reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 20, 2011 12:38:54 GMT -5
President Obama has illegally seceded U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:34:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2011 12:39:47 GMT -5
lol...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 20, 2011 12:48:02 GMT -5
President Obama has illegally seceded U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations. I have to wonder whether or not the Pentagon likes playing a secondary role in the Libyan Conflict and taking directions from France and Great Britain?? General McCafferty (USA Ret) spoke to this yesterday on MSNBC and he was very dilplomatic on national TV but behind doors in the Pentagon you have to think the Ole Generals are not used to this new role for them.... I have emailed this question to my unit's webmaster and the response has been "No Comment" by those on active duty but those not on active duty seem to be puzzled or trying to find our more about this issue, I guess? If I do get any replies from the active force about the US Military taking a back seat in the Libyan Conflict I will repost it here..but their responses will NOT contain the Unit Designation, or where they are stationed for obvious reasons but I think this subject may be restricted by the powers to be in the military..
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 20, 2011 12:55:34 GMT -5
I wonder how many more wars the U.S. can be in before we actually realize the bill. You figure after Iraq they would be like " HOLY #($*#". People were complaining about the cost of the Iraq war, now we have 2 more. I think they are going to need a bigger printing press, might as well put that on the tax payer bill. Oh wait, they just used electronic credit now screw the presses lol.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 20, 2011 13:23:00 GMT -5
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?? I guess no one ever told you , while Marines depend a lot on "runners" for communications between units, the POTUS has more secure and faster ways of communication with who ever , wherever..including the space staion if he is in the mood. I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about is he getting the word or is involved P. I.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 20, 2011 13:31:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 20, 2011 14:50:40 GMT -5
Why are we starting wars when America is broke? Surely we have given that rotten b@st*rd a new lease on life as everyone unites against the colonialists. OK TT ..What would have preferred Ambassador Rice do at the UN Security Council Vote for the NO Fly Zone....abstain or vote NO..
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 20, 2011 14:59:33 GMT -5
I read it, not sure where it pertains to me, see this part highlighted in red, "Anyone using more than one account will be banned with no warning. This will also include regular members who post as a Guest using a different name. " So since deziloooooo has been my only NIC, never have posted as a "guest ", a possible explanation? Actually in my post # 34, I did post a ...it means , realize former marines are seriouse folk, but for grunts, humor is ok to have too.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 20, 2011 15:04:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:34:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2011 17:32:17 GMT -5
While we are busy solving everyone elses problems we can continue putting our own "hold". Maybe forever? Maybe not.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Mar 20, 2011 18:46:46 GMT -5
Who gives a rat's ass what the Pentagon likes or dislikes. They get their marching orders and they have to execute the orders.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 20, 2011 19:05:19 GMT -5
Remember it wasn't too long ago Libya was on the human rights council. But this brings up another point why I think the UN is a joke, we are actually attacking a member of the UN because of there internal activities, presumably some human rights type violations, which we are a accused of doing, even by our own government, maybe we can enter UN resolution to attack ourselves.
We should not be part of the UN because a large number of there members are dictators, despots and other unsavory types. We should stick with NATO and create new alliances between like minded countries.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 20, 2011 20:15:06 GMT -5
Does the UN pick up our $100,000,000 a day cost of this no fly zone?
How about Saudia Arabia picking up the tab? We are definitely past the point of no return on the value of the dollar. It is toast, but EVEN A DOLLAR WILL NOT GET YOU AN ORDER OF TOAST NOWADAYS....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:34:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2011 20:55:16 GMT -5
Value, do you have a source for your numbers? Thanks.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 20, 2011 21:03:53 GMT -5
Value, do you have a source for your numbers? Thanks. No. They were tossing that number out tonight, on either msnbc or cnn, not as a criticism, just as a cost..... Each Cruise missle goes for $500,000 a toss. Stealth bombers on 36 hour runs from Missouri do not come cheap either. It is probably higher than what I stated.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:34:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2011 21:38:12 GMT -5
Ok. Thanks.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 21, 2011 7:43:30 GMT -5
Value, I got $600,000 per missle on FOX. So we are in the ball park.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Mar 21, 2011 12:13:06 GMT -5
By John Bresnahan & Jonathan Aallen, Politico
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Read the rest of the story at Politico.com
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1) tonight issued the following statement regarding President Barack Obama's decision to begin military action in Libya without securing Congressional authority.
[quote]"I am concerned by President Obama's decision to commit U.S. forces in Libya without involving Congress. This action may require substantial U.S. resources. While there is no question that Gaddafi's regime is brutalizing the people of Libya, launching military action against another nation requires Congress be fully informed so we can exercise our Constitutional authority.
"I therefore call on Speaker Boehner to call an emergency session, returning Members to Washington, so the President may address a joint session of Congress and be given the opportunity to make the case for war."[/quote][/i]source: nation.foxnews.com/libya/2011/03/20/house-democrats-freak-out-after-obama-takes-military-action-libyaThe source may be suspect but the quotes appear to be legit. I smell trouble brewing.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 12:23:30 GMT -5
The source may be suspect but the quotes appear to be legit. I smell trouble brewing.
The same story is being reported on CBS radio right now so it could be accurate..??
|
|
|
Post by ty on Mar 21, 2011 12:29:29 GMT -5
This is just going to burden the American taxpayers once again. Creating ll these unnecessary wars cost money, and as usual, the taxpayers are given the bill for it. What most people have failed to see about Libya and what is now happening, is that a month ago Libya was not having all this chaos and violence until Ostupid told the people to rise up against their leader and take him down. then a week ago, the people over in Libya were crying out where is Odumbo since he told us to take down our leader. America has blood on its hands, and now we know why a lot of foreign country hate us. what Obama did her was wrong in instigating and starting this war.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 21, 2011 12:31:32 GMT -5
I really don't know the legalities of useing force when deemed necessary by a PONTUS, any PONTUS, and forgetting this one, one does not want to tie a PONTUS hands when faced with such decisions, threats or actions,. As far as a act of WAR, when have we declared WAR on anyone, since the second one ? I am sure Congress was notified through the different leaderships of the House and Senate, I am sure it was discussed. I really don't know the legal obligations of a PONTUS regarding acts useing the armed forces of the US regarding such actions beyond having to go to Congress if a action is over a certain time frame, thinking 90 days, for financing , discussion or authority, one or more of those wevents or something else. War power act isn't it? Here it is, have fun. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 12:36:16 GMT -5
Obama's illegal war
Yea but don't look for the Marines to landing on the shores of Tripoli...they may even be shutting it down by the end of this week..
But what will happen if Khadahfy is not taken out?? He may agree to some peace treaty to keep in power and that is not going to do much for the Libyan Rebels....or he may agree to fly down to Rio and spend the rest of his days on the beautiful Brazil beaches and checkout the lovelies from Epanema..
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 21, 2011 14:20:04 GMT -5
I really don't know the legalities of useing force when deemed necessary by a PONTUS, any PONTUS, and forgetting this one, one does not want to tie a PONTUS hands when faced with such decisions, threats or actions,. Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. 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. And who was it that said this? Why, none other than Jr. Senator Barack Obama. www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/Seriously Dezi? The War Powers Act of 1973 was put in to place to prevent exactly this. PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) 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. Christ...Bush actually had congressional approval and the left still whines about Bush's "unconstitutional war". Obama bombs a country and we get "I have no clue what the rules are but it's ok. I'm sure he played by the rules".
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 21, 2011 14:51:33 GMT -5
Florida, I was going to post the same information but you beat me . I wanted to add with the whole 90 day thing that the president has to inform congress, which not all of congress was informed. In the amendment it states "congress" not "individuals in congress". There has been multiple congressman that came forth that said they were not informed, hence an unconstitutional war. Yes, if you bomb another country without the legal approval of the country it is considered an act of war.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 21, 2011 14:57:34 GMT -5
I think you are referring to the "War Powers Act" (below) and it requires that we be under attack or serious threat of attack. [/size] [/quote] Here is the info Dezi for the time period. In here it states the congress as a whole, which Obama failed to do. In factual relevance Bush had abided by the law better than Obama did. Obama should be impeached by law, but he is a Hollywood superstar and will get his free passes.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 21, 2011 15:01:19 GMT -5
"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 notification did not matter anyway since he did not abide by the statement above.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 21, 2011 15:05:06 GMT -5
Florida, I was going to post the same information but you beat me . I wanted to add with the whole 90 day thing that the president has to inform congress, which not all of congress was informed. In the amendment it states "congress" not "individuals in congress". There has been multiple congressman that came forth that said they were not informed, hence an unconstitutional war. Yes, if you bomb another country without the legal approval of the country it is considered an act of war. I said I didn't know the legalities, with all respect I am not accepting any one heres explanation either . Even though you my be correct, I doubt your expertise to be objective and definitive on the subject. . I am sure he covered his back side on this and he and his people did what was necessary to satisfy the legalities of his actions. I guess we will find out. What I see is criticism hitting him, why not. McCain not against the action, but that he should have acted quicker.{I guess he wanted him to act unilaterally, so if McCain was president , it would have been action, but with out the international community support,UN, NATO, Arab League, just us, and then we would not be able to let others take over, that's how I read it. Then there are those who say no intervention, and as has been reported, if so, with in a day or two at the most, Gaddafi's forces would have been In Benghazi, 700,000 people there and he said what he would do, look in the closets for the perp, drag them out, punish them. Do you think the punishment would be a early bed time with no supper. All have great ideas...which one should we choose?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 15:06:48 GMT -5
Didn't we see the same or similar situation during the Korean Conflict?? The United Nations Security Council voted to send UN Troops into South Korea to stop the attacks by North Korea?? China and Russia abstained or voted NO...Korea was never called a war but a Police Action....so in this case we had UN Resolution 1973 that basically called for UN Troops to stop Khadafy's attacks on his own people but this time without boots on the ground from the UN ..unless we have Spec Ops guys doing their thing without any fanfare about it..
And this little war is being called the Libyan Conflct and not the Libyan War...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 21, 2011 15:11:14 GMT -5
The Soviet Union walked out of the United Nations in a Huff, biggest mistake of the time, allowing the vote to go through. If they did not , were present, they would have vetoed the UN mandate and it would not have been a official UN action. China , the Peoples republic, mainland China, was not recognized as such, the permanent position with the veto was the Nationalist , Taiwan, Formosa.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 21, 2011 15:32:27 GMT -5
I said I didn't know the legalities, with all respect I am not accepting any one heres explanation either. I wasn't making a judgment on whether this is legal or not...simply quoting the law. It's not my explanation you're dissing, the first part of my response was from Obama himself when questioned about Bush getting us involved in Iraq. The second is law, not my opinion. I'm just relaying what I've found so far. So let me see if I have your argument straight.... you don't know what the law or the constitution say on this subject and you have no clue whether Obama's actions are legal or not, but you're sure we're all wrong because POTUS Obama surely must have covered his backside. After all, no POTUS has ever been wrong about anything....ever. How about instead of simply whining that we're all "bashing Obama", you do a little research and consider the information you've been given....instead of hanging your hat on what you "feel" was done.
|
|