Obama unilaterally attacks camps in Yemen

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

Along with the two U.S. cruise missile attacks, Yemen security forces carried out raids in three separate locations. As many as 120 people were killed in the three raids, according to reports from Yemen, and opposition leaders said many of the dead were innocent civilians

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

Personally I don't have a problem with Obama attacking terrorists anywhere anyhow. But does Obama have authority to do this? Unilateral attack on a country? How does this square with international law? Finally - How does this square with hope & change or is it another classic bait and switch?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Well, if Yemen's own security forces were also doing raids, I'd think that Yemen knew about it...heck, they may have asked for our help.

Chuck
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Well, if Yemen's own security forces were also doing raids, I'd think that Yemen knew about it...heck, they may have asked for our help.

Chuck

So we can play Mercenary for any country that asks? Legally speaking.
 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,365
475
126
So we can play Mercenary for any country that asks? Legally speaking.

what's wrong with that - as long as the action involved takes place with the foreign government's consent and in their land? technically i don't think this is a 'mercenary' action though i'm sure the us did something else to reinforce the yemeni gov'ts position besides kill al Qaeda members.

I cant remember for sure but didn't clinton do something similar - launch cruise missiles after the Cole bombing or wtc bombing into afghanistan?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Probably Yemen knew. No mercenary action here since the US was certainly not paid by Yemen to launch missiles, it was a combined effort.
 

stateofbeasley

Senior member
Jan 26, 2004
519
0
0
How does this fit with the Rights' critique of Mr Obama as being soft and weak?

And also, how does this fit with the delusion of the liberal progressive democrats that Obama was some sort of pacifist who would end all wars? A lot of these people call in to NPR talk shows, frothing at the mouth and proclaiming falsely that Obama promised he would bring all the troops home and that we would live in peace and harmony ever after...

It is ironic that people on polar opposites of the political spectrum have completely mis-interpreted Obama where national security is concerned.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

Personally I don't have a problem with Obama attacking terrorists anywhere anyhow. But does Obama have authority to do this? Unilateral attack on a country? How does this square with international law? Finally - How does this square with hope & change or is it another classic bait and switch?

Well Yemen's own forces cleaned that place out, it's hardly "unilateral". Your argument rests on the presumption this was a pre-emptive strike of some sort, which is at odds with reality.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,287
36,413
136
Damn that Obama for more of his "dithering" !

Doesn't he know the real way to address threats to ignore them for a few years and then replace them with other "threats" ?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,034
136
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

Personally I don't have a problem with Obama attacking terrorists anywhere anyhow. But does Obama have authority to do this? Unilateral attack on a country? How does this square with international law? Finally - How does this square with hope & change or is it another classic bait and switch?

Obama never promised that he would stop doing things like this, in fact he specifically and repeatedly stated he WOULD.

If you've got a situation where you know there are people in another country that you cannot seriously hope to apprehend using normal means and the country itself is unwilling or unable to act on them, then I'm totally okay with blowing them up. I just think it should be a measure of last resort.

Under US law yes, Obama has the authority to do this under the war powers resolution (and many would say, the Constitution). As far as how it squares with international law, it doesn't. There's really no provision in any treaty anywhere for a country to go bomb the residents of another country because they feel like it.
 

stateofbeasley

Senior member
Jan 26, 2004
519
0
0
Where are the cries of "cowboy" now?

LOL, frustrated much? :biggrin:

Obama doesn't rush into wars based on quixotic notions of "spreading democracy" and suspect WMD intelligence.

The Liberal Left is frothing at the mouth because of the escalation in Afghanistan. You should be happy!
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
LOL, frustrated much? :biggrin:

Obama doesn't rush into wars based on quixotic notions of "spreading democracy" and suspect WMD intelligence.

The Liberal Left is frothing at the mouth because of the escalation in Afghanistan. You should be happy!

ASSume much? No, I'm not frustrated at all. Actually, from a purely political standpoint it's quite amusing watching this train wreck unfold.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Think of it all as a tag-team death match. Bush started the fight, then tagged out to the next guy in line, Obama...

Back in 2002, 2003, Righties were all about getting into the fight, oh yeh, but now they're just snivelling about how the new guy is following thru... like he's really got a choice, given the way his predecessor botched it...
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
How does this fit with the Rights' critique of Mr Obama as being soft and weak?

Let's see some action on NK and Iran before we remove those descriptions. Right now, he's done nothing and Iran just attacked Iraq the other day.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
I don't think its "unilateral action" if you have consent of the country's government to do so as well as having their security forces take part in said attack.
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
In my mind, if Obama launched these attacks with the full knowledge and consent of the Government of Yemen, I see no real problems with the decision to attack probable AL-Quida terrorists in their camps.

Since we do not know the answer to the above question, I see no point in speculating much further at this point in time. Other than to say its totally different than putting US troops on the ground and getting into a no exit option quagmire.

But now that I am on a roll speculating, we must also ask two other questions.

1. What did this stunt cost the USA? Cruise missiles are not cheap, and if we just got a few terrorists and mud huts, did the taxpayer get their money's worth?

2. What is the quality of our intel and what is the accidental collateral damage in terms of innocent people killed? My only comment is that terrorism is only an idea that cannot be killed. And overall using hi tech has only had the net effect of creating more new terrorists than we kill. Fear may be a powerful emotion but it never inspires love. And overall, humans are very stubborn animals and the will to resist is an even more powerful emotion than fear.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,287
36,413
136
Let's see some action on NK and Iran before we remove those descriptions. Right now, he's done nothing and Iran just attacked Iraq the other day.


Love the extremes you guys employ when translating recent events. Obama's noted departure from the Cheney admin tactic of ignoring those we disagree with is somehow, nothing. And on the other side of the spectrum, Iran occupying territory long in dispute with Iraq (and without any violence or loss of life) is now an "attack." Case you forgot, we're not running Iraq anymore. Our military presence there doesn't dictate tactics to the Iraqi government.

Least you could have done was wait for the bullets to fly. Don't take this as a defense of Iran either, this is clearly an attempt to take some focus off of their internal turmoil.

Just do yourself a favor and lay off the Fox Noise - you're not doing yourself or your political ilk any favors by regurgitating the BS normally dispensed by Fox & Friends.





Is Yemen condemning this attack? Anyone know?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I don't think its "unilateral action" if you have consent of the country's government to do so as well as having their security forces take part in said attack.

Like Eskimo said I don't think you can make attacks another country w/o security council but I'm not sure. Keep in mind what Yemen is a junta hardy democratic so it's not like there was universal support for this action. Finally cruise missiles do not discriminate and there were civilians present to died. I don't want to make a bigger issue of this than it is. Obama clearly will go after terrorists for those concerned on the right about him being soft. Obama clearly believes in some version of preemption and summary execution for those on left hoping for change. (see continued drone attacks in Pakistan and special forces on the ground in Yemen)
 
Last edited: