned their planes around when they couldn't get a straight answer on who was in charge. They were willing and eager to do what the U.S. asked, but seem to be too smart to put Norwegian Pilots under French Command. What Bozo is in charge? They couldn't get an answer. Neither can we. ( to any native French folk... please take little offense to this. The French soldiers and airmen are brave, skilled, and patriotic. Unfortunately, they have French Generals. French Generals and Politicians haven't been a good crew to fight alongside since Napoleon got kicked out. If you guys ever bring back the Bourbon Kings, you have a shot at world domination. Until then, I like you as friends, but I have no desire to live through another aftermath of bad French Generals leaving another mess to pick up after. Vietnam ring a bell? ) Speaking of France. I could be wrong, but I thought the French were neutral to sneakily imperialistic to the Union side in our Civil War. The English were on the Confederates side. ( but not active participants. ) Cheap Cotton was a must for the English mills. The French did try and steal Mexico, while we were at war. ( see "Two Mules For Sister Sara" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065134/ ) Prayers to the troops. | ||
| Aesquire |
Well, crap. I really should check the news before ranting. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/21/ dem_congressman_were_in_libya_because_of_oil.html http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-do es-not-have-power-unde http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/21/exclusive- libyans-use-journalists-human-shields/ | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Take a break | ||
| Sifo |
Q&A with BO from back in 2007... http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/ CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
It seems he understood this a few short years ago. The rest of the Q&A shows other areas where he doesn't do as he says, but that's for another discussion. When BO said that this would last days, not weeks, I think I misunderstood him. I was under the impression that he thought meaningful objectives (that are yet to be defined) could be achieved that fast. I have come to understand that what he really meant was that US control of our troops will last days, not weeks. It seems that he wants to give control of our troops to an as yet unidentified entity. I understand the idea of not rushing into a conflict so that unforeseen things are avoided as best as possible, but this is just completely unacceptable. This isn't a detail that was over looked. This is who is going to give our troops orders that may get them killed. What kind of POS goes into a conflict without Congressional authority, planning to give control over to an authority to be figured out some days later. This is probably the most irresponsible thing I have ever seen a President do in my life!  | ||
| Buellkowski |
Not trolling, just asking because I don't know the answer: did Reagan secure congressional approval prior to the U.S.'s 1986 bombing of Libya? | ||
| Sifo |
Not trolling, just asking because I don't know the answer: did Reagan secure congressional approval prior to the U.S.'s 1986 bombing of Libya? My understanding is that he didn't get or ask for Congressional authority in that case. I'm pretty sure that he did speak to Congress about what was being done though (I believe a requirement under the War Powers Act of 1973). That bombing was in response to a terrorist attack that targeted US military personnel however. | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't believe so. But then, Libya had just carried out several terrorists attacks against our service members stationed in Europe. I'd call that a direct threat. |
