|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 21 2011 07:45 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:37 Half wrote: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 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.
Vietnam and Iraq are basically the only wars that would ever have occurred had we needed congressional approval (and Afghanistan). The support of congress was indispensable to the Vietnam war, via the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
I'm talking about smaller conflicts, often joint operations with Nato, whos scale is comparable to our involvement in Libya. such as those in the early 90s.
Even those probably still would have had congressional support, but the speed it would have taken to attain it would have rendered our response irrelevant.
It isn't about presidential versus congressional power, its about the fact that in Modern Warfare, lengthy legislation by congress is going to strategically hinder our reaction. I actually would wager that we could have gotten congressional approval for Libya, but by the time we did Benghazi would already have been retaken and our response would have been moot.
|
To KunfO- Fair enough argument; indeed the United States has participated in far too many "interventions" of other countries. I as a civilian can only watch from the sidelines, but I have also seen/heard Gaddafi's speeches. He does not look like the most stable a person can be. Is it our business? As cruel as it sounds, maybe not. Human rights will always be an issue within every country as long as there are people who disregard the lives of other fellow humans.
But to say that Gaddafi is not torturing/murdering his country's civilians, that is about as similar to our government's assertions that people detained in Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely. Every nation can be held accountable for crimes against humanity, chosen to be exposed at discretion. I am not choosing a side, and I cannot read the future, and indeed I make plenty of mistakes. However, I feel that we all should all look at this objectively, and not just siding with one view alone.
|
On March 21 2011 07:55 eazo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:50 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 07:48 eazo wrote: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. 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.
You and I probably agree much more than we disagree.
What I'm saying is, such intervention with consultation of congress is atleast defensible using article 1 section 8 wording (rules concerning capture on land and water etc...) to a court. However, actions like this in Libya where the President just jumps on board with the UN without asking Congress is BLATANTLY unconstitutional and people need to spread the word.
Even if you support military intervention in Libya, you should also support the constitution. Otherwise, tomorrow you might find yourself being arrested for what you write in an internet forum.
|
Back to Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, who has said the Pentagon expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition — led either by the French and British or by NATO — "in a matter of days."
He said while the US "will have a military role in the coalition" it "will not have the preeminent role".
He also reiterated that Col Gaddafi is not being targeted by the coalition, because to try to kill him would be "unwise".
The AFP news agency has just reported an air strike has destroyed a building of Colonel Gaddafi's residence.
The White House has confirmed it is not recognising the ceasefire declared in Libya earlier, and that it will continue to enforce the UN resolution.
The MoD has confirmed that British forces have taken part in a co-ordinated second wave of strikes in Libya, with the British submarine in the Mediterranean firing Tomahawk missiles. The Chief of Defence Staff's Strategic Communications Officer Major General John Lorimer said in a statement:
I can confirm that British Armed Forces have participated in another co-ordinated strike against Libyan Air Defence systems.
For a second time, the UK has launched guided Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) from a Trafalgar Class submarine in the Mediterranean as part of a coordinated coalition plan to enforce the resolution.
The AFP reports a missile totally destroyed an administrative building at the Libyan leader's residence in Tripoli.
|
On March 21 2011 07:59 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:55 eazo wrote:On March 21 2011 07:50 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 07:48 eazo wrote: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. 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. You and I probably agree much more than we disagree. What I'm saying is, such intervention with consultation of congress is atleast defensible using article 1 section 8 wording (rules concerning capture on land and water etc...) to a court. However, actions like this in Libya where the President just jumps on board with the UN without asking Congress is BLATANTLY unconstitutional and people need to spread the word. Even if you support military intervention in Libya, you should also support the constitution. Otherwise, tomorrow you might find yourself being arrested for what you write in an internet forum.
On March 21 2011 07:45 KunfO wrote:
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.
From your original post: this is something I agree fully with and is basically what i was trying to say, i was just more wordy. So yea I do agree. And yes, I suppose you could make a case/argument for that position.
|
I agree with KunfO, it's hypocritical for the US to get involved in Libya 'to save lives' when in the past and present they are happy to sit by and let other nations suffer under dictators. If it were truly about protecting civilians then why only for Libya? It's just an excuse so they can get involved. UK and France also very keen to meddle.
|
On March 21 2011 07:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:45 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 07:37 Half wrote: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 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. Vietnam and Iraq are basically the only wars that would ever have occurred had we needed congressional approval (and Afghanistan). The support of congress was indispensable to the Vietnam war, via the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution I'm talking about smaller conflicts, often joint operations with Nato, whos scale is comparable to our involvement in Libya. such as those in the early 90s. Even those probably still would have had congressional support, but the speed it would have taken to attain it would have rendered our response irrelevant. It isn't about presidential versus congressional power, its about the fact that in Modern Warfare, lengthy legislation by congress is going to strategically hinder our reaction. I actually would wager that we could have gotten congressional approval for Libya, but by the time we did Benghazi would already have been retaken and our response would have been moot.
It Is about presidential versus congressional power, and the fact that Congress has consistently given up that power.
The "Modern Warfare" argument might work, except for the fact that we were apparently willing to wait for UN debate and authorization. (Its not like Congress couldn't have been consulted at the same time as the UN debate was going on.)
As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason.
|
On March 21 2011 07:30 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
While true, I hope you aren't trying to pin the blame for this on the U.S. This was clearly pushed for by France at the head of it.
I and just about every other American I know is fed up with our military fucking around in countries halfway around the globe. Most people aren't buying the "it's for Libya's freedom" line after they told us that in Iraq, either.
Maybe it's different in other parts of the country, but I for one am sick of my country playing world police. I don't believe that this invasion is any more justified than Iraq was, either. I hope France will take charge of cleaning up the mess we're going to make after this is all over, because the US has enough shit on its plate as is.
|
On March 21 2011 07:50 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:48 eazo wrote: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. 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 are repeating the same relatively narrow minded stuff.
But to explain why intervention is happening here and not i.e in Sudan.
1. Dictator with 40 years of brutal reign and with many terrorist action in our countries. (Bombing in Paris, ATW airplane...)
2. There was many arabic country revolting against their government. We showed our full support to those revolts. That makes us by default enemy of Gaddafi, therefor target of terrorist action from secret service of Lybia.
3. This is not about the constitution of USA, this is about application of an UN resolution, Dont derail the thread.
4. The intervention is easy. The kind where we can help easily the people we stand behind. Bombing airports, anti-air weapons, tanks and then we let the rebels have their fair war.
----
And about your offtopic provocation comment about US army would be killing people the same way if they were taking over military base. What an absurd distortion. The revolt started because army shoot people protesting against gaddafi, not because they were running military actions. The armed revolt started when part of the military didn't shoot people but joined/formed a rebelion.
US military would never shoot to kill on protester saying that Obama should resign.
|
On March 21 2011 07:12 KunfO wrote:
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.
You clearly have no idea how UN or EU bodies operate. Please stop spreading your ignorance around, you're making people stupider.
I mean on these issues specifically. Surely, on some level you understand how little you know about these things?
User was warned for this post
|
On March 21 2011 08:09 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:30 Derez wrote: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. 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. While true, I hope you aren't trying to pin the blame for this on the U.S. This was clearly pushed for by France at the head of it. I and just about every other American I know is fed up with our military fucking around in countries halfway around the globe. Most people aren't buying the "it's for Libya's freedom" line after they told us that in Iraq, either. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country, but I for one am sick of my country playing world police. I don't believe that this invasion is any more justified than Iraq was, either. I hope France will take charge of cleaning up the mess we're going to make after this is all over, because the US has enough shit on its plate as is.
This is not an invasion, it is an attack. We are basically supporting a separate 'invasion' force the rebels. As long as we don't have troops on the ground we aren't the ones responsible for the mess. 'The mess' ie police/political type activity is always the reponsibility of troops on the ground. [Now we can be blamed if the rebels turn out to be terrible... but that is different than if we actually were "the rebels" ie the troops on the ground creating a new government and 'ensuring security' like in Iraq/Afghanistan]
Honestly, 'Libya's freedom' IS part of the reason, since that's in our long term interest. But there are a lot of other short term "interests" at work as well.
|
On March 21 2011 08:17 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:12 KunfO wrote:
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. You clearly have no idea how UN or EU bodies operate. Please stop spreading your ignorance around, you're making people stupider. I mean on these issues specifically. Surely, on some level you understand how little you know about these things?
Lol I can only imagine the extensive knowledge you have on the subject.
If you have nothing to contribute stfu and leave. Don't just post ignorant comments aimed at belittleing someone elses opinion. Especially when you offer no argument or evidence proving him wrong.
|
On March 21 2011 08:14 0x64 wrote:
The revolt started because army shoot people protesting against gaddafi, not because they were running military actions. The armed revolt started when part of the military didn't shoot people but joined/formed a rebelion.
Hell, those fuckers actually strafed a peaceful demonstration with fighter planes.
|
On March 21 2011 08:14 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:50 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 07:48 eazo wrote: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. 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 are repeating the same relatively narrow minded stuff. But to explain why intervention is happening here and not i.e in Sudan. 1. Dictator with 40 years of brutal reign and with many terrorist action in our countries. (Bombing in Paris, ATW airplane...) 2. There was many arabic country revolting against their government. We showed our full support to those revolts. That makes us by default enemy of Gaddafi, therefor target of terrorist action from secret service of Lybia. 3. This is not about the constitution of USA, this is about application of an UN resolution, Dont derail the thread. 4. The intervention is easy. The kind where we can help easily the people we stand behind. Bombing airports, anti-air weapons, tanks and then we let the rebels have their fair war. ---- And about your offtopic provocation comment about US army would be killing people the same way if they were taking over military base. What an absurd distortion. The revolt started because army shoot people protesting against gaddafi, not because they were running military actions. The armed revolt started when part of the military didn't shoot people but joined/formed a rebelion. US military would never shoot to kill on protester saying that Obama should resign.
Well I didn't know George Bush's ideology was so popular in Finland but in response to your absolute mess of a post...
1. The justification for military intervention in Libya certainly has been for the "protection of Libyan civilians", not terrorist threats from Libya
2. So because we verbally supported other protests and uprising in the middle easts, we should take it progressively a step further with each successive uprising? Just because we support the idea of a rebellion in a country doesn't mean we have to start bombing said countries. Slippery slope.
3. If you had any understanding of logic you would know that I am not derailing the thread. The US Constitution and the application of the UN resolution are directly connected issues. Furthermore, this thread was not originally about the application of a UN resolution but of the start of the Libyan uprising, so troll harder.
4. Yes, it sure is easy to cause an absolute mess. We can "easily" bomb the hell out of Qaddafi's forces, but what happens when it comes time for the "united" rebel forces of Libya to form a new government? Surely it won't be anywhere near as tyrannical as Qaddafi's, eh mr. Open mind?
5. But the UN did not consider action against Qaddafi until recently, after the revolt had begun in all its violent glory. Therefore it follows that the UN resolution is justified based on Qaddafi's most recent actions, which have been to try to take back the bases that have been taken by the rebels by violent force.
And as you can see all your points have been severely and utterly destroyed. Hint: next time think twice before trying to insult someone as a preface for your argument.
|
As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason.
Its about "Whats going on" versus "How easily can we stop it". No, we don't run military operations on every oppressive regime, and it would be retarded if we did, we'd be in 10 Iraq wars and then we'd probably cause nuclear war with China.
We've ran similar operations in the past, like all the previous no fly zones we set up. The fact of the matter is, Libya is a country where we can do a lot of good, both for our own interests, and for the Libyan people, and only use a few dozen fighter planes a few hundred tomahawks.
There aren't a lot of other cases when an atrocity could be prevented with that relatively low cost on us. And in most of them, we did intervene, with positive results.
|
These "peaceful protesters" just happened to wonder into military bases (took a wrong turn did they?) arm themselves and (by pure coincidence, you understand) they seized the strategic oil refinery locations in the East and West of the country (Ras Lanuf, Brega, Zawiya etc...)
For whatever reason Russia and China are so terrified of the NATO Axis that they don't even dare use their power of veto. Sad times, indeed.
|
On March 21 2011 08:09 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 07:30 Derez wrote: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. 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. While true, I hope you aren't trying to pin the blame for this on the U.S. This was clearly pushed for by France at the head of it. I and just about every other American I know is fed up with our military fucking around in countries halfway around the globe. Most people aren't buying the "it's for Libya's freedom" line after they told us that in Iraq, either. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country, but I for one am sick of my country playing world police. I don't believe that this invasion is any more justified than Iraq was, either. I hope France will take charge of cleaning up the mess we're going to make after this is all over, because the US has enough shit on its plate as is.
I'm not blaming anyone for it, I believe it's the right thing to do no matter the reasons behind it or the hypocrisy of not saving everyone. I feel that even if there is only a small chance this leads to a stable, democratic libya, I'd say that there's a decent chance the libyan people end up with a better leader then Ghadaffi after this and the world ends up with 1 less crazy dictator.
And well, about US-involvement: You can't claim to want democracy in the Middle-East and do nothing about it when an opportunity presents itself.
|
On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:17 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 07:12 KunfO wrote:
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. You clearly have no idea how UN or EU bodies operate. Please stop spreading your ignorance around, you're making people stupider. I mean on these issues specifically. Surely, on some level you understand how little you know about these things? Lol I can only imagine the extensive knowledge you have on the subject. If you have nothing to contribute stfu and leave. Don't just post ignorant comments aimed at belittleing someone elses opinion. Especially when you offer no argument or evidence proving him wrong.
Ok, how about saying the UN or the is EU declaring war? That's as wrong as it gets. Or that it\s a power grab by the UN?. What does that even mean? You can argue that the US administration has no legal authority to do this but to suggest that there's a power grab from outside is plain ridiculous. Sorry, there's just no polite way to say this.
|
On March 21 2011 08:28 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:09 Hinanawi wrote:On March 21 2011 07:30 Derez wrote: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. 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. While true, I hope you aren't trying to pin the blame for this on the U.S. This was clearly pushed for by France at the head of it. I and just about every other American I know is fed up with our military fucking around in countries halfway around the globe. Most people aren't buying the "it's for Libya's freedom" line after they told us that in Iraq, either. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country, but I for one am sick of my country playing world police. I don't believe that this invasion is any more justified than Iraq was, either. I hope France will take charge of cleaning up the mess we're going to make after this is all over, because the US has enough shit on its plate as is. I'm not blaming anyone for it, I believe it's the right thing to do no matter the reasons behind it or the hypocrisy of not saving everyone. I feel that even if there is only a small chance this leads to a stable, democratic libya, I'd say that there's a decent chance the libyan people end up with a better leader then Ghadaffi after this and the world ends up with 1 less crazy dictator. And well, about US-involvement: You can't claim to want democracy in the Middle-East and do nothing about it when an opportunity presents itself.
Well actually I can claim that, because I believe that countries should handle their own affairs, including civil wars. It is far better for a country to come to a democratic or republican form of government through their own actions, given our encouragement and example, than to coerce them into doing so. That just increases the likelihood of unrest and more instability in the government.
|
On March 21 2011 08:27 Half wrote:Show nested quote +As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason. Its about "Whats going on" versus "How easily can we stop it". No, we don't run military operations on every oppressive regime, and it would be retarded if we did, we'd be in 10 Iraq wars and then we'd probably cause nuclear war with China. We've ran similar operations in the past, like all the previous no fly zones we set up. The fact of the matter is, Libya is a country where we can do a lot of good, both for our own interests, and for the Libyan people, and only use a few dozen fighter planes a few hundred tomahawks. There aren't a lot of other cases when an atrocity could be prevented with that relatively low cost on us. And in most of them, we did intervene, with positive results.
Yes it is hypocritical to only get involved in countries that are oil rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
