|
Post by avordvet on Mar 21, 2011 5:00:24 GMT -5
From Arctic Patriot... Does This Bother Anyone? Does it bother anyone else that the UN (and, by extension, the US) is getting entangled in Libya? Does it bother anyone else that once again, the US may be putting its treasure and blood up for sacrifice in a conflict that will begin and end unconstitutionally? Does it bother anyone that the UN picks and chooses which regimes to support and which to help overthrow? Does the thought of another undeclared war bother anyone? There is a reason Congress should be involved in declaring war. Undeclared wars are no different than the abuse of the interstate commerce clause, or any other means devised by the government to bypass limitations placed upon it. This is one objection I have. See, Congress is supposed to vote to declare war for several reasons, the one I want to highlight here is that it is a way of ensuring governmental accountability. If our government cannot be held accountable for its actions, then why the hell do we bother with elections anyway??? No, really, why? arcticpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/03/does-this-bother-anyone.html
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Mar 21, 2011 8:26:55 GMT -5
Almost amusing that the annointed one can make a grand statement that khadafi must go and then sit back and wait for the UN with France taking the lead to begin to take action before we supply the firepower to take out his military capablity. As if I didn't know that this president sees the US as subservient to the UN but still it makes me wonder how much this nation will take before enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by aronatbc on Mar 21, 2011 11:58:16 GMT -5
I'm ok with us going in an kicking someones a$$ after they have attacked us.
However, I am not for us being Globo-Cop, Nation Builders, or some kind of rapid reaction force to back every revolution around the globe. It isn't any of our business.
We've trouble enough at home and ZERO cash to be spending on adventurism.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 21, 2011 12:36:43 GMT -5
I'm ok with us going in an kicking someones a$$ after they have attacked us. However, I am not for us being Globo-Cop, Nation Builders, or some kind of rapid reaction force to back every revolution around the globe. It isn't any of our business. We've trouble enough at home and ZERO cash to be spending on adventurism. +1
|
|
|
Post by 2ncrca on Mar 21, 2011 12:49:41 GMT -5
Are we a sovereign nation or a UN lapdog? I agree with Michael on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 21, 2011 13:44:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimbravo on Mar 22, 2011 0:46:35 GMT -5
I'm ok with us going in an kicking someones a$$ after they have attacked us. However, I am not for us being Globo-Cop, Nation Builders, or some kind of rapid reaction force to back every revolution around the globe. It isn't any of our business. We've trouble enough at home and ZERO cash to be spending on adventurism. Agreed. And as far as I know, Congress hasn't passed any war resolutions for this one. Maybe Congress should tell Obama that since he didn't do it the right way, the Tomahawks are going on his personal tab.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Mar 22, 2011 8:36:09 GMT -5
This is not the first time in history a President acted without the approval of Congress but in the past if action was taken it was deemed necessary and prudent to act quickly with certain approval from congress to come. in thsi instance Obama is ctaching hell from both sides with th eelft even more upset than the right. after he pays for the missles he may want to invest in a flak jacket.
Stupidity at the top again.
1)We go in with no clear objective.
Khadafi must go but we only wanted to protect innocent civilians not kill or remove Khadafi. Sorry but you no longer classify as an innocent civilian when you atke up arms and engage in open revolt. Just march on DC and see how you are treated.
2) No clear plan of action once engaged. Turn it over to the French, Germans and rest of the blue helmets. I think not as we all know who will need to provide at a minimum technical support and back up to the rebels. What the hell do we do if Khadafi refuses to leave since we want him to go but refuse to make him go?
3) No long term plan with a clear exit strategy. Heck we do not even know who is backing the rebels and if they could possibly turn out to be worse than the existing dictator. Given the tribal nature of the people and culture of Libya then my guess is we are lookign at another potential Somalia in the making. The only thing that has kept control in many areas of the world with diverse and conflicting tribal cultures whether we like it or not has been the heavy hand of a dictator.
|
|
|
Post by remyrw on Mar 22, 2011 10:07:18 GMT -5
I'm in the same boat. I just don't see why the hell we should be involved at all. I don't think Khadafi's some saint, but it's not like the rebels are angels either, and either way it's just not our problem to solve.
I have real issues with my nation spending time, money and potentially lives getting involved in that mess. Then you get into the legal aspect, but that's been tossed out the window years ago. Basically, they aren't a current threat so it's not a crisis, if you want to engage in military activity on foreign soil it should be handled through congress.
I don't think there's a good guy and bad guy on the ground there, and we should be minding our own damned business. A good chunk of the world gets mad at us for poking our nose in where it doesn't belong and this just gives them even more justification for it with minimal up side if everything goes perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Mar 22, 2011 10:10:37 GMT -5
Agreed if we want to practice nation building then let's start here at home. The Good Lord knows we have plenty of things to work on.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 22, 2011 11:55:42 GMT -5
The statement was that if Kaddafi would stop attacking, we would also, and then yesterday as some of his tanks were retreating, we destroyed them. I have no idea in the world why nations keep believing in our word after Vietnam. Must be imbeciles.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 22, 2011 12:18:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stoner44magnum on Mar 22, 2011 15:37:34 GMT -5
3) No long term plan with a clear exit strategy. Heck we do not even know who is backing the rebels and if they could possibly turn out to be worse than the existing dictator. Given the tribal nature of the people and culture of Libya then my guess is we are lookign at another potential Somalia in the making. The only thing that has kept control in many areas of the world with diverse and conflicting tribal cultures whether we like it or not has been the heavy hand of a dictator. Read more: alarmandmuster.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=7183&page=1#ixzz1HMWon5ZzI have been saying this about the WHOLE arab world for quite some time. It seems that the only time these peoples can get along is when they are engaged against a common enemy, US or Israel. We replace an "evil" dictator in a country then they go right back to killing EACH OTHER right under our noses. It seems these folks no nothing of freedom nor democracy, they only know a heavy hand and violence and thus, that is what it takes to keep those nations under control. Sad but true. We as a nation have to keep our noses and most importantly our TROOPS out of these hell holes, let them figure it out on their own. If we were not attacked, stay home!
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 22, 2011 15:41:13 GMT -5
Still waiting for this link to work.
Libyan Rebellion Has Radical Islamist Fervor: U.S. Military Documents Reveal Rebel Strongholds Are Jihadi Hotbeds…
|
|
|
Post by stoner44magnum on Mar 22, 2011 16:06:37 GMT -5
Still waiting for this link to work.Libyan Rebellion Has Radical Islamist Fervor: U.S. Military Documents Reveal Rebel Strongholds Are Jihadi Hotbeds… Oh my gosh Brock!!!! Say it isn't so......... You mean the "rebels" are isalmic extremists? No way! They are just freedom loving folks like you and me, trust me on this one, our government says it's true
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 22, 2011 16:24:01 GMT -5
Still waiting for this link to work.Libyan Rebellion Has Radical Islamist Fervor: U.S. Military Documents Reveal Rebel Strongholds Are Jihadi Hotbeds… Oh my gosh Brock!!!! Say it isn't so......... You mean the "rebels" are isalmic extremists? No way! They are just freedom loving folks like you and me, trust me on this one, our government says it's true
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Mar 22, 2011 18:04:42 GMT -5
Maybe I took this out of context. Let us see. If one of the talking heads of the media, Obama Government breifers, or one of the elite Patriots for hire say that such and such or so and so is a Jihadist then we take their word and condem them. However if the same moron calls a retiree, ex-gi, ex-leo, etc a potential terrorist we refuse to agree with them and want to have them fired. Is this what I just read? Being a Jihadist in Libya is like being a Baptist in Georgia. If you ain't you don't eat, get gas, or live long. If I pledge to give my life to destroy the United States of America and all I own is two camels, 3 sons, 4 wives, and a 16 x 20 tent what does this mean to the United States of America? If you tell me the Mosque on 21st and Broadway is a Jihadist hotbed I will walk over to 7th avenue at 19th street and cut back at 23rd Street.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 22, 2011 19:00:07 GMT -5
Still waiting for this link to work.Libyan Rebellion Has Radical Islamist Fervor: U.S. Military Documents Reveal Rebel Strongholds Are Jihadi Hotbeds… Oh my gosh Brock!!!! Say it isn't so......... You mean the "rebels" are isalmic extremists? No way! They are just freedom loving folks like you and me, trust me on this one, our government says it's true Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jimbravo on Mar 22, 2011 19:44:44 GMT -5
Still waiting for this link to work.Libyan Rebellion Has Radical Islamist Fervor: U.S. Military Documents Reveal Rebel Strongholds Are Jihadi Hotbeds… Oh my gosh Brock!!!! Say it isn't so......... You mean the "rebels" are isalmic extremists? No way! They are just freedom loving folks like you and me, trust me on this one, our government says it's true Just like the ones in Egypt, right?
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 22, 2011 19:49:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 22, 2011 21:18:39 GMT -5
Rand and Ron now both say that this is an impeachable offense.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 24, 2011 5:31:45 GMT -5
Very good article with the specific nuts and bolts of the issue... The Constitutionality of Military Action Against Libya
by Professor Will Huhn on March 20, 2011 Is it constitutional for President Obama to have ordered military action against Libya without specific Congressional approval? Following the adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, the President decided to enforce a "no-fly zone" in Libya - along with allies conducting a bombing campaign targeting military targets of the Gadhafi regime. A number of political figures have expressed their opinions about the constitutionality of this decision. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) and Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) all state that the military action is unconstitutional, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), Chair of the House Intelligence Committee have voiced support for the constitutionality of the decision. Commentator Glenn Greenwald takes a strong position against its constitutionality. In my opinion, the President's action is probably not constitutional. Unlike Greewald, however, I think that the question is a close one that turns upon an interepretation of treaty provision of the War Powers Act. The Constitution makes the President the "Commander-in-Chief" which vests him with sole authority to command the armed forces of the United States in combat. However, the Constitution vests Congress with the power to "declare war." Because the bombing of Libya constitutes an act of war, I would contend that the President lacks the power to unilaterally commit our forces to this action.... Read More: www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2011/03/the-constitutionality-of-military-action-against-libya/
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Mar 24, 2011 6:55:59 GMT -5
While this is true we have adjusted this in a number of ways. In JSR-1491 dated March 1933 the congress passed to FDR their powers during an emergency. We have been in an Emergency continuously since then. In 1860's Lincoln declared martial law and took those powers for himself to conduct the Civil War. That Martial Law has not been canceled yet by a peace treaty between the 10 sates and the Government. In the Vietnam war when Nixon sent the military into Cambodia the Congress again modified that by giving him a 90 day window to defend the US without a Congressional Review. In 2005 King George the lesser issued the Homeland Security Presidential Decree that allowed a President to declare a state f emergency and that the Congress can not review that for 6 months.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Mar 24, 2011 7:25:42 GMT -5
It is worse than that Stonner. The are MILITIAS"
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 24, 2011 15:28:17 GMT -5
Just contacted my Reps again...
Dear Senator,
No "Foreign Entanglements" means just that... you must get us out of this conflict immediately!
Furthermore, President Obama must be Impeached for violations of the War Powers Act, You must take this breach of trust seriously!
I will be keeping family and friends up to date on your actions in this matter.
Regards,
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Mar 24, 2011 19:39:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 25, 2011 7:41:49 GMT -5
Camp Lejeune Marines To Libya Because Two Wars Aren't Enough... Hey, obama says we aren't in another war... just a "kinetic military action" Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jimbravo on Mar 26, 2011 4:21:09 GMT -5
Well I guess it's time for the Repubs in congress to excercise some authority. Defund this mess. Unless Obama wants to buy jet fuel and munitions it will end fairly soon after that.
|
|