Lybia

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

First Obama is incompetent because he chose not to attack Ghaddafi alone and wait for international support. Now, it's a war about oil with the US and all of Europe in on the cover up.

No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"

I think there are some very good points being raised that are being deflected as mere Obama criticisms. Bry - you've been very critical, and rightfully so, on past military actions. Lets look at some facts here
- we just attacked a soverign country that did not provoke us at all
- we have no plan
- no stated goal (save lives and oh by the way, we want Ghaddafi out)
- whats Libya going to look like after this? Will we need to spend $$$$$ to aid them in developing, will we be monitoring elections?

and remember this FACT
GWB went on tv and gave Saddam 48 hrs to leave office and safe passage or we would attack. Obama did no such thing, we went in firing. Who should get the peace prize?

Dont deflect, this is serious stuff and the criticisms are valid.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I think there are some very good points being raised that are being deflected as mere Obama criticisms. Bry - you've been very critical, and rightfully so, on past military actions. Lets look at some facts here
- we just attacked a soverign country that did not provoke us at all
- we have no plan
- no stated goal (save lives and oh by the way, we want Ghaddafi out)
- whats Libya going to look like after this? Will we need to spend $$$$$ to aid them in developing, will we be monitoring elections?

and remember this FACT
GWB went on tv and gave Saddam 48 hrs to leave office and safe passage or we would attack. Obama did no such thing, we went in firing. Who should get the peace prize?


Dont deflect, this is serious stuff and the criticisms are valid.

I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

I'm of the mindset that don't need to be there. Period. Q/G/Khadaffi is a pretty evil dictator, but there are alot of those. where do we draw the line? is this oil driven? human rights? flexing abit for some of the other countries? I don't know.

As long as it stays at this level, I can live with it (i.e. we are truly just helping to level the playing field) but I don't want to see troops on the ground there, any more than I want to see them in Afgan or Iraq. Provided, we actually do hand control to the UK or France, both of them have a longer history in that part of the world, let them deal with it.

Oh, and Spence isn't 'wrong' this was not a declared war, so technically it isn't a war. but we're dropping missles, so lets call it 'war-like?'

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I
Oh, and Spence isn't 'wrong' this was not a declared war, so technically it isn't a war. but we're dropping missles, so lets call it 'war-like?'

I think the last declared war was WWII, no?
Gates said it was "tantamount to war"
I have no clue what "tantamount" means but I bet its more like war than not....

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;846825]I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

yes, Obama and Biden, perhaps they can impeach each other

[Piscator]

This isn't about Newt Gingrich or Mother's Day.........

Obama is a hypocrite (although the question specifically says Iran, Obama’s answer covers all military action except self defense.) Glad all the media networks bring this stuff up.

(Boston Globe) Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

(Obama) A: 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. 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. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2...ar_+_Peace.htm

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Obama is a hypocrite (although the question specifically says Iran, Obama’s answer covers all military action except self defense.) Glad all the media networks bring this stuff up.

Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence

Did you read the whole thing? Question was on Iran, Obama answered for ALL military actions.

Read the whole thing Spence and try to answer with an intellectual post, not a one sentence comment that doesn't have any worth.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Did you read the whole thing? Question was on Iran, Obama answered for ALL military actions.

Read the whole thing Spence and try to answer with an intellectual post, not a one sentence comment that doesn't have any worth.

Yes, twice actually

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, twice actually

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence

Read it again then. Obama says “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. 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. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

I’m not Taking it out of context at all.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....

[mosholu]

I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Read it again then. Obama says “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. 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. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....

War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"

The only one flipping around here is Obama.....and your expectations for Obama