War in Libya...
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
CaptainJoel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 100 (100%)
Yeah, we're doing the right thing, don't think this is the right time to be committing to this though since we're still in Afghanistan and everything. Our resources are being spread too thin.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-_JsNrxiM&feature=player_embedded[/QUOTE]
We create our own enemies. I wouldn't be surprised if, in ten years, a Libyan blows up a building here in America or kills American civilians because "they hate us for our freedoms".
Stay classy, asshole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-_JsNrxiM&feature=player_embedded[/QUOTE]
We create our own enemies. I wouldn't be surprised if, in ten years, a Libyan blows up a building here in America or kills American civilians because "they hate us for our freedoms".
Haven't the painted-with-broad-strokes terrorists already moved out of Afghanistan after us having been there for almost a decade? I know that at this point the "war" is and has been a joke, and while I was for liberating the people of Iraq, WHY do we still have people in that area of the world? I largely think it has less to do with actual threats to us and more to do with making sure our ally Israel doesn't obliterate that entire part of the world.
My point in mentioning that is that obviously Libya needs help. Ghadhafi is so power crazy that he's hoping to run a country where he has killed the whole populace. The US wants a presence in the volatile Northern part of Africa and that sounds good but just get out of the Middle East already. If our country was a person, it would have either been locked up by now or have gone through bankruptcy. Spending more money won't help us.
My point in mentioning that is that obviously Libya needs help. Ghadhafi is so power crazy that he's hoping to run a country where he has killed the whole populace. The US wants a presence in the volatile Northern part of Africa and that sounds good but just get out of the Middle East already. If our country was a person, it would have either been locked up by now or have gone through bankruptcy. Spending more money won't help us.
IAmTheCheapestGamer
Banned
[quote name='Josh5890']While I'm all for ending evil reigns of dictators and helping to end suffering around the world, at the same time we have many needs in our own country that we need to be addressing as well. Hopefully Libya won't turn into a long term event for us.[/QUOTE]
Let's actually end poverty and homelessness in our nation with the billions we squander bringing 'freedom' to people who don't 
in' want it or places that end up just as bad as before if not worse once we leave.
Let's actually end poverty and homelessness in our nation with the billions we squander bringing 'freedom' to people who don't in' want it or places that end up just as bad as before if not worse once we leave.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
At least we get to use our sweet fighter jets. Those things are expensive.
benjamouth
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='ananag112']Its all about the oil.[/QUOTE]
This, I didn't see anyone running into Bahrain to protect its civilians.
This, I didn't see anyone running into Bahrain to protect its civilians.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
love watching tax dollars get wasted.
BigT
CAGiversary!
I see we're making new friends... let's get the whole world pissed off at us. People don't seem to realize that we're broke and cannot afford to get tangled up in conflicts like this! People just don't read history books... I am concerned that we will be the next "empire" to fall...
[quote name='CaptainJoel']Yeah, we're doing the right thing, don't think this is the right time to be committing to this though since we're still in Afghanistan and everything. Our resources are being spread too thin.[/QUOTE]
Yep. And I don't see why we're intervening here when we did nothing in the Sudan and various other places dictators have slaughtered their people.
Even currently, it's nearly as bad in Yemen and we/the UN aren't doing anything like this there.
Not even the oil excuse people have mentioned above really works this time since Libya only has like 2% of the world's oil reserves. We don't really have any big interest there.
I mean on the surface I'm fine with being part of an international coalition to stop a dictator from killing their own people. But if the UN is going to do these kind of things they should be intervening with Mugabe, Yemen, Bahrain etc. as well to be consistent.
But at least it was an international effort this time and not the US acting unilaterally.
Yep. And I don't see why we're intervening here when we did nothing in the Sudan and various other places dictators have slaughtered their people.
Even currently, it's nearly as bad in Yemen and we/the UN aren't doing anything like this there.
Not even the oil excuse people have mentioned above really works this time since Libya only has like 2% of the world's oil reserves. We don't really have any big interest there.
I mean on the surface I'm fine with being part of an international coalition to stop a dictator from killing their own people. But if the UN is going to do these kind of things they should be intervening with Mugabe, Yemen, Bahrain etc. as well to be consistent.
But at least it was an international effort this time and not the US acting unilaterally.
[quote name='BigT']I see we're making new friends... let's get the whole world pissed off at us. People don't seem to realize that we're broke and cannot afford to get tangled up in conflicts like this! People just don't read history books... I am concerned that we will be the next "empire" to fall...[/QUOTE]
Libya is one of the few arab countries in the world that is hated by all other arab countries, and it's because of Gaddafi. He's not religious enough for the conservative Muslim countries, he's not liberal enough for the secularists, his only advantage is that he's willing to kill everyone in his country, so long as he is sitting atop the rubble when it's said and done. I have dozens of Libyan friends, and know several who are in Benghazi and Tripoli right now. They are getting shelled by this dictator.
I too would like to see us spend our tax dollars domestically, but if someone made me choose between invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam, or invading Libya to overthrow Gaddafi, myself, and I think a majority of people familiar with the middle east, would say take out Gaddafi. The way to pull this off properly is get in with the international community, take him out, then get our military the hell out of the area. Let them figure out how to create their next dictator.
Libya is one of the few arab countries in the world that is hated by all other arab countries, and it's because of Gaddafi. He's not religious enough for the conservative Muslim countries, he's not liberal enough for the secularists, his only advantage is that he's willing to kill everyone in his country, so long as he is sitting atop the rubble when it's said and done. I have dozens of Libyan friends, and know several who are in Benghazi and Tripoli right now. They are getting shelled by this dictator.
I too would like to see us spend our tax dollars domestically, but if someone made me choose between invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam, or invading Libya to overthrow Gaddafi, myself, and I think a majority of people familiar with the middle east, would say take out Gaddafi. The way to pull this off properly is get in with the international community, take him out, then get our military the hell out of the area. Let them figure out how to create their next dictator.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[quote name='berzirk']I too would like to see us spend our tax dollars domestically, but if someone made me choose between invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam, or invading Libya to overthrow Gaddafi, myself, and I think a majority of people familiar with the middle east, would say take out Gaddafi. The way to pull this off properly is get in with the international community, take him out, then get our military the hell out of the area. Let them figure out how to create their next dictator.[/QUOTE]
We shouldn't have to make a choice between getting involved with either of those nations.
We shouldn't have to make a choice between getting involved with either of those nations.
[quote name='perdition(troy']We shouldn't have to make a choice between getting involved with either of those nations.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't agree more, but that's not an (in)action that we'll be taking any time soon. It's strange, because war is typically good for an economy, but when the economy is already in the shitter, apparently war doesn't help.
Couldn't agree more, but that's not an (in)action that we'll be taking any time soon. It's strange, because war is typically good for an economy, but when the economy is already in the shitter, apparently war doesn't help.
[quote name='nasum']our population is too high for war to benefit the economy[/QUOTE]
Hmm...you're going to have to explain that one to me. Not sure I understand the reasoning behind it (I'm far from an econ scholar).
War materials still need to be manufactured, you still have people enlisting and getting paid for it, you have the enlistees jobs being covered back home, you've got the contractors who are rebuilding in these countries.
Hmm...you're going to have to explain that one to me. Not sure I understand the reasoning behind it (I'm far from an econ scholar).
War materials still need to be manufactured, you still have people enlisting and getting paid for it, you have the enlistees jobs being covered back home, you've got the contractors who are rebuilding in these countries.
This is without grabbing figures, but the notion is still sound:
WWII era population in the US is what 140 million? So we send 10 million troops or whatever, all the sudden you have Rosie the Riveter and such to support the war effort. War bonds, huge demand for materials, food rationing at home to support the war effort, etc...
Now our population is 350 million and instead of 1/14th of our population being on the front lines we have what, 1 million troops out there at the most? So instead of 1/14th being employed directly as soldiers and probably 6 or 7/14th's being emplyed by the military/industrial complex, now it's 1/350th employed as soldiers and definitely not 50% of the nation employed by the military industrial complex. Hell, 1/1000th of the population is a stretch.
So, with higher population there's less percentage working in the industries that profit from war, I'm certainly not seeing war bonds, our resources "at home" are still plentiful and the reality of it all is that war is for the most part no longer on the mind of the average joe whereas you almost didn't have a choice 70 years ago.
Ok, just did a quick google search, rough population in 1940 is 130 million and we're about 300 million right now. So, we don't have 2x the soldiers now and certainly don't have 2x the amount of people working to support the war effort.
WWII era population in the US is what 140 million? So we send 10 million troops or whatever, all the sudden you have Rosie the Riveter and such to support the war effort. War bonds, huge demand for materials, food rationing at home to support the war effort, etc...
Now our population is 350 million and instead of 1/14th of our population being on the front lines we have what, 1 million troops out there at the most? So instead of 1/14th being employed directly as soldiers and probably 6 or 7/14th's being emplyed by the military/industrial complex, now it's 1/350th employed as soldiers and definitely not 50% of the nation employed by the military industrial complex. Hell, 1/1000th of the population is a stretch.
So, with higher population there's less percentage working in the industries that profit from war, I'm certainly not seeing war bonds, our resources "at home" are still plentiful and the reality of it all is that war is for the most part no longer on the mind of the average joe whereas you almost didn't have a choice 70 years ago.
Ok, just did a quick google search, rough population in 1940 is 130 million and we're about 300 million right now. So, we don't have 2x the soldiers now and certainly don't have 2x the amount of people working to support the war effort.
[quote name='nasum']This is without grabbing figures, but the notion is still sound:
WWII era population in the US is what 140 million? So we send 10 million troops or whatever, all the sudden you have Rosie the Riveter and such to support the war effort. War bonds, huge demand for materials, food rationing at home to support the war effort, etc...
Now our population is 350 million and instead of 1/14th of our population being on the front lines we have what, 1 million troops out there at the most? So instead of 1/14th being employed directly as soldiers and probably 6 or 7/14th's being emplyed by the military/industrial complex, now it's 1/350th employed as soldiers and definitely not 50% of the nation employed by the military industrial complex. Hell, 1/1000th of the population is a stretch.
So, with higher population there's less percentage working in the industries that profit from war, I'm certainly not seeing war bonds, our resources "at home" are still plentiful and the reality of it all is that war is for the most part no longer on the mind of the average joe whereas you almost didn't have a choice 70 years ago.
Ok, just did a quick google search, rough population in 1940 is 130 million and we're about 300 million right now. So, we don't have 2x the soldiers now and certainly don't have 2x the amount of people working to support the war effort.[/QUOTE]
While I agree that there is less positive economic influence from our current war efforts as compared to WW2 its not necessarily because our population is to high, but rather because the percentage of those involved is to low. (Which is what you said above).
It would take a much larger war that had a draft and basically put everything else in the country on standby for it to really influence the economy.
WWII era population in the US is what 140 million? So we send 10 million troops or whatever, all the sudden you have Rosie the Riveter and such to support the war effort. War bonds, huge demand for materials, food rationing at home to support the war effort, etc...
Now our population is 350 million and instead of 1/14th of our population being on the front lines we have what, 1 million troops out there at the most? So instead of 1/14th being employed directly as soldiers and probably 6 or 7/14th's being emplyed by the military/industrial complex, now it's 1/350th employed as soldiers and definitely not 50% of the nation employed by the military industrial complex. Hell, 1/1000th of the population is a stretch.
So, with higher population there's less percentage working in the industries that profit from war, I'm certainly not seeing war bonds, our resources "at home" are still plentiful and the reality of it all is that war is for the most part no longer on the mind of the average joe whereas you almost didn't have a choice 70 years ago.
Ok, just did a quick google search, rough population in 1940 is 130 million and we're about 300 million right now. So, we don't have 2x the soldiers now and certainly don't have 2x the amount of people working to support the war effort.[/QUOTE]
While I agree that there is less positive economic influence from our current war efforts as compared to WW2 its not necessarily because our population is to high, but rather because the percentage of those involved is to low. (Which is what you said above).
It would take a much larger war that had a draft and basically put everything else in the country on standby for it to really influence the economy.
[quote name='nasum']our population is too high for war to benefit the economy[/QUOTE]
[quote name='nasum']This is without grabbing figures, but the notion is still sound:
WWII era population in the US is what 140 million? So we send 10 million troops or whatever, all the sudden you have Rosie the Riveter and such to support the war effort. War bonds, huge demand for materials, food rationing at home to support the war effort, etc...
Now our population is 350 million and instead of 1/14th of our population being on the front lines we have what, 1 million troops out there at the most? So instead of 1/14th being employed directly as soldiers and probably 6 or 7/14th's being emplyed by the military/industrial complex, now it's 1/350th employed as soldiers and definitely not 50% of the nation employed by the military industrial complex. Hell, 1/1000th of the population is a stretch.
So, with higher population there's less percentage working in the industries that profit from war, I'm certainly not seeing war bonds, our resources "at home" are still plentiful and the reality of it all is that war is for the most part no longer on the mind of the average joe whereas you almost didn't have a choice 70 years ago.
Ok, just did a quick google search, rough population in 1940 is 130 million and we're about 300 million right now. So, we don't have 2x the soldiers now and certainly don't have 2x the amount of people working to support the war effort.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO6KzrGucgA
I don't mean to make this a joke post, but nanomachines aside, it'sed up how the opening monologue has become real.
[quote name='letallis']While I agree that there is less positive economic influence from our current war efforts as compared to WW2 its not necessarily because our population is to high, but rather because the percentage of those involved is to low. (Which is what you said above).
It would take a much larger war that had a draft and basically put everything else in the country on standby for it to really influence the economy.[/QUOTE]
This is also an incorrect assumption because if it costs 50% of the budget to pay for the Military Industrial Complex on both the private and public sectors, it's pretty a damn sure bet that war is a profitable enterprise.
The size of the population doesn't mean shit if .0001% of the population gets 50% of the "profit" from the MIC. A Blackwater/XE mercenary might make $300k for a couple years, while Erik Prince probably made $100 million dollars. No Joke.
[quote name='nasum']This is without grabbing figures, but the notion is still sound:
WWII era population in the US is what 140 million? So we send 10 million troops or whatever, all the sudden you have Rosie the Riveter and such to support the war effort. War bonds, huge demand for materials, food rationing at home to support the war effort, etc...
Now our population is 350 million and instead of 1/14th of our population being on the front lines we have what, 1 million troops out there at the most? So instead of 1/14th being employed directly as soldiers and probably 6 or 7/14th's being emplyed by the military/industrial complex, now it's 1/350th employed as soldiers and definitely not 50% of the nation employed by the military industrial complex. Hell, 1/1000th of the population is a stretch.
So, with higher population there's less percentage working in the industries that profit from war, I'm certainly not seeing war bonds, our resources "at home" are still plentiful and the reality of it all is that war is for the most part no longer on the mind of the average joe whereas you almost didn't have a choice 70 years ago.
Ok, just did a quick google search, rough population in 1940 is 130 million and we're about 300 million right now. So, we don't have 2x the soldiers now and certainly don't have 2x the amount of people working to support the war effort.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO6KzrGucgA
I don't mean to make this a joke post, but nanomachines aside, it's
ed up how the opening monologue has become real.[quote name='letallis']While I agree that there is less positive economic influence from our current war efforts as compared to WW2 its not necessarily because our population is to high, but rather because the percentage of those involved is to low. (Which is what you said above).
It would take a much larger war that had a draft and basically put everything else in the country on standby for it to really influence the economy.[/QUOTE]
This is also an incorrect assumption because if it costs 50% of the budget to pay for the Military Industrial Complex on both the private and public sectors, it's pretty a damn sure bet that war is a profitable enterprise.
The size of the population doesn't mean shit if .0001% of the population gets 50% of the "profit" from the MIC. A Blackwater/XE mercenary might make $300k for a couple years, while Erik Prince probably made $100 million dollars. No Joke.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was (and am) against the Iraq war.
I'm against this as well, but less so that with Iraq as long as it truly involves not ground troops/invasion and is limited to bombing air defenses, tanks etc., and that we do truly back off soon and let the other nations take the lead.
But I still don't think it's a matter than concerns us, especially since we've ignored/are ignoring so many other dictators who slaughter their own people.
I'm against this as well, but less so that with Iraq as long as it truly involves not ground troops/invasion and is limited to bombing air defenses, tanks etc., and that we do truly back off soon and let the other nations take the lead.
But I still don't think it's a matter than concerns us, especially since we've ignored/are ignoring so many other dictators who slaughter their own people.
[quote name='Magus8472']Because if you can't save everyone, it's better to save noone.[/QUOTE]
I suppose my view does come across that way.
But consistency is important in shaping the way the world views the US and the UN. Even though I don't buy the oil angle since Libya only has 2% of the world's reserves, it is being spouted off that we're intervening here when we didn't in the Sudan and other places because of oil.
But really it's a UN issue. The UN is an international coalition and needs to be more proactive in stopping these kinds of things. World wide we have plenty of military power to bomb all of these dictators air defenses, jets, tanks, ground forces etc. that are being used to slaughter their own people.
There's not reason to only do so in certain cases and for seemingly little reason as the situation in Libya is no worse (or not even as bad in some instances) as things that happened (or are happening) currently in places like Rwanda, the Sudan, Yemen where no intervention like this was done etc.
Then there's the self-interested angle of just not liking us shooting millions of dollars of cruise missles on the otherside of the world in a matter really not at all related to our national security or safety at a time of huge deficits and budget shortfalls....
I suppose my view does come across that way.
But consistency is important in shaping the way the world views the US and the UN. Even though I don't buy the oil angle since Libya only has 2% of the world's reserves, it is being spouted off that we're intervening here when we didn't in the Sudan and other places because of oil.
But really it's a UN issue. The UN is an international coalition and needs to be more proactive in stopping these kinds of things. World wide we have plenty of military power to bomb all of these dictators air defenses, jets, tanks, ground forces etc. that are being used to slaughter their own people.
There's not reason to only do so in certain cases and for seemingly little reason as the situation in Libya is no worse (or not even as bad in some instances) as things that happened (or are happening) currently in places like Rwanda, the Sudan, Yemen where no intervention like this was done etc.
Then there's the self-interested angle of just not liking us shooting millions of dollars of cruise missles on the otherside of the world in a matter really not at all related to our national security or safety at a time of huge deficits and budget shortfalls....
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I dont think the track record of "saving" people in that region has worked out for either us or them. If the only two variables at play in a vacuum were save people or not save people, then sure. Its not even about the money, since I never bought into the false media narrative that we're broke or experiencing debt/spending problems.
Though I have to say I find it mildly refreshing to have a war that didnt require a ton of lying us into. Straight up, its we dont like that guy.
Though I have to say I find it mildly refreshing to have a war that didnt require a ton of lying us into. Straight up, its we dont like that guy.
I was and still am against our invasion of Iraq, but our involvement in this Libyan conflict isn't the same thing. We aren't sending an invasion force, if things are held to as they are now, we won't have ground troops there fighting, maybe in a humanitarian role. Plus we're supporting these rebels wanting Qaddafi's (how many different ways are there to spell this guy's name?) ouster, there wasn't a rebellion fighting against Saddam before we invaded. I just see this as our help being requested, rather than us taking it upon ourselves to impose our will on a people.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Are they really requesting our help? I'm sure some are, but I dont think its as explicit or widespread to be making a thing out of it. Of the people that are, are they asking for us to just make it a slightly fairer fight? Because that does not seem like the most optimal path to either a) saving lives or b) to remove Gaddafi, which is the rebel goal.
Anybody know where this is from? Because that sign is way too professional.
Anybody know where this is from? Because that sign is way too professional.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']I was and still am against our invasion of Iraq, but our involvement in this Libyan conflict isn't the same thing. We aren't sending an invasion force, if things are held to as they are now, we won't have ground troops there fighting, maybe in a humanitarian role. Plus we're supporting these rebels wanting Qaddafi's (how many different ways are there to spell this guy's name?) ouster, there wasn't a rebellion fighting against Saddam before we invaded. I just see this as our help being requested, rather than us taking it upon ourselves to impose our will on a people.[/QUOTE]
Read up on our dealings with Iraq in the 90s.
It started with a no-fly zone.
In fact, the build up for the Libyan action is almost word for word the justification for Iraq, pre and post no-fly zone.
Watching Maddow do cartwheels trying to show that Obama somehow has a restrained foreign policy is hysterical. And pathetic. What a joke.
Read up on our dealings with Iraq in the 90s.
It started with a no-fly zone.
In fact, the build up for the Libyan action is almost word for word the justification for Iraq, pre and post no-fly zone.
Watching Maddow do cartwheels trying to show that Obama somehow has a restrained foreign policy is hysterical. And pathetic. What a joke.
It is really an Europe issue. Sure there is only 2% oil but almost all of them are going to Europe. With oil supply being so tight that any drop will have huge impact. Plus all those refugees are going to the find their way to Europe. The USA will have to get involve to support our European allies.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Read up on our dealings with Iraq in the 90s.
It started with a no-fly zone.
In fact, the build up for the Libyan action is almost word for word the justification for Iraq, pre and post no-fly zone.
Watching Maddow do cartwheels trying to show that Obama somehow has a restrained foreign policy is hysterical. And pathetic. What a joke.[/QUOTE]
It is different, if anything we aren't taking the lead on this. Who knows what will happen in the future, but I think it's a little early to say that Libya will be the next Iraq.
It started with a no-fly zone.
In fact, the build up for the Libyan action is almost word for word the justification for Iraq, pre and post no-fly zone.
Watching Maddow do cartwheels trying to show that Obama somehow has a restrained foreign policy is hysterical. And pathetic. What a joke.[/QUOTE]
It is different, if anything we aren't taking the lead on this. Who knows what will happen in the future, but I think it's a little early to say that Libya will be the next Iraq.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Are they really requesting our help? I'm sure some are, but I dont think its as explicit or widespread to be making a thing out of it. Of the people that are, are they asking for us to just make it a slightly fairer fight? Because that does not seem like the most optimal path to either a) saving lives or b) to remove Gaddafi, which is the rebel goal.
Anybody know where this is from? Because that sign is way too professional.
[/QUOTE]
All i know is that whenever I heard interviews with rebel supporters before we got involved they were upset we weren't getting involved. They seemed to think we'd abandoned them.
Anybody know where this is from? Because that sign is way too professional.
All i know is that whenever I heard interviews with rebel supporters before we got involved they were upset we weren't getting involved. They seemed to think we'd abandoned them.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
- Barack Obama, Dec 20, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3G_7gpeJQ8&feature=player_embedded#at=56
Am I the only one that's troubled by this? It surprises me that two pages into this thread and it isn't mentioned (that I saw).
I really dislike the precedent this sets; that our President feels it's more important to only go to the U.N., and not also Congress, for for military action.
So now the U.N. charter takes precedent over our Constitution? Is this the consequence of electing an avowed globalist to the white house?
- Barack Obama, Dec 20, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3G_7gpeJQ8&feature=player_embedded#at=56
Am I the only one that's troubled by this? It surprises me that two pages into this thread and it isn't mentioned (that I saw).
I really dislike the precedent this sets; that our President feels it's more important to only go to the U.N., and not also Congress, for for military action.
So now the U.N. charter takes precedent over our Constitution? Is this the consequence of electing an avowed globalist to the white house?
Last edited by a moderator:
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Post four, man! I've already covered that. I agree with you.
This, unfortunately, isn't anything new, however. Presidents have been using the power of kings for decades.
This, unfortunately, isn't anything new, however. Presidents have been using the power of kings for decades.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Ooops. Somehow I skimmed over your post. A thousand apologies.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']I really dislike the precedent this sets[/QUOTE]
This isn't setting a precedent, it's honoring aing tradition.
So you're upset that the President overstepped his authority for the purposes of a military campaign in the middle east. What are you going to do to stop it: vote Republican next time?
We're all neoconservatives now.
This isn't setting a precedent, it's honoring a
ing tradition.So you're upset that the President overstepped his authority for the purposes of a military campaign in the middle east. What are you going to do to stop it: vote Republican next time?
We're all neoconservatives now.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']This isn't setting a precedent, it's honoring a ing tradition.
So you're upset that the President overstepped his authority for the purposes of a military campaign in the middle east. What are you going to do to stop it: vote Republican next time?[/QUOTE]
Well... actually, you could vote for the guy who disagreed with Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, during build-ups and in real-time.
Republicans will never vote for him in the primaries, though.
Sad part is, there's no way to refute that.
ing tradition.So you're upset that the President overstepped his authority for the purposes of a military campaign in the middle east. What are you going to do to stop it: vote Republican next time?[/QUOTE]
Well... actually, you could vote for the guy who disagreed with Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, during build-ups and in real-time.
Republicans will never vote for him in the primaries, though.
Sad part is, there's no way to refute that.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']This isn't setting a precedent, it's honoring a ing tradition.
So you're upset that the President overstepped his authority for the purposes of a military campaign in the middle east. What are you going to do to stop it: vote Republican next time?
We're all neoconservatives now.[/QUOTE]
The guy I voted for in the last election is the only Republican that agrees with everything Kucinich said in that video, and I'm pretty sure would be the last person to sign on to military campaigns in the middle east.
What's really sad is that the only people that consistently make sense on so many of these issues are also consistently labeled the unelectable fringe. So I guess we are addicted to hating our electorate?
ing tradition.So you're upset that the President overstepped his authority for the purposes of a military campaign in the middle east. What are you going to do to stop it: vote Republican next time?
We're all neoconservatives now.[/QUOTE]
The guy I voted for in the last election is the only Republican that agrees with everything Kucinich said in that video, and I'm pretty sure would be the last person to sign on to military campaigns in the middle east.
What's really sad is that the only people that consistently make sense on so many of these issues are also consistently labeled the unelectable fringe. So I guess we are addicted to hating our electorate?
The problem is most people who consistently oppose these types of military interventions have too extreme of views (on both the right and the left) for me to vote for them.
As much as I hate this kind of stuff, it's not an issue that matters to me nearly as much as domestic issues like health care, education, taxes and various social issues that have more direct impacts on my daily life than us blowing up brown people on the other side of the world.
No politician ever matches one's beliefs and views in every area, so it's a matter of picking those who are closest to you on the things you care about the most.
As much as I hate this kind of stuff, it's not an issue that matters to me nearly as much as domestic issues like health care, education, taxes and various social issues that have more direct impacts on my daily life than us blowing up brown people on the other side of the world.
No politician ever matches one's beliefs and views in every area, so it's a matter of picking those who are closest to you on the things you care about the most.
[quote name='berzirk']Let's quit with the wink-wink stuff. Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul. I want to have his babies-and he could deliver them himself too![/QUOTE]
Uh, no. While you can agree with him on some stuff like foreign policy, his views on things like regulation puts way too much trust in corporations to do the right thing. Enron was the government's fault, remember?
Uh, no. While you can agree with him on some stuff like foreign policy, his views on things like regulation puts way too much trust in corporations to do the right thing. Enron was the government's fault, remember?
[quote name='thrustbucket']“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” - Barack Obama, Dec 20, 2007[/QUOTE]
How is this a unilateral action by the President, again? Congress ratified the UN Charter in 1945, as I recall.
Come on; are you really suggesting the United States is obligated to use its Security Council veto for all military intervention in the absence of a declaration of war by Congress?
How is this a unilateral action by the President, again? Congress ratified the UN Charter in 1945, as I recall.
Come on; are you really suggesting the United States is obligated to use its Security Council veto for all military intervention in the absence of a declaration of war by Congress?
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']I've also heard the claim that actions undertaken as part of NATO or the U.N. are somehow exempt from the constitutional requirement, but the fact that a war is fought with allies does not make it any less of a war (Congress declared war during World War II; it also voted to authorize the first Gulf War and the attack on Afghanistan even though they were done, respectively, through the U.N. and NATO).[/QUOTE]
I'll defer to an authority on this one.
I'll defer to an authority on this one.
[quote name='IRHari']Uh, no. While you can agree with him on some stuff like foreign policy, his views on things like regulation puts way too much trust in corporations to do the right thing. Enron was the government's fault, remember?[/QUOTE]
Oh I was more making a comment on how many people kept referring to this -republican who would never win the nomination who is against invading other countries-. That's obviously a Ron Paul reference, so I just called it for what it is.
I think Paul would do far more good than bad though. I understand there was the huge bandwagon following, then the counter-movement for those who think he's a gimmick, but as a candidate, he's far closer to my personal beliefs than anyone else who has run during my voting life.
Oh I was more making a comment on how many people kept referring to this -republican who would never win the nomination who is against invading other countries-. That's obviously a Ron Paul reference, so I just called it for what it is.
I think Paul would do far more good than bad though. I understand there was the huge bandwagon following, then the counter-movement for those who think he's a gimmick, but as a candidate, he's far closer to my personal beliefs than anyone else who has run during my voting life.
[quote name='IRHari']I'll defer to an authority on this one.[/QUOTE]
The quote answers a question not asked. I'm not insinuating that this action is somehow "exempt" from the requirement of Congressional authorization (if there even is one), I'm just asking why Congressional ratification of the UN Charter doesn't satisfy the Constitution.
It's not a question of "delegation" of vested authority, it's one of implicit authorization to fulfill our treaty obligations.
Even if that isn't enough, why isn't the War Powers Act itself sufficient authorization? Or the Senate resolution from March 1?
And besides, it's not like there isn't precedent.
The quote answers a question not asked. I'm not insinuating that this action is somehow "exempt" from the requirement of Congressional authorization (if there even is one), I'm just asking why Congressional ratification of the UN Charter doesn't satisfy the Constitution.
It's not a question of "delegation" of vested authority, it's one of implicit authorization to fulfill our treaty obligations.
Even if that isn't enough, why isn't the War Powers Act itself sufficient authorization? Or the Senate resolution from March 1?
And besides, it's not like there isn't precedent.
[quote name='thrustbucket']“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
- Barack Obama, Dec 20, 2007
Am I the only one that's troubled by this? It surprises me that two pages into this thread and it isn't mentioned (that I saw).
I really dislike the precedent this sets; that our President feels it's more important to only go to the U.N., and not also Congress, for for military action.
So now the U.N. charter takes precedent over our Constitution? Is this the consequence of electing an avowed globalist to the white house?[/QUOTE]
So much of this. Over and over again
- Barack Obama, Dec 20, 2007
HTML:
youtube.gifAm I the only one that's troubled by this? It surprises me that two pages into this thread and it isn't mentioned (that I saw).
I really dislike the precedent this sets; that our President feels it's more important to only go to the U.N., and not also Congress, for for military action.
So now the U.N. charter takes precedent over our Constitution? Is this the consequence of electing an avowed globalist to the white house?[/QUOTE]
So much of this. Over and over again
[quote name='Magus8472'] The quote answers a question not asked. I'm not insinuating that this action is somehow "exempt" from the requirement of Congressional authorization (if there even is one), I'm just asking why Congressional ratification of the UN Charter doesn't satisfy the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Greenwald is saying that some people are making 'the claim', as are you, that since Congress ratified the UN charter, it is 'exempt' from the Constitutional requirement of seeking Congressional approval (through a war resolution vote). Congress approved the UN charter, but I'm not sure that means that Congress approves every war undertaken as part of a UN coalition.
[quote name='Magus8472'] Even if that isn't enough, why isn't the War Powers Act itself sufficient authorization? Or the Senate resolution from March 1?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']And then there's the notion that the War Powers Act entitles a President to order military force for a limited time without Congress, but that constitutionally dubious statute has never been tested and thus does not remotely resolve the constitutional question.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Magus8472'] And besides, it's not like there isn't precedent.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']Former Bush OLC official and Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, along with others, points to Clinton's air bombing campaign of Kosovo without Congressional approval, but the mere fact that X happened in the past does not mean X is justifiable; that would be like pointing to FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans to argue that Presidents are constitutionally empowered to imprison American citizens on U.S. soil without due process. [/QUOTE]
Fukc it, you might as well read the full article, lemme know what you think:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html
He addresses a lot of the defenses Obama supporters have come up with to justify Obama's actions in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
Greenwald is saying that some people are making 'the claim', as are you, that since Congress ratified the UN charter, it is 'exempt' from the Constitutional requirement of seeking Congressional approval (through a war resolution vote). Congress approved the UN charter, but I'm not sure that means that Congress approves every war undertaken as part of a UN coalition.
[quote name='Magus8472'] Even if that isn't enough, why isn't the War Powers Act itself sufficient authorization? Or the Senate resolution from March 1?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']And then there's the notion that the War Powers Act entitles a President to order military force for a limited time without Congress, but that constitutionally dubious statute has never been tested and thus does not remotely resolve the constitutional question.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Magus8472'] And besides, it's not like there isn't precedent.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']Former Bush OLC official and Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, along with others, points to Clinton's air bombing campaign of Kosovo without Congressional approval, but the mere fact that X happened in the past does not mean X is justifiable; that would be like pointing to FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans to argue that Presidents are constitutionally empowered to imprison American citizens on U.S. soil without due process. [/QUOTE]
Fukc it, you might as well read the full article, lemme know what you think:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html
He addresses a lot of the defenses Obama supporters have come up with to justify Obama's actions in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
Sorry Griswald Greenwald, but that bit about putting Japanese in internment camps is just ridiculous. Precedent does matter, but in the context of the time. We'd never do that in this day and time, but presidents single handedly using the military is about as common as the elections that bring them into power. I'm not going to argue about the constitutionality of it, but it does matter that it's happened plenty of tiems before and has become fairly common. If it mattered to everyone that much something should have been done a decade ago.
bread's done