What did you think about President Obama’s address to the nation on Libya?
I am expecting all kinds of comments from people that didn't listen to the speech.
As usual...it was a good speech...until you analyze the meaning behind the what was said.
America had a responsibility to protect the Libyan civilians...but not to protect the Syrian or Yemen or Bahrain or Iran civilians from similar government run violence and death.
what makes the Libyans more special? is it their oil? which mostly goes to Europe? Where the calls for action originated and who Obama admits following?
The speech was good. He could passion up a bit on his delivery though....
Maxwell's - which of those other states you mentioned has been attacking its civilians from the skies?
Libya is special because of the international support behind it which came swiftly. Thats the key difference. Iraq didn't have broad international support, with key allies like France and Germany objecting and Russia, China, and France vetoing the action. There was no clear reason for going there also. Hans Blix didn't find WMDS. Also other places where genocide took place didn't have international support regrettably. BUT WHEN WE DO HAVE SUPPORT WE SHOULD USE IT. Also we are not using troops on the ground.
moo - Kasinich is a better person than Obama huh? More like a parrot for the Orange Man, kinda like you, lol. You want money for Head Start and free lunches? How about tell your man Kasinch, and his bud, Bonehead, to quit extending the "temporary" tax cuts, for starters.
(Then get Ohio to have a more equitable distribution of property taxes to schools?)
The Banksters - a good one, will give you that.
I still don't understand what makes Libya special. Why not the Ivory Coast that actually has the loser of the last election still clinging on to power?
Or how about our ally Bahrain that oppresses 70% of its citizens because of their religion? And our other allies have sent troops in to assist the government in oppressing them! How are we NOT doing more there?
Anyone want to answer these questions on behalf of President Obama:
What I want to hear is President Obama's explanations for:
1. "Rebels" being Al Quada Saudi Arabia (AQ, over 40%), Al Quada Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) Algeria (7.2%); and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG, 18.8%), Al Quada Syria (AQS, 8.1%), Al Quada Yemen (AQY, 8.1%), etc.. AQ being responsible for the planning, organizing, funding, coordinating the 9/11 2001 Attacks. LIFG, being responsible for fighting US Military At Iraq.
2. Where does UN Resolution 1973, state that Offensive Military Actions may be accomplished to support the "Rebels" in attacking other Cities. The Goal was to stop the Fighting, Establish No Fly Zones, Protect the Civilians (not the Combatants of either side), Have both sides Negotiate Peace, and then send in Boots on the Ground as UN Peace Keepers.
3. What US Congressionally passed Law, Do you have President Obama that Justifies the Offensive US Military Actions to Overthrow Gaddifi.
President Clinton and President Bush (43) had US Congressional Law, 1998, H.R. 4655, to justify the Overthrow of the Iraqis President and the Iraqis Government to Liberate the Iraqis People. Short Title: Iraqis Liberation Act. Resulting in US Military 1998 Operation Desert Fox. President Bush (43) had the US Congressional 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution added to 1998 H.R.4655, to fund the US Military Liberation of Iraq based on the previous information of H.R.4655, Chemical Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction used "against his own people" and the Iranians during the Iran Iraq Wars. Without these US Congressionally approved Laws (H.R.4655 is actually recognized as a Declaration of War With Iraq, no time limits of the 1973 War Powers Resolution (48 hours, 60 days, 30 days), just because it is not Titled: Declaration of War With Iraq, does not mean that it is not, since it meets all the criteria of the International Laws, UN Rules and Laws, 1907 Hague Convention, 1949 Geneva Convention for a Declaration of War.
Without these US Congressionally Approved Laws, you are leaving the US Military hanging (appropriations, and legally liable for actions), and the US can be taken to the International Court of Justice at the Hague, forced to pay Reparations to Libya (with what Money?).
4. What are the motives of the Europeans to completely Overthrow Gaddifi, not just enforce UN Resolution 1973.:
Italy(Eni), Britain (BP), France (Total, Elf), Norway (Straoil), Austria (OMV), etc..
And if you think the Oil Corporations did not use their Rich Lobbyists to "influence" their Governments, and their Governments influencing the US Government and US Politicians, do not be so naive. Sh!t happened many times before.
If Gaddifi had Nationalized all Libyan Resources, the Oil Corporations listed above would no longer be able to hire cheap Libyan labor and keep all the profits. As Nationalization of Resources would mean that All Control is taken away from the Oil Corporatons and the Libyans then control the Oil and the profits remain in Libya. And if you think this has not happened before, DO THE RESEARCH.
As even before all of this started, the Oil Corporations were evacuating all "Non essential personnel" from Libya in anticipation of their Governments actions to stop Gaddifi's Resource Nationalization. NYT article dated February 21, 2011 (Note the date).
The first thing the Rebels did after taking some of the Oil areas was to sign an agreement for Qatar to export the Libyan Oil. BBC article March 27, 2011: Libyan rebels 'sign oil export deal with Qatar'
Blame Strickland for the school problem not being fixed (that is what he ran on to get elected, then did nothing for four years!)
Reagan's Libya speech was much better.
WinkWink does not approve of this action nor the justifications that obama presented tonight. WinkWink thinks obama stinks.
Buffaloes, why? It's all been said before, like Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq. Once you've heard it, nothing changes, just the mass murderer's names. If this nation were in the business of ending atrocities, gosh, why haven't we fought and sacrificed all our children and monies for the genocides in Africa. Now, we aren't talking a civil war; we are talking genocides. How much more atrocious does it get -- than millions genocided????
They use the same words, over and over, and it all spells bs. We are war mongers and masters, what we do best is mass murder, and all the wars change with the shifts in the wind. There's always atrocities and bad guys to justify mass murder and mass murderers. Good guys versus the bad guys. What a joke. And Americans really do fall for all the cow manure. Every time.
Now, we have three wars goin at a time when this nation can't even solve its atrocities, and we need to be spending all this money on all these atrocities and bad buys while America sinks into a quagmire of the economy, joblessness and poverty. We can ill afford to stick our noses in others' problems and civil wars, right now.
It's their business; their nations, and who annointed this nation God?
Basically Obama said that what Bush did was absolutely wrong until he decided to do it himself.
Way to stand by your principles Mr. President...not.
cybrjhn7... You might wanna rethink and research your facts my friend. Bush had a coalition of over 30 nations AFTER he went to Congress that supported the actions we took. Obama has the "support" of 16 nations and DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO TALK TO CONRESS... And so many of you leftwing idiots called Bush a criminal... Obama actually broke the law, since ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY WHEN NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THIS COUNTRY EXISTS. He usurped congress' authority end of story.
BTW just in case you don't know, the people we are "saving" were trying to kill Americans in Afganistan. Stop believing the leftwing lies.
Obama's biggest talent is his speech making. I would like to see him concentrate on the economy now. Work to reduce the deficit now. Work to shrink the federal government that he has increased by 200,000 employees in just 2-years now. Work to close our borders that have allowed illegals to enter this country to give birth to 200,000 baby's in just one year who are now qualified to become American citizens now. Yep, he gives great speeches.
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize and military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"
Of course, that only applies if the President's last name is Bush.
Bush was wrong to raise the spectre of invasion to Congress....Congress was wrong to approve it....Obama was just wrong to do this on his own accord...He lacks the authority
cybrjhn-
Hans Blix didn't find WMDS
Riddle me this: WMD's were found in Iraq in 1991, we left immediately upon the completion of the UN mission...if Iraq had WMD's in 1991, did they suddenly disappear before the latest invasion? Or, I know, I know another conspiracy theory; but, maybe the extent of WMD's in Iraq is not publicly known and dismissed because of the sheer amount of soldiers coming home with "undiagnosed illnesses" and the military and VA is paying out the arse for them. Could it be the feds don't want that info out there? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
This is one of the few times that I 100% agree with Kucinich.
The biggest thing that helps this make sense is that the Libyans asked for our help. The NATO countries agreed and the Arab Union agreed to participate.
Some of the fear inducing coalition from the invasion of Iraq included
Romania
El Salvador
Estonia
Moldova
Tonga
Armenia
Latvia
Macedonia
All fine folks I'm sure but hardly an organized fighting force.
Until a declaration of war, there is no war. For there to be a declaration, there must be a vote in Congress. The horse comes before the cart.
Lanikia,
The federal employment ranks were 2.48 million in 1962 when our population was approx. 186.5 million equaling about 13.3 workers for every 1000 people in the country.
The number is now 2.65 million with a population of about 310 million equaling about 8.4 per 1000.
Federal employment is at it's lowest point per population since 1962.
Kucinich was right!!!!! whatyaknow
Where is John Galt when we need him the most?
Obama sounded like Bush talking about Saddam after the WMD excuse was exposed as a lie.
Yeah, dictators are so against our "values" that we can't stand dealing with them:
Obama & Qaddafi a year or so ago:
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd138/eeberry/qaddafi-obama-REUTERS-640x480.jpg
Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam (he went to Iraq to offer Saddam military and other aid during the 1980's):
http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/images/sadrum.jpg
Dictator of Congo, Mobutu Sese Seko with Reagan (1980's):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3xwIiRR7AmY/SZozpJDe6EI/AAAAAAAADB0/E7IjnD799Kk/s320/reagan&seseseko.jpg
OK vw... so now some of the 30+ countries that joined in the coalition against Iraq don't count? Hypocrite. Bush also had BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT and damn near unanimous support from congress based on the intel we had... Obama DID NOT EVEN ASK CONGRESS. Geeze can you spin any harder?
You really want to go with your last comment? It should be much lower than it is. The government is to big, to much beauracracy and is wasting YOUR money and mine left and right, both sides of the aisle. Wouldn't it serve the people of this country much better to run the country like a business or a household instead of a private piggy bank for pet projects and other BS? Let me ask you this question: Have you recently had a child or a friend have one? The reason I ask is (and you can look this up if you don't believe me) that child OWES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DAMN NEAR 50K dollars already. You may place A LITTLE BLAME on Bush no doubt, but brother when you see that Obama and his administration spent more in February (28 days 223 billion dollars) than Bush did in all of 07' (161 billion for the year 365 days) MAYBE YOU CAN APPRECIATE WHERE SOME OF US ARE COMING FROM.
Arch, do you know why we supported Saddam in the early 80's? Didn't think so, ever heard of a little thorn in the side of America called Iran?
Saddam believed he was untouchable and invaded Kuwait thinking that we would do nothing. HELLO. Stop trying to rewrite history, some of us were there.
He seemed pi$$ed off. At whom? It is too early to proclaim our actions in Libya a victory in any sense. All indications are that atrocities are continuing there. Pounding his fists on the podium got very annoying. I don't believe this speech will be touted in the history books as his finest hour. I applaud us getting involved but I think it may very well have been Hilliary's leadership and not the POTUS' that led the charge.
Basically Obama said that what Bush did was absolutely wrong until he decided to do it himself.
Way to stand by your principles Mr. President...not.
Yeah, it's remarkably like how Bush castigated Malaysia for its onerous Internal Security Act, and then turned around and implemented the EXACT SAME thing in America, calling it the "PATRIOT Act."
Politicians lie. Get over it.
President Obama is a war monger, and a war criminial and should be tried by the world court. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been murdered just by the US airstrikes in Libya alone. Mr. Obama has his sights on only two things: Oil and innocent slaughter.
Karma is a bit**! Obama is now a President who has wrought war! And for his own agenda. Uh-mm - seems that's what he has accused others of. Talks the talk but can't walk the walk. Guess he sleeps well at night with all the other slaughtering going on in the world. He's pathetic and a shame to America!
Hopefully our next President will go around the world apologizing for the experiment that didn't work - and we can go on being what we are as a country - the best and the strongest. Now matter how Obama has tried to tear our country down!
I hope he's enjoying his E-ticket ride! It comes to an end November, 2012!!
Reginald Brown - Obama a war monger? I really had to laugh out loud at that. HE would not have voted to go into Iraq - I think you're watching too much FauxNews.
Wow, I think that Texan Bush was the warmonger and oil man.
Well Obama sure knows how to do an end-around on congress. Nothing like ignoring the law, guess he thinks he's above the law. Even Bush went before congress.
For public consumption he states that NATO is running the show, of course the 22% of the monies that the US pays into NATO, an amount double that of France and Britain combined isn't mentioned. Nor is it put out for public consumption that the US is doing most of the work.
Then there was the 'saving lives being the scope of the mission' ignoring the fact that the mission is expanding and has no end-game strategy. Nor does it explain how the 'humanitarian' aspects are now essentially being used to help the rebels advance, essentially the rebels are directing the action.
And who are those rebels? No one knows for certain but if Lebanon is one of the countries in favor of the action, remember that Hamas is currently in control of the country. Then there was the rebel leader acknowledging that Al Quaeda, Hamas and hezbollah fighters were under his leadership.
I think it makes more sense if we realize that Obama has decalred himself above the law vis a vis the War Powers Act and is using the US military to aid rebels who, prior to their engagment in Libya were busily killing american soldiers in Iraq. Makes perfect sense...not.
I thought it surprising that we spent 1 trillion in 10 years in Iraq and that BHO has spent nearly 5 trillion in 2 short years. And what kind of bang did we get for that 5 trillion?
As always he spoke very well, he is a good orator, but he failed to show just reason for the U S involvement in Libya, humanitarian aid is not it.
This started as a “No fly zone” and now is also an “arms embargo”, in short, Obama has declared war on Gaddafi, and he has turned an internal rebellion into a national attempt to overthrow a sovereign government.
Gaddafi is a mad man, he is a butcher, and he should be removed, but not by us, this is clearly aiding a rebellion to overthrow its government.
Awwww...the weak minded lefties are collapsing comments again. Here's a suggestion lefties, if you don't like free speech, then don't log onto this type of forum.
Moderator, there is absolutely no reason for my comment #1.14 to be collapsed (other than it being too popular?). You should uncollapse it.
The problem here is that the justification for "intervention" (war?) in Libya is one that can be equally applied in many parts of the world! Will we apply these same standards to conflicts in Africa, countries which have no oil? Probably not, and then what would that say?
"Thats the key difference. Iraq didn't have broad international support, with key allies like France and Germany objecting and Russia, China, and France vetoing the action." - cybrjhn7
Yes, shockingly the countries that were found to be profiteering from illegally circumventing the status quo UN sanctions were somehow amazingly opposed to changing that situation. Really...whodda thunk?
"Hans Blix didn't find WMDS." - cybrjhn7
Hans Blix himself in early 2003 testified to the security council that Iraq had in their possession thousands of tons of weaponized WMD and also had continued to develop delivery systems that broke sanctions. If you were waiting for good old Hans to be standing on top of a pile of WMDs, that was never going to happen. Hussein would have never let it.
@Moderator: I agree with MikeSA (not necessarily his original comment) but the point he is making about you collapsing it. If a comment does not reach the level of meeting the criteria for deleation, why is it collapsed...and what are the rules governing that?
Many times I have seen collapsed comments carrying very popular approval........either liberal, conservative, socialist etc. If a post is unworthy of the thread you should let those who post on it apply the discipline. Many of those who post are passionate about what they believe!
I agree with Kenn and Mike. Maybe the moderator has his/her own agenda?
@MIkeSA: Total (a large French Oil Co.) had an agreement with Hussein (executed after the sanctions went in place) that when the sanctions were lifted Total would get exploration rights in Western Iraq. France even tried to enforce this agreement after Hussein's fall.
France was the nation leading the fight for the "no fly zone" and France has commited substantial support to enforcing the no-fly zone (they don't really commit so much to the Nato action in Afghanistan ...which has no oil).....and France was the first nation to recognize those in the revolt as the legitimate government of Libya!
If Gadhafi falls, watch and see what new contracts go to Total!
Kenn, no doubt about Total. How is it that we supposedly go into these wars for oil but we never get a single drop??? I mean you would think we would get some! he-he
To the moderator;
Mike in SA's comments are in no way offensive and should not have been collapsed.
I say this in all fairness to Mike even though I find nothing to agree with in his posts. This type of random and subjective censorship is happening more often and reflects badly on the site. Please try to improve these judgment calls to a more intelligent level.
Awwww...the weak minded lefties are collapsing comments again. Here's a suggestion lefties, if you don't like free speech, then don't log onto this type of forum.
Moderator, there is absolutely no reason for my comment #1.14 to be collapsed (other than it being too popular?). You should uncollapse it.
I don't agree with the original comment at all nor do I like the name-calling, but I do agree -- there is no valid reason at all for that comment to have been collapsed. And I'm a "weak-minded leftie," I guess, but there was nothing whatsoever in the original comment (1.14) to merit its collapse.
NJ John, you're right, even stuck in Iraq and under sanctions, Hussein was a much bigger threat to the US and the region than Gadhafi ever was.
Chad, please know that I don't assume that because you are a lefty, that you are therefor weak minded. In fact I know and am friends with some very intelligent lefties. What's weak minded is reading a post on a forum and the only retort you can think of is to collapse it. There are weak minded lefties and weak minded righties. I don't have a lot of respect for people who's only retort is collapse, no matter what their leaning is. Unfortunately it seems the weak minded lefties have been overrunning some of these boards recently collapsing post after post as well as whole threads. Thanks for your support of diverse opinion and speech.
Cassandra:
Your comments are very ill-informed and crass. Another Anti Semite on the board who doesn't know what they are talking about.
This invalidates your opinion. Now get to work and study the Libyan Crisis. Learn. Bigotry doesn't belong on this board or in any walk of life.
Do you claim to be a tolerant one?
Not too much to say----seems like this POTUS has pretty much continued and done everything he campaigned against. The red ink is still flowing only at a much greater flow and now we can add 1 more country to the list. In 1990 when GB Sr. invaded Kuwait, he had a 90% approval rating and no one could beat him. In 1992, Clinton did. Right now, the Repubs have to come up with someone that can beat him OR he can self destruct?
BTW, any of the strong minded lefties who have been speaking out against collapsing comments, please let me know if you ever have similar issues and I will gladly help correct any weak minded righties (however few and far between they may be...he-he).
"Right now, the Repubs have to come up with someone that can beat him OR he can self destruct?"
follow the yellow brick road, the main stream media keeps bringing up Gingrich (bleh) and Palin (double bleh) and Bachman (bleh, bleh, bleh), but what's incredible is that they aren't even mentioning the guy that won (by far) the Tea Party Conference on-site straw poll and (by far) the Conservative Principles Conference straw poll in Iowa this past week...Herman Cain. It's to the point where it's like mainstream journalists are purposely ignoring him. Of course it's hard for them to maintain the "right is racist" myth with Cain around and leading all these straw polls, so they're probably trying to figure out how to spin that.
Yes, moderator, why was post 1.14 collapsed? This is getting ridiculous. If you people want something to collapse I'll give you something. Obama is a stinking hypocrite. Condemned Bush for Iraq, called it a dumb war. Now he says we have to save civilians from Qaddafi? O, I guess, Husein didn't kill any civilians. Obama is a lieing fraud. But are we really surprised he supports the "rebels" since they are his Muslim buddies. He is a disgrace.
Now collaps that all you Obama lovers - and to hell with the COH. It is time to tell all the PC police to go to hell.
no libs will answer david post 1.10, yep thats what I thought, the lib MO, cant deal with the truth so you ignore, lie, and attack. what ever any leftists do, do not read post 1.10, you do not want to shatter the glass house , obaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaa, obaaaaaamaaaaaaaa, obamaaaaaaaaaaa, obamaaaaaaaaaa, obamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............
his speech sucked. impeach his ass for dissolving US sovereignty to the UN. I want to hear all of your brilliant posts on david post 1.10. none of you pinkos will answer david post 1.10.
obaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaa, obamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
O and save all the comments about misspelled words. Made the changes to the original post and the stupid time limit caught up with me before I could finish the spell check.
Why don't you folks be honest. You were for it before you were against it. The mind is a powerful tool. If you want something, you will think of a thousand ways to get it, if you don't want something, you will think of a thousand ways to keep from having it.
Face up people, whatever the president does, you will appose it and think up reasons or seek other like-minded people's thoughts to show justification in your opinion.
With that said, we don't know exactly what happened that forced the President's hand to get involved. We are not given the briefing he gets. Whatever it was, I'm confident he used his best judgement on it. I felt the same way with Bush, regretably, when he said a mushroom cloud could hit us. I can not form an opinion based on what we know as of this moment. I was just as patriotic when Bush II went into Iraq.
I am just as confident that if foul play was involved, our conservative friends will find it out and eat the president for breakfast, just like liberals with Bush.
We will hear the term impeach a million times but I have become numb from it. Since it seems to have become a battlecry from the extreme right, all bark and no bite as far as I am concerned.
There may be some libs that would be willing to answer David's post at 1.10. Lots of libs are upset with Obama, at least the ones who have an ounce of integrity to actually stick with their principles. It is the stupid fools that are in love with Obama that won't answer it. They just stick their fingers in their ears and say "we're not listening" and "We love Obama, O yes we do."
"Why don't you folks be honest. You were for it before you were against it." - Bosslimo
Gadhafi was not a direct threat to the US or his neighbors...the standard set for military intervention by Obamas own words. The principle that Obama and the left advanced that the president could not take military action without congressional approval was also broken. So, it's almost as ridiculous as being "against it before being for it" which is exactly Obama's position and that of a huge portion of the left when looking at the standards they set for military action surrounding Iraq.
Also you should note that polls show conservatives give the strongest support for the military action. So we're still for the action at this point. What we're against is a president so willing to readily abandon his former "principles". What we're also against is our nation flying battlefield air interdiction in other nations' civil wars and tribal disputes.
Well said Mike
The hypocrisy of Obama and the left is sickening.
President Obama doesn't realize this Libyan War will "back up on him" like a bad septic tank.
His speech, his ideas are too late. Gadhafi will remain in Power for the rest of his life (if he is living)---NATO forces are not strong enough, like the US to take over. What is their Military Power?
It should have been a "One, Two, Three Punch, and out of Libya by the US. Now who knows, since O has given G the permission to stay in Power and not worry about being kicked out--words mean nothing.
O's first words did mean something. Ghadhafi has to go--but he did not say how. There would have been many Civilian/Rebel lives saved, if the decision was made earlier to actually oust Gadhafi.
Now what. This will to lead to a stalemate, because there are no definite plans to end his regime. G will take advantage of knowing he can still massacre, committ genocide, and bundle more money from Oil and Drugs..
The Rebels will have a tough go--what comes around, goes around, and Gadhafi will be coming back--
Gadhafi knows Obama is a Paper Tiger that can be played with. Watch.
Mike, I don't agree with much of what you say, but the callapse of your comment was totally unfair and unnecessary.
PS. Given the chance, and he almost was.........Gadaffi would have slaughtered the civilian population of Benghazi. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. This was a brilliant political move to establish a world police coalition, and give Nato a reason to keep on existing. Now that Russia and China are both capitalistic countries, Nato was becoming useless. Look to the future!
"Why don't you folks be honest. You were for it before you were against it." - Bosslimo
Gadhafi was not a direct threat to the US or his neighbors
But its OK he was going to slaughter his own people? Nice logic.
vwterry "Federal employment is at it's lowest point per population since 1962."
In 1962, the average federal pay & benefits was about the same as the average in the private sector.
Now it's more than double ($123,000 per year for an AVERAGE federal civilian worker, vs only $61,000 average in the private sector).
At the end of the day, Obama did skip a step (a big one...Congress...) and absolutely did contradict most of what he (and every other democrat on these boards/in the country) criticized Bush for. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is just fooling themselves.
If humanitarian reasons are enough to side step congress and engage in any sort of military operation this is news to me- or better- I didn't realize that Saddam Hussein was giving out free hugs to his people all day long.
Justifying everything because after the initial strikes everything or most everything will be turned over to NATO is also questionable, as, specifically regarding the services he listed (rather vague)- it still appears we will be bearing the brunt.
That being said, and politics aside, something clearly had to be done in Libya. I happen to live/work in Italy now (I'm American but I digress), and I'm shocked to not see a bigger European support- mostly by the Italians. As of now, and I don't know how much it has been discussed in American news, but a large part of the refugees are going into a small island off of sicily (about 18,000+ since this began, compared to 40ish in the same period of 2010- on an island thats roughly 12 sq km)- this represents a major a)problem and b) threat to Europe- not to mention the fact that a large part of oil here comes from Libya giving them an economic reason to restore peace.
Plus- exit strategy aside- someone is going to need to guide these rebel groups once the government/Ghedaffi falls. Further if the data cited above is correct, I somehow feel uneasy about a group of AQ sponsored rebels installing a government within floating distance of the shores of the country where I live....
Though I understand why the president did this, he has failed our democracy. The president was to convene Congress on whether the use of force could be authorized, despite the U.N. resolution.
Either before or after the resolution, Congress had to make approval on whether the U.S. military would commit its resources to the resolution. This should of been the first thing done, then wait for the U.N. resolution.
Either way the Commander and Chief can not be a usurper and that is why Hamilton and Madison put this in our most precious treasure, the Constitution.
Oh man it shows you the sense of identity these liberals have just listening to comments and opinions. I mean WOW. Just roll over and get your belly rubbed and maybe Obama will throw you a treat you followers.
I agree with comment #1.14. The justification the President use last night was preemption.
The speach was a load of bull@!$%#. These reports of civilian massacres are largely unsubstantiated. Are these just Obama's claim of 'weapons of mass destruction'? And is it really in our interests to help a group of rebels that are being led by anti-American terrorist groups?
And to add insanity to the idiocy, now this moron of a POTUS wants to start providing those terrorists with weapons.
Someone needs to REPO his Nobel Peace Prize.
A couple facts. The US is NATO and the US is the UN. With or without them, we'll do what we want. We just get this cozy and warm feeling by having someone tell us----it's OK. Lost opportunities. We had a real good chance to get Qaddafi in 1986 and missed him by a tad. We could have got Saddam in 1990 and backed off. In both instances, we went back and dealt with them again. Both are tyrants and have no reservations about killing their own people. Saddam did in fact invade another nation. Qaddafi never did. Vietnam was a civil war. Libya is a civil war. We want Qaddafi. Let's just level his compound, get him out of there, and finish it up.
It truly is amazing listening to liberals try to spin how Obama's action in Libya is noble and justified while Bush's action in Iraq was evil and unwarranted. Just for laughs you all need to watch this 5 minute vid clip. It portrays 2 office workers discussing Libya. Funny and sad all at the same time.
that video is a)hysterical, b) incredibly sad and c) spot on.
BO just gave the Repubs 100 tons of fodder fuel for 2012. They'll use it wisely. This and an 800 billion dollar stimulus that did little or nothing. I think that's 2 strikes? Can't stand on GWB in '12, new song, new game.
Vietnam was not a civil war, they wanted their independence from French Polynesia and sided with communists in order to achieve it.
The U.S.'s involvement in order to protect the south from being captured made it a civil war.
They're are all ways two sides of a story in a conflict, at the Treaty of Versailles Ho Chi Men explicitly said that Vietnam wanted to be independent of France.
Buffaloes Roam
I am expecting all kinds of comments from people that didn't listen to the speech.
You are spot on! All Presidents are warmongering dolts, I never listen to a damn thing any of those hyper-active morons ever say in their "speeches". Even a test-pattern or an Old Navy advertisement would have more intellectual content that a POTUS speech.
@Jermski, I'm starting to think so myself, which is sad.
@Mike-416, I never said slaughtering his people was OK and you very well know that. I was obviously (to most people) addressing the inconsistent principles of a large portion of the left, not whether or not civilians should have been protected.
@zath, the "civilian massacres" are known to have been exaggerated. This may or may not be his "weapons of mass destruction" but the speech last night sure sounded like his "mission accomplished" moment. This likely still has a long way to go.
At least he and his staff did not claim that they had WMD's. I guess if he had waited a few more weeks and did some extensive analysis they could have found something like this- which would have then made the non Obama people happy- just like most if the sheep were bamboozled when Bush made these comments. (i'm being sarcastic as they would have complained then too...)
If only he realized that all he needed to say was that it was a humanitarian mission he could have saved himself the headache. Don't pretend there isn't a double standard in the medias treatment of the political parties...especially surrounding Obama.
and on the WMD issue which is the liberal/democrat favorite talking point ever- do you remember S.H. turning away inspectors for years on end? Defying UN orders/requests? Multiple intelligence agencies (US and non) saying the same thing- that they believed there were WMD? I'm not all that old and recall this clearly...
If you take the politics and political figures out of it- what would you have decided based on looking at the information available at the time? I'm a republican- but countries that have historically posed a threat to the region, their own people and the US who may or may not have WMD but won't let the UN inspectors in??? I'd probably err on the side of caution. Or, remember Clinton and N. Korea- the whole I'll give you money for aid- but only if you don't work on a nuclear program...what happened there eh?
Its not politics- its sense.
Chicago Skeptic, I'm responding late, but thanks a million for sharing that youtube link. It's always good to start the day with a hearty laugh!
WakeUpPeople, you really should watch Chicago Skeptics video that he linked to.
Comment # 1 restored for clarity.
Reginald Brown,-- Not only are you a liar but also an outstanding idiot.
Barry Meyer, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Also, restored many comments that were not against the CoH. Do not over report or you will lose the privilege. Thanks!
Comment #1.45 deleted. This would have been better as its own seed, NJ John.
Thanks Sally. Just my two cents. Whoever is doing all of this recent collapsing needs to lose that privilege...now. It is an obvious breach of the Code of Conduct:
#4 "...exercise impartiality when deleting comments and reporting abuse."
...and...
#4.c "Do not delete comments based on disagreement; remove only comments that grossly violate the Code of Honor or the User Agreement."
Like I said, my two cents, but this has been suddenly resurgent in the past few days, so I would take an educated guess that it's the same handful of people doing it over and over and over and...
Thumbs up ^..... smile :-)
President Obama is clearly the Leadership that I expect... U.S. Coast Guard Veteran...
Summary of Obama's Speech:
"Lie, Lie, Twisted Truth, Partial Truth, Make-Believe, Hyperbole, Stretched Truth, Wolf, Wolf"
How many times will he deliver the same speech in a different colored box?
People keep criticizing the president on taking military action, but how many people read the US Constitution and have looked thoroughly and compared the conflict of article 1 section 8 with article 2 section 2? Both have caused in US history a long and ineffective conflict between the two branches of government. I'd urge people to read this lengthy and sometimes wordy article -
I claim the articles create conflict because article 2 section 2 provides a loophole for the president to commit the military into action "when the US is called to duty" - it does not specify by whom. It also does not say the President needs congressional consent. No, just a letter of opinion from the executive officer from each executive department. It's a conflict that has touched generations of politicians down to the founding fathers and I think both articles are there for a reason.
There is a lot riding on the technical wording of the constitution, but that technicality works in his favor. It's there and he can use it like it or not.
asuras, where in the Constitution do the words "when the US is called to duty" appear exactly???
The only thing it says concerning the President is:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
As you know, commanders cannot act on their own (unless you're Custer). A company commander cannot give the order to attack without the (at least implicit) consent of his battalion commander, a battalion commander can't order his companies to attack without the consent of his regiment and so forth. In this respect, the Commander in Chief is just another commander who needs consent to order the units under his command to attack. Under the Constitution, that consent MUST come from Congress.
We have no national defense reason to be there. We have to stop being the world's police.
That is exactly what he said - that we cannot be the world's police. Were you listening?
did he make it clear why he committed an impeachable offense by not consulting the congress as described under the WPA? jw
i can't stomach listening to the liar-in-chief because he only says what will keep him afloat realtive to his approval rating (a sure sign of being in over one's head).
The War Powers Resolution (it's not an act) does not demand a consultation with Congress.
Do your homework next time.
Hank, but is does require that the U.S. is under attack or serious threat, something that Secretary Gates admitted was not the case this weekend. So maybe YOU should do your homework.
The War Powers Resolution needs some revising and clarification, because precedent basically allows Obama to do what he did.
Any precedent, you may be referring to, at least included some semblance of a threat to the U.S.
There is no threat here whatsoever, and the Secretary of Defense admitted that yesterday on television, so Obama is not in compliance with the War Powers Act. This is quite clear and the act needs no revision to make it clear.
Hank, but is does require that the U.S. is under attack or serious threat, something that Secretary Gates admitted was not the case this weekend. So maybe YOU should do your homework.
Time to school the kids I guess. Your point is moot. The US neither invaded nor attacked Libya. The UN did. As a charter member of the UN, we are obligated to contribute equipment and the personnel to run it, when the UN asks. Neither of which require the president to ask permission of Congress. Citing some of the idiocy in a few of the above posts, you might as well claim Qatar invaded Libya. Or France did.
Do you really think that with the amount of hate the Republicans in Congress have for all things Obama, they wouldn't immediately start screaming impeachment if what he was doing was illegal? No, they just sit back and come up with these nifty sound bites for Fox News to give us. All the while criticizing him no matter what position he takes. They were yelling that he was just ignoring the problem in Libya, now they are yelling because he got involved. Poor guy should be wearing a T-shirt that says "I can haz more flip-flops?
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize and military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
chris from yuc....
wow, i didn't know ralph nader or dennis kucininch, or even joe biden were from the FOX news network???
your argument is lame and lazy!
but hey, YOU know more than them, huh?
Interesting that his statement actually defended Bush's actions as Bush had the authorization of the legislative branch. Obama is an idiot.
We are part of the United Nations. We represent ourselves as the United States - a country that represents freedom and democracy for all. When asked to participate in an action to protect innocent civilians of any country we agreed to assist other free nations in doing just that. As part of a world coalition and mandated by the UN. We handed off the initial responsibilities to other countries last week. It is our responsibility to help people who want freedom and democracy to find it - either through vocalization and economic pressure or through physical action. If that can be done without boots on the ground - even better! Maybe if we spent sometime with a dictator or totally insane person at the head of our country we would understand the civilians more. We have so much here that is wonderful. Many times we seem to take it for granted. Our schools suck and are being made worse with cuts - try going to school in Syria, Libya, or even some of the countries in Africa or places in China. Our school systems need help, our health systems need help, our country is aging and yet I see no one trying to help. Only complain that no one is doing enough. Try helping a neighbor. Donate time, unused or un-needed items, even just ideas can help.
Hank-1921206 - The War Powers Resolution (it's not an act) does not demand a consultation with Congress.
As all US Military Officers learn during US Military Law (as not to obey any Illegal Orders, and then be crucified like Lieutenant Callis). Pertaining to the 1973 War Powers Resolution to restrict the Presidential and Commander In Chief Powers after the Vietnam War. 48 hours, 60 days, 30 days. Must inform US Congress (both Houses) 48 hours prior to any US Military Actions (Congress can stop this immediately by not appropriating any money). The US Military has 60 days to accomplish Activities, 30 days to withdraw. Since the 1973 War Powers Resolution became Law it is also known as an Act (Majority Votes House and Senate).
cybrjhn7 - The War Powers Resolution needs some revising and clarification, because precedent basically allows Obama to do what he did.
No, it did not allow President Obama to do what he did, it proves that he violated the Law.
Chris from Yucaipa - Neither of which require the president to ask permission of Congress.
US Law (Resolutions, Acts, etc.) take Legal Precedence over the US Military, and UN Resolutions, Agreements, Obligations, etc. take a back seat (last number after every other US Law). Stop your failed attempts to justify "US did not attack Libya" we did and are. You can come up with Legalese (lies) to attempt to distance the US as members of the UN, the now Historical Facts are that the US did attack Libya unlike the Germans, Russians, Chinese also members of the UN. Get over it. Go to thru the school of hard knocks by joining the US Military, become a US Military Officer and they will beat the Law(s) into your head, so that you do not become an International Embarassment to the US, and even get tried at the International Court of Justice as a "War Criminal" as "I was just obeying orders" is not a defense.
The president doesn't have the authority to hand off control of US troops to anyone else. Officers do not swear an oath to defend any other country. The swear to defend the United States against her enemies, both foreign and domestic. The SecDef has already said that Libya was not primary threat to the US. Obama's view that he is a world citizen will be to the detriment of this great nation. 2012 cannot come fast enough.
The spirit and intent of the Wars Power Act was a result of the rat hole of Viet Nam, that one idiot -- just because he could, mass murdered 55,000 American kids of my generation and millions and millions of Asians -- in another trumpted up lie. Back then, the bad guys were, "commies". In my lifetime, the enemies or all those evil empires, change, like the throw of dice. Today, Viet Nam, most assuredly, isn't posed to invade this nation, right?
But one thing we know, all these enemies and reasonings for mass murder, shift like the wind blowin, changing as frequently as the seasons. Most assuredly, we are always the good guys, and they are all bad, bad, bad. And, all along, I thought bombing innocents and God's green Earth was evil. Guess I know nutin about democracy. Do it our way, or we'll bomb the poop outta ya causin we duh good guys.
Nice rosy baloney. Answer the questions at post #1.10 with RESEARCHED FACTS (not opinion).
What is interesting and a question that no one truly answers is: who profits? since when does the Arab league get involved with Libya? When it's in their best interests. They don't like Quadaffi and his 'Green' revolution. Iran doesn't like Quadaffi. France and England get oil from Libya. Why did Russia, Germany and China decline? When is it ok to follow UN directives over US directives? When is it ok to turn command of the US military over to NATO?
Look at the history of Libya, it's interesting who the players are, the tribal leaders, the Baath party and the AlQuaeda connection. Then you have one of the rebel leaders recently stating that his 'soldiers' spent a great deal of time in Iraq killing American soldiers.
So essentially what we have is an excuse to go in and aid people who were killing US soldiers by giving them the opportunity to kill more people in the future.
skor154 - The spirit and intent of the Wars Power Act was a result of the rat hole of Viet Nam
Exactly so that it would not happen again by restricting the Presidential/Commander In Chief's War Powers.
A correction as to give credit where credit is due, it was two generations. The worst parts of any War being the begining your Generation 1960s and the other worst part my Generation 1970s the end when there is no longer any support for the War (and I do not care about "Phased Withdrawals" someone gets screwed as the last ones out.). After my father served three tours as a helicopter pilot, he thought that his sons would not have to go there. To his and our surprise was my getting a Selective Service Card, and later became a LRRP/Ranger, near Plei Can calling in airstrikes on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. We were left there to slow down the North Vietnamese Regulars and the Viet Cong so that the US Infantry, Armor, etc. units could get out of Vietnam. Just months before 1975 we were finally withdrawn. That was part of my long road to get to where I am now as a US Military Officer, and I have this really bad feeling about here (Afghanistan), just like I had back then (being some of the last to leave).
mygirl1 - What is interesting and a question that no one truly answers is: who profits?
Italy(Eni), Britain (BP), France (Total, Elf), Norway (Straoil), Austria (OMV), etc.. And Qatar since the Rebels signed agreements for Qatar to export Libyan Oil.
mygirl1-since when does the Arab league get involved with Libya? When it's in their best interests. They don't like Quadaffi and his 'Green' revolution. Iran doesn't like Quadaffi. France and England get oil from Libya.
It is in the best interest of the Arab League of Nations and Fundamentalist Islamic Iran to get involved with Libya since he is considered a Collaborator to the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers, due to his no longer pursing Weapons of Mass Destruction, Nuclear Power, and even going after Al Quada. This Collaboration demands a Death Penalty Fatawa, to "Die a Horrible Murdering". The Arab League of Nations and Fundamentalist Islamic Iran really hated President Saddam Hussein's "Modernization (Westernization) of the Arab World" including Women's Rights and Resource Nationalization. So they sent their Oil Rich Lobbyists to US President and US Congress demanding the Overthrow. They then issued a Death Penalty Fatawa against President Saddam Hussein. When the Oil Corporations found out about the Resource Nationalization, they too sent their Rich Oil Lobbyists to US President and US Congress demanding Overthrow. The rest is History. Much to my regret I was involved in most of the above.
mygirl1 -Why did Russia, Germany and China decline?
Because the Germans unlike the French, British, etc. can still get their Oil from the Russian Federation, just like they have since the 1980s been getting their Natural Gas from the USSR (now Russian Federation). Russia and China just want everyone out of their backyards, especially those with Natural Resources, as to why they fully support Fundamentalist Islamic Iran with modern weapons, technology, and even allowed North Korean ICBMs to be shipped thru Bejing China to Fundamentalist Islamic Iran. These are some of the reasons why 2010 China and Russia got the Iraqis Northern and Southern Oil Field Contracts and the US got f**ked.
mygirl1- When is it ok to follow UN directives over US directives? When is it ok to turn command of the US military over to NATO?
That becomes a really slippery slope that I got stuck (screwed) with before (UN Missions). As far as UN Directives over US Directives, that is Illegal for US Military Officers, regardless of all the wishful thinking, this is also the reason why it is Illegal for a US Military Officer to hold a Foreign Office. The US Directives will always supersede the UN Directives even if you are on a UN Mission, this is where that "Better Judgement" and maturity factor for US Military Officers comes into play (shove any disputes or blame to the US Politicians and the US Diplomatic Corps). Sometimes the US Directives are rewritten to accommodate the UN Directives (usually after the fact that some US Military got thrown in the slammer.), if you say as a CYA action that would be true.
So essentially what we have is an excuse to go in and aid people who were killing US soldiers by giving them the opportunity to kill more people in the future.
And add to that the fact that we are considering arming them with weapons. It has been suggested by some of American politions that we should arm them with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. I can just see where that is headed. Give them stinger missiles to shot down Libya planes that currently are not supposed to be flying today and we will see those on Londan, Paris, and DC tomorrow.
So somebody please explain me, what war declaration are we arguing about? Reagan invaded Grenada and Bush invaded Panama without a war declaration. Or they weren't wars? Come on, Reagan bombed Libya once and it was OK. Why Obama cannot bomb Libya again? After all, if Junior could wage another 'war' against Iraq to finish what daddy didn't, why can't Obama finish what Reagan started?
Justice: so now we are engaged in three wars ( humanitarian actions) which is what Bush said we were doing in Iraq. What I don't understand is how this military action is going to be 'different' from what history has shown in the past. Please remember 9-11, something that seems to get lost in the shuffle when referencing Bush. There is not a 9-11 event in the background of Libya. No terrorist actions have been perpetrated by Libya on American soil. Regan followed Britain into Grenada and Noriega was totally wrong for a number of reasons.
Do two wrongs make a right? When do we learn from the past? Why do we give Obama a 'pass' for doing what his predecessors have done?
Hey david-475776, i can agree with you that obama broke the law by not receiving congressional authorization. However, George W. Bush is an example of how easy it is to break this law. He did receive authorization, however, he continued activities way past 60 days (about 8 yrs in Iraq, 9 and counting in Afghanistan) and his withdrawal phase is taking way longer than 30 days.
hey david-475776
"the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth"
he did so within the 48 hours
and...
"(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter."
all from the war powers act of 1973...you should read it
david,
Can you clear up some things for me? You wrote that you were in Vietnam (post 2.19) after selective service which stopped in 1973 so that means you entered NLT 1972. That was 38/39 years ago so how are you still a serving military officer in Afghanistan? In order to serve that long you would have to be a general officer and the current 4 star entered active duty after you. Can you clear this up for me?
@david-475776. Go to thru the school of hard knocks by joining the US Military
I did 13 years in, how bout you genius?
So somebody please explain me, what war declaration are we arguing about? Reagan invaded Grenada and Bush invaded Panama without a war declaration. Or they weren't wars? Come on, Reagan bombed Libya once and it was OK. Why Obama cannot bomb Libya again? After all, if Junior could wage another 'war' against Iraq to finish what daddy didn't, why can't Obama finish what Reagan started?
A lot of it really comes down to duration.
With Reagan invading Grenada, he was in and out quickly. Really before Congress could vote any anything. Same with Bush invading Panama. Plus while I am not sure, I would not be suprised that in both cases Congress was informed 48 hours prior to the offensive action occuring.
Before Bush Jr. went to Iraq, he got authorization from Congress. While the bill that was passed was not titled "Declaration of War", I do believe the Supreme Courted ruled that it was Congressional approval for the invasion. This bill was passed before Bush Jr. started his offensive.
Here is the funny thing about all this guys. While the War Powers Act says that there should be a clear threat to the security of the nature in order for the Presendent to use military force, the Constitution does not make that stiluation with regards to Congress. Congress can pass a bill "Declaring War" on a foriegn nation, the Presendent can sign it in to law, and the US can go to war with that nation because "We do not like the way they eat their ice cream with their left hand". The Constitution does not place a restriction on the causes for war, only on which government body can declare it.
Hey david-475776, i can agree with you that obama broke the law by not receiving congressional authorization. However, George W. Bush is an example of how easy it is to break this law. He did receive authorization, however, he continued activities way past 60 days (about 8 yrs in Iraq, 9 and counting in Afghanistan) and his withdrawal phase is taking way longer than 30 days.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the law is that the Presendent is required to get Congrational authorization for the military action within 60 days of the start of the military action. Once that authorization has been given, he is not required to stop the military action.
Bush got the authorization from Congress prior to the military action starting. He got this after his first failed attempt to get the UN to authorize it. He went to UN in December and they initially rejected his request. He came back and got Congress to pass it in January, and the action started in February. D-Sen John Kerry was one of many Senetors that passed, remember.
I also believe that the Supreme Court made a ruling on the subject to stated that Congress gave the authorization to the Presendent with the details of the bill that was passed, even though the bill did not have teh title "Declaration of War on Iraq".
Can you clear up some things for me? You wrote that you were in Vietnam (post 2.19) after selective service which stopped in 1973 so that means you entered NLT 1972.
I could have swarn I still had to register for Selected Service in 1987 at my local post office when I turned 18. I believe you actually mean they may have stopped drawling on Selective Service. It is a common missconception that the US no longer has the draft. I beleive that the Draft has not be stopped since the end of WW2. It just that the US does not always drawl on Selective Service to man its military actions.
Let me count the reasons we went to war with Iraq in chronological order.;
1. Saddam secretly supported and advanced the cause of the Al Qaeda terrorists that attacked the United States - That didn't wash
2. Saddam had WMD's that would be used against the United States. - That didn't wash.
3. Saddam had nukes that would result in a mushroom cloud hanging over the our heads. - That didn't wash.
4. Saddam hates us because of our freedom and we must force a regime change - That didn't wash.
5. The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators with open arms and flowers after we overthrow Saddam. That didn't wash.
6. We are fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Makes sense finally. But wait, why were huge factions of those same freedom loving people using IEDs to murder our young soldiers?
Okay, I'm NOT buying a story that had to be changed 6 times by the same group of people for a particular cause. Their true motives became suspect, to say the least. I had one constant thought running thru my mind. IF regime change and overthrowing a ruthless dictator was crucial to those "freedom loving" Iraqis, why didn't they start their own revolution and request our help?
That is the difference in an all out war in Iraq for several weak excuses that didn't wash and a limited involvement in Libya to protect the people from genocide and to help a resistance that initiated their own efforts to overthrow a tyrant.I rest my case.
The War Powers Resolution needs some revising and clarification, because precedent basically allows Obama to do what he did.
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.[citation needed] 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.
The key here is to notify congress before hand, notice the 48 hours of “committing armed forces”
This “commitment” is not the sending in of our people, it is when he, the president has made the decision to do so, congress is to be “consulted” of the issue before it is done, they cannot stop him from doing it, but he is required to advise them of his intended actions.
Commonsense101 - Let me count the reasons we went to war with Iraq in chronological order.;
Since you were not involved and did not participate since the 1980s you left out quite a bit and only are stating those thing convient to make whatever point that you are attempting to make (Failure).
In March of 1975 Gerald Ford ended the requirement for young men who turned 18 to register for the draft. I was turning 18 in Aug of 75. Sometime while Reagan was President he began requiring that young men turning 18 register for the drafter retroactive to those turning 18 on Jan 1, 1976 or after. That remains in place today. There is a 9 month group of us that never had to register for the draft or more precisely the selective service.
Funny Republicans attacking Obama for doing EXACTLY what they would want him to do.
Nah not funny
JUST HYPOCRITICAL
so typical
Anything to attack Obama, IF Obama came out today and cut every dollar out of the budget that Reps wanted, slashed taxes, outlawed gays, abortions and instituted school prayer. Killed every entitlement, made Social Security a savings plan that each could direct on their own (or opt out of), dropped every hate crime law and Eliminated Stem Cell Research...they would bitch.
And you know it.
This is not being fought because America is the world's police, there is an economic gain for America to be had in stabilizing this country. America would never get involved unless it served her own interests (which is why it doesn't bother policing so many other conflicts around the world).
So yes, you can afford to be the world police. As long as you're getting something out of it. If America becomes isolationist, THEN the economy will collapse. You can't afford to not get involved in this conflict. That's why you're there. And you can't afford to pull out of Iraq. That's why you're there too. When the negatives of being involved financially outweigh the long term (projected) benefits of being there, then you'll pull out of Iraq. Same goes for any involvement in Libya.
"Jim-789449
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.[citation needed] 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.
The key here is to notify congress before hand, notice the 48 hours of “committing armed forces”
This “commitment” is not the sending in of our people, it is when he, the president has made the decision to do so, congress is to be “consulted” of the issue before it is done, they cannot stop him from doing it, but he is required to advise them of his intended actions."
within 48 hours does not mean 48 hours before, it means either 48 hours before or after, otherwise, it would have specifically stated such...and he did "consult" with congress before hand...also, if you go and read the war powers act, it allows the president to act in accordance of any treaties, such as those with the UN
Even though Obama is a tool and I didn't think we needed to finance another war (even a small one), I hope it works out. All servicemen involved, @!$%# em up. Good luck guys.
Drew
Hey Jason, after the words serious threat in WPR stop reading it !!The rest of the bill does not Apply !!!! The Serious threat or Under Attack is the WHOLE BILL !!! You dont do either of them This bill is not invoked !!! no 48 hours no 30 no 60days no nothing The president Must convene with Congress to use Force Period !!! you see after Serious threat it says (Citation Needed) Thats the acts that must take place!! All those rules after are not used !!!
david-475776, excuse me. I've been involved and participating before my very first vote in 1972. I saw RFK in a motorcade from the curb and refused a handshake from candidate Richard Nixon at the Ohio Statehouse, (while alone and paying for my own bus fare to both events) before I was old enough to vote.
I stood, with my hand over my heart and at attention, while listening to our national anthem over the PA system in first grade. Cold chills raced through my entire body in pride of being American for the first time. I refuse to question your patriotism. Please don't question mine.
48 Hours Prior to. And not afterwards as was done in this case. Otherwise the Senate Resolution would have been done prior to any US Military Actions. And the US Military would then be required (Tasked) to have a written Operations Order (including Objectives, etc. and yes, the Exit Strategy).
phantom-396954 -Can you clear up some things for me? You wrote that you were in Vietnam (post 2.19) after selective service which stopped in 1973 so that means you entered NLT 1972.
FYI, just became Secretary of Defense Laird (lard azz)(to us draftees) declared all volunteer 1973 US Military did not mean that the Draft (Selective Service) ended. From 1973 to 1975 the "Draft Boards" were sending out Selective Service Notices (Draft Cards) like mad, they did not know when the Vietnam War was going to end, they just needed to fill quotas. Example: Half of my Advanced Individual Training Class got orders to Travis AFB (meaning your next stop was Vietnam). Take a rough guess which half I was.
It was after 1975 (end of Vietnam War) that President Ford signed Proclamation 4360. That officially stopped the Draft. And you can bet that I was happier than sh!t knowning that my other relatives would not have to endure the hardships (Involuntarily) of the US Military.
phantom-396954 - That was 38/39 years ago so how are you still a serving military officer in Afghanistan?
The oldest US Military Officer currently serving in the US Military is 69 years old.
The problem with us, was that we were trained the way that we were. Starting out in the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces. Then "Training Up" to US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces. With "regional expertise", example: Language Arabic, one year School in US, one year College Level Arabic in Arabic Nation with Immersion by living with an Arabic Family (that do not speak English). Language Farsi, one year School in US, Immersion six months to one year living with the Kurdistanis. College Level courses in Islam in Arabic. Operational Experience (actual low intensity low risk missions) to prove that you can do as trained.
All Officers go thru the same Training as those that they will lead, there is no such thing as a "Gentlemen's Course". So for Mountain Warfare Training Winter and Summer (technical mountain climbing, and combat), we attended the Mountain Warfare school Winter Phase and Summer Phase, then spent some time at the Deutsche Bundeswehr (Commando) Schule near the Zugspitze. Then we were attached for "Training" to the Turkish Military at Southern Turkey fighting the Kurdistanis PKK, HPG, KGK, etc.. I will stop there.
This is why the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces (including the Redacted Redacted Division) lack the training, experience, equipment, maturity to conduct US Military Asymmetric Mountain Warfare. So now you can see why my men, women, and myself keep getting involuntarily recalled, recalled , recalled or them change our dates and keeping us on year of consecutive tours for the "Needs of National Security" and the "Needs of the US Military".
Like I posted before We are just a bunch of tired old men, and women, that want to return Stateside (US) to our US Civilian Careers (most employers will not hire us anymore because they do not know when we will disappear for years). And before you say Women? Even when I was a Team Leader for the US Military Training Teams from Germany to Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars and the US Military Training Teams (asset to the Agency) to Pakistan/Afghanistan during the USSR 40th Army Occupation we knew from Training that only Women associate with Women, a really big F**king surprise for the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces later on. We used to call our Women "Amazons" back then, now they are known as "Lionesses", since they went thru the same training as us (Men) and I have always believed in ERA, I have always fought for our Women to be able to wear the EIB, and all those pretty badges, berets, etc. that they earned in Combat (we do not wear all that crap (sniper bait) except on our dress uniforms). As the US Military Training Teams accompany those trained into Combat as Combatants to observe those trained to make on the spot correction to our Training, as well observe to modifiy future Training.
Redacted
Based on all that we went thru we told our bosses that they needed to start training our replacements two decades ago. And they did not. So now you can see why most of us are pissed beyond all reasonable belief, and darn sure do not want to be involved anymore.
As far as my US Military Officer Grade (rank is for Enlisted and NCOs), that is something that would be too telling.
Did you participate in the Iran Iraq Wars on the US Military Training Teams, no because I was the Team Leader. Did you participate in the subsequent US Military Actions at Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, South and Central Americas, North Africa, Darfur (Sudan), Somalia, etc..
Nope. So yes, fine discuss that what you did participate in (your experience) or do the detailed research. Like going to see RFK. and not your post at #2.33.
The president doesn't have the authority to hand off control of US troops to anyone else. Officers do not swear an oath to defend any other country. The swear to defend the United States against her enemies, both foreign and domestic. The SecDef has already said that Libya was not primary threat to the US. Obama's view that he is a world citizen will be to the detriment of this great nation. 2012 cannot come fast enough.
And what threat did Iraq pose to us? As much as Libya? Cetainly not more.
And look we are already handing off operations - we wont be there 10 years from now.
For the record - no cause for us to be in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.
This is a comedy in three acts. This action of Obama will be just that much more ammunition to be used in the upcoming Presidential campaign. His political advisers blew it this time. That speech was "damage control" at it's finest. Trouble is, The American people have his number, and are really paying close attention to his mistakes.
Mike-416, although we should have gotten out after we realized there were no WMD's, the entire world, including his own generals, thought Saddam had WMD's.
As far as Afghanistan, I guess you never heard of al-Qaeda, which used to roam freely there.
When I got out in '86, the POTUS had a Rapid Deployment Force at his disposal. He could commit 50,000 troops on his orders no questions asked. After 90 days, he would need congressional approval or, supposedly, have to pull them back. Has anybody ever seen congress pull back troops committed by the Prez??? It's all rhetoric, just is not going to happen. We're in it until it's over.
my support for the people of Libya is good, i agree the US could not stand by to see people slaughtered, however...
he ignored the practice of consulting the senate before sending our troops off to another war, even if it was a short term one, it was/is still possible for it to be a long term commitment. This does fall into the ranks where he could be impeached, this is written in the constitution! if Bush or any other president had done this, libs/conservs alike would crapping their drawers right now just to see an impeachment. This is breaking a very important rule, and even tho some dont realise, if not acted upon could affect our nation, and its people...more so the people.
Thanks Obama? Another war?
Obama is bankrupting this country and the media just fawns over his every word.
So Obama is using the same excuse as Bush to save innocent people. Media on Bush was unforgivable for the reasons going in. With Obama they are eating it all up saying how good it is.
HUGE Double Standard here... or in the US there are no Media standards!
Crappy journalism at it's best.....
skor154
To which idiot are your referring to about getting us involved in Vietnam? I seem to remember several presidents having their hands in the starting and continuing of that war, from Ike, through Nixon and even Ford wanted to stay the course, but wasn't allowed. Our country has been walking out of one war and into another for a long time now.
Let me get this right: So since we belong to the United Nations we have to go to war (or police actions) costing BILLIONS of dollars and the President can involve us in it legally anytime he wants. Of course the US mostly runs the United Nations. This just sounds like a way the President can go out and make war on who ever he wants. Let me out!!!!!!!!
Does anyone else really want to belong to the United Nations???
(I heard that our social security number is issued by the United Nations, is this possible?)
Interesting how many different interpitations i read here of the same law. Is it any wonder thinga are messed up in this country. Lawyers make laws to be confusing on purpose and most politicians are lawyers.
"Any precedent, you may be referring to, at least included some semblance of a threat to the U.S."
Kevin, the "semblance of a threat to the U.S." to which you refer was completely made up and based on absolute fabrications. Are you suggesting that President Obama should have made up some lame-ass story? He has too much integrity to do what Bush did.
Prior to Bush, America USED to stand for something in the world. President Obama has restored that vision of America and I can't see why we would want to go back to being the world's enemy.
My biggest problem with this is:
If Bush did an end run on Congress, the Lame street Media would be all over him, demanding impeachment. Anyone who can't see that is blind.
So.........are we going to go after Syria, Jordan, and Yemen now?
President Barack Obama declared Monday night that the U.S. military action in Libya had "stopped (Moammar) Gadhafi's deadly advance,"
Sounds an awful lot like "Mission Accomplished" but this speech was given by a coward from the comfort of the White House unlike a previous president that at least had the courage to fly to the gulf and address the troops directly from/on the deck of an aircraft carrier. The poser prefers his studio or Brazilian resort backdrop. By the way, the Mission accomplished banner displayed behind Bush was made and hung by the crew of the carrier to celibrate the visit by a POTUS they respected.
We should Impeach President Obama and then let the facts determine if what he did was an Impeachable offense. As the polls show, the country is split down the middle and being Impeached will settle the mess, once and for all.
Stud, Skor was referring to Lyndon Johnson as the 1 and only key idiot in the Viet Nam war! David, thank you for your service to our Nation
Now NATO is delaying taking control of the Libya issue. They have intel now that there are Al-Qaeda presence in the rebel's movement. DUH!!! Plus now our ambassdor to the U.N. has stated the White House hasn't ruled out arming the rebels with US weapons.
Are you people still blind???
Impeach please...........lets get Obama out before he starts WWIII.
FastMovingCloud, "the 'semblance of a threat to the U.S.' to which you refer was completely made up and based on absolute fabrications..."
Yes, fabrications by Saddam, not the administration. The world was fooled.
Commom sense,
"Resting your case" on what you believe "did not wash" does not mean a whole lot, and it certainly does not "wash" with me.
Ask yourself a very pertinent question. Who is responsible for the recent desire of Middle Easterners to throw off their oppressive dictators? If you are honest you will say that this is, and was, the Bush doctrine, it was his vision!! How it will turn out; I'm not so positive about. I do not trust that the general Middle East Muslim street is up to democracy (but that is a different argument).
President Barack Obama should have praised G.W. for his vision instead of lamely attempting to show how "this operation" was so much different than Iraq.
The only differences I see are:
1) Our Libya coalition is smaller
2) Libya lacks congressional approval
3) Ghadafi was on the U.N, Humanitarian Panel a few months prior while Saddam had a list of U.N. mandates against him a mile long and years in the making.
4) Ghadafi has killed his thousands (and probably would have killed more), but Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (at one point using WMD's on his own people)
5) Saddam attacked his neighbors and was a threat to the region (oil) with a substantial military. Ghadafi not so much, and certainly not a threat to us (Gates)
I read and interesting quote today:
"But were the hundreds of thousands found in mass graves in Iraq any less worthy?"
I supported the operation in Iraq (as most Americans did) and still do. And I support the operation in Libya. My reservations are wrapped up in our wishy washy commander. At least Bush was all in. That is the only way we should ever fight, period (There's your Vietnam comparison). Go all in or stay home, this lukewarm stuff makes me ill.
There is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, but I have to say; This one (Iraq, Libya) is all yours on the left.
Amazing how many Sheeple called this a "great speach" No questions directly answered. No info on cost, no info on end game, bunch of lip service. I would like ANYONE to point out a SINGLE SOLID answer other than no troops on the ground which will be a lie if this takes over 6 months.
Innocent civilians??? Do you mean those innocent civilians that are armed and shooting on the Libyan military in an attempt to overthrow the government?
Obama didn't go in when this started. Why didn't he approach congress in that time that he was standing on the sidelines waiting for direction from Sarkozy? Why is our president responding first to European leaders?
He bows to China, gives grants to Brazil, El Salvador and Mexico, reinforces outsourcing of US jobs to India, goes on vacation while Japan meltsdown, and now attacks Libya without congressional approval....That's a helluva year of bad foreign policy and it's only March.
Who is he representing??
Russia, China, and Brazil wants a ceasefire in Libya. You fools.......Obama is going to bring us down as a nation.
http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/03/25/no-obama-support-from-brazil-russia-china-on-libya-front/
Earlier this week, both Russian and Chinese officials have called for a cease fire in Libya.
On March 21, China’s official government media organ, The People’s Daily, accussed the United States and its allies of breaking international rules and courting new turmoil in the Middle East. The paper likened the assault on Libyan sites to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and suggested it followed a pattern of Western overreach. “The blood-soaked tempests that Iraq has undergone for eight years and the unspeakable suffering of its people are a mirror and a warning,” said the commentary that was reprinted in part in the English version of China Daily.
China’s foreign ministry said it regretted US President Barack Obama’s decision, along with leaders in France and the UK, to send in missile strikes to military targets in Libya on Sunday, March 20. Obama ordered the strikes from the five star luxry Copacabana Palace in Rio de Janeiro.
On March 22, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu, called for an immediate ceasefire. “China supports the continued diplomatic efforts of the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy to Libya, the African Union and the Arab League for peaceful settlement of the current crisis in Libya.”
GOP stop stalking our president with your bull$hit and let him do his job.
GOP stalking? Hmmm. When Bush went to CONGRESS for approval for Iraq he had support from both sides of the aisle. Pelosi was all over it, ditto Reid and essentially most of congress.
Obama went to the UN first then waffled then sent a short note to congress and then sent in the missiles. See the difference? Nope, didn't think so, but go ahead and claim the GOP is after Obama, ignore how many democrats are upset with Obama over this, also, ask yourself what this will cost and how long will it go and who, exactly, the 'rebels' are in this situation.
Joe....
Who is he representing??
Obviously not the American people. The establishment, and growth of a one world socialist government comes first with this POTUS.
That's why Obama got the UN involved and it NOT alone during this conflict. Like he clearly stated that the United States shouldn't always from the cost and burden and is not the world's police. Also we are a shared supporting role in the conflict without putting ground troops in Libya.
When Bush went to congress HE LIED ABOUT WMDs, PUT AN ALREADY FRAGILE NATION IN FEAR AND DUPED US ALL TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ (of course he declared war in "terror"... might as well have declared war on 'crime' or on the tooth fairy.)
The Iraqi hated us, didn't want us there.. didn't fight with us for THEMSELVES and most importantly OUR SOLDIERS DIED FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
The conflict in Libya is not WAR but an AIDE to the rebels and people THAT ARE DOING ALL THE GROUND FIGHTING, with whatever weapons they have.
HUGE DIFFERENCE!!
What is see funny is how the Republicans first say "WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT A NO-FLY ZONE ASAP... WHAT IS TAKING SO LONG? WE SHOULD DO IT NOW!!!" But when Obama gets the support and help of the UN to share the cost and responsibility so taxpayers don't have to pay for everything and it's not our soldiers involved... they flip-flop on their own words and say: "HE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT... HE SHOULD HAVE ASKED CONGRESS.. HE DECLARED WAR ON LIBYA.. WHY ARE WE INVOLVED? ETC.."
AMAZING how republicans are such two-faced liars.
TRUTH IS: THEY HATE OBAMA NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER WHAT HE WOULD HAVE/HAD DONE BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.
THEY HAVE BEEN SABOTAGING EVERYTHING SINCE DAY 1, ESPECIALLY THE ECONOMY FROM A RECESSION THEY CREATED WITH THE "I HOPE HE FAILS" ATTITUDES BECAUSE IF HE DOES FIX IT (AND HE HAS) IT MAKES THEM LOOK BAD.
AND YES, IT'S ALL ABOUT HIS RACE!
IMO...The only reason why we are there is because of oil...Light sweet crude to be exact...The justification for this action is BS...There are atrocities in other countries which continue but go unnoticed by the US gov't. The irony of this whole action is those who did not support Bush's incursion of Iraq are supporting Obama's military exercise in Libya...It's funny, REPs send military force and they are war mongers...DEMs send military and they are liberators...I can smell the odor of fecal matter oozing from my computer monitor...
@Dentonbikeclub...
see you are the one who has been misled. by your own choice. Fact is Bush got the approval he needed to go oto Iraq. The people of Iraq didnt hate us, nor do they now, you were just drinking into the democratic media hype juice box is all. i happen to know of no less than 18 people who served in Iraq, 5 of them NCO's, not one of these people come across with the word the Iraqi people hate us, nor did the majority of them want us to leave. they did in fact feel more safe with our presence there. Fact also the peolpe who did not want us there most were not even originaly from Iraq, but from other close by countries, who did not like us, not to mention, because YOU as well some have seem to have forgot... when we did topple Saddam's little party house, it was a matter of who to put in charge. The Sunni felt they should be, seeing how they have held power during Saddams rule, @!$%#itte felt they should, because Saddam had repressed them during his entire rule, and so went the list, everyone felt THEY deserved to rule the roost... now that the US had taken care of the dirty work. When it came to , gee guess what, people are going to have to elect someone, well, thats when they started killing eachother off. you forget the innocent people who were killed, children, unarmed men and women. you forget about the outside forces at work who pitted one against the other...and you forgot, our men and women did not die in vain, desptie what your democrat god would have you think... they dird in, and with honor...something you sir, have no idea of the true meaning....
Nobama the clown side stepped congress to wage his own war. until i had head this, i was in support of the late effort till then. He would, and could have easily recieved support from congress, both sides were in favor of doing something other than watch innocent people be slaughtered, however he broke the rules. IMO our forces are there illegally, be Nobama the Clown sent them there or not.... he did not get the approval as required from congress, and should be tossed out on his azz so hard his great grand kids cant sit down....
Denton:
YOU are the only one that is making this about the President's race.
Funny how you call others "racist" when it is clear you are a "reverese-racist"
If you want to investigate racism LOOK at AMERICAN SPORTS TEAMS- hardly see a "white" guy playing ANY position in the NBA.
Go ride your bike.
Denton,
Gotta agree with these guys (though I am not so concerned about the racial make-up of America's sports teams); You did an awful lot of nonsensical blathering, then finished up with more babbling about race. Make a coherent argument, and place the hypocrisy where it belongs (on this issue), most republicans have been pretty consistent on this one.
mike sa, this is nothing like the war in iraq, nothing. civilians in iraq, hundreds of thousands were not being killed at the time of the iraq war. the iraq war was bush's way of saying look i'm trying to do something about terrorism, problem was that's not were we needed to be to get bin laden, we needed all our forces in afghan, which is what Obama has done.
I'm sorry, were there 100's of thousands being killed in Libya that we have not been made aware of? Saddam did kill 100's of thousands, by the way, and showed the tendency (as did his sons) to do so again.
You Dems should disown Mr. 100% Dem (not a good representation for you I think), hes' a bit of a dolt.
DentonBicycleClub
It is not because he is black - actually half black - it is because he is a child running this country, and doing it badly.
But, Obama will make a great casket salesman when he leaves the Oval Office in 2012: Yes Sir, you NEED the bronze model with the golden handles!
(I heard that our social security number is issued by the United Nations, is this possible?)
This discussion just reached a new high in idiocy.
ya, see.... i kinda always thought of Nobama the Clown as a white, black man, not really a black, white man.
So if American has a "responsibility to act" to protect people from government violence/killing, when will Obama be attacking Bahrain, Syria, Iran, Yemen....the list goes on and on...
I wonder what the Hollywood gang has to say about this action, remember how they went after Bush? Very quiet from LA LA land. Where's Bill Maher? What a bunch of phonies.
Bill Maher is busy calling Palin a "dumb Tw*t"....yet another story most of the media ignored...heck it even took NOW 24 hours to respond...and then their response was as much a complaint against the women Maher offended as it was a complain that Maher referred to a woman that way.
When boots are on the ground in Libya how are you lefties going to spin that?
As far as Bill Mahar goes that liberal cry baby can stick it.....When your in a fox hole at 18 years old you don't want that jerk covering your back side..
bill maher is a coward with a loud mouth hiding behind a microphone. FACT of the matter is Sarah Palin could easily take little Bill if he had to back it up.
Somehow, stupidly, I believed Viet Nam would be this nation's watershed on mass murder, killing innocents, bombing the Earth and as a nation, "baby killers". Somehow, this wisdom was forgotten -- that most wars are a vast waste, unnecessary and evil. Isn't this Lybia's business? Who appointed this nation as the world's dictators, a do it our way or we'll bomb you, kinda thing. And, who appointed us, God. "Thou Shall Not Kill".
Three wars and no end in sight. Why can't we ever give Peace a Chance? Stay in our own nation, mind our affairs and let it be...
skor154 - The reason Vietnam was mostly forgotten is because our politicians (both parties) filled us with a sense of urgency BS that we had to go and protect ourselves from terrorism, evil, and bad dictators. 9/11 made us forget Vietnam, and our leaders figured, hey they fell for it once, let's do it again and again...
dano-2070101 - When boots are on the ground in Libya
That already happened with the two F-15 Pilot and Co Pilot that ejected and landed on the ground at Libya.
Tick tock goes the 1973 War Powers Resolution Clock. 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, ........................................10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.
Bahrain, Syria, Iran, Yemen....you name it .
Those dictator didn't appear in youtube treating to kill masses and shouting F#$%K you America. THERE IS WHERE THE DIFFERENCE COME FROM.....
___________________________________________________________— My dear fellow Republican-Corporationist friend, all I can tell you is :
"Dawn Obama if he do, Damned if he don't"
david - one pilot was rescued by our military - the other by the so-called rebels kissed on both cheeks and put up in a three star hotel until our guys brought him out so what is your point - jerk?
Barbara Adams Jackson,
I believe David's point is that we already have "boots" on the ground. I, for one, think that it is rather curious that as long as the US doesn't put "ground" forces into Libya, that it is ok and we are not really fighting a war. I guess it is ok to lose aircrews and that is not a real war but if we lose ground troops then it is? curious. wonder what the aircrews think of this?
Maher vs. Palin?
Now that would make for a highly viewed PPV title fight.
We have special forces on the ground in Libya. There are A-10's and AC-130's flying around Libya - a real strong indication that we have special forces on the ground.
black_belt3
It was alreay stated on Friday that Special Forces of France, Britain and the U.S.A. have been "boots on the ground" a week before the bombings started.
@Prof1-3109088 and @Maxwell's Bill Maher and the rest of the hollywood gang are where they always are, politically correct and completely uncontroversial. New boss, the same as the old boss. Just hope they die.
Schlitzsky - someone else had ask the question and I had not read the news report about Special Forces be acknowledged to be on the ground - tho experience told me that would be the case.
Just some terminology corrections:
US Army: US Army Special Forces. "Green Berets"
USAF: Special Tactics Teams of the USAF SOWs.
USMC: USMC MARSOC.
USN: USN SEALs.
Of course their are US Military Asymmetric Warfare Task Forces that are all of the above.
US Army: Troops, Soldiers, Grunts.
USAF: Airmen
USMC: Marines
USN: Sailors, Seamen
When boots are on the ground in Libya how are you lefties going to spin that?
We'll wait and see if that happens.
You con's like to play on suppositions to justify your point - If we dont invade Iraq the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud, if you cut taxes businesses will hire more people, blah blah blah.
How about living in the real world here. Usually you guys want to be reactive instead of preventitive so this is nothing new.
Most of the "Wars" since World War II have been UN police actions. A police action should be fought with police, not our Military's Infantry boots on the ground.
We need to rethink what a war is and what the UN wants it to be. Maybe we should rethink being in the UN. It sounds like the UN has more power than we do as a sovereign nation.
It is a little scary to think we allow Communists, Socialists and other ignorant people choose who we have to fight when they don't want to.
Maxwell
You are a funny one. We are supporting the dictators in Bahrain and Yemen so we will not help topple them just like we stood by and watched Egypt. As for Iran and Syria, nothing will happen unless there is a UN resolution to send USA into another war we can't afford. Funny how we can hardly keep our own government running for over two weeks but we can find all the money for wars we need!
Practice of the Sphere of Influence. The President has set things in motion in the Middle East and nations will now become more involved in the Democratic process that will not only benefit the Middle East, but the world as a whole.
President Obama is showing the world what true practiced leadership is all about. I have no doubt that his impact on the world stage will have a ripple effect for governing in a fashion that is beneficial to nations that provide their people the opportunity for liberty.
This operation will have a domino effect throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East. And that will be what the world has been waiting for for a United Front against terrorism.
President Obama has taken the presidency to a whole other level.
Well...he certainly has taken it to a whole other level... Let's see how many more countries we can bomb before his term is up?
he's given the terrorist another country to take over.thanks obama !!
A true practiced leader? I don't think so. He couldn't lead a girl scout troop to Georgetown Cupcake.
ahhh, there's louisj with his blind naive love for the rookie-in-chief, pffft!
Nothing pleases me more when hatred squirms in the presence of truth.
The critics agree on one thing, they have a bitter disdain toward those that do things that are pragmatic and out of the norm, and man President Obama is making the Right oh so bitter, I can feel the hate through this computer screen.
If the founding fathers could say something right now, they would say, "Man, I didn't know this is guy is really good and the Republicans are bad... vewy vewy badddddd."
Giggidy
:^/
Oh, Louis, mass murder and mass murderers incite hatred and rampant terrorism. We are the bully nation; do it our way or we'll bomb you to hell and back. Who appointed us God? How many innocents will die because of our interference in a much weaker nation experiencing a civil war!
What was really accomplished in Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq? Bombing and warring only is mass murder, and bombing the Earth, kills man's only home, duhhhh.
Yup, democracy at work. Ya'll become a democracy or we will bomb you to hell and back! So very democratic. "Thou Shall Not Kill".
Just like all those other nations in the Middle East jumped on the democracy bandwagon after Iraq became a democracy?
It's about the ability to remove dictators without full assault. Libya is going to be the focal point so that it will cause ripple effects across the Middle East and North Africa that will theoretically affect nations that are under oppressive regimes. But this is too much for some to believe in. We're taking Gaddafi out without the need to actually step on the ground.
The simple fact that many nations are involved, makes this whole CHANGE something even Republicans can believe in.
Louis: This is cherry picking a weaker opponent and attempting to make it look like a humanitarian action. Note how things are changing in Libya. The rebels are essentially directing the action rather than the other way around. We are merely allowing a ragtag group of terrorists to go in and take over a country. Keep watching the action and then look at what happens after Quadaffi is gone. I doubt seriously that the bloodshed will stop, in fact I predict a bloodbath once the 'rebels' gain control and old grievances are allowed to bloom.
Read Justin Raimando's piece on Antiwar.com about the background to all of this. What constitutes Libya was 3 seperate smaller states that were pulled together by the West/UN into one large state. A lot of those tribes want independence from one another, meaning the old borders.
Sure you keep thinking that Gaddifi was hosting an International Al Quada Franchise Conference just prior to the Rebellion.
Rascal55 - Just like all those other nations in the Middle East jumped on the democracy bandwagon after Iraq became a democracy?
You do not know diddly squat about Iraq. How about you researching about why 2010 the Chinese and Russian Federation got all the Iraqis Northern and Southern Iraqis Oil Field Contracts and the US got f**ked. That will tell you something.
Robert-3107100, this is exactly why Iraq got so f**ked up also, a lack of comprehension. see Rascal55 post about lack of comprehension.
A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42207112/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times
Hi Luis,
Do you think we understand the Arab world well enough, to anticipate the unintended consequences of this aggression?
Do you think any Arab country, for that matter, could predict the outcome?
War should be a last resort.
To predict that Obama is some wizard that understands the results of this attack is hopeful and honorable but I think Obama is showing hubris, not genius.
Excellent comment, you are absolutely right! To news vine: Why was this comment collapsed? Think about it hasn’t violated any of the rules, besides of being an intelligent comment unlike 95% of the rest ultra narrow mind unintelligent right wingers in here. You need to do justice and clarify RESTORE the comment.
Actually Jhon, it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside that the president is right and they are wrong. Right Wingers are the epitome of everything that is ill and unimformed.
When people take the advice of failed entertainers and failed governors (Beck, Barbour and Palin) and believe it to be some kind of gospel, they are truly lost like sheep finding themselves in the home of Palin Queen of the Northwoods realm drinking TEA Delight.
For some reason, the GOP likes to have "leaders" that are "decisive", even if wrong, and stupider than others in the belief that this makes them more authentic. I, for one, do not want a President who is stupider than me. We already had that with W and $1 trillion, 4,000 US lives, and likely over 100,000 lives later, we see how well that worked out. And he and his buddy Tony Blair, remember lifted sanctions on Libya after the Lockerbie bomber tradeoff was complete. Now, that's real "leadership"!
I'll take a nuanced and cautious approach to an admittedly unstable situation any day. The U.S. doesn't have a "policy" because its impossible to have one in this situation -- even Egypt which is an ancient nation (in the modern sense of the word) does not have a clear path to a democratic future. Obama is giving the Libyan rebellion (at least there is one) some breathing room to see if they can do something with it. In the end, it'll be up to the Libyan's to see this through. What would be interesting, and welcome, is if the Egyptian army were to help with Libyan rebels....
So when Libya bombs the USA to remove our Rookie in Chief dictator and all of his appointed Czars you will be okay with it????
Lous- we cannot go around and bomb every nation, removing it's leader, because we label them as dictators....
Payback will now be a bitch because we just created another generation of terroists coming out of Libya with an excuse to bomb us...
So you blame Bush, but give Obama a free hall pass???
Saddam actually did kill alot of Kurds in Iraq for military testing of biological and chemical gasses-as there was alot of infighting between sects.
Gaddafi is supressing rebels(armed fighters) from overthrowing his government.
BIG difference depends on how you look at it all....
JH - I agree with you. In the case of Libya, Obama is playing his hand very well and not only has Gaddafi fuming but also the right-wing as they stumble over each other with contradictions. A word of caution though, a smart man can screw things up as well as the village idiot.
@MSNBC - I'd also like to know why this comment was collapsed. Can it be as simple as any time a person offers a political opinion, a group of politically opposed folks can come along and just collapse it? That does not seem right to me.
As it was already pointed out, the collapsed post contained no infractions of MSNBC or Newsvine rules. Hello, Moderator???
Man you Marxist libs are all full of @!$%#!!!!
let's get it right in 2010-2012, please don't grenade troll an entire group of people.
You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
To: LouisJ
We did it justice prevails! Your comment was restored just as I’ve asked from the moderator. Thank you for contributing to the discussion with knowledge not passion. Thanks Sally for keeping a watch full eye and restoring the comment!
No doubt, but the battle is far from over with the likes of these guys scouring the vine. Keep up the good fight.
Americans are hurting because of the bad economy. People are slipping into hopelessness. Our infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. Our schools are failing. Pres. Obama should be doing more to help Americans, not Libyans.
BTW, why aren't American forces invading Burma, which has one of the worst dictatorships in Asia? American policy, as usual, is full of glaring inconsistencies and our pseudo-idealism is extremely expensive.
#5 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:08 PM EDTOur idealism is pure BS, pure and simple. Our elites(especially French elites) want that damn oil to be divvied up so they can enrich themselves. Many members of the rebellion are extremeists or all out Al Qaeda. A lot are tribal seperatists, which means just a civil war, is being waged. Qadaffi is a nice guy compared to the House of Saud or on the same level at worst, but we would never take them out since they are our puppets. Syria and Iran are next. Syria is having a food(bread) shortage or more accurately food prices are going up, too high for the poor to afford, even with govt subsidies. The democracy movement is just about installing pro Western puppet regimes into ME nations that are independent or anti US. Just look at Ukraine. We got regime change there from a pro Russian govt to a pro US govt and all they really did was peg the hryvna to the dollar, which caused the average Ukrainian to lose up to 50% of their savings, keeping them poor. On top of that the pro US regime was pushing NATO onto Ukraine, which easily 75% of the people don't want, since they know they will be a frontline state on any future attack on Russia. My point being this is the same stuff a pro Western regime will do to the people in the ME, then you will end up with more resentment towards us.
Robert - I have suffered your posts and I find you wanting - I admit this government sucks but only because it has been bought and paid for so quit blaming our policies and start asking why our , your politicians are bought and paid for - we as Americans should ask for campaign reform - pure and simple.
Barbara: That is one of the saner statements made here. Unfortunately asking a politician for campaign reform is like getting a toddler to quit sucking his thumb.
You aren't going to get campaign reform Barb. Our two parties do what they want and the American Booboise seem to not give a damn. You also need to realize that our democracy for the most part is a sham to begin with. The big money rules the day, they rule the media and have the politicians bought off. The only way to get real campaign reform is to take money out of it almost entirely. EVery candidate gets free airtime, no big donors or corporate $, etc. Thing is the Supreme Court just ruled that corporations are people, so you will never ever get campaign reform. Not sure why you think my original posts were wanting, since they stuck with the subject matter at hand being Libya. Campaign reform is a whole different ballgame.
McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Law). As ignored during the 2008-2009 Elections. With "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefing the US Supreme Court 2010 to enable "Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions", as to prevent the 2008-2009 Elections Illegal/Invalid. In 2011, "Mr. Corporate America" was fined (slapped on the wrist) for admitting that prior to the 2008-2009 Elections he received nearly a Billion USDs from each Corporation.
This is why I believe that the Electoral College must be eliminated to make the Popular Votes determine the US President and Vice President.
And that the US Reprentatives must be selected at random like Jury Duty (vetting process included). As a Civic Duty, similar to US Military Service. They would have Term Limits. Paid a National Average of the "Middle Class". States would own the Houses at Virginia not expensive D.C.. They would be responsible for travel to and from D.C.. Their Benefits would be ended upon completion of Service and would be like the US Military (including all Payroll Deductions). After a successful completion of Service they would be returned to where they came from (Peer Presure to do a good job). Etc..
All Lobbyists, Special Interest Group made 100% Illegal up to Criminal Charges of Crimes Against the Citizens and Government of the US, aka Treason.
This would end the majority of the US Politicians being bought and paid for as required to prostitute themselves and sell out the US Citizens to make Millions to Billions in Campaign Contributions:
Sorry, Politicians' Dance Cards Are Full
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/21/ftn/main6228685.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea
The Price Tag Of Politics
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228712n&tag=related;photovideo
Barbara Adams Jackson, why am I a jerk. Just do the Research. I am darn sure not going to contribute to the broken US Education System by spoon feeding you. Calling me a jerk instead of Researching the Facts just embarrasses YOU.
McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Law). As ignored during the 2008-2009 Elections. With "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefing the US Supreme Court 2010 to enable "Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions", as to prevent the 2008-2009 Elections Illegal/Invalid. In 2011, "Mr. Corporate America" was fined (slapped on the wrist) for admitting that prior to the 2008-2009 Elections he received nearly a Billion USDs from each Corporation.
Sorry - couldnt get a complete thought out of that mess.
He's proved once again he is not a real leader, and his priorities are all out of whack. This man now has blood on his hands and should be impeached and tried for War Crimes against the Libyan people.
We had no business bombing these people and killing innocent men, women and children.
I have no respect for this pizz-poor president. He is a FAILURE and a Murderer just like the wuss Geroge Bush is, and that's afraid to travel overseas and go to certain events in America. imo.
"We had no business bombing these people and killing innocent men, women and children."
Sure. We just let Khaddaffi slaughter innocent men, women and children.
"This man now has blood on his hands and should be impeached and tried for War Crimes against the Libyan people."
Impeached and tried for war crimes? Bush/Cheney were more war criminals than Obama. What was done to them? At least the Arab League asked for our help. I don't recall the Iraqis doing so.
You hit the nail right on the head, I've said all along we need to fix America and once that has occured then become the good guy's through out the world, you don't see Canada, getting into all these's fight's for human right's crap, Cuba would not be where it is today if the Cuban people that live there decided that enough was enough, as we here in America did quite some time ago, oh no they just come to America and protest the Cuban Government, get the people here all up in arm's, and put the American Government, in the middle of it, if they don't like the way thing's are in Cuba then maybe they should organize them selves in Cuba and put a stop to it, like they did in Egypt. There are plenty of option's open just leave the US out of it, let us handle our own problem's, what is Obama looking for another nobel peace prize, does he think they come in pair's, we don't need a Mr. I can handle anything, we need a let's get America on it's feet type of leader, where are the job's? When does the economy come back under control, when do the gas price's come back under control, groceries come under control, housing come under control, state budget's come under control, we need answer's to these's problem's, not claping hand's and take another bow Obama you are the man, in Libia, if you want to fix Libia then move to Libia, lead them, we need some one to look out for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, does any buddy get that. Smoke and mirror's is what we have here and please reelect me because I need the job, that's not what we want, how thick is this guy's skull any way's. He remind's me of my wife, you know the type start a little here start a little there never finish what you started to do, but sure got lot's of half way started thing's going. We need focus and we for what ever the reason can not get it, that's what happen's when you have never run any thing, and have no experience, your cummunity organizer is not getting the job done, it's time for real change.
True but what isnt these days. Truth is some people hate everything he does without pause or thought. I am not happy with a War but understand and saw the events of 90's genocide and he would of been blamed if that happened. He lost either way in the arguement over this in some peoples heads.
If you want to make a poltical jab out of this just like you did with Japan go ahead it makes you more disgusting in the end.
#6 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:08 PM EDTIf this is the path Obama should be taking...we have a lot more countries to bomb this week.
There must be something more to it to justify action in Libya, but not in Yemen, Syria, Iran, Bahrain etc. etc. etc.
Yes, because every country and circumstance is the same, right ?
Muslims, leaders bad, bomb now.
@HANK
No, their similarity is "the people" in each of those countries tried to stand up to their oppressive governments and were beaten and murdered for doing it.
The difference is we intervened ONLY in Libya.
Correct we worked with allies on this unlike some other wars where it was get in line we don't care. Oh yea he does have a sound exit strategy where some other events was lets not care mode or make it up mode. Its NATO's job for the most part not ours. We are partners in this not the whole thing.
The difference is that those other countries, although bad, are not currently using tanks against civilians, and shelling their own cities with artillery.
Oh yea he does have a sound exit strategy where some other events was lets not care mode or make it up mode. Its NATO's job for the most part not ours. We are partners in this not the whole thing.
He does not have a sound exit strategy.
It has been stated by many, including POTUS, that Quadiffi most no longer be the leader of Libya. Quadiffi has heard this. It has been shown as recently as the Iraq war what happens to dictators that lose their set of power. Where is Saddam today? In a grave. Quadiffi knows this. It is general human nature to have a tendency to want to LIVE. Do you believe that Quadiffi believes any different and does not want to live?
Basically the world, with the US out front, has back Quadiffi into a corner. The only way he can survive, and most likely the only way his sons are going to survive, is to make this thing run as long as possible in the hopes that the world will get tired and go away. Otherwise, he will be either killed out right or caught, placed on some one sided trial and sentence to death.
With that in mind, what is the exist strategy again? Keep bombing the towns that resist the rebels advance to Tripoli? And when rebels get to Tripoli, after we have cleared the path, then what? Bomb Tripoli? It is hard to do that precise of bombs from 30,000 feet up or 300 miles off shore. Street fighting requires soldiers if you are worry about not having major collateral damage.
What would happen in the US if the Insurrection Act is invoked.
Would the other Permanent Members of the UN Security Council then send their Military to support the "Rebels" to conduct Offensive Actions against the US Military of US NORTHCOM. With their Offensive Actions justified in the guise of "Humanitarian Actions".
Richard Walking - where was Bush's exit stradegy - we will pay for this war with the oil - Wolfowitz - we will be greeted as liberators- Cheney- meanwhile Haliburton will make a fortune- sorry except for one all where Chicken Hawks, - name me one Republican who has served - Mitch McConnel - deferred - Cheney - deferred - Bush AWOL - Limbaugh - had boil on his butt - deferred - should I go on - oh yes McCain graduated bottom of his class got captured - nicknamed "SongBird" release the thirty tapes he made for the Viet Cong - great heroes you have - I have a few my uncle died on the Bataan March - my other uncle was in the PT Boats on Okinawa - Jf Kennedy was on the PT Boats - John Kerry was on the Swift Boats - you're people are liars and cheats and cowards - go after me
where was Bush's exit stradegy - we will pay for this war with the oil
The concent of exit stradegy is realitively a new thing. In fact, I believe it was only ever brought as a political point with those who later opposed Bush Jr. Prior to that, it was not something that was ever really defined by the Presendent prior to the use of the military.
I do not recall the history books stated that FDR published an exit stradegy with regards to WW2. In fact, I believe that there actually was no Declared War against Germany, but only Japan. It can be argued that the complete and total surrender of Germany and Japan forces was the exit stradegy, but if that is the case why do we still have bases and military forces in those countries.
Lincoln never had an official exit stradegy for the US Civil War at its start. Some could say that his Immacipation Proclimation could be some form of that, but that did not get stated until several after the start.
That being said, Bush did have an initial exit stradegy that most people now, including his own administration, do not really recognize as a valid exist stradegy. That stradegy was the removial of Saddam from his seat of power. That was done in less then a week.
One cold argue that Obama does have one as well this. His exit stadegy, as stated by him to the American people and the World at large, is the removial of Quadiffi from his seat of power. So like the questions came up with regards to the Iraq War, when is the timeline for that?
How about this, you go join the US Military.
Rant about uninformed things that you have no knowledge about.
The Oil from Iraq was shot down the tubes 2010 after the Chinese and Russian Federation got the Northern and Southern Iraqis Oil Contracts. As stated by the Saudi Arabians "President Obama gave Iraq to Iran on a Golden Platter". Go research which Saudi Arabian said that.
As soon as you said Halliburton I knew that you were uninformed as there are hundreds of thousands of US Contractors that make more money than Halliburton.
Bush was no more AWOL than you have any researched facts.
As far as McCain you go stay at the Hanoi Hilton for a while with a few broken bones and no medical treatment. If you ever served in the US Military and were trained on SERE you would know what you can and cannot do to save your own life, and he did them within the time constraints.
That was your, uncles not you.
As far as John Kerry on Swift Boats, fine they served a purpose, machine gunning suspected Viet Cong on their little boats on the rivers.
All you are proving is that Former US Military Officers make better Presidents than Community Organizers.
How about your six time Draft Dodger, Five Student Deferments (he got an F for plagiarizing), and one bought from a known Anti War Doctor Medical Deferrment that would make him too sick to hold any Public Office, as to why he lost his previous Presidential Campaigns (including in his home State).
Syrian forces killed protesters.
Bahrain forces killed protesters.
Iranian forces killed protesters.
Seems to me there are other despots out there that have killed protesters and we should by virtual of President Obama's speech get into those conflicts as well. It is only fair to take a side in these conflicts even though these are Civil Wars. We want to protect innocent people from being killed.
I have no idea who Barbara Adam's Jackson, is supposed to be, aside from an Obama supporter, it is unfortunate that people of her elk, really do not understand the underlying, reason's for millitary action such as what is now taking place, first off having been involved in Nam quite some time ago and sorry that we lost that one by the way, along with 58,000 good men and women, I see no reason to be in this at all we in the US need to be right here on American soil taking care of American business, as I address this person I feel that it might be a good idea that she look out through her community and see the carnage right in her own back yard the people with out job's, with out food for their family's, with out a place to live, standing on street corner's beging for mony to buy food ,pay bills, ect,ect,ect, and please explain to me why the people in her community do not deserve better than they are getting from the leadership in the White House, this man has done nothing in the last two yr's aside try to shove law down the American people's throught, staying on a world wide tour appoligizing for the American people, and has not done one single thing to move America forward, in the economic crises they are experiencing right up today, with no end in sight, we need some one to be on our team for a while, instead of talking to Mr. teleprompter and hoping to get an answer, he had no idea's when he came to office and has proven even with the help of his supportes on his staff in the White House, whom by the way are leaping off the ship almost as fast as he can replace them, has no idea's now. we need focus not speechs, and we need it now, not 6 month's pryer to election time if you catch my drift, if you can contribute some answer's to these thing's I'ed be glad to hear them, not just bla,bla,bla.
Excuse me Buff did you hear anything but Obama's lips fapping? WHAT WAS DIFFERENT?
We are commiting WAR to protect the little kiddies (Yea Right)....... Are we REALLY willing to fall for this again?
BTW one liners mostly come from Sock Puppets.
#7 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:10 PM EDTMUW who does have the courage to give your real name - go play in your play pen and I am being kind to what I really want to say to you- take your blocks and go home
Barbara I may think MUW is wrong, but only a total idiot would post their real name on here with all the psychos about.
Stick to the issue, don't be so silly
What is the problem with his post, other than being cynical, which is more than warranted for the conduct of American Foreign Policy for the past decade?
"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability.
"Long-standing ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
"As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims."
George Bush 2004
#8 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:11 PM EDTI now expect the left to attack Obama in the same way they attacked Bush for saying the same thing.
The big difference is, Bush got Congressional approval and spoke to America BEFORE attacking.
Sad but true other than GWB LIED to Congress to get approval (oops forgot about that did we!
Still one asked and one didn't......
But heck didn't US vote for CHANGE in 2008? Looks US got it (in the rear again)!
Vote Paul/Nader 2012 Investigate/Prosecute/Incarcerate these new "War Profiteering Robber Barons" just like US have done before!
MUW - It would only be a lie if Bush knew it was not true when he said it. I do not know what he knew and neither did you.
MUW,
Here we go again, Chronological Events.
Who said this and when, as justification to demand US Congressional Law H.R.4655, short title: Iraqis Liberation Act. Long Title: "Overthrow the Iraqis President and the Iraqis Government to Liberate the Iraqis People".
Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.
This was the first time the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was used.
Just because a US Congressionally approved Law is not titled: "Declaration of War" does not make it any less than a Real Declaration of War, if it meets the criteria of International Law, UN Rules and Laws, 1907 Hague Convention, 1949 Geneva Convention, etc.. And a Government Stating, Funding, Organizing, etc. the Overthrow of a another Sovereign Government is a Declaration of War (for obvious reasons) according to the International Court of Justice, Hague.
Based on information of H.R.4655, US Congress reappropriated Funds to H.R.4655 pre 9/11 2001. In 2002 President Bush used the information of H.R.4655 for US Congressional Approval of 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution added to H.R.4655, since all previous attempts to Overthrow President Saddam Hussein failed, including 1998 Operation Desert Fox. H.R.4655 plus the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution meet the terms of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. As soon as President Obama announced the end of all Combat Actions at Iraq, H.R.4655 and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution are no longer Law (no US Congressional Appropriations) for any potential future US Military Actions at Iraq. This showed a lack of commitment to the Iraqis, and the rest of the "Middle East" one more of the reasons why the Chinese and Russian Federations got the Iraqis Northern and Southern Iraqis Oil Field Contracts and the US got F**ked, resulting in the current US high Gas Prices. After previous years of consecutive tours at Iraq since the Iran Iraq Wars, I knew what the Result would be.
MUW, do not embarrass yourself in the future you have been told by a participant to the above so that you cannot plead ignorance.
david-475776 Says to MUW, do not embarrass yourself in the future you have been told by a participant to the above so that you cannot plead ignorance. And so many of your posts above, all of which have beeen excellant.
David-475 - I do not know who you are or where you came from, but I am certainly wish to thank you... No, not for your service which is exemplary and is what makes America a great nation and people like me proud and deeply indebted to you and others like you.
I am thanking you for taking the time to wade into this pool of uninformed, and more often than not, indignant jerks with no consideration for anyone other than themselves and their delusional beliefs. Your Input is greatly appreciated and I genuinely thank you. Brad
Too bad no one asked Clinton why he let a million die in Dafur. I guess America just stood by and watched it happen. What happens in Libya when NATO leaves?
#9 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:11 PM EDTLibyan's rule Libyans? Who are those rebels? Are they Libyans?
Just research these people:
Al Quada Saudi Arabia (AQ, over 40%), Al Quada Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) Algeria (7.2%); and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG, 18.8%), Al Quada Syria (AQS, 8.1%), Al Quada Yemen (AQY, 8.1%), etc..
And as far as recognition, how about this go research the individual colors of their shemagh. Then go look at the pictures of the "Rebels" wearing shemagh. And if you think they do not take those colors seriously, think Bloods and Crips.
Prof1,
The genocide in Darfur happened during the Bush administration.
The mass murders in Rwanda occurred during tha previous administration, unlike George W., Mr Clinton acknowledged his mistake and apologised to the Rwandans in person.
The dictatorship in Libya has ruled by intimidation and murder for 40yrs, if allowed to take the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, father and son would have wasted no time in executing 10's of thousands men, women and children, his own countrymen.
Gaddafi's revenge could easily have resulted in the deaths of over a million Libyans.
What will happen after NATO leaves?
As the President stated, Libya will hopefully be in control of their country......... and thankful to the west for the assistance.
Regardless of who was the President during (and current) Darfur, that was us attached to a UN and UA (African Union) Mission. If you have ever been involved with a UN Mission you would know those UN Rules that you MUST adhere to. So when you are told that it is an Islamic Problem, that is the end of the arguement, regardless of the Arabic Omani Muslims masscring the "Peaceful Moderate" African Islamic Believers by the hundreds each day for refusing to attack the African Christians to the south. They were so Peaceful that they would not fight back as the Arabic Omani Muslims were literally chopping them to pieces (bullets cost money). Arabic Omani Muslims considered them as Kaffir (the "N" Word, as uneducated, lazy, filthy, etc.) and violators of current Islamic Laws and the Holy Koran (Quran) Suras 8.12 thru Sura 8.17. And if you think I do not think about this every night as waking up in cold sweats at night you are entirely WRONG.
This has NOTHING to do with what you are posting this is a Civil War (Asymmetric War):
A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42207112/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times
And about something that seems to evade you. Gadiffi's Resource Nationalization and Collaboration with the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers (everyone else) as to why the Arab League of Nations have been demanding Gadiffi's Overthrow. Regardless of his attempts to Negotiate Peace. Rebels absent as Gadhafi enters cease-fire talks, 'No negotiations,' opposition spokesman says; NATO agrees to take command of no-fly zone. 2011-03-25, MSN Article. Research Why. There are so many times this has happened there are many examples (Documented History) so you cannot fein ignorance, you just have to do the Research.
Every war since Korea, that the US has participated in can be classified as "a civil war". Viet Nam, Bosnia, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq (latest), even the 1st gulfwar can be argued as a "tribal based conflict".
Civil War is so often used as a reason to not get involved, that is quickly losing it's relevance.
You make some good points about the limits and past failures of UN security forces and the fragmented politics of the Middle East. I have no intention of "fein(ing) ignorance" so I'm sure you will understand when I tell you that I am already well informed in what you have covered.
Our disagreement seems to center around the US roll in using the military as a tool against unjustified killing.
Political and humanitarian policies seldom converge for mutual benefit, IMHO such is the case in Libya
The biggest problem with the "Middle East" becomes the term "unjustified" killings.
People need to understand that their concepts of "Rights", "Liberties" etc. only pertain to the US and the airconditioned Offices of the UN. And not to those Nations that adhere to the current Islamic Laws and the Holy Koran (Quran) as the ultimate authority even over the current Islamic Laws and even superseding the Laws of other Nations. This is not some arbitrary concept it is ingrained since early childhood, the daily prayers is a demonstrated devotion to this concept (the actions not the words).
The Civil Wars we are talking about are NOT the US Civil War as a Conventional War (uniforms on both sides, Conventional Warfare Strategies and Tactics). These Civil War are Asymmetric Warfare with completely different Strategies and Tactics that only 3% of the entire US Military are actually trained and equipped to accomplish, and therefore Know the differences from training and experience.
In the case of Libya I already told you who the participants are (ignored as inconvenient by most here). This is NOT a matter of innocent civilians demanding "Freedom". As their previous and current actions are that of Asymmetric Warfare (Insurgency Warfare a fraction of Asymmetric Warfare.).
The problem is the majority of the decision makers are NOT trained in Asymmetric Warfare so they do not recognize the fact that they are getting involved in an Asymmetric War and not a Conventional War. This includes President Obama's 24/7 US Military Adviser, the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, as only trained and experienced in Cold War Era USN Surface Warfare (ship to ship Combat). Asymmetric Warfare is not something that is learned from books or from secondhand knowledge from Advisers. Most of us believe that this (Libya) is only to prevent another chop to the USN Defense Budget like what was done by President Obama in April 2009, that eliminated one USN Aircraft Carrier Group (including USN Support Ships and USN Submarines). Those of us that know about USN Ship Launched Cruise Missiles from previous experience were wondering What The F**k are they trying to do. Once the events of one of the two "Secret" Wars of President Obama occur, I will explain to you the History and the events that occurred, as to why the use of USN Ship and Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles was not only negligent but nearly criminal. Based on what I know (cross trained on USN Surface and Submarine Warfare) I truly believe a bunch of USN Admirals are squirming about now (videos of Rebels claiming that they got attacked by missiles from Gaddifi, and showing the remains of the "rockets".).
A lot of people are posting half truths about what powers congress and the president has in regards to committing the military into active service and in what ways.
Article 2 section 2 of the US constitution does allow for the president to utilize the armed forces without any specified consent by congress and it DOES NOT say that it has to be when the us is in direct threat or for US interests only. Two - Obama can argue that the UN and Nato is a US interest and that when the US was called to participate - he answered legally as laid out in article 2 section 2. Read it. The whole article is vague and allows for quite a bit with no permission needed except a letter of opinion, but not specifically permission.
Can we stop the name calling? People feel strongly about this issue and are worn out on the vast amounts of money spent and the various ways conflicts have been handled over the last few presidencies. In all honesty Obama inherited a great deal of crap that has been building for a very long time and many people are responsible. I see him trying to do something against near insurmountable odds. Often times members of congress are reelected no problem. A president can serve up to two terms only. So many problems I lay at the feet of congress. They are the only common element from president to president. Same with the Supreme Court Justices. It's maddening that more people aren't picking up on that commonality. We pick at each other and put down whatever president happens to be in office. However, it's for a relatively short time in comparison to other political offices. Our problems are beyond the fault of one individual and surely not the sole responsibility of said individual whether it be Obama or Bush or a new person.
So is the case of Qadaffi and pending genocide (or mass killings or whatever term he used) any more well-founded than Bush's intel that Saddam Hussein might well (again) kill tens of thousands of his own people with WMDs? So its a 'humanitarian effort'?
Give me a break.
#10 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:16 PM EDTHUGE difference with Iraq...there was no international coalition behind the action. There were only a few small countries that sided with the US and most were pressured and persuaded to join in with FREE trade agreements.
By the way WORLD opinion and the UN were against the US LED action.
I assume you weren't really paying much attention back then to what was REALLY going on.
Camel... Saddam DID kill his own people with WMDs or did you miss the gassings? The intel used by the U.S. and ALL of our allies DID NOT ORIGINATE thru American intelligence sources, but all believed the reports to be credible. The fact that we did find WMD materials must have slipped your mind. The radio traffic before we entered Iraq also suggest that WMD's were transported out of Iraq. Anyone even talk about the ship that went missing?
Regardless of what you and I think, see I didn't agree with Iraq to begin with either, Bush did the right thing. We would have had to enter Iraq at some point anyway due to the flagrant disregard of the sanctions and refusal to allow inspectors do their investigations. HELLO.
We only got the humanitarian story in Iraq after the other excuses were proven baseless.
vw, brother. You are a spin master. Hmmmm... Global Cooling then global warming, global climate change NOW global climate disruption... See I can spin as well.
Fact of the matter is American soldiers have come home VERY SICK, we have found small amounts of biological and chemical weapons (or WMDS). Fact of the matter is Saddam was torturing his own people, we have proof that he gassed his own people. It's called mission creep, look it up. While I may not have agreed with Bush to begin with, he did the right thing. Sorry if your leftwing lunacy can't see that.
Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988.
Bush invaded Iraq in 2003.
If the reason was humanitarian, why did he not say that in the first place?
He didn't have to justify it. Only President Obama is using that "term" to justify it. You are the one that is proving Bush right. By Obama's definition we should be at world with 1/2 the countries on this planet.
US Laws supersede UN Rules, Laws pertaining to the US Military.
1998 H.R.4655 and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.
1. Under H.R.4655. Hundreds of thousands of assassins and insurgents were organized, funded, trained, armed by the US to Overthrow President Saddam Hussein. Most came from the Illegal Alien Iranians (Shiites, Persians, Farsi) that came from Iran to escape the massive Unemployment after the Fall of the Shah of Iran. They were captured and executed as the Traitors that they were. The US President and White House spun this to "Dictator Massacring His Own People". First time President Hussein was referred to as "Dictator". The key words whenever you are researching how many times this has happened in the past to justify US Military Actions are "Dictator", "Tyrant", etc. then the phrase "____fill in the blank_____his own people". After doing the research you will have a What The F**k moment as to how many times this has been played as Propaganda.
2. Operation Desert Fox.
The Camel's Hump - Bush's intel that Saddam Hussein might well (again) kill tens of thousands of his own people with WMDs?
Again it was NOT "Bush's intel". It was information from H.R.4655. And the State of the Union Address that first used the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" justifying US Congress to pass H.R.4655.
vwterry - Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988.
Put into context. The Kurdistanis have been the Longtime Armed (men, women, children) Allies of Fundamentalist Islamic Iran ever since the Iran Iraq Wars (1980 to 1988). The use of Chemical Weapons put an end to the Iran Iraq Wars. US supported Iraq. USSR supported Iran. I already told you where I was during the Iran Iraq Wars (US Military Training Teams from Germany to Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars.). At that time the Iraqis did not have the capability to manufacturer Chemical Weapons so where do you think they came from. You think it was a coincidence that the Iran Iraq Wars officially ended after the use of Chemical Weapons against the Kurdistanis 1988. During the Iran Iraq Wars we are talking about millions on both sides dying in Combat. You do not think that I can still hear the screams of hundreds of Iranians in human wave charges attacking Iraqis Machineguns since we trained our US Ally the Iraqis to use interlocking machinegun fires.
At the end of the First Gulf War. The remaining Chemical Weapons stored at a Ammunition Storage Facility Northwest of Basra were destroyed by the Combat Engineers without a Site Survey (SOP) as ordered by General Swartzkoff (ask yourselves why the Combat Engineers were not allowed to see what they were going to blow up, I know the answer, as we showed the Iraqis how to properly store those years before after the Iran Iraq Wars.). The ammunition storage magazines were designed to US standards, to vent most explosive energy upward to prevent sympatheic detonations at surrounding ammunition storage magazines. This caused the Chemical Agents to be thrown thousands of feet straight up and get carried down wind hitting the 1st and 2nd US Cavalry.
I really just really like the baloney from the non participants.
After the first gulf war, the Shiites rose up against Saddam and were killed by the thousands and put into mass graves. That should have been enough to allow boots on the ground according to the President's speech last night. President Bush had according to then Senator Obama in 2007 been in violation of the War powers act.
Now, we have a war monger on our hands with this young fellow that is too naïve and handled poorly. He needs to be Impeached so we can find out what he is really up to.
Well .. By what our idiot in the White House just said .. we should be attacking and policing 1/3 of the Countries on the Planet ... there are NUMEROUS places where FAR more violence is going on then in Libya
#11 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:17 PM EDTDuh and he said there must be a restraint on just attacking attacking. Geez listen to the whole thing not take bits out and saying thats the whole story.
@CHIYO
So what is the deciding factor on WHO gets attacked????
He never justified WHY Libya got attacked, when the rationale for attacking means we should be attacking many other places....
Where is code pink with their "No blood for oil" signs?
Max .. exactly my point .. WHERE do we draw the line ... by what obama said there is NO line .. he did exactly what he and other complained about Bush .. and had less reason .. yet claims his is ok ...
Chiyo .. that speech was not the Speech of a Leader .. it was the speech of somebody trying to cover their ass because they had no idea what else to say
Tristen, I agree. While he was kicking a soccer ball in Brazil, it simply just didn't occur to Obama that Americans were paying attention. He had to come home a couple hours earlier than originally planned to face the music. He was in pure CYA mode tonight. He actually is doing what he and the left screeched about Bush doing - though Bush actually had broad bi-partisan approval - the difference is that Obama is getting a pass, as usual.
Tristan, you just showed your ignorance by calling the President of the United States an idiot. Whatever happened to the days when you could disagree with the President like gentlemen (and ladies)! Actually, Bush was an idiot but I refrained from calling him names out of respect for his office. It makes me very sad to see the lack of respect and hatred growing in our country. God Bless the USA!
Actually, Bush was an idiot
Just couldn't resist, huh kealoha??
It is obvious that no matter what President Obama does, there are those of you who are going to disagree with it and allege that he should be impeached and worse. The truth is, and none of you seem to be able to admit it, you just don't like him! For what reason, only you know. I have my own opinion because I believe, from reading your posts, that your underlying problem with President Obama is obvious. As to the current issue with which you have taken up "the cause to oust Obama," the U. S. is not at war with Libya. The President did not, nor has he stated an intention, to declare war against Libya. The President, along with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates did, with legal authority, enter into an action in Libya in concert with the U.N., of which we are a member. We have done our part and, as the President stated, we are already on our way out of the conflict. What I find objectionable in reading all of your posts, day in and day out, is that those of you who continually and bitterly spit your venom against the President, are all liars, because you don't have the courage to state the real problem you have with him. Don't you have more positive and constructive ways to spend your time? How about starting by telling the truth? There was a time that truth meant something in this country. I guess with Australian Rupert Murdoch's millions spent buying politicians and the airways and paying the mouth pieces on FAUX to lie, people who swallowed all that bile just decided that it must be okay for them to lie too. I mean, hearing all those lies on television and on the radio and reading them in publications, just gives all you cowards the courage to "use" those lies to cover up yor real reasons for condemning the President. If you guys don't wake up, we're all going to hell in a handbasket, all of us that is, except Australian Murdoch and the other 5% of Americans who are well into the process of stamping out the middle class in this country and attempting to make all the rest of us their peons. President Obama is a real person, who has lived a life that most of us in this country have lived. He was born in Hawaii. I personally know that to be true. His Certification of Birth is authentic. I know this to be true because my own children have the same document; it is the only birth record issued by the Hawaii State Department of Health since 2001. The President went to one of the best high schools in the country by receiving financial aid. I also personally know this to be true, in part, because that's the same way I sent my own child to the same school. The President then went on to Occidential and graduated from Columbia. He later attended Harvard Law, and, when he graduated and could have had one of those "big time lawyer gigs," making money hand over fist, instead he went to the poorest sections of Chicago to work with the churches to help them work together to try and take back their neighborhoods and give their children opportunities, opportunities that used to be called "the American dream." President Obama has lived our lives and knows from first-hand experience what it is like to try and live the waning "American dream" in this country today. He ran for President because he knows us and our struggles and he truly wants to make a positive difference in our lives and give the government back to the people and for the people, as it once was. I feel sorry for you who have allowed yourselves to be hood-winked by the very people who are attempting to push the middle class and poor in this country down further and further ... and, all in the name of greed, power and control. I pray for each and every one of you every night, and I pray for President Obama too, that he may find the strength to continue the fight for us, to give us back the America we were born into, an America in which we could believe that we could succeed in our lives and give our children opportunities to be successful and happy. Are all you fools out there who just can't stand the fact that a half black man is in the White House going to grow up and work with the rest of us and the President to restore integrity, civility and caring in our country? He's half Caucasian too, you know. Grow up and get over it!
Kealoha......Maybe if our President didn't act like a child by slinging mud and name calling during his 2 yr Campaign then maybe we could have respect for him. However when Obama called us citizens the "Enemy".....All Hope, Change, and Respect went right down the drain, swirling and mixing with his load of bs he's always squirting from his hole..( coming from either end it's still the same colored spew!!). :-}
Obama is the worse prez we have had in decades, He will not be re elected in 2012. Now lets hear ppl say im racist... I am bout sick of that crap.. It is my choice not to like the lying Obama, his entire campaign was a lie.
#12 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:17 PM EDTAfter his actions in Libya, yes, he is worse than Bush. Worse because while others drool over how badly Bush handled Iraq, nothing compares to the hypocrisy that President Obama displayed. For someone who ran on the platform of "change", it sure looks a lot like it did under Bush...
Obama didn't deserve one. Or do you think they gave out for all the peace he brokered while organizing communities in Chicago?
Do you think they can ask for it back?
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of his good intentions, or was it because of what he stood for, I mean, he probably did have a kind thought or two and the prize also went to Nassar Arafat and Al Gore so guess it really means alot these days.
Obama= nobel for good intentions?
total horsehockeypuckydroppings
He got it because they had an extra that year and didn't know wjhat to do with it....or?
He got it because of political manipulations, because the Nobel judges were and are 'progressives' promoting a specific agenda. Look at who has been awarded in the past. It is all political and ideological posturing.
mygirl...Who owns the Meltdown in 2008? The bailout in 2001? Harriet Meiers his Texan tootsie? The DeLay and Abramoff corruption both of whom your Swagger Swagger Boom Boom Bush denied knowing about. Just like he didn't know Enron, his biggest campaign donor next to Halliburton was stealing from its employees 401IKs.
There's no comparison of Bush to President Obama. He's already in 2 years made more speeches than Bush did to the people in 8. Cowards can't face people they know will ask questions they don't want to hear.
Get off the Bad Obama routine. No one is falling for it. Unemployment with your Harvard MBA Bush was at 8 million in 2008 even after he paid off companies to hire and create jobs. That's on Bush's watch too. Just like the $200 billion missing in Iraq to his favorite military industrialist cronies.
Big Money cronies and bashing the working poor and Middle Class are all the right wing know. If you think you'll get a Republican elected in 2012 by bashing President Obama, guess again. We are all wise to the use of those back room smear attacks by now. That the only way you can get a Republican elected?
You can yap till the cows come home about President Obama. By the way, I wipe my butt with a Confederate flag as often as I can.
ewent: nice to know you practice a form of personal hygiene. That last sentence speaks volumes about you. on many levels. When it comes to Bush you can slam and insult with the best of them but never, ever let anyone castigate your hero, sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander with those who worship Obama.
I don't worry about the Obama supporters, you have been so brainwashed or smitten that nothing, and I do mean nothing, that the man does would ever earn your approbation. He could murder babies and you'd come up with some rationale to explain away his actions.
As to back room smear tactics, apparently you haven't paid attention to the open phone story vis a vis Democratic Rep Schumer, the one where he's given his democratic script and talking points to disseminate so that people like you can follow it. When I begin hearing certain words about a certain person parroted by the likes of you and the rest of the little Obama lovers then I'll know the script has been passed along. Interesting that folks like you never say anything original, guess its a case of repeat after me...
Big Money cronies and bashing the working poor and Middle Class
you mean like GE ,CEO , 150 billion tax free , Jeffery Immelt , who paid for this administration ?
wipe your what ?
where you doing that , to the confederate flag , when it was flying over the IMPEACHED ONES Governors house ?
Two weeks ago, McCain was on Capitol Hill telling Obama to do something in Libya. He did something. Now he's second guessing him. Is that who you guys wanted for President?
#13 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:18 PM EDTMcCain what a joke! He changes his stories to fit his own needs. Don't be fooled, McCain is out there for McCain.
And Obama isn't out there for Obama? And he doesn't change his stories to fit his own needs? Loose tool in the shed
If you read his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech and actually listened to his speech this evening, not just the sound bites, you will note that he is very consistent with his worldview.
Additionally, if you have to refer to the President as Obammy, you must not have any confidence with your arguments.
mary,
don't be childish and sensitive!
let's get it right's..... argument was just fine.
His world view is exactly that, he seeks to turn America into a member of the global community, nothing special, just like what Soros wants. Obama is a globalist, a member of the New World Order and working very hard to insure that America is beaten down to fit into said order.
mygirl...Your Republicans turn this country into a global no man's land with their connections to foreign cheap labor and foreign banks. You have no idea what you are talking about.
david...People with an education don't speak like 6 year old kids. Obammy? Must be the ones who used to have "mammy" wet nurse them. Obummer? Must be the white trailor trash who didn't bother to go to school.
How about adults speak like adults and respect the man who saved their butts from a global financial mess Bush slinked away from?
ewent: you are steeped in the liberal rhetoric, cherry picking your facts to suit your liberal mantra. Bush was no prince but he did start the infamous ball rolling with the bailouts. Obama just picked up the ball and carried it to heights of debt once deemed impossible by mortal man. Wipe the fairy dust out of your eyes.
I have to say that I, for one, am very impressed with the disposition of this problem. I find it very refreshing to have a President who carefully sizes up a situation and then takes appropriate action. After the bravado and dishonesty of George W. Bush this is really an eye opener.
Bush got congressional APPROVAL before any actions.
Congress AGREED that action was prudent, necessary and the right thing to do.
The same can NOT be said of Obama
RICK .. Obama didnt even think attacking a country was worth cutting his last holiday with the kids along short ...
Tell me when the last time a President started a war on holiday and didnt think it was worth coming home over
BUSH DID NOT LIE .. he used info from the CIA. FBI, NSA & military and Hilary and the DEMS agreed ...
NO president ... not even obama goes out and gets the info .. they have to use what is given to them ....
Media services were reporting Libya's plight. Wolfowitz was creating lies about WMDs. The UN was urging the U.S. to intervene. Powell was telling lies to the U.N. Big difference.
Tristen, great job destroying rick in vegas weak point.
it's funny when LIBS tell the wmd lie myth. pelosi was one of the leaders in propagating those intelligence reports. yet i bet rick in vegas LOVES his pelosi.
GW acted on valid wmd intelligence and anyone with a brain knows saddam had wmds. those who suggest he didn't are playing partisan games or are VERY naive.
The information given to Bush and every other country that joined in the coalition against Saddam DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE SOURCES. They all believed the intel was credible. Bush got Congressional support, FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
Obama did not even attempt to speak with Congress. STOP LYING about Bush, look I didn't even like Bush but stop with the lies.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you....I now look at Obama through DIFFERENT LENS.....I was SURE I was NOT going to vote for him.in ......2012..before all this happened....Now I feel DIFFERENTLY.
He at least MADE SOME BROWNIE POINTS WITH ME. Yes,, He did the right thing...and it seems that some Republicans, including Boehner, can now LICK THEIR CHOPS in ENVY... I think our President Obama just pulled out a Political Coup, much to his advantage.
I can now forgive Obama for siding with those Democrats who wanted to create another AMNESTY for ILLEGAL ALIENS.
I consider what Obama did in Lybia was of UTMOST IMPORTANCE...at least in the INTEREST of JUSTICE. This man just made SOME BIG BROWNIE POINTS with the American People. And with me too.
Thanks Mr. President.
slim6744
If he made points with you this is real scary! To act outside the laws of this nation is ok by you? The prick in the white house should be tried for high treason as an enemy of the state and those in the military that acted on his and the UN directives stand right along side of him. It is our Constitution that must be under all circumstances no matter what an individual may believe for themself adhered to and followed. Afterall, the white house resident reprobate did take an oath. I forgot, he had his fingures crossed right?
Ralph..spoken like a true liberal...you yankees are full of bs...ya'll think f you like the minority it will give you brownie points...jimmy carter looks better all the time!!!
Anyone still parroting the "Bush lied" mantra is clearly showing there partisanship. If you would just take a look at what really happened, what lead up to the Iraq invasion, you will find the justification was there. So for those of you that just listen to MSNBC for your news; WMDs were used in Iraq many times. the chief UN weapons inspector thought he STILL had them. Other world intelligence agencies agreed he had them. It was a very credible assertion considering. Even some of Saddam's generals thought he still had them on the eve of the invasion. How did the war turn out? Poorly, no doubt. But there was ample justification, not to mention UN res. 1443 etc.
Obama had none of this. Sure, Kaddafi needs to go. But he was discussing going in with the UN for 2 weeks. No reason not to consult with congress.
Silly man, Obama doesn't need congressional approval. Obama is the law of the land, what Obama decrees is what shall be done, so say his followers.
I never could imagine the Republicans complaining about a war. Unbelievable that those who for the last 8 years wiped their A**es with the Constitution of this nation are the same ones who are crying that this President violated the Constitution. Do you guys think that you are the only ones with the moral authority to spit in our laws? After you passed (un)Patriot Act? After you mocked every law in the book to your own convenience you come here and cry foul play? The NO Congress? And you are naive enough to think that the NO Congress would say yes? HAHAHA!!!!!!!! (how gullible...)
justiceforall,
do you mean the patriot act that obama has ramped up and placed on steroids?
.....i thought his campaign promise was to get rid of it, pffft!
you LIBS have NO accountability!
Hey David what happened to "I am the Decider" and "I Decide" stick that down your throat it really gagged me
johnbirch42....Impeach him for what? So we can put a Koch billionaire in the Oval Office and turn this country into Bircher BS? John Birch was a nut job radical extremist who caused more suicides of innocent people with his lies. His brand of BS wouldn't last 5 minutes for all the holes that would be poked in his anthology to hatred.
The speech was what I expected. It did not change my mind. My heart goes out to the oppressed. But it was a strategic error to invade Libya.
That was rude and not helpful. Ok, it was a strategic error to attack Libya.
Do you care to make an intelligent rebuttal, or are you just in a bad mood?
Cautiously... How about this?
It was a HUGE error in attacking Libya without knowing exactly who it is we are "protecting". Yeap, you guessed it the very people who have been shooting at American servicemen and women in Afganistan.
Qaddafi has to go, no argument from me. The man's a monster, but do we truly know who will "step in" once he is relieved of his position? The Muslim Brotherhood... And if you haven't been paying attention they are extremely radical calling for the destruction of Isreal.... Yeah they aren't violent extremists at all.
Hi Matthew. Reread my posts. I am against the intervention in Libya. :)
No, I read it right Cautiosly. I understood that quite well. I and most of us don't want this either from what I am reading, but most of us know that there are innocents that are being helped, but we also know that a lot of the people we are helping were also fighting us in Afganistan. The problem we have is doing our best NOT to aid those that hate us, and I'm sorry but Qaddafi must also be removed from power for the atrocities he has perpetrated on us and others around the world.
There was no animosity in my post, just making a point.
So basically we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't...
Cautiously Optimistic - can I bring it down to basic terms - I have a family next to me who I know have been abusing their children- I go to my garden every day and see these children by the day getting thinner and thinner - what to do? Call Social Services - they do nothing - do you know what I do - rescue the children - this is who we are - we rescue - why
Johbirch42...Our kids in the military defend our country by defending its name and reputation. Not just with guns. The best of what our military people do is to promote what we as Americans believe in....freedom and democracy. No one does it better.
President Obama's speech last night was as on the mark as it can get short of walking on water, raising the dead and healing the deaf and blind.
There are anti-Americans in this country masquerading as Americans who want anything but freedom and democracy. Look in the mirror.
Cautiously Optimistic...Khadafi thanks you for your support.
frgmnt...We could make big bucks from the predictability of the tripe out of the mouths of right wingers. The Republicans are thrilled that they are attempting a second impeachment of an elected president elected by majority rule. If they can do it a second time, they will have defied the Constitution and we no longer have a democracy. That's really what these anti-American right wingers are after.
Ewent,
I am a lefty. I voted for Obama. Your comment did not contribute to the conversation. Please make useful comments and rebuttals. Otherwise you look as uninformed as many of the Fox conservatives. Don't make liberals sound like idiots.
That comment was completely out of line.
Cautiously Optimistic...Sometimes the truth hurts badly. Sorry. I'm neither right nor left. I don't believe in ideology. Your posts prove how an ideology gets in the way of truth and fact. As for what I contribute. According to First Amendment rights I have just as much a right to contribute my opinion. What's with the superiority snobbery?
You don't support what President Obama did. Therefore, you don't support the efforts to help the rebels. By process of elimination, you therefore support Khadafi's regime. You can't have it both ways.
ewent: You are so transparently awash in hero worship that it is embarassing. Your left wing bias is abundantly apparent as is your double standard. You can dish it out but when someone calls you out on your sh*t you whine, insult, cast racial slurs and generally act like a very spoiled little child.
In Summary, He feels Americas defenses are free to be used as he sees fit, when he sees fit, where he sees fit. No mention of the Constitutional violation, War Power Resolution violation, or the lack of appropriate intervention for the first month. Conclusion: He effectively sold the American left a jihad through a dramatic guilt trip that this is our responsibility and duty. FYI Obama- we don't OWE American blood to ANYONE.
#16 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:20 PM EDTcindy...How do you like it now that the shoe is on the other foot? Bush opened that door. Any president can now walk through with all that excessive executive privilege Bush granted himself with his Republican Congress in power for 6 years. Sorry, but what's good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I still want to know who we are supporting. Are these rebels al-quaida ? Who are they ?
#17 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:20 PM EDT@Steve....Yes they are al-CIA-da, and this action was planned back in 2008. The British sent their special forces in a month before this started.
Hey chief... if you think we don't have boots on the ground right now and have since before we attacked... YOU would be naive. Who do you think is painting the targets with lasers LOL? BTW, the CIA is in business to protect this country overseas. Some of their actions may be questionable but come on you loon, don't even equate them with people who want YOU dead.
A few days ago there was an interview with one of the rebel leaders who stated that his 'troops' had been in Iraq killing American soldiers. He also confirmed ties to Al Quaeda, hezbollah, hamas and more terrorist organizations. BTW: One of the countries backing this undeclared war/humanitarian effort is Lebanon whose governing party is Hamas.
mygirl1...Funny but the last video broadcast I saw on the day the UN declared it was going into Libya to support the rebels, the crowds on the streets were waving flags and cheering. Are they all al Qaeda too?
When people ask for help, what do you do? Look the other way if there nothing in it for Big Oil?
Steve by all accounts I've read and heard thus far from Libyans, these are basically highly educated, very disgruntled young people, radicals, fed up with the same ruler for decades. They tried as did the Egyptians to get their ruler ousted. But, Egypt's leader isn't a maniac like Khadafi. Khadafi refuses to give up control as the Egyptian leader did or to negotiate as Bahrain's leader did.
There are a lot of people in Libya who are afraid to go to the bathroom because they are constantly under surveillance. The ones who are with these freedom fighters are risking their lives because if they are captured, not only will they be killed but their families as well. This is why we intervened. Khadafi has no compunctions whatever about killing relatives of those he believes to be rebels.
There are a lot of people in Libya who are afraid to go to the bathroom because they are constantly under surveillance
Uumm , have you tried speeding on an American Highway , lately ??
RL Kraft...I know what you mean. I detest those "red light cameras" as well. Off subject, I realize, but those things are nothing more than money pits. There's a ton of things wrong with them from computerized traps to Big Daddy Watching for anyone who's ever gotten a traffic ticket.
Obama has nothing to say as usual, America wanted change guess they're getting it NOT Obama has become quite the puppet
#18 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:23 PM EDTThe US is going to have the change left after all the dollars are gone .
Jon Dean...I wouldn't talk about puppets, you elected one for 8 years. You voted for Bush and Cheney was president. Bush didn't squat unless Cheney okayed it.
But, you have to expect that when Cheney, former Halliburton CEO hornswaggled his way into the White House. Cheney's own party didn't want him in 1994. The Bush name was as good as any ticket to the White House. And it didn't hurt that Sonny Bush was a lazy Texas lout with no inkling of leadership, given his 2 failure pre-White House.
Sorry to say but I did not vote for Bush and did not like his policy.But Obamas policy is even more out in left field with no regards for the oath he took.Only when the lies came to face did americans cry for a poster boy and they got one ,and as his lies come to face america will cry for another one.
Sorry to say but I did not vote for Bush and did not like his policy
So , you liked Bill Clinton's, ummmm
"Different Priorities " when the Sudan , offered him Bin Laden ?
President Obama has lied about nothing. No one listens to him because they have schiest in their ears. I'm fed up with people bashing this president just because he's a Democrat and they feel the only party that should ever rule is the Republican party.
I'm American. I gave Bush 2 years until it became clear he'd lie through his teeth if it meant getting what he and Cheney wanted: oil, make huge profits for Halliburton, Blackwater and the rest of the military industrialists. Not to mention his Wall Street cronies.
President Obama is the very best of what we could hope for after a recession brought on by a Republican Congress that focused on war and not the country. Now, this president takes office and everything is HIS fault?
Where the hell was your outrage when the Republican rich boys were living large at your expense?
Its good you like your president so much,its just to bad you don't see things for what they are ,he took an oath of office research what the oath intails he is derilict in many aspects.
so , how do you feel about your IMPEACHED sexual predator , sitting in his 40 million dollar Saudi financed library ?
Jon Dean...The difference between you and me is that I know what this President's agenda is. He has an impossible standard to live up to and it's not fair that people like you should demand more of him than you did Bush.
Sorry, but when Bush took his oath of office, a year later he called the Constitution "a damn piece of paper". Justify that one if you can. When you consider the Republican legacy thus far: Nixon, Bush I and II, Reagan and all that that implies, Republicans have a lot of work to do in their own backyard before they crucify this president.
Who set that standard? I demand the same for all elected officials regardless of political party .The people elected should always be held to higher standards they are representing the people.As for the presidents hidden agendas you are probably blinded by you political convictions.
When these rebels are in power and start killing everyone they don't agree with , are we gong to bomb them too ?
#19 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:23 PM EDTExactly !! We don't know who they are or what their goals are, or what kind of country they want. Who are the rebels ???
Don't be asking those kinds of questions, you're not following the script. Need to get back on track, why do we need an endgame? What good would knowing who wants to kill who and why do?
Of course, if not how do you think that the redumblicans and the arms industry can survive if not by spreading panic and creating conflict? If not, look at the numbers from Lockheed or Grumann or all other defense contractors and see how their profits rose proportional to the amount of wars we have? Eisenhower was right when he spoke about the military industrial complex...
Uh, you're pointing fingers at the republicans? Last time I checked Obama was a democrat and...newsflash...he went around congress to get this thing going. As to the military industrial complex, I agree. Wonder where Obama is getting money from this.
johnbirch...Thank you for proving how desperate the right wing is to get rid of a sitting president no matter how you have to do it. Can we throw Bush in jail for maiming and killing 3,000 Americans in Iraq by your standards?
Or is this a Crucify Obama Right Wing BS Attack? Let me guess what state you live in.
ewent:Tsk, can't handle the 'blame Obama?' Getting a little taste of what the insipid 'blame Bush' in every other breath feels like? Let me guess about what state you live in and it isn't a geographic locale.
So how much we going to give them after all this? We seem to be handing out millions of dollars we do not have. (Example 200 million we just promised Chili).
#20 - Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:24 PM EDTjake: please have the decency of checking a dictionary before you write. The nation is Chile, not chili.
We aren't giving the Lybian rebels any money, we're spending money on bombing Gadaffi to death (which is a good thing).
Funny how now that Pres. Obama is our Commander in Chief people are worried about the cost of the wars we are in, yet when Dubya was POTUS no one EVER raised that issue. A bit two-faced aren't we?
Cynthia,
NO, 200,000,000.00 was the amount given to Chile; and that was for drug enforcement (which will be gobbled up by corruption)
Brazil, we gave 2,000,000,000.00; and NO it wasn't even for OIL. not for us anyway, not ONE drop to USA.
dazed: The economy wasn't in the crapper then and 9-11 had just devastated New York and other parts of the country. Suffering from short-term memory loss or just indulging in selective memory?
David: George Soros, Obama's 'good friend' benefits mightily from that Brazilian money rather like how GE benefits from Obamacare and how Immelt benefited from his loyalties to Obama. One thing you can say about Obama, he sure does remember his campaign contributors.
mygirl1: Taking care of those who put him in office...
hmmm, And how is this different from any other president in US history? Let's start with the most recent in Bush2 and the oil companies...
Why is it that anytime anyone speaks the truth of the real reason we are anywhere... they say well look at Bush? Ever think that Bush was wrong as well. To claim this has anything to with humanitarian is absurd. If we are going to be the world police, we need to be paid like the world police. If they are going to reap the benefits of us going in and setting things straight, we need to be part of that... Our military costs us so much money, let them foot the bill.
uncommonsense...It IS humanitarian. I'll prove it. You move to Libya and mouth off at Khadafi. See how fast you and your family are dead. Get it now?
People who live in dictatorial regimes are slaughtered for no other reason than opening their mouths. What's with you people? Is it always all about you, you, you?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Comment collapsed by the community
While I support the US stopping terrorismm and removing despots, its clear some despots get a free ride.