Obama's illegal war

[ugonow]

Interesting----www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/18/obamas-illegal-war/-

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Seems like the Washington Times is stretching a bit. This is a UN sanctioned action...thusly, member countries will be taking action.

[reasonfreedom]

It is U.S. sanctioned, UN would never sanction it without us they are a bunch of babies. If we said no, there is no way in heck that the UN would say yes. UN=US all other countries are just reinforcements otherwise they would have gone in a long time ago.

[Shirina]

If we said no, there is no way in heck that the UN would say yes.

Not necessarily in this case. The French and British are more than capable of dealing with Libya, especially since this is in their sphere of influence.

[fairlycrazy23]

It does seem to violate the un rules of interfering in internal afairs, but I just the article so I don't really know the details on un rules

[Deleted]

Maybe not a kind or nice way of looking at it but I think we should keep our nose out of it. Although Libya has in the past supported terrorist I don't know if they are still doing so. If not then we have no reason to go in there other than we don't like them. They don't even affect our oil supply. So...I think that if the people want to revolt, let them. If they don't then let them be killed one by one. It's none of our business.

[Deleted]

I think I remember an informal poll here about a wk ago when most of us on both sides of the aisle were in agreement that we should keep out. Now here we are though.
I'm to hungry to find that thread.

[billisonboard]

Mar 19, 2011 17:47:09 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Maybe not a kind or nice way of looking at it but I think we should keep our nose out of it. Although Libya has in the past supported terrorist I don't know if they are still doing so. If not then we have no reason to go in there other than we don't like them. They don't even affect our oil supply. So...I think that if the people want to revolt, let them. If they don't then let them be killed one by one. It's none of our business.

Are we going to set ourselves up to attempt to nation build again?

[Deleted]

Are we going to set ourselves up to attempt to nation build again?
I hope not for no real reason. The truth is that if we have something to do with removing him then there won't be a ruling party or person. That creates a leadership void which in turn will mean a lot of internal fighting & we will be in the middle. Just a dumb move for no real gain.

[Bluerobin]

Definitely Obama should be impeached! The nerve of him. He can find money for another war, and wants to take away entitlements.

[Deleted]

We are helping with the initial stages of an allied action... we've said we will not put boots on the ground... so as long as that holds, i'm good with it... I have no problem helping out Britain, France, Italy, etc. on a united action... I'm glad we're not leading unilaterally or committing more...

[Bluerobin]

$600,000 a pop for each of the 112 missles launched. I want my entitlements!

[privateinvestor]

EDITORIAL: Obama’s illegal war

Congress, not the U.N., should authorize force against Libya

Congress was too divided over Libya so France's President Sargozy took the lead helped by Great Britain to form a form a five country coalition to launch strikes on Libya designated targets and to disarm Moammar Khddafy's Air Defenses as I understand it...Obama is in Brazil trying to appease President Dilma Rousself who is widly popular in a multiculteral society but she is known for having a violent temper which Obama may come to know because of her frustrations with him

[reasonfreedom]

I don't really care if it is so called a collection of countries, we are still committing to war. This is an unconstitutional war and Obama is just as bad as Bush(actually worse). This is a civil war both sides had weapons and both sides made advances. If the U.S. had another civil war, I guess it would be alright for the UN to come in and bomb one side against the will of our country. This is ridiculous, it is just an abuse of power. What if the rebel side ends up being a corrupt government that sends terrorist over to our country? Why don't we just make it the United countries of the world and we are in charge, then we can start using our tax dollars to support easily viable social programs for the 3rd world countries that need it. Obama to me just made a huge mistake, I am curious to see all of the protesting groups about war. I think you won't see many from the liberal side, because as long as they have a liberal leader it is alright to go to war without threat to our own country. Republicans won't protest unless it is a not fair protest. As far as I am concerned we are carrying on the same BS president legacy on a downward path. There are many other countries that have rebel groups, but you don't see us interfering with them.

[privateinvestor]

Yea but don't forget Libya is not the only "Hot Spot" in that region you still have Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Iraq, and Senegal that are "Hot Zones" and could pose a threat to the flow of OIL.....

[Deleted]

Good thing we're in Brazil then, hey PI... neogtiating on how to get our hands on their vast supply... lol...

Reason, if it goes beyond the current plan of helping to initiate the first few days of attack... and if we end up committing troups to the ground... i will be out there protesting. I am fine with the current level of support to an international action... but would not support more under current circumstances...

[privateinvestor]

Obama said in Brazil and I am paraphrasing somewhat "The United States doesn't simply recognize Brazil's rise to power on the world stage but we support it enthusiastically"..


But when asked to explain about the tarrifs and resistance for Brazil to be in the UN Security Council he was speechless again...that was not in his notes...So Tom Donlon had to place several calls back to the Obama economic and security teams to get an answer..


Nice Trip?? I don't think so but maybe things will be better in Chile.??

Also today Obama has to chat with his national security staff and with Hillary Clinton to get up to speed on what is going on in Libys and who is acting for him as the Commander in Chief at the Pentagon ?? Is it Biden, Clapper or Napolitano?? Or otherwise known as the gang of three who can't shoot straight..

[Deleted]

Wow... Obama makes UN Security Council decisions by himself now? ...

There are tarrif issues, as well as issues with how readily we can make our goods accessible in Brazil... I'm guessing these will be discussed in private? ... I'm thinking that's the best place to negotiate? I'm not sure Palin would agree... but...

[privateinvestor]

There are tariff issues, as well as issues with how readily we can make our goods accessible in Brazil...


The question is will Obama be able to rectify our US Trade Policies that have imposed tariffs on Brazil

Or does he need to confer with his Trade Representative or can he make that call?? Apparently he was blinded sided by this tarriff issue for Brazil's ethanol and cotton..


President Rousself wants answers now and not in the future if Obama is going to be successful in Brazil ..

[reasonfreedom]

Mar 20, 2011 9:00:02 GMT -5 oped said:

Good thing we're in Brazil then, hey PI... neogtiating on how to get our hands on their vast supply... lol...

Reason, if it goes beyond the current plan of helping to initiate the first few days of attack... and if we end up committing troups to the ground... i will be out there protesting. I am fine with the current level of support to an international action... but would not support more under current circumstances...

It is good to know that you think dropping bombs or even nuclear bombs is not bad. As long as we don't have troops on the ground, that his horrible logic. I am sorry but whether you kill a person with a rifle or a missile it is still killing. I wonder if I start a large revolution and the UN starts bombing our bases and air missiles, if you would still be good as long as they don't send ground troops. Supporting half of a war is so illogical, it is like calling war civil.

[Deleted]

I'm not big on nuclear. I think bombing should always be as thought out and... hmm... deliberate? ... i'm not sure the word i'm looking for... I think civilian casualties should always be as limited as possible... but then we aren't exactly avoiding them in Afghanistan are we? Sometimes quick and aggressive can save later... but nuclear has long term impact beyond other bombing methods.

The point isn't you starting a rebellion... its how the US government treats the rebellion... (in essence, we have constant rebellion, because our governmental system allows us to constantly question our authority and replace our government with frequency)... If at some point we were to start bombing our own civilians and trying to wipe them out in military armed action and going against international human rights standards... then i'm guessing most of us would be on the side of the rebellion... because that is not consistent with US tenants... and thus would welcome international support against a rogue tyrant who has usurped the US constitution...

My logic is that i don't want to commit us to a ground war... but i have no problem lending a hand to an international, coalition action...

[Deleted]

PI... the joint statement points to ongoing progress..

[rovo]

I thought Congress had to be consulted / advised and approve of the use of force with the exception of an attack on our country. What is going on here?

Also, doesn't the U.N. Charter strictly forbid interference with a country's internal problems?

[reasonfreedom]

Mar 20, 2011 9:45:02 GMT -5 rovo said:

I thought Congress had to be consulted / advised and approve of the use of force with the exception of an attack on our country. What is going on here?

Also, doesn't the U.N. Charter strictly forbid interference with a country's internal problems?

come on, didn't you read the constitution? As long as we don't send land troops in we can blow the heck out of anything we want.

[privateinvestor]

Mar 20, 2011 9:36:51 GMT -5 oped said:

PI... the joint statement points to ongoing progress..

What else do you think the joint statment would say??


That Obama and Rousself are not getting along and have reached an impasse because of our prior trading agreements with Brazil...??

But who knows Obama might be successful and if it means more jobs here from his trip then I am all for it.

But I am APolitical and retired military and have a hard time understanding why he is not on conference calls in the Pentagon as our Commander in Chief so he can be involved with what is going on in Libya....must be a Marine thing I guess??

[rovo]

It seems to me that Obama attacking another country without the consent of Congress, is / could be an impeachable offense. We have a Constitution and the U.N. has a charter but both documents appear to have been breached by this Security Council Resolution.

[Deleted]

He is on conference calls... we can have them anywhere these days

This morning, President Obama had a secure conference call beginning at 9:20 a.m. local time with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham, and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough.

President Obama received a briefing from General Ham on U.S. military operations in Libya, as part of the international effort to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

The President also discussed the ongoing military and diplomatic consultations taking place on the situation in Libya. The President offered his thanks and admiration to General Ham and asked that he communicate that to all of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who are carrying out this operation
content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-gets-update-on-libya/1

As i said on the other thread, he's also traveling with key advisors...

[Shirina]

It seems to me that Obama attacking another country without the consent of Congress, is / could be an impeachable offense.

I believe that the president only has to notify congress, after which the president has 60 days with an extra 30 day withdrawal period. During those 60 days, congress does not need to approve. After that time has elapsed, congressional approval is required.

[TD2K]

$600,000 a pop for each of the 112 missles launched. I want my entitlements!

Maybe they were about to reach their 'best before date' in which case they were almost free.

[rovo]

I believe that the president only has to notify congress, after which the president has 60 days with an extra 30 day withdrawal period. During those 60 days, congress does not need to approve. After that time has elapsed, congressional approval is required.

I think you are referring to the "War Powers Act" (below) and it requires that we be under attack or serious threat of attack.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

[/size]