|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
I've been following all of this since the beginning, so let me mention something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This started with people peacefully protesting. Then they were shot at. Then more protested. Then the gaddahfi brought in foreign mercenaries to attack his own people. Does this not constitute him more or less waging war on his own country? The protestors didn't have weapons (for the most part) until army units began defecting because their own peoples were being slaughtered. And they made a lot of gains, because all gaddahfi really seems to have, is mercenaries, and his personal guard (the army is underpaid due to him fearing their power), and their equipment.
So to everyone saying "why here, why nowhere else?", well, mainly because all we have to do is bomb their tanks and stuff while they're out on open ground, and keep his aircraft grounded. The populace is doing the rest.
Besides, that argument is ignorant and makes no fucking sense anyway. "Oh, well since we didn't help in darfur/etc, we obviously shouldnt ever help any citizens being exterminated by their psychotic power-hungry dictator". Seriously, if its easy for the world to take a (relatively) small action to potentially save a shit-ton of people and prevent a genocide, why the hell wouldn't we?
|
On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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.
It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress.
And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya.
Simple Stuff.
Stay polite, bro.
|
On March 21 2011 08:27 whatdoido wrote:
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.
A bit misinformed I am afraid, it is the fact that Libyan forces shot using live rounds (killing several dozen people or more) and shot people execution style (while also using the Libyan Air force to bomb populaces of habitation) that a portion of the Libyan Populace is deciding to use violence to attempt to topple Gaddafi's regime.
For example, the British even to this day can say that the United State's (British colonies at the time) declaration of independence was an inner rebellion, while the U.S. justifies/justified it as a legitimate cause through the use of violence to gain America's notion of "liberty" (liberty as a definition has several meanings and interpretations). And certainly, the French and Spanish got involved, for their own self interests.
Edit: (Given the European wars, where the British gave quite a thrashing to the French and Spanish, the American Revolution gave the French and Spanish a chance to undermine Great Britain, for after their open declaration of support for the colonies, France and Spain immediately declare war on Britain in Europe).
Who is but history to say who is right and wrong? Depends on who is writing the book, in my humble opinion.
|
If a populace tries to tell their government, "Please step down. We want to be ruled by someone else," or at least, "Can we please have fair elections so we have the chance to change our government peacefully," and the governments response is to fire on those protesters. Then some of the army refuses to fire on peaceful protesters and the protesters turn to rebels and fight back. Now, the government really cracks down and starts using planes and tanks and wiping everyone out.
The populace cries out, "Please someone help us!"
You are damn right that the rest of the would should join in.
Is it hypocrisy that we can't do this for every country? Is it hypocrisy that we joined in this time because a lot of other countries wanted to join in too?
You gave $100 to the Red Cross!? You hypocrite, why didn't you give $100 to Unicef, as well, they need help too?!
Join in. Do you part. Quit throwing stones at people trying to help.
|
On March 21 2011 08:27 whatdoido wrote:
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.
Yeah, that is exactly what happened. Many from the military in the east defected and opened the military bases and arms depots to the people.
|
On March 21 2011 08:38 Aurdon wrote:
If a populace tries to tell their government, "Please step down. We want to be ruled by someone else," or at least, "Can we please have fair elections so we have the chance to change our government peacefully," and the governments response is to fire on those protesters. Then some of the army refuses to fire on peaceful protesters and the protesters turn to rebels and fight back. Now, the government really cracks down and starts using planes and tanks and wiping everyone out.
The populace cries out, "Please someone help us!"
You are damn right that the rest of the would should join in.
Is it hypocrisy that we can't do this for every country? Is it hypocrisy that we joined in this time because a lot of other countries wanted to join in too?
You gave $100 to the Red Cross!? You hypocrite, why didn't you give $100 to Unicef, as well, they need help too?!
Join in. Do you part. Quit throwing stones at people trying to help.
Except dollars can't exactly be compared to American resources and the lives of young American men and women, and those of other countries, that are being sacrificed to pursue aims that may not even come to be (liberal democracy/republicanism in Libya)
|
On March 21 2011 08:34 KunfO wrote:
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.
Who's coercing anything? They (the people with little-to-no weapons, training, or chance) asked us for a no fly zone so they (and their half-century old guns) wouldn't be bombed into oblivion for trying to protest their government. All we (we being the US/EU/UN/Arab League) are just helping them out.
|
On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro.
Do you have an issue with the UN as a political entity? To say that the UN is asserting power of US sovereignty is stating an obvious - the United States is a willing participant and, almost certainly, one of the most powerful actors in the institution. I find it difficult to believe that the UN can pass any serious resolutions, much less, resort to coercive force without the United State's approval, at least begrudging approval. Not that I disagree with you on the actions of the United Nations but you are arguing that it more power than I think it really has.
|
On March 21 2011 08:34 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:28 Derez wrote: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.
Sorry, should have been clearer. I ment you as in your government. With all the talk from the Obama administration and France and England leading the charge, the US had to commit limited troops or it would just look silly. So you'll bomb a bit now and after that its AWACS and a few F-16s (or at least, that's the idea in the US administration at the moment).
Non-interventionism is a perfectly fine position, and definately more logical of a position then limited interventionism. But when it seems so easy for the west to act, and finally try and do something at least semi-decent, I don't see a downside.
|
On March 21 2011 08:42 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro. Do you have an issue with the UN as a political entity? To say that the UN is asserting power of US sovereignty is stating an obvious - the United States is a willing participant and, almost certainly, one of the most powerful actors in the institution. I find it difficult to believe that the UN can pass any serious resolutions, much less, resort to coercive force without the United State's approval, at least begrudging approval. Not that I disagree with you on the actions of the United Nations but you are arguing that it more power than I think it really has.
What I am saying is that it is claiming more power than it has had and should have. The US is part of the UN not as part of a larger, more sovereign government like the EU is to France, but as part of an agreement with other sovereign nations. The President of the US is using the UN as a tool to circumvent the US congress, and by extension the US constitution per article 1 section 8, to go to war with Libya..
|
On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro.
No, it's not. The UN Security Council authorizes the use of force, doesn't compel it.
As far I'm concerned it is polite to point out that someone is wrong or even that they are ignorant on some issue.
FWIW, your last post is less wrong than the first I've responded to.
|
On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro.
Its not about UN asserting control over US
its President asserting control over Congress...and that is Really old. (nothing new, just regrettable)
|
On March 21 2011 08:46 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:42 slyboogie wrote:On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro. Do you have an issue with the UN as a political entity? To say that the UN is asserting power of US sovereignty is stating an obvious - the United States is a willing participant and, almost certainly, one of the most powerful actors in the institution. I find it difficult to believe that the UN can pass any serious resolutions, much less, resort to coercive force without the United State's approval, at least begrudging approval. Not that I disagree with you on the actions of the United Nations but you are arguing that it more power than I think it really has. What I am saying is that it is claiming more power than it has had and should have. The US is part of the UN not as part of a larger, more sovereign government like the EU is to France, but as part of an agreement with other sovereign nations. The President of the US is using the UN as a tool to circumvent the US congress, and by extension the US constitution per article 1 section 8, to go to war with Libya..
This has been done before in American history. I wouldn't call it common practice every President since FDR has expanded Executive power beyond the bounds of its original authority. Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton, now Obama; I don't think the issue here is the UN. If anything, I feel like your criticism should be aimed at our Executive.
|
On March 21 2011 08:47 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro. No, it's not. The UN Security Council authorizes the use of force, doesn't compel it. As far I'm concerned it is polite to point out that someone is wrong or even that they are ignorant on some issue. FWIW, your last post is less wrong than the first I've responded to.
The UN is providing a vehicle for EU nations and others to go to war, and is providing a tool for the US President to ignore the constitutional requirements to consult congress on acts of war.
By the way, it isn't just libertarian-leaning people like me who feel this way in America, it's across the political spectrum:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
|
On March 21 2011 08:35 Ilfirin wrote:
I've been following all of this since the beginning, so let me mention something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This started with people peacefully protesting. Then they were shot at. Then more protested. Then the gaddahfi brought in foreign mercenaries to attack his own people. Does this not constitute him more or less waging war on his own country? The protestors didn't have weapons (for the most part) until army units began defecting because their own peoples were being slaughtered. And they made a lot of gains, because all gaddahfi really seems to have, is mercenaries, and his personal guard (the army is underpaid due to him fearing their power), and their equipment.
So to everyone saying "why here, why nowhere else?", well, mainly because all we have to do is bomb their tanks and stuff while they're out on open ground, and keep his aircraft grounded. The populace is doing the rest.
This cannot be emphasized enough. The protests were peaceful, but Khadafi induced mass murder on them. When conscript soldiers refused to fire on their own people, they were burned alive. Then he started using fighter planes to BOMB the demonstrations, that was the day two planes defected to Malta, they would not follow such an order. To top it all, Khadafi brought in mercenaries from other countries who were willing to kill demonstrators.
|
On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro.
Could someone please tell me what this veto thing that certain members of the council has the right to do is again? This is every single member of the UN together going to war against Gaddafi (NOT Libiya) - some just abstain from taking an active part.
|
On March 21 2011 08:50 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:47 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro. No, it's not. The UN Security Council authorizes the use of force, doesn't compel it. As far I'm concerned it is polite to point out that someone is wrong or even that they are ignorant on some issue. FWIW, your last post is less wrong than the first I've responded to. The UN is providing a vehicle for EU nations and others to go to war, and is providing a tool for the US President to ignore the constitutional requirements to consult congress on acts of war. By the way, it isn't just libertarian-leaning people like me who feel this way in America, it's across the political spectrum: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
Unnecessary! America is not held thrall to the UN and it has certainly never needed United Nations' approval in the past. This is a straw man - if America felt that intervention would be in its absolute interest, it would have acted as an independent agent.
|
On March 21 2011 08:53 Ghad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:35 Ilfirin wrote:
I've been following all of this since the beginning, so let me mention something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This started with people peacefully protesting. Then they were shot at. Then more protested. Then the gaddahfi brought in foreign mercenaries to attack his own people. Does this not constitute him more or less waging war on his own country? The protestors didn't have weapons (for the most part) until army units began defecting because their own peoples were being slaughtered. And they made a lot of gains, because all gaddahfi really seems to have, is mercenaries, and his personal guard (the army is underpaid due to him fearing their power), and their equipment.
So to everyone saying "why here, why nowhere else?", well, mainly because all we have to do is bomb their tanks and stuff while they're out on open ground, and keep his aircraft grounded. The populace is doing the rest.
This cannot be emphasized enough. The protests were peaceful, but Khadafi induced mass murder on them. When conscript soldiers refused to fire on their own people, they were burned alive. Then he started using fighter planes to BOMB the demonstrations, that was the day two planes defected to Malta, they would not follow such an order. To top it all, Khadafi brought in mercenaries from other countries who were willing to kill demonstrators.
While I am not going to dispute these facts with you, as I am not informed enough to know for sure if they are all facts or not, and because this isn't the main subject of what I have been arguing about, I would caution you to be wary of some media sources.
In the Vietnam War, the media posted an infamous picture of a Vietcong military officer being shot execution-style by a pro-democracy vietnamese soldier. What they initially failed to mention is that said soldier's family had just been killed by the orders of the vietcong officer. So you don't always get the whole story
|
On March 21 2011 08:50 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:47 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro. No, it's not. The UN Security Council authorizes the use of force, doesn't compel it. As far I'm concerned it is polite to point out that someone is wrong or even that they are ignorant on some issue. FWIW, your last post is less wrong than the first I've responded to. The UN is providing a vehicle for EU nations and others to go to war, and is providing a tool for the US President to ignore the constitutional requirements to consult congress on acts of war.By the way, it isn't just libertarian-leaning people like me who feel this way in America, it's across the political spectrum: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
First, that's not what you originally said. Second, it's still wrong. It's a fact that the President can order military action without the express agreement of Congress. He can do it without a UNSC resolution (like Clinton did against al-quaeda after the African embassy bombings for example).
It may or may not be constitutional, but the UN has literally nothing to do with that issue.
|
On March 21 2011 08:54 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:50 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 08:47 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:35 KunfO wrote:On March 21 2011 08:33 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2011 08:22 Aurocaido wrote: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. It means the UN is asserting power over US sovereignty by involving the US in a war without the approval of the US Congress. And it is EU countries, such as France, that are using the UN as a vehicle to go to war with Libya. Simple Stuff. Stay polite, bro. No, it's not. The UN Security Council authorizes the use of force, doesn't compel it. As far I'm concerned it is polite to point out that someone is wrong or even that they are ignorant on some issue. FWIW, your last post is less wrong than the first I've responded to. The UN is providing a vehicle for EU nations and others to go to war, and is providing a tool for the US President to ignore the constitutional requirements to consult congress on acts of war. By the way, it isn't just libertarian-leaning people like me who feel this way in America, it's across the political spectrum: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html Unnecessary! America is not held thrall to the UN and it has certainly never needed United Nations' approval in the past. This is a straw man - if America felt that intervention would be in its absolute interest, it would have acted as an independent agent.
Exactly, which is why the President should have consulted Congress before going along with the UN...
-_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
