Why are we even involved in Libia?

[boomerang]

No. Presidents have full command of the military.

Presidents have the constitutional right to attack any country anytime the President decides it is necessary, and congress has the constitutional right to declare war.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
a) Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950) (President has authority to deploy United States armed forces "abroad or to any particular region")
b) Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850) ("As commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual")
c) Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (The "inherent powers" of the Commander in Chief "are clearly extensive.")
d) Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501, 515-16 (1927) (Brandeis & Holmes, JJ., concurring) (President "may direct any revenue cutter to cruise in any waters in order to perform any duty of the service")
e) Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 1971) (the President has "power as Commander-in-Chief to station forces abroad"); Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. 6 (1992).

Nader: Obama should be impeached for 'war crimes'

The comment below I've quoted from the article sums it up for me.

I've been waiting for this moment, ever since Bush left office. I knew there would come a time when Obama would have to do the same things Bush did. I knew a small few on the Left would then oppose Obama - I disagree with the Left, but I at least can respect someone who is ideologically consistent. Nader is one of these people. The rest of you - your silence only underlines your hypocrisy. You either have to excuse Bush or impeach Obama, you can't have it both ways.BY jrobinson on 03/20/2011 at 18:33

So, excuse Bush or impeach Obama? What say P&N?

 

[Doppel]

Let's get something straight with all the naive puddingheads in here that constantly make that claim - Whether you like it or not, yes, we are the World's cop because of our position as the economic and military powerhouse on this planet. The fact you don't like that position doesn't change a damn thing. So piss off yourself if you want to continue to act the fool about it and pretend it's otherwise.

This is true.

--

Reports now, including on Fox that Qadhafi's compound received a missile hit. That's a message to him to piss off because you'll be next. Coalition says they are not targeting Q but they should. Taking out a country's military and not their leader is ridiculous. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...siles-coalition-says-leaders-forces-disarray/

If Q was taken out power would fall to his sons, the entire command and control would totally fall to pieces.

 

[Red Dawn]

Nader: Obama should be impeached for 'war crimes'

The comment below I've quoted from the article sums it up for me.



So, excuse Bush or impeach Obama? What say P&N?

A fair comparison would be to the real Bush, not the half witted son and his back door handlers.

 

[piasabird]

Blood for Oil!

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Hmmmm.......

"Arab League criticizes West's strikes on Libya"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320?pageNumber=2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803222

 

[JTsyo]

Egyptian army is probably pretty happy now that it didn't open up on the protesters.

 

[Monster_Munch]

For Europe, Libya is in our back yard. Syria and Bahrain are fairly far away so we can more or less ignore them.

Plus Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama are all fairly unpopular in their home countries, and nothing boosts your popularity like waging war against an evil dictator.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

A fair comparison would be to the real Bush, not the half witted son and his back door handlers.

I agree, and I would add that most will agree that Bush I liberating Kuwait was justified and handled properly.

But boomer and that piece of partisan hackery he posted would have us believe that the current two day assualt on Libya = the snipe hunt for WMD's and 9yr occupation of Iraq spearheaded by Bush Jr. But if you follow boomers postings here on P&N it shouldn't surprise as he seems to blame everything thats wrong with the world on his kenyan "traitor in chief"

 

[her209]

I agree, and I would add that most will agree that Bush I liberating Kuwait was justified and handled properly.

But boomer and that piece of partisan hackery he posted would have us believe that the current two day assualt on Libya = the snipe hunt for WMD's and 9yr occupation of Iraq spearheaded by Bush Jr. But if you follow boomers postings here on P&N it shouldn't surprise as he seems to blame everything thats wrong with the world on his kenyan "traitor in chief"

Its more like Clinton and Kosovo more than Bush I and Iraq.

 

[Kntx]

IDK, I'm not sure if anybody knows.


Is it to make it a 'fairer fight" If so, that makes absolutely no sense to me. When have we, or anybody for that matter, done something like that? If the Falkland islands goes after the UK again, are we gonna have to shoot down British aircraft to make sure it's a fairer fight?

Fern

I think the French did it for the USA during it's revolutionary war.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
edit:
also, how does a 'no fly zone' translate into us bombing vehicle convoys?!

Simple, just establish a one meter ceiling.

It's a variation of the "Quick, Ned, it's coming right at us!" gambit.

EDIT: And who the hell let Nader sober up?

 

[Nintendesert]

Attacking vehicles that aid in Libya shooting down airplanes is very much apart of establishing a no fly zone. Destroying air fields, destroying SAM sites, AA guns, communications, control, command etc. are all apart of it.

People who thought that a no-fly zone meant just shooting down planes or flying some jets overhead are idiots. ie the Arab league and everyone else that was clamoring for the US and Europe to do this and are now having buyer's remorse.

And with the provisions to protect civilians that means tanks, troops, barracks etc. are also valid targets.

I personally feel it wrong to go after these troops that are just fighting for their country, rightly or wrongly and leaving the man who ordered them into combat alone. Qadaffi should be target #1.

 

[boomerang]

I agree, and I would add that most will agree that Bush I liberating Kuwait was justified and handled properly.

But boomer and that piece of partisan hackery he posted would have us believe that the current two day assualt on Libya = the snipe hunt for WMD's and 9yr occupation of Iraq spearheaded by Bush Jr. But if you follow boomers postings here on P&N it shouldn't surprise as he seems to blame everything thats wrong with the world on his kenyan "traitor in chief"

So...then you're in the give Obama, the traitor in chief (your words not mine) a pass camp for his war crimes in Afghanistan? That's what Ralph Nader was talking about, not Libya.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'm all for war for oil but the U.S don't even buy oil from Libya. If the Europeans think their oil supply is in danger, they're the one who should be involved, while the U.S should stay out.

lol this. UK and France have the #3 and #4 most expensive armies in the world. They should deal with their own problems. (China is #2 if you're wondering)

 

[Jaskalas]

what innocent people? it's a freaking civil war! kadaffi has pushed the rebels back to their stronghold city.

On that particular.... if innocent people protest their government, are they no longer innocent? Are they legitimate targets for killing? After all... it was anti government protests where the government began butchering people - and the people started to defend themselves.

Then the military divided itself, some loyal to the people, others loyal to the government. Is that to say innocent people were not the target of the government? Obviously the killing was not / will not be limited to defected military units who were protecting the people. Are they acceptable causalities?

I'm trying to wrap my head around you objecting to the notion that innocent people were involved, and were dying. If our government decided to shoot Latinos, and NM's national guard defects to save them - is that a civil war in which there are no innocents?

This is aside from whether we should be involved at all.

 

[crownjules]

Let's get something straight with all the naive puddingheads in here that constantly make that claim - Whether you like it or not, yes, we are the World's cop because of our position as the economic and military powerhouse on this planet. The fact you don't like that position doesn't change a damn thing. So piss off yourself if you want to continue to act the fool about it and pretend it's otherwise.

Our position means no such thing. As our current debt situation should point out, we don't have the money even with one of the largest economies to fight multiple/successive wars. The job of our government is to look out for the USA and its population first. We can't even do that right at the moment.

 

[Wreckem]

Y'all need to do better research because the PoTUS is allowed to use force for up to 60 days without having to get Congressional Authorization, regardless of what the 1975 Act says.

Plus, Congress at anytime can pass a resolution basically telling the President no. At the end of the 60 days the President must withdrawl all troops. See Somalia.

 

[Wreckem]

lol this. UK and France have the #3 and #4 most expensive armies in the world. They should deal with their own problems. (China is #2 if you're wondering)

By in large the US is playing a secondary role in this. The vast majority of the aircraft being used to enforce the no fly zone are UK and French.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Y'all need to do better research because the PoTUS is allowed to use force for up to 60 days without having to get Congressional Authorization, regardless of what the 1975 Act says.

Plus, Congress at anytime can pass a resolution basically telling the President no. At the end of the 60 days the President must withdrawl all troops. See Somalia.

Interesting...do you have a link to the "60 day grace period" law?

 

[Wreckem]

Our position means no such thing. As our current debt situation should point out, we don't have the money even with one of the largest economies to fight multiple/successive wars. The job of our government is to look out for the USA and its population first. We can't even do that right at the moment.

Classifying this as a war is extremely misleading. By y'alls definition of war, Clinton had about 8 wars during his presidency and most weren't authorized by Congress.

 

[Wreckem]

Interesting...do you have a link to the "60 day grace period" law?

The 60 days comes from the War Powers Act itself.

Jurisprudence since the time it was passed gives the President much more discretion than the War Powers Act.

 

[zinfamous]

Its more like Clinton and Kosovo more than Bush I and Iraq.

agree with that.

 

[bradley]

Its more like Clinton and Kosovo more than Bush I and Iraq.

Or is it? It's likely not as simple as we're being led to believe.

Press Lying About Libya and Gaddafi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrWJpPjro-A

BBC LIES ABOUT LIBYA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOK5WTkKGJ4

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The 60 days comes from the War Powers Act itself.

Jurisprudence since the time it was passed gives the President much more discretion than the War Powers Act.

So it appears that the $64 question here is whether or not Obama cited Section 4(a)(1) which would trigger the 60 day time limit. Do you know if this section was cited?

 

[Fern]

Classifying this as a war is extremely misleading. By y'alls definition of war, Clinton had about 8 wars during his presidency and most weren't authorized by Congress.

Well, the Obama admmin is struggling mightily to avoid this being called a "war".

Looks like it's working for you.

But for me: We've bombed a county's military defense system. We've bombed Qadday's palace (WTH does that have do with "humanitarian efforts" or a "no fly zone"?). We've bombed their tanks and artillery. According to media reports, we've used our fighter jets to attack Libyian troops on the ground.

This is a War.

And I don't think the average (political disengaged) person is going think any differently.

Fern