Libyan War

[marharth]

Aurielius is right here.

 

A third party is nothing more then a protest.

 

The tea party may of done somewhat good in the election, but they hold the same values as republicans and that's not going to change anything.

 

Looking back at history is necessary, if you blindly move ahead into the future you will forget the failures and successes of the past.

Edited June 5, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

Don't ever look backwards to make dark prognoses for the future. Move! The past offers no solution.

If one doesn't want to move one shouldn't grumble about today mischiefs that are rooted in the past.

These mischiefs predominantly exist because of the lack of flexibility among the voters. Keep that in mind.

 

One of the main problems we have though, is voting doesn't really matter. No matter who you vote for, a fair few of the same programs/policies are going to continue. There is so little difference on the main issues, (JOBS, foreign policy, economic policy) that the two parties are pretty much indistinguishable from each other. The american people are so well indoctrinated, that 99.99% of the time, they will vote along party lines. Expecting ANYTHING to change, simply via a vote, is a pipe dream.

 

Those who ignore the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them. Which also appears to be something the US government is good at. Doing the same thing over and over again, but, expecting different results. I swear being elected to public office must decrease brain activity by 50% or more.......

[evilneko]

Don't have much time right now, but I thought I'd throw this in here.

 

Had a short discussion about Libya with my dad the other night. As you know by now, I'm on the position that Obama must get congressional approval or withdraw from Libya ASAP. Past presidents ignoring the law doesn't mean that this one should, nor should he be allowed to (the others should not have been allowed to either, what was the point of the War Powers Act otherwise?).

 

The interesting point was, my dad asserted that he did have congressional approval, since it is now a NATO-led operation and the NATO treaty was ratified by congress. Thus, participation in NATO operations is approved simply by fact of being in support of the treaty.

 

I did not have any rebuttal for that at the time. However I've skimmed over a few things since then, and it appears to me that military support is optional in the NATO treaty. That means our participation is of our own volition, which to me, means it should be separately approved by Congress.

 

Of course I don't think any of us here are lawyers (well, ginnyfizz has said she is, but she doesn't seem to be participating). My interpretation could well be wrong. I just think it would be "the right thing to do."

[marharth]

Don't have much time right now, but I thought I'd throw this in here.

 

Had a short discussion about Libya with my dad the other night. As you know by now, I'm on the position that Obama must get congressional approval or withdraw from Libya ASAP. Past presidents ignoring the law doesn't mean that this one should, nor should he be allowed to (the others should not have been allowed to either, what was the point of the War Powers Act otherwise?).

 

The interesting point was, my dad asserted that he did have congressional approval, since it is now a NATO-led operation and the NATO treaty was ratified by congress. Thus, participation in NATO operations is approved simply by fact of being in support of the treaty.

 

I did not have any rebuttal for that at the time. However I've skimmed over a few things since then, and it appears to me that military support is optional in the NATO treaty. That means our participation is of our own volition, which to me, means it should be separately approved by Congress.

 

Of course I don't think any of us here are lawyers (well, ginnyfizz has said she is, but she doesn't seem to be participating). My interpretation could well be wrong. I just think it would be "the right thing to do."

I think that you would be correct.

 

If all NATO countries HAD to participate in the conflict right now, we would have a lot of other countries fighting Libya.

 

Since it is of the our own decision, then it should be approved by congress.

 

Even if it wasn't approved by congress, this entire war is pointless.

 

You have untrained rebels, and NATO is bombing locations to help them? What sense does it make to try to bomb locations to help UNTRAINED rebels?

 

If the US wanted to really help (not giving anyone ideas here) they would train the rebels, not bomb stuff.

[Ghogiel]

Makes sense. Sticking the banner of NATO at the top would be a loophole if you will in that case. I would imagine in a perfect world that the prez would still be required to get proper authorisation to land US citizens into any military operation, regardless of who else sanctioned or lead it. It is an internal affair.

[Aurielius]

U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution. Though I have spent some time researching the NATO exclusion clause I really cannot come to any conclusion about it's legal validity or find Federal Court rulings on the matter. Edited June 7, 2011 by Aurielius

[evilneko]

I'm not sure the courts have ever even considered it. Congress makes noise about it sometimes, but never really does anything. Even this most recent occurrence appears to just be empty threats.

 

As it is, it's easy to see why presidents ignore the War Powers Act. It's a joke. A feel-good law enacted so that Congress and talking heads have something to point to in order to criticize the president.

[HeyYou]

Don't have much time right now, but I thought I'd throw this in here.

 

Had a short discussion about Libya with my dad the other night. As you know by now, I'm on the position that Obama must get congressional approval or withdraw from Libya ASAP. Past presidents ignoring the law doesn't mean that this one should, nor should he be allowed to (the others should not have been allowed to either, what was the point of the War Powers Act otherwise?).

 

The interesting point was, my dad asserted that he did have congressional approval, since it is now a NATO-led operation and the NATO treaty was ratified by congress. Thus, participation in NATO operations is approved simply by fact of being in support of the treaty.

 

I did not have any rebuttal for that at the time. However I've skimmed over a few things since then, and it appears to me that military support is optional in the NATO treaty. That means our participation is of our own volition, which to me, means it should be separately approved by Congress.

 

Of course I don't think any of us here are lawyers (well, ginnyfizz has said she is, but she doesn't seem to be participating). My interpretation could well be wrong. I just think it would be "the right thing to do."

I think that you would be correct.

 

If all NATO countries HAD to participate in the conflict right now, we would have a lot of other countries fighting Libya.

 

Since it is of the our own decision, then it should be approved by congress.

 

Even if it wasn't approved by congress, this entire war is pointless.

 

You have untrained rebels, and NATO is bombing locations to help them? What sense does it make to try to bomb locations to help UNTRAINED rebels?

 

If the US wanted to really help (not giving anyone ideas here) they would train the rebels, not bomb stuff.

 

That's how we got started in Vietnam. We see how well that turned out..... I'll pass, thank you.

 

 

I'm not sure the courts have ever even considered it. Congress makes noise about it sometimes, but never really does anything. Even this most recent occurrence appears to just be empty threats.

 

As it is, it's easy to see why presidents ignore the War Powers Act. It's a joke. A feel-good law enacted so that Congress and talking heads have something to point to in order to criticize the president.

 

The folks in congress make too much money from the defense contractors to avoid any situation where said contractors stand to make some money. Those bombs aren't cheap. Nor are the aircraft that deliver them.

 

War is a Racket.

[marharth]

Don't have much time right now, but I thought I'd throw this in here.

 

Had a short discussion about Libya with my dad the other night. As you know by now, I'm on the position that Obama must get congressional approval or withdraw from Libya ASAP. Past presidents ignoring the law doesn't mean that this one should, nor should he be allowed to (the others should not have been allowed to either, what was the point of the War Powers Act otherwise?).

 

The interesting point was, my dad asserted that he did have congressional approval, since it is now a NATO-led operation and the NATO treaty was ratified by congress. Thus, participation in NATO operations is approved simply by fact of being in support of the treaty.

 

I did not have any rebuttal for that at the time. However I've skimmed over a few things since then, and it appears to me that military support is optional in the NATO treaty. That means our participation is of our own volition, which to me, means it should be separately approved by Congress.

 

Of course I don't think any of us here are lawyers (well, ginnyfizz has said she is, but she doesn't seem to be participating). My interpretation could well be wrong. I just think it would be "the right thing to do."

I think that you would be correct.

 

If all NATO countries HAD to participate in the conflict right now, we would have a lot of other countries fighting Libya.

 

Since it is of the our own decision, then it should be approved by congress.

 

Even if it wasn't approved by congress, this entire war is pointless.

 

You have untrained rebels, and NATO is bombing locations to help them? What sense does it make to try to bomb locations to help UNTRAINED rebels?

 

If the US wanted to really help (not giving anyone ideas here) they would train the rebels, not bomb stuff.

 

That's how we got started in Vietnam. We see how well that turned out..... I'll pass, thank you.

 

 

I'm not sure the courts have ever even considered it. Congress makes noise about it sometimes, but never really does anything. Even this most recent occurrence appears to just be empty threats.

 

As it is, it's easy to see why presidents ignore the War Powers Act. It's a joke. A feel-good law enacted so that Congress and talking heads have something to point to in order to criticize the president.

 

The folks in congress make too much money from the defense contractors to avoid any situation where said contractors stand to make some money. Those bombs aren't cheap. Nor are the aircraft that deliver them.

 

War is a Racket.

There is no way I agree with training rebels, I am just saying that they have no way of winning if they are not trained, bombing locations won't help if the rebels can't move in and control them.

 

The bombs and missiles we use cost anywhere from half a million to over a million dollars, it certainly does pay off then contractors quite a lot.

 

Ground troops cost even more though if sent in large groups, I hope we don't end up sending in ground troops for the contractors...

[HeyYou]

I don't think we should be involved AT ALL....... Not training, not bombing, not selling weapons, or any other flavor of material support. Wait till the dust settles, and then offer to help pick up the pieces, MAYBE.