or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libya - Page 5

post #161 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If some foreign nation dropped a bomb on your house, destroying your property and killing loved ones, would you accept the explanations "we're liberating you" and "it's not REALLY a war"?

The libertarian principle of non-aggression is the only consistent and moral position.

Just listen to all the Obamatons scrambling to justify clearly immoral and unconstitutional action the same way the Bush supporters did with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Can you justify allowing Khadafi to "show no mercy" as he turns his forces on his coastal cities? How is that moral?

As for the Constitution and the wars: Obama did not need Congressional authority. Many Presidents have used the armed forces without an "imminent threat" to the US and without a Congressional resolution. He also did consult and brief Congress. As for Bush, he had two clear Congressional resolutions authorizing both actions. They were completely consistent with the Constitution.

What's disgusting is how people will recklessly throw around terms like "Unconstitutional" and "illegal" and "immoral" when what they are really saying is "I disagree with this particular action." You are more than entitled to be a libertarian...I myself have fairly strong libertarian leanings. But none of the three actions were Unconstitutional. That much is clear.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #162 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But none of the three actions were Unconstitutional. That much is clear.

Thus sayeth the constitutional scholar.

Conversation over.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #163 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Can you justify allowing Khadafi to "show no mercy" as he turns his forces on his coastal cities? How is that moral?

As for the Constitution and the wars: Obama did not need Congressional authority. Many Presidents have used the armed forces without an "imminent threat" to the US and without a Congressional resolution. He also did consult and brief Congress. As for Bush, he had two clear Congressional resolutions authorizing both actions. They were completely consistent with the Constitution.

What's disgusting is how people will recklessly throw around terms like "Unconstitutional" and "illegal" and "immoral" when what they are really saying is "I disagree with this particular action." You are more than entitled to be a libertarian...I myself have fairly strong libertarian leanings. But none of the three actions were Unconstitutional. That much is clear.

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the authority to be the world's "morality police"?

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government (of which the Executive Branch is a part) the authority to wage war without an official declaration from Congress?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #164 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the authority to be the world's "morality police"?

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government (of which the Executive Branch is a part) the authority to wage war without an official declaration from Congress?

So what you are saying is that Obama has violated the constitution and should be impeached? Racist Tea Bagger!
post #165 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

So what you are saying is that Obama has violated the constitution and should be impeached? Racist Tea Bagger!

I'm saying Bush violated the Constitution, too.

Does that still make me racist?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #166 of 222
Thread Starter 
I resurrected this because of the following headline: NATO extends Libya operation 90 days.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/nato-formal...100141091.html

What are the thoughts here about whether or not Obama needs congressional authority to continue our operations? When the attacks were launched, my position was that he did not need a formal resolution. He consulted Congress and acted to stop what was described as a massacre. Good enough for me.

But the duration and scope of the operation have now changed. We have confirmed reports of troops on the ground (special forces, intelligence, etc.) and are now discussing removing Khadaffi or getting him to step down. We are also beyond the 60 day mark with regard to approval of military operations by Congress (War Powers Resolution). It is my position that the President now needs Congressional approval to conduct a sustained military operation.

Thoughts?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #167 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I resurrected this because of the following headline: NATO extends Libya operation 90 days.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/nato-formal...100141091.html

What are the thoughts here about whether or not Obama needs congressional authority to continue our operations? When the attacks were launched, my position was that he did not need a formal resolution. He consulted Congress and acted to stop what was described as a massacre. Good enough for me.

But the duration and scope of the operation have now changed. We have confirmed reports of troops on the ground (special forces, intelligence, etc.) and are now discussing removing Khadaffi or getting him to step down. We are also beyond the 60 day mark with regard to approval of military operations by Congress (War Powers Resolution). It is my position that the President now needs Congressional approval to conduct a sustained military operation.

Thoughts?

More of the same. This is getting to be a tired cycle. Obama needs to get us out now, before we are stuck in yet another military action that we really do not belong in. I was afraid of this happening at the start. This was why I could not believe that segovius was serious when he said that he wanted the west to step in. It will not end well. When the west steps in, the US is always there in a noticeable way. \
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #168 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

More of the same. This is getting to be a tired cycle. Obama needs to get us out now, before we are stuck in yet another military action that we really do not belong in. I was afraid of this happening at the start. This was why I could not believe that segovius was serious when he said that he wanted the west to step in. It will not end well. When the west steps in, the US is always there in a noticeable way. \

I don't see why we need to be there. We should have used overwhelming force against his military forces, then peaced out. Then we tell him "next time, we're going to go after your forces, your communications, your defenses, and YOU. So back off, champ."

Problem solved. I assume you think he now needs Congressional approval?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #169 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't see why we need to be there. We should have used overwhelming force against his military forces, then peaced out. Then we tell him "next time, we're going to go after your forces, your communications, your defenses, and YOU. So back off, champ."

Problem solved. I assume you think he now needs Congressional approval?

I don't think we needed to go there at all. Once in, our leaders don't know how to "peace out".

He needs to ask for approval, and it needs to be voted on. Then we can deal with those who feel the need to continue the war efforts directly, starting with the CiC...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #170 of 222
Congressional approval? What?

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission

Quote:
Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

They don't have the guts to pull funding or call for impeachment, but it's something.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #171 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Congressional approval? What?

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission

They don't have the guts to pull funding or call for impeachment, but it's something.

it needs to be more, and soon.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #172 of 222
Thread Starter 
I wonder when Congress will go even further. Congress rebukes President.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #173 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Congressional approval? What?

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission



They don't have the guts to pull funding or call for impeachment, but it's something.


On that topic: One step from ground war.

Here's my question: Is sending troops into Libya without congressional approval an impeachable offense? I think it's clearly wrong, but I don't know if that's a "high crime or misdemeanor." I suppose violating federal law is considered a "crime." Interesting thought.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #174 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

On that topic: One step from ground war.

Here's my question: Is sending troops into Libya without congressional approval an impeachable offense? I think it's clearly wrong, but I don't know if that's a "high crime or misdemeanor." I suppose violating federal law is considered a "crime." Interesting thought.

History would tell us that it's not.
post #175 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

History would tell us that it's not.

Probably not. Making matters more interesting though, Obama's VP claimed in 2007 that if Bush attacked Iran without Congressional approval, he'd move to impeach him. He got a hearty round of applause from the libs in the room on that one.

Of course now, we have this:
Quote:
important to realize that there's no way in the wide world that President Barack Obama is going to get impeached over this. As Dave Weigel pointed out Tuesday, the prevailing attitude in Congress over the matter of congressional approval is best exemplified by the statements made by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who each basically said they'd simply rubber-stamp whatever Obama wanted to do. "I'd be glad to vote on it afterwards," said Graham, all but cementing Congress' ornamental role in military conflict.

Good 'ol HuffPo. Obama gets to utterly ignore the War Powers Resolution and the lefties go "aww, shucks...no one follows it anyway." But Bush? He has two specific authorizations on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he should be impeached. Its jimmacian!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #176 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Its jimmacian!

Must have hit a nerve.

Sandbox!



Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #177 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Must have hit a nerve.

Sandbox!




It's common knowledge! No one's buying today!


I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #178 of 222
I had no idea I was so popular with you guys!

It must have something to do with all of the nice things I've said over the years!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #179 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

On that topic: One step from ground war.

Here's my question: Is sending troops into Libya without congressional approval an impeachable offense? I think it's clearly wrong, but I don't know if that's a "high crime or misdemeanor." I suppose violating federal law is considered a "crime." Interesting thought.

I just want to make it clear that you article talks about NATO not the U.S. alone sending troops into Libya.

Quote:
SINGAPORE Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says NATO is "one step" from sending troops into Libya in a bid to help rebels remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

Just to clarify as you were also talking about Obama.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #180 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Must have hit a nerve.

Sandbox!




And please do you want me to start quoting you?

You guys are hilarious!

There's still a chance that we'll find WMD in one of the maiboring countries.

Here's a recent one :
Quote:
He's blindly partisan. jimmac does not support parties because of their positions. He supports the Democratic party because he's a Democrat

All this and yet I'm registered independent. I'd vote for a republican if there was a good one but alas........
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #181 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

All this and yet I'm registered independent. I'd vote for a republican if there was a good one but alas........

It's interesting that you find no irony at all in the fact that you often accuse me (and others here) of being Republicans and/or conservatives despite consistently promoting positions that are solidly libertarian in nature (some of which happen to align with conservative or Republican positions...but some of which also happen to align with liberal or Democratic positions) and yet you...you who consistently bash Republicans and conservatives and consistently offer excuses and rationalization for liberals and Democrats...try to claim your so-called "independence."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #182 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I just want to make it clear that you article talks about NATO not the U.S. alone sending troops into Libya.



Just to clarify as you were also talking about Obama.

jimmac, who do you think "NATO" really is? Do you really think every other NATO member except us will send troops?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #183 of 222
Thread Starter 
26% support continued presence in Libya. 59% want Congressional approval to stay:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ction_in_libya
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #184 of 222
Good grief. That means 85% have absolutely no clue about the constitutionality of our presence in Libya in the first place, let alone the immorality of it.

We have work to do, liberty-lovers.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #185 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Good grief. That means 85% have absolutely no clue about the constitutionality of our presence in Libya in the first place, let alone the immorality of it.

We have work to do, liberty-lovers.

Yeah, we don't agree there. I think Obama was well within his powers to use the military initially. Any continued presence requires a congressional approval as per the War Powers Resolution.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #186 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac, who do you think "NATO" really is? Do you really think every other NATO member except us will send troops?

Oh, jimmac...where arrrrrreee you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-to-cuts.html

Quote:
The British military intervention in Libya is unsustainable, the head of the Navy has said.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #187 of 222

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #188 of 222
Cynthia McKinney? WOW
post #189 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Cynthia McKinney? WOW

You zeroed in on 20 seconds of the whole video...and someone's opinion to boot? WOW

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #190 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You zeroed in on 20 seconds of the whole video...and someone's opinion to boot? WOW

I think it's more that they feature her. Where is the opposing view?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #191 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think it's more that they feature her. Where is the opposing view?

I'd say the opposing view is the whole mainstream media and administration telling us this is all about saving the lives of those poor, helpless, self-motivated rebels.

There have been other views suggesting this was about oil. That was my guess.

This gold angle is very interesting to say the least.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #192 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'd say the opposing view is the whole mainstream media and administration telling us this is all about saving the lives of those poor, helpless, self-motivated rebels.

There have been other views suggesting this was about oil. That was my guess.

This gold angle is very interesting to say the least.

I get that, but it's still a completely biased report. Then again, it's Russian TV--which I didn't realize at first. That's correct: A U.S. Congresswoman is on a Russian network talking about how her own country treats African-Americans.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #193 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I get that, but it's still a completely biased report. Then again, it's Russian TV--which I didn't realize at first.

Ohhh c'mon! Are you suggesting that Russian TV is biased but American TV isn't?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's correct: A U.S. Congresswoman is on a Russian network talking about how her own country treats African-Americans.

You seem to be losing the forest for the trees in this. The point was about the possibility that Libya was angling to try and get oil priced in Gold vs. US Dollars. If true, do you think this provides another motivation to have him ousted and/or killed?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #194 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ohhh c'mon! Are you suggesting that Russian TV is biased but American TV isn't?

Uh...noooo. I was just saying that network does not appear to even try to be balanced.

Quote:

You seem to be losing the forest for the trees in this. The point was about the possibility that Libya was angling to try and get oil priced in Gold vs. US Dollars. If true, do you think this provides another motivation to have him ousted and/or killed?

Yeah, I got it. And yes, I think it does provide motivation. Really though, I think this is about Obama's incompetence and dithering more than anything. I don't think he knows what the hell we're doing there at this point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #195 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh...noooo. I was just saying that network does not appear to even try to be balanced..

So let's get back to the content of the claim. Is the claim a lie? Factually incorrect? Overblown?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think he knows what the hell we're doing there at this point.

I don't think he knows what he's doing about most things...except giving speeches and running for office.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #196 of 222

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #197 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

U.S. recognizes Libyan rebels' authority

I noticed that. The State Department has allied itself to an organization with links to "al Qaeda". Several conclusions can be easily drawn from this.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #198 of 222
The State Department runs "al Qaeda" and has been using them to run false flag operations from the beginning.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #199 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I noticed that. The State Department has allied itself to an organization with links to "al Qaeda". Several conclusions can be easily drawn from this.

That's dubious at best. I'm not saying we should have recognized them, but there really isn't evidence of any significant links (other than what "Special K" says (that's my new name for him...anyone? anyone?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The State Department runs "al Qaeda" and has been using them to run false flag operations from the beginning.

That would be interesting and outrageous. If only there was some evidence this was true.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #200 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That would be interesting and outrageous. If only there was some evidence this was true.

Like this?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider