Today is the day (60 day mark for Libya)

[First]

Well, we were still bombing confirmed by AP and the WH as of a month ago, even after the US supposedly turned over control to NATO. Im not sure why you would assume we're out.

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/US_Planes_Still_Bombing_Libya_119800844.html
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/ap-libya-limited-airstrikes-041311/

I'm pretty sure the U.S. isn't bombing anymore and said they'd be out within a few weeks. Looks like that already happened. If we're saying NATO is the U.S. then it's a lose-lose for Americans because not being part of NATO at all and being isolated from the rest of the world is literally the only way we would not be at war by those definitions.

Honestly looks like Libya is over with, at least in terms of brigades or what have you.

 

[First]

So, you support America intervening, with the blood of our soldiers and at the cost of our tax dollars, to stop genocide wherever it might be occurring in the world or overthrowing any oppressive government? Lets see... that would mean crushing The Taliban, Saddam fanboys, most of Africa, (Red) China, a few central Asian states, the Balkans, most of The Middle East, we cannot do that, nor should we.

I didn't say all genocides, but ones we can have an impact on without doing more harm than good. Many people rightfully believe there's not a whole lot of difference between those who commit genocide and those who let it be committed when stopping it is possible. It's no easy answer and pretending like staying out of it is the obvious course of action is pure hubris. (Not saying you're saying that, just stating an observation).

We are the public face of NATO, when you see protesters out in the streets, are they chanting "Death to NATO" or burning NATO flags? No, they are calling for the destruction of our republic and burning the American flag. We also finance more of NATO's military expenditures than the rest of the members combined.

NATO does things without the U.S.' approval and that's fact. We can't reasonably be held accountable for everything they do.

 

[Craig234]

Need for what? The need to use this 1 trillion dollar a year behemoth we have created I guess which does nothing to better peoples lives, indeed, it's about destruction of them, and creating blow-back to perpetuate itself. I am finally beginning to realize the intellectual atmosphere of this country when it comes to the question of war is so narrow and totally contradicts the dogma that democracies are inherently peaceful when it's the democracies of USA and the west constantly starting wars. Left and right, party doesn't matter just different a different squad of cheerleaders for war. Looking back all the way to Kosovo and lies told there all the way through Libya as it seems Kadafi has significant material support never reported it seems we just can't stop making excuses to go kill people and you want to loosen that framework further and make it easier? Easier for unilateral action? More unaccountable to the people? More imperial presidency? Not me.

I'm for the intervention in Libya, to stop the slaughter of the people fighting tyranny.

It's a tricky issue. Today, it's legitimate in Libya; tomorrow, it's the US wrongly attacking a Chavez or an Allende or a Castro or an Ortega with false reasons.

I'm not for simply letting the President more easily start wars, and I understand that there is a tendency to support the president once he does that's a problem.

So, I'm not just for broadening the law - but I am for broadening it to include something like Libya - but I'm also for tightening it as well, to better enforce the requirement being violated now, to try to prevent the abuse of it for the bad scenarios I listed above.

Personally, I'd be interested in considering linking it to the UN approving the mission (not allowing the UN to force the US to do anything, but restricting the US unless the UN has approved the force. The childish right screams at the idea, but it's a lot more sensible than they realize, and the US is already greatly restricted by the UN charter, in theory). I'm careful about US sovereignity, but at some point you either have some international peace law or you have unaccountable superpower empire.

As long as the US can defend itself in the unlikely scenario it needs to (last time, see WWII) without UN approval, which is the case now, that's covered.

How to separate an Obama urgently saving people in Libya from a Reagan 'protecting Americans in Grenada' phony justification, can use some consideration.

Perhaps things like 'regime change' that are a larger policy need to be banned altogether until congressional (and preferably UN) approval.

Perhaps we need to shorten the 60 day time frame for Congress to get to intervene.

Perhaps we need to put in mandatory withdrawal of forces without Congressional action to extend them.

The UN isn't perfect; any one of the veto powers could unilaterally shield a Libya or other country. But we should look at improving the law.