Updated Title: World Revolution 2011

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You are confusing what is legal in Constitutional law with what is legal under international law.

The Libya adventure is being critiqued in Congress in terms of the Constitution.

The Iraq fiasco was critiqued for being illegal in terms of international law.

My first care is that the president follows the constitution which is what he was sworn into to office to do. Then after he meets those guides then we could talk internetional law.

[KLHJ2]

What national law did he break?

He did not declare a war and the last time I checked he was Commander in Chief. He can send the military to perform operations anywhere he wants to. He just cannot declare war without congressional approval. He did nothing wrong. Bush got away with far more.

[12thMan]

Yeah, no laws were broken. Just a lot of politicking and postering from some old farts whose asses are on the line in 2012.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

What national law did he break?

He did not declare a war and the last time I checked he was Commander in Chief. He can send the military to perform operations anywhere he wants to. He just cannot declare war without congressional approval. He did nothing wrong. Bush got away with far more.

You have declared war when you drop bombs on another nation.

[Alvin Walton]

Peacekeeping mission?


We're blowing up his tanks and his trucks and planes and troops and command centers so the rebels will be able to take over the country.
Thats not peacekeeping, that's asskicking.

It's almost like we are hired mercs for the rebels.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You have declared war when you drop bombs on another nation.

False. A declaration of war, politically and legally, is different from a peace keeping mission. A declaration of war is a formal gesture which has not happened in terms of Libya.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Peacekeeping mission?


We're blowing up his tanks and his trucks and planes and troops and command centers so the rebels will be able to take over the country.
Thats not peacekeeping, that's asskicking.

It's almost like we are hired mercs for the rebels.

I understand your perception. But it is called a peace keeping mission because without it Qaddafy would be slaughtering huge numbers of people.

Perhaps better than "peace keeping" we should call it "massacre inhibiting."

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Further, the action in Libya was mandated by the UN, rather than being in violation of UN standards like some other American military actions.

I know Iraq keeps getting thrown around, but let's not forget Bush received authorization for use of force from Congress....with bi-partisan support before the first bomb dropped.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between Congress and the UN giving support, I'd rather have Congressional support.

Pres. Obama did not request congressional authorization for this action in Libya (although he's not required to get one). He had UN Security Council authorization, but keep in mind 5 countries abstained from voting, two who could have nixed the authorization (China, Russia). Putin BTW has come out blasting the US since the no-fly zone was imposed.

I would've much rather seen countries from the Arab League and Europe handle this from day one. We could've provided some logistics or intel support, but they should've taken the lead.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Perhaps better than "peace keeping" we should call it "massacre inhibiting."

Couldn't part of what we did in Iraq count as "massacre inhibiting".

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BuckSkin]

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
With that said the United States has only declared war 5 times in it's entire history. Clinton set the precedent with Operation Desert Fox and his two successors have followed suit.

[Alvin Walton]

Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.

[SmootSmack]

Meanwhile in Yemen...

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I know Iraq keeps getting thrown around, but let's not forget Bush received authorization for use of force from Congress....with bi-partisan support before the first bomb dropped.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between Congress and the UN giving support, I'd rather have Congressional support.

Pres. Obama did not request congressional authorization for this action in Libya (although he's not required to get one). He had UN Security Council authorization, but keep in mind 5 countries abstained from voting, two who could have nixed the authorization (China, Russia). Putin BTW has come out blasting the US since the no-fly zone was imposed.

I would've much rather seen countries from the Arab League and Europe handle this from day one. We could've provided some logistics or intel support, but they should've taken the lead.

Good points. I just mentioned Iraq because someone else did.

I definitely agree with your argument about the Arab League and Europe. Hopefully it will work out that way in the long term: we make a lot of noise on the first day (can't change that part now) but then drift into the shadows in the weeks ahead.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I know Iraq keeps getting thrown around, but let's not forget Bush received authorization for use of force from Congress....with bi-partisan support before the first bomb dropped.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between Congress and the UN giving support, I'd rather have Congressional support.

Pres. Obama did not request congressional authorization for this action in Libya (although he's not required to get one). He had UN Security Council authorization, but keep in mind 5 countries abstained from voting, two who could have nixed the authorization (China, Russia). Putin BTW has come out blasting the US since the no-fly zone was imposed.

I would've much rather seen countries from the Arab League and Europe handle this from day one. We could've provided some logistics or intel support, but they should've taken the lead.

Essentially this is what's taking place. France dropped the first bomb and while we are launching Tomahawks, we're also providing logistical supand intel support. I think Obama is very eager to hand this Op over to NATO and the Europeans and recede into the background.

The bottom line is this, had President Obama waited longer many on the right would have accused him of being "weak" and "dithering". Their favorite word lately. Congress would still be, at this very moment, deciding whether or not to launch, how much the cost, calling in Generals to testify. All sorts of BS drawing this out even longer. Had he gone in sooner it would have been a unilateral campaign drawing the ire of everyone, except for John McCain and Joe Lieberman. So I think he got it right based on the little Constitutional wiggle room he has as Commander-in-Chief.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Essentially this is what's taking place. France dropped the first bomb and while we are launching Tomahawks, we're also providing logistical supand intel support. I think Obama is very eager to hand this Op over to NATO and the Europeans and recede into the background.

The bottom line is this, had President Obama waited longer many on the right would have accused him of being "weak" and "dithering". Their favorite word lately. Congress would still be, at this very moment, deciding whether or not to launch, how much the cost, calling in Generals to testify. All sorts of BS drawing this out even longer. Had he gone in sooner it would have been a unilateral campaign drawing the ire of everyone, except for John McCain and Joe Lieberman. So I think he got it right based on the little Constitutional wiggle room he has as Commander and Chief.

Sarah the Impaler from Alaska accused Obama of just that just hours before the bombs started falling.