Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War in Libya: The latest US mistake

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War in Libya: The latest US mistake

    Senator Barack Obama said in 2007:

    "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
    Right, sounded good at the time. But like most of what Obama said, it turned out to be complete garbage. He's looking a lot like the president he loved to bash nowadays.



    It's amazing to me that with two ongoing wars already, the US has embarked in yet another war. And that all those liberals who railed against Bush for getting us into Iraq have now grown silent. I guess expensive illegal foreign wars are OK when it's your guy that is abusing executive power.

    There are some politicians who stand on principle, notably Ron Paul - also Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. But most Republicans are attacking Obama for political reason, and democrats are in apology mode to protect their president.

    Here's Ron Paul speaking truth to power, as usual:



    Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article today about America's latest illegal war.

    Obama's new view of his own war powers

    Joe Biden in a Senate speech delivered on July 30, 1998.

    “The rationale for vesting the power to launch war in Congress was simple. The Framers' views were dominated by their experience with the British King, who had unfettered power to start wars. Such powers the Framers were determined to deny the President,”
    What a useless hypocritical excuse for a Vice President. They love to quote the rule of law when it suits them, but never abide to it's principles when in a position of power.
    |TG-X| mp40x



    Register for the Forums! | Get on Teamspeak! | Play Squad! | Join Discord! | Support Tactical Gamer!


  • #2
    Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

    The 'war' in Lybia is hardly an analogue to the Invasion of Iraq.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

      There is quite a difference, I do not think that we should be comparing this to other wars we have fought until/if we send ground troops in or decide to take charge, both of which are probably never going to happen.



      Former TG-21st
      Swift Mobile On Target

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

        heard this phrase today, from a commenter discussing the moving goal-posts of Operation Hazy Sunset...

        "No Drive Zone"


        :icon_lol:

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

          Originally posted by Ytman View Post
          The 'war' in Lybia is hardly an analogue to the Invasion of Iraq.
          Giving relatively minor support to an already-existing war effort spearheaded by the populace itself is OBVIOUSLY the same as invading Iraq. [/sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious enough]

          More political games by the usual crowd (on all sides of the fence, including Ron Paul).

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

            we are arming them and extremist are teaching them how to fight, yippidy do da! WTF!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

              The ability to send military aid rests solely with the President. Sending over missiles isn't a problem with me, it's not ground troops. Congress does not have the right to take away the President's Commander in Chief powers, or limit them. Their job is to declare war, which we're not doing.

              Also since it was requested by the UN that the US lend support I fully support this. The two are not comparable in the slightest.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                How can there be complaints about what we're doing there, mp40? The efforts in Libya are part of a multi-nation coalition requested by the UN to help implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The security resolution was proposed by France, the UK, and Lebanon of all places.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                  Libya has a UN resolution attached. I'm ok with it.

                  EDIT: For clarity, I know the UN doesn't exactly get much much respect in the states, but it IS the only thing we have.
                  Do or do not, there is no try....
                  -- Yoda, Dagobah

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                    Originally posted by Ytman View Post
                    The 'war' in Lybia is hardly an analogue to the Invasion of Iraq.
                    It's more meddling into the affairs of the Middle East. Saying it's not the same as Iraq doesn't excuse the bombing. I'm guessing the quotes around 'war' mean that you don't think it counts as one?

                    Originally posted by MacLeod View Post
                    There is quite a difference, I do not think that we should be comparing this to other wars we have fought until/if we send ground troops in or decide to take charge, both of which are probably never going to happen.
                    The difference is only in scale. It's still a war and civilians are dying, and we even killed some of the rebels were supposed to be helping.

                    Originally posted by Flarfignuggen View Post
                    Giving relatively minor support to an already-existing war effort spearheaded by the populace itself is OBVIOUSLY the same as invading Iraq. [/sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious enough]

                    More political games by the usual crowd (on all sides of the fence, including Ron Paul).
                    I don't normally defend politicians, but Ron Paul's voting record speaks for itself. He's been consistently against US foreign interventions and wars. Most democrats and Republicans may be playing politics with the Libyan war policy, but Ron Paul is not one of them.

                    Originally posted by Sirusblk View Post
                    The ability to send military aid rests solely with the President. Sending over missiles isn't a problem with me, it's not ground troops. Congress does not have the right to take away the President's Commander in Chief powers, or limit them. Their job is to declare war, which we're not doing.
                    The president has no authority under the Constitution or the War Powers Act to wage war. Just because the executive branch of government has been subverting the law for decades doesn't make it right or legal. Basically, your whole statement seeks to minimize the Libyan war and defend the administration. Would you be doing this if president Bush had intervened in Libya?

                    The arguments raised to justify the Obama view of his own powers are every bit as frivolous as they were during the Bush years. Many claim that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows a President to fight wars for 60 days without Congressional approval, but (a) the Obama administration is taking the position that not even the WPR can constrain the President, and (b) 1541(c) of that Resolution explicitly states that the war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to a declaration of war, specific statutory authority, or "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Plainly, none of those circumstances prevail here. That's why the Obama administration has to argue that it is empowered to ignore the WPR: because nothing in it permits the commencement of a war without Congressional approval in these circumstances; to the contrary, it makes clear that he has no such authority in this case (just read 1541(c) if you have any doubts about that). Link.
                    You're just defending the kindler gentler "Obama doctrine" of Mid-East intervention.

                    To supplement the Carter doctrine (and smooth off the Bush doctrine’s rough edges), we now have the Obama doctrine, elaborated by the president in last week’s speech to the nation, which treats the plight of civilians caught in the path of war as a renewed argument for lobbing Western bombs and missiles, if not launching full-fledged invasions. Link.
                    Originally posted by Gill View Post
                    How can there be complaints about what we're doing there, mp40? The efforts in Libya are part of a multi-nation coalition requested by the UN to help implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The security resolution was proposed by France, the UK, and Lebanon of all places.
                    I'm tired of the wars and interventions in the Middle East , Gill. When does it end? This latest war has just been spun to make it seem like it's some kind of humanitarian effort. Let's be honest here. It's another war, plain and simple and it's another example of what we've been doing in the Middle East for decades.

                    Last Act in the Mideast

                    Ever since Britain and France set out to dismember the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago, the West has been engaged in an incoherent, haphazard, episodic, but more or less relentless effort to impose its will on the Middle East. Methods have varied. Sometimes the “infidels” have employed overt force. At other times they have relied on covert means, worked through proxies, or recruited local puppets.

                    The purposes offered to justify Western exertions have likewise varied. With empire falling into disfavor, the pursuit of imperial aims has required conceptual creativity. Since 1945 resistance to communist subversion, a professed antipathy for brutal dictators, support for international law, and an enthusiasm for spreading freedom have all been pressed into service (albeit selectively) to legitimize outside intervention. Today’s “responsibility to protect” extends this tradition, offering the latest high-minded raison d’ętre for encroaching on the sovereignty of Middle Eastern states whenever the locals behave in ways that raise Western ire.

                    Underlying this great variety of methods and professed motivation, two things have remained constant across the decades. The first is an assumption: that Arabs, Persians, Afghans, and the like are incapable of managing their own affairs, leaving the West with no choice but to act in loco parentis, setting rules and enforcing discipline. The second is a conviction: that somehow, some way, the deft application of Western power will eventually fix whatever ails the region.
                    Why aren't we intervening in the Ivory Coast with 800 "massacred" within a week? Certainly that's a humanitarian crisis.

                    You have to ask yourself, Gill, why do you always support war?
                    |TG-X| mp40x



                    Register for the Forums! | Get on Teamspeak! | Play Squad! | Join Discord! | Support Tactical Gamer!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                      Honestly, I don't give a damn about what the Libyans (or anyone else in the Middle East) do to each other so long as gas here in the States doesn't skyrocket overnight. I was just pointing out that we've done things "the correct way" as far as implementing the tool of war goes.

                      War does, indeed, solve problems. That the solution usually causes more problems is because of the human condition rather than the war (if that makes sense). That this is costing us more money is a drop in the bucket considering the totality of our defense spending, and that any money saved in defense spending seems to be sucked up into ridiculously-bloated domestic programs.

                      Why don't we get involved in humanitarian crises such as the Ivory Coast example you've given? In my cynical view, it's because that's just how things seem to be done there. There's nothing even approaching a solution to the concept of tribal warfare exhibited in so many African nations, so why even try?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                        Originally posted by Gill View Post
                        Honestly, I don't give a damn about what the Libyans (or anyone else in the Middle East) do to each other so long as gas here in the States doesn't skyrocket overnight. I was just pointing out that we've done things "the correct way" as far as implementing the tool of war goes.
                        if you mean the US got UN approval and formed a coalition instead of acting unilaterally, then yes I see what you mean.

                        Originally posted by Gill View Post
                        Why don't we get involved in humanitarian crises such as the Ivory Coast example you've given?
                        I just used the Ivory Coast example to show that the US doesn't really care about humanitarian problems like they say. If we did, we'd be in a lot more countries around the world. The Obama administration was just using that as cover for more military action in the Middle East.
                        |TG-X| mp40x



                        Register for the Forums! | Get on Teamspeak! | Play Squad! | Join Discord! | Support Tactical Gamer!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                          I remember people with signs chanting "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" What the heck do they think this is? If people were SO upset about the loss of innocent lives over oil while Bush was President, why aren't they upset now? I know the two aren't quite comparable in terms of scale or politics, BUT if people are going to be consistent, then they should be just as upset over these recent events.

                          I'm not really upset with President Obama, as I'm sure he has access to a helluva lot more intel than we do, and it's obvious he was put in a very very tough position. I'm just annoyed with the lack of consistency from the "left." I remember millions of protesters at the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. Heck, I even remember tons of protesters at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan! WHERE ARE ALL THOSE PEOPLE NOW? Civilians are dying. It's obvious it's for oil. The Europeans care about the Middle East all of a sudden, because now it's THEIR oil supply that's being screwed with. Funny how anti-war they were before, but NOW it's ok when it comes to Libya.
                          "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                            Originally posted by mp40x View Post
                            I just used the Ivory Coast example to show that the US doesn't really care about humanitarian problems like they say. If we did, we'd be in a lot more countries around the world. The Obama administration was just using that as cover for more military action in the Middle East.
                            There are over 1,600 French troops in the Ivory Coast and 8,000 UN troops. (Source) The UN has also given permission to these forces to prevent the use of heavy weapons against civilians.

                            I'm not sure what the US could actually do in this case since the Ivory Coast hardly has an air force, which means there is no requirement for a no fly zone. And the fighting is generally involved inside the cities which would mean if you involved big bombs dropped from jets, there would be a lot of collateral damage and no doubt civilian deaths.

                            In essence you'd need ground troops in the Ivory Coast (Which the UN already has)... and I doubt Obama wants to send any ground troops into any country which is why he has dismissed the idea in Libya altogether. That I guess just covers the Ivory Coast.

                            There could be many more countries where the US could be for humanitarian reasons. But sometimes it isn't feasible and with Libya you had the support of the international community including the 22 member state Arab League. Which made it feasible. I mean it would be nice if we could go into Zimbabwe, especially in light of the sham elections which took place there for example. But it just isn't feasible to do that, since there is no real opposition where in countries such as Libya and the Ivory Coast; there is significant opposition.

                            Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.
                            Erwin Rommel

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: War in Libya: The latest US mistake

                              Originally posted by mp40x View Post
                              I just used the Ivory Coast example to show that the US doesn't really care about humanitarian problems like they say. If we did, we'd be in a lot more countries around the world. The Obama administration was just using that as cover for more military action in the Middle East.
                              I understand what you were saying, and I share your cynicism in this regard.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X