EPT![[image loading]](http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/1389/800xy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/6118/800xv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/s/files/2011%20Uutisen%20kuvat/Libya%20su%20C.jpg)
Libyan Uprising - Page 75
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
Grettin
42414 Posts
| ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51758000/gif/_51758868_libya_airstrikes_624map.gif) | ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
| ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
| ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
First of all, the reason being given by most for intervention is that it saves lives? By that logic we should invade Sudan and other places bordering on genocide. Secondly, the media keeps talking about Qaddafi "firing on his own people". Do you think if people in the US tried to capture military bases, they wouldn't be killed in the process? Thirdly. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states: "Congress shall have the power ...to declare War, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..." The United States Congress was in no way consulted by the President, and this is a power grab over U.S. national sovereignty by the UN. Folks, the UN/EU is just steadily becoming more and more powerful to just randomly declare war on small nations without the consent of member nations' legislative bodies. This new war in the middle east is not in the US national interest, nor is it constitutional. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
First of all, the reason being given by most for intervention is that it saves lives? By that logic we should invade Sudan and other places bordering on genocide. It saves lives with maximal efficiency. Because there is already an operating ground army, the libyan rebels, we only have to provide them air support. You can't really save lives in Sudan short of a full scale military operation to install a western regime. This new war in the middle east is not in the US national interest, nor is it constitutional. Of course its in U.S. national interests. As long as we keep our ground forces out and don't try to bomb large bodies of civilians, we've ensure the creation of a liberal democracy that is friendly to the west. The alternative would be seeing the formation of an Islamic insurgency in Libya as the rebels are forced underground, and in lieu of Western funding, they'll get there funding from Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. | ||
|
Attican
Denmark531 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:12 KunfO wrote: It's unfathomable to me why we are getting involved in this. First of all, the reason being given by most for intervention is that it saves lives? By that logic we should invade Sudan and other places bordering on genocide. Secondly, the media keeps talking about Qaddafi "firing on his own people". Do you think if people in the US tried to capture military bases, they wouldn't be killed in the process? Thirdly. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states: "Congress shall have the power ...to declare War, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..." The United States Congress was in no way consulted by the President, and this is a power grab over U.S. national sovereignty by the UN. Folks, the UN/EU is just steadily becoming more and more powerful to just randomly declare war on small nations without the consent of member nations' legislative bodies. This new war in the middle east is not in the US national interest, nor is it constitutional. Do you think the American people wouldn't revolt if an actual dictator came to power? Also a no-fly zone is not the same as an invasion. In what way is the UN and EU having more power to protect civilians from crazy dictators a bad thing? Furthermore, shouldn't helping the people fight for freedom against tyranny be in the interest of the US on principal? | ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:16 Half wrote:Of course its in U.S. national interests. As long as we keep our ground forces out and don't try to bomb large bodies of civilians, we've ensure the creation of a secular, liberal democracy that is friendly to the west. To assume that we are ensuring a secular, liberal democracy by supporting the Libyan rebels is naive at best, and we are repeating history where we armed forces led by, say, Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s... http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:12 KunfO wrote: It's unfathomable to me why we are getting involved in this. First of all, the reason being given by most for intervention is that it saves lives? By that logic we should invade Sudan and other places bordering on genocide. Secondly, the media keeps talking about Qaddafi "firing on his own people". Do you think if people in the US tried to capture military bases, they wouldn't be killed in the process? Thirdly. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states: "Congress shall have the power ...to declare War, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..." The United States Congress was in no way consulted by the President, and this is a power grab over U.S. national sovereignty by the UN. Folks, the UN/EU is just steadily becoming more and more powerful to just randomly declare war on small nations without the consent of member nations' legislative bodies. This new war in the middle east is not in the US national interest, nor is it constitutional. It isn't like this hasn't been done before. Operation Noble Anvil and Operation Deliberate Force both involved NATO airstrikes against established sovereign countries, specifically the post-Cold War Balkan states. I'm not advocating the legitimacy of those airstrikes, just pointing out that intervention has been used before - and, at least in those cases, to great tactical success. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:12 KunfO wrote: Thirdly. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states: "Congress shall have the power ...to declare War, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..." The United States Congress was in no way consulted by the President, and this is a power grab over U.S. national sovereignty by the UN. Folks, the UN/EU is just steadily becoming more and more powerful to just randomly declare war on small nations without the consent of member nations' legislative bodies. This new war in the middle east is not in the US national interest, nor is it constitutional. No american president has ever accepted a reading of the constitution that states they need to obtain permission for the use of force. To declare war, sure, but the US is not technically speaking at war with Libya. Every american president in, at least, the last 50 years has used military force against another nation without congressional approval. I'm not saying that this is the right or the wrong way, all I'm saying that it is constitutional, because it follows US precedents and none of these actions have ever been struck down in a US court. Next to that, this operation would never have happened without the US government supporting it. The US was the deciding factor in gathering up the UN votes, and the EU is not involved in the intervention. Within the US administration, apparantly Clinton was the lynchpin. She changed her mind, and her + the US UN ambassador talked Obama into it. Let's try and keep things straight before this devolves into FOX news. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:22 KunfO wrote: To assume that we are ensuring a secular, liberal democracy by supporting the Libyan rebels is naive at best, and we are repeating history where we armed uprisings led by, say, Saddam Hussein in the 80s... ok, so you subscribe to the "Middle East must choose between Fundamentalists and Dictators" narrative. The Armed uprising in Iraq wasn't a mass movement, it was a military coup by the Ba'ath party. It would be like if the Muslim brotherhood waged war on Gaddafi. | ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:21 Attican wrote: Do you think the American people wouldn't revolt if an actual dictator came to power? Also a no-fly zone is not the same as an invasion. In what way is the UN and EU having more power to protect civilians from crazy dictators a bad thing? Furthermore, shouldn't helping the people fight for freedom against tyranny be in the interest of the US on principal? Regardless of the cause of a revolution, the media is being deceitful and inciteful (while not exactly lying) when it says Qaddafi is "killing his own people". If People in the U.S. revolted and attempted to capture military bases, they would be killed, that's what I'm saying. It isn't like Qaddafi was gassing and murdering his people for no reason (to my knowledge), and therefore the reporting of this uprising seems exaggerated and disingenuous. A no-fly zone is clearly an act of war, hence the bombing of a sovereign nation and therefore the Congress must be consulted. The President does not have the authority to throw American troops wherever he pleases around the world without congressional approval, especially when there is no imminent danger to the United States | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
A no-fly zone is clearly an act of war, hence the bombing of a sovereign nation and therefore the Congress must be consulted. The President does not have the authority to throw American troops wherever he pleases around the world without congressional approval, especially when there is no imminent danger to the United States That's how ever single "war" since the Korea war happened. Moreover, the U.S. conducts dozens of military operations across the globe every year. That's literally the basis of how this country has remained a world power for the last sixty years. Do you propose that we need to have congress declare war on Pakistan before we can use UAVs to kill insurgents? Our status as a world power would not have happened if we needed to have gotten congressional approval for every single military operation on foreign soil since WW2. | ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
I'm sure there are people in our government who really don't care about the welfare of the people as history has proven, but it seems like we were dragged into this (although we could have abstained from voting as well, I will give you guys that.) | ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:38 Reaper9 wrote: KunfO said: "It isn't like Qaddafi was gassing and murdering his people for no reason (to my knowledge)." Better phrase that a bit more carefully. I'm sure there are people who really don't in our government about the welfare of the people as history has proven, but it seems we were dragged into this (although we could have abstained from voting as well, I will give you guys that.) Ok, dude, obviously I wasn't implying that there would ever be a reason to gas the people of a country, what I was saying is that Qaddafi wasn't doing it | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:39 KunfO wrote: Ok, dude, obviously I wasn't implying that there would ever be a reason to gas the people of a country, what I was saying is that Qaddafi wasn't doing it Agreed, every story about the mass killing of innocent civilains by Gadaffi has been unsubstantiated. The last time I checked it was the responsibility of the media to corroberate their stories with actual evidence not hearsay and conjecture. Disappointing to see what is becoming of respected media outlets and that people no longer need proof to believe what they say. | ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:37 Half wrote: That's how ever single "war" since the Korea war happened. Moreover, the U.S. conducts dozens of military operations across the globe every year. That's literally the basis of how this country has remained a world power for the last sixty years. Do you propose that we need to have congress declare war on Pakistan before we can use UAVs to kill insurgents? Our status as a world power would probably not have happened had we had to have gotten congressional approval for every single military operation on foreign soil since WW2. I disagree with you considering we were the predominant world power after WW2, save for Russia, and wars fought in Vietnam and Iraq have hardly contributed positively to our "world power status". In addition, to address the constitutionality question, in most cases of U.S. military action since WW2, congress has been consulted in some way (i.e. the war powers resolution for Iraq). In other cases where we have been fighting sovereign governments, the wars were unconstitutional per Article 1 Section 8, and it's high time we learned our lesson and sought congressional approval before military intervention that does not address some imminent threat to the United States. | ||
|
eazo
United States530 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:12 KunfO wrote: This new war in the middle east is not in the US national interest, nor is it constitutional. This kind of thing has been happening for a LONG LONG time. The last time CONGRESS officially declared war was against Germany in 1941. The Korean war wasn't actually a war, it was a "police" action to restore peace in the area. So was Vietnam. Its a load of B.S. is what it is. One person who is extremely against this is Ron Paul, who is a strict constitutionalist. In reality, I think some politicians see the constitution as a challenge, find a way to get around it and get your agenda done, which is kind of sickening. I read an article a while back by Ron Paul about this subject (specifically Iraq/Afghanistan). I'll see if i can find it. EDIT: Find a similar article http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html Its from an anarchical blog hahaha, not sure about the legitimacy of the blog though. | ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:48 eazo wrote: This kind of thing has been happening for a LONG LONG time. The last time CONGRESS officially declared war was against Germany in 1941. The Korean war wasn't actually a war, it was a "police" action to restore peace in the area. So was Vietnam. Its a load of B.S. is what it is. One person who is extremely against this is Ron Paul, who is a strict constitutionalist. In reality, I think some politicians see the constitution as a challenge, find a way to get around it and get your agenda done, which is kind of sickening. I read an article a while back by Ron Paul about this subject (specifically Iraq/Afghanistan). I'll see if i can find it. Read my post directly above this one for my argument on the constitutionality question of recent US military actions. I don't want this to be a thread where I'm constantly saying the same thing to different people, not saying that was your intention but you probably started writing this before that post of mine | ||
|
eazo
United States530 Posts
On March 21 2011 07:50 KunfO wrote: Read my post directly above this one for my argument on the constitutionality question of recent US military actions. I don't want this to be a thread where I'm constantly saying the same thing to different people, not saying that was your intention but you probably started writing this before that post of mine You see the only problem is that, yes Congress has been "consulted" but what they have done is taken a vote, and say "We'll just give this power to the president b/c we don't want to deal with it". Thats against the very BASIS of the constitution that says "Congress, and Congress only, can decide on a formal declaration of war". Taking a vote and giving the power to the president is, in mine and many others opinion, Unconstitutional. | ||
| ||
