I like this move a lot, as long as the Europeans lead the way or are equals in doing this. I don't mind NATO being the region's police force, I mind the US doing it alone or with a modicum of UK help.

Writerbuckeye;718222 wrote:A simple check of UN resolutions proves it wrong...not to mention the authorization he got from Congress.

Quite true and that Congressional authorization was blessed by a long list of liberals who now attempt to sweep these facts under the rug for political expediency.

Writerbuckeye;718222 wrote:Did Congress authorize the US to participate in military action against Libya?

I can't recall.

The Anointed One needs no Congressional authorization because he can always count on the leftist media to ignore the facts.

Tobias Fünke;718243 wrote:I like this move a lot, as long as the Europeans lead the way or are equals in doing this. I don't mind NATO being the region's police force, I mind the US doing it alone or with a modicum of UK help.

+1

BGFalcons82;717731 wrote:Maybe, Ptown. Who won the Bosnian conflict, anyway?

What I can't get my head around is why did the "International Community" wait until the rebels were beat back down, slaughtered, and had their will destroyed BEFORE they did anything to help them? These people gave all they had to get rid of Ghadafi while the "International Community" sat back and said it was not in their interests to get involved. Now, that Ghadafi "won", the "International Community" has decided to take out Libya's air defense systems and create no fly zones. Hmmm...had this happened a couple weeks ago, the tide of the war would have certainly changed.

I just don't understand the bombings....now. It was basically over and done with and then the bombings started. Is this a chicken shit way of admitting the "International Community" was wrong to begin with and this is their way of assuaging the guilt? What happens next? If the "Internationals" wanted Ghadafi out, then why not bomb earlier? If they want him in, then why bomb at all....he won? On top of all that....Obama claimed it was none of our business for nearly 2 months and now he lobs 110 Cruise missiles into Libya. Which is it, Barry? Huh?

Who won Bosnia? Bosnia. Coalition forces used air power to cease the conflict. It stopped the genocide and allowed the Dayton peace accords, and all this without a single U.S. ground presence. The same situation came up again with Kosovo, where U.S. forces were needed, but still resulted in regional peace and a now the region is slowly rebuilding and easing ethnic tensions.

Writerbuckeye;718222 wrote:I did have to laugh out loud when NBC had a story about this and Andrea Mitchell (who is a major doofus) made the point of saying that Obama went to the UN and got approval for his action unlike Bush.

Lying comes so easily to these "journalists" that they don't break a smile even while they're filling up the screen with bullshit.

Of course Bush had a resolution that totally authorized force against Iraq...and a long history of UN resolutions condemning Iraq for its actions and threatening it with force if it didn't cease its actions (which it did not).

Just because Bush didn't go back to the UN a SECOND time for a resolution the US already had, liberals like to revise history and say the action in Iraq was never authorized. A simple check of UN resolutions proves it wrong...not to mention the authorization he got from Congress.

Did Congress authorize the US to participate in military action against Libya?

I can't recall.

Yeah, I hate the comparison to Iraq, very, very different. Why did the President not ask for permission to act? Because, ever since Korea, the President has been given wide authority over U.S. military action, especially the use of air power. Reagan never went to Congress for his action on Libya, nor did he for his use of force in Lebanon or Grenada. HW Bush never did for Panama and only did for the Gulf War due to its conventional massive U.S. force deployments. As long as there is no massive U.S. ground force deployments, Congress doesn't need to authorize military action against Libya. They just need to be kept in the loop and ensured that the situation does not escalate.
Don't like, go ahead and reform the War Powers Act.

Tobias Fünke;718243 wrote:I like this move a lot, as long as the Europeans lead the way or are equals in doing this. I don't mind NATO being the region's police force, I mind the US doing it alone or with a modicum of UK help.

Yep, I do too. This morning Adm. Mullen said he is looking forward to handing off command to a Frenchie or Limey.
Still, we have to be careful of mission creep.

ptown_trojans_1;718528 wrote:Yeah, I hate the comparison to Iraq, very, very different. Why did the President not ask for permission to act? Because, ever since Korea, the President has been given wide authority over U.S. military action, especially the use of air power. Reagan never went to Congress for his action on Libya, nor did he for his use of force in Lebanon or Grenada. HW Bush never did for Panama and only did for the Gulf War due to its conventional massive U.S. force deployments. As long as there is no massive U.S. ground force deployments, Congress doesn't need to authorize military action against Libya. They just need to be kept in the loop and ensured that the situation does not escalate. Don't like, go ahead and reform the War Powers Act.

Your point is valid but I'm fairly certain Writer's point was NOT about Obama failing to consult with Congress but the fact that the liberal media stupidly attempts to cover Obama's ass on getting world "permission" to strike Libya while lodging bogus claims that Bush never did the same in Iraq.

I marvel that Obamanator practices many Bush policies and yet the media gives the man a blank check while he does it. Meanwhile they simultaneously still find ways to criticize and blame Bush for paving the way. Amazing. The media's continuing boink-fest with Obama while pointing fingers at Bush is irresponsible, obviously unprofessional, and flat-out comical.

Almost as comical as the paranoia you and Writer have with any media which doesn't follow your guidelines. I can pretty much predict your responses whenever media is mentioned. You need to come up with some new material. This is getting pretty lame.

BTW, are you guys related, or live together? You sure seem to post within minutes of each other.

stlouiedipalma;719185 wrote:Almost as comical as the paranoia you and Writer have with any media which doesn't follow your guidelines. I can pretty much predict your responses whenever media is mentioned. You need to come up with some new material. This is getting pretty lame.

I don't think it's paranoia at all. In fact, wasn't there a study done that showed a vast margin of media bias a few years back (perhaps 1 year)?

I mean I can understand how you might be getting sick of hearing it, but it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

It's their version of the dead horse. It's just as boring and predictable as blaming shit on Bush.

stlouiedipalma;719185 wrote:I can pretty much predict your responses whenever media is mentioned.

And while I don't speak for Writer I will personally shout it from the rooftops every time I see it. Media bias exists and it is a great disservice to the American people. I'll stop the pretty lame predictable responses when the leftist media starts behaving like the 4th Estate by providing us with objective, unbiased reporting of newsworthy events....your personal slams notwithstanding (right LJ???).

CenterBHSFan;719195 wrote:I don't think it's paranoia at all. In fact, wasn't there a study done that showed a vast margin of media bias a few years back (perhaps 1 year)?

I mean I can understand how you might be getting sick of hearing it, but it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Actually there were a couple of them...one by Harvard and one by UCLA. Both of them drove the point home pretty well.

Your childish (and lame) slams aside Louie -- I make a point of emphasizing the bias whenever possible because it's the profession I have worked in for more than 35 years, and it pains me to see how corrupt it has become to further personal agendas. I say personal, because I don't believe there's any conspiracy at work here, just a lot of "group think" that expresses itself in a one by one manner.

As for beating a dead horse: how is it beating a dead horse to have an on-going discussion about one of the foundations of a health democratic republic crumbling away before our eyes?

It's not the national media crap that I find most disturbing at all, actually. It's the vacuum that now exists in small and medium sized communities as local media selectively ignores so much stuff that is needed for people to continue and make informed decisions to keep their communities strong. A dearth of comprehensive information about what is being done by school boards, township trustees, city councils, county commissioners and the court systems will kill off a thriving Democracy just as certainly as a successful outside attack.

You don't like me discussing my fears of seeing the country I love crumble away slowly because of media bias and neglect?

Well, I guess you'll just have to get over it.

Writerbuckeye;719749 wrote:Your childish (and lame) slams aside Louie -- I make a point of emphasizing the bias whenever possible because it's the profession I have worked in for more than 35 years, and it pains me to see how corrupt it has become to further personal agendas. I say personal, because I don't believe there's any conspiracy at work here, just a lot of "group think" that expresses itself in a one by one manner.

As for beating a dead horse: how is it beating a dead horse to have an on-going discussion about one of the foundations of a health democratic republic crumbling away before our eyes?

It's not the national media crap that I find most disturbing at all, actually. It's the vacuum that now exists in small and medium sized communities as local media selectively ignores so much stuff that is needed for people to continue and make informed decisions to keep their communities strong. A dearth of comprehensive information about what is being done by school boards, township trustees, city councils, county commissioners and the court systems will kill off a thriving Democracy just as certainly as a successful outside attack.

You don't like me discussing my fears of seeing the country I love crumble away slowly because of media bias and neglect?

Well, I guess you'll just have to get over it.

That was a pretty childish slam, Writer, and I apologize to you and believer for my ill-timed and cheap shot. I should be better than that, although I sometimes get caught up in the bullshit that seems to permeate this forum from both sides of the arguments. I'll try to keep that stuff to myself in the future.

As for your take on the local media, isn't it somewhat true that they have been bought and paid for by local special interests for some time now? We've all seen the story of scandal or wrongdoing at the local schools or government that conveniently never finds its way into the paper. I know for certain that, at the small town I grew up in, phone calls were made to and from the editor of the paper supressing stories that might put the local school, government or business in a bad light. I will agree with you that it is done to a greater degree on the local front and it is more damaging than anything the national media is accused of.

I will get over your discussion, but I will not sit idly by while all but the most conservative media are blamed for all the ills of our society.

What am I missing; obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize (in advance), and upon his election peace was supposed to break out all over the world.

One counter point, Louie: I haven't seen anyone here blame liberal media for all the ills of society.

Ignoring obvious news stories and blatantly covering for politicians or causes they support? Yes.

QuakerOats;720051 wrote:What am I missing; obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize (in advance), and upon his election peace was supposed to break out all over the world.

I'm feeling giddy about it.

QuakerOats;720051 wrote:What am I missing; obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize (in advance), and upon his election peace was supposed to break out all over the world.

Who of actual credibility in foreign affairs thought that?

Things are going our way and the U.S. sounds like we are destroying everything in the country.
It will be very interesting to see now what happens and if the rebels really can take portions of the country back.

I will say one thing though, this is not helping the U.S. image in Yemen or Bahrain where we are letting violence happen too.

ptown_trojans_1;720424 wrote:Who of actual credibility in foreign affairs thought that?

Things are going our way and the U.S. sounds like we are destroying everything in the country.
It will be very interesting to see now what happens and if the rebels really can take portions of the country back.

I will say one thing though, this is not helping the U.S. image in Yemen or Bahrain where we are letting violence happen too.

How much oil is produced in those countries? Oh wait, this is a humanitarian mission, I almost forgot.

And yes, I realize we don't get much, if any, oil from Libya.

ptown_trojans_1;718528 wrote:Why did the President not ask for permission to act? Because, ever since Korea, the President has been given wide authority over U.S. military action, especially the use of air power.

Is it any coincidence that Korea did not result in a decisive US victory? Following that Vietnam? The Gulf War was a decisive victory in a battle that was not completed until the over throw of Saddam Hussein and defeat of those forces opposing our occupation of their country in the recent Iraq War. Both the Gulf War and Iraq war had congressional approval, though short of a formal declaration of war. In all of our formally declared wars we achieved all our goals and in some cases more. The War of 1812 would be the weakest example but our main goal was achieved.

ptown_trojans_1;718528 wrote:Reagan never went to Congress for his action on Libya, nor did he for his use of force in Lebanon or Grenada. HW Bush never did for Panama

I love Reagan. Ideologically we saw I to eye on most things. Unfortunately practically he was not able to always come through. Grenada he had an arguable just causa belli for such action outside of congressional approval to immediately protect US citizens. Libya and Lebanon quite frankly no. Bush in Panama. No. For the record I agree with all these actions. Just not the means to achieve them.

ptown_trojans_1;718528 wrote:As long as there is no massive U.S. ground force deployments, Congress doesn't need to authorize military action against Libya. They just need to be kept in the loop and ensured that the situation does not escalate.

So deployment of ground troops is what it takes to constitute an act of war? Congress just needs to be kept in the loop? Where is this found in the US constitution? We are taking part in an act of war against another sovereign nation. That is a fact. An act of war against a nation is by definition a declaration of war against that nation. As FDR said a state of war already existed with the "air" attack by the naval and air forces of the empire of Japan. Their were no ground troops invading our sovereign lands.

ptown_trojans_1;718528 wrote:Don't like, go ahead and reform the War Powers Act.

No need to reform the war powers act. Obama is in direct violation of it. The purpose of the War Powers Act of 1973 I believe restores the original intent of the constitution. The president has the authority as commander in chief to command our armed forces to act outside of congress in the immediate defense needs of the nation including the defense of its citizens abroad.

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

How does this apply to Libya?

dwccrew;720530 wrote:How much oil is produced in those countries? Oh wait, this is a humanitarian mission, I almost forgot.

And yes, I realize we don't get much, if any, oil from Libya.

Lets not fool ourselves though. Western intervention in Libya is because of one thing. Oil. If the West's cause was purely humanitarian they would have intervened in the Sudan in Darfur long ago. Which is a far greater humanitarian disaster. I am not saying I am not in favor of using military force to secure the free flow of oil. Just the opposite. I am just saying lets not be fools as to what is going on here.

majorspark;720548 wrote:Lets not fool ourselves though. Western intervention in Libya is because of one thing. Oil. If the West's cause was purely humanitarian they would have intervened in the Sudan in Darfur long ago. Which is a far greater humanitarian disaster. I am not saying I am not in favor of using military force to secure the free flow of oil. Just the opposite. I am just saying lets not be fools as to what is going on here.

There's no question about it. It is indeed about securing the free flow of relatively cheap oil in the world pipeline even if most of that oil never reaches the United States.

Our cushy oil-based consumer-driven lifestyles dictate our actions here; not humanitarian need. And while I've never been a fan of exchanging blood for oil, it is indeed reality.

Further it's interesting to watch how the Obama Administration handles these situations. For all of the talk of peace to garner the political support of the anti-war left during the campaign, all the talk of shutting down Gitmo, all the promises of pulling us out of Iraq & Afghanistan in 18 months, and his Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding it's fascinating to watch BHO behave very much like "W".

Realpolitik folks.

believer;720555 wrote:
Realpolitik folks.

^How can that be consistent with him being a hardline, ideological libtard?

believer;720555 wrote:There's no question about it. It is indeed about securing the free flow of relatively cheap oil in the world pipeline even if most of that oil never reaches the United States.

Our cushy oil-based consumer-driven lifestyles dictate our actions here; not humanitarian need. And while I've never been a fan of exchanging blood for oil, it is indeed reality.

I get more confused by the day with the current occupier of the White House. I heard we get less than 2% of our oil from Libya. However, Europe gets a much higher percentage as their refineries aren't set up for the rougher grades of crude that ours can handle. So, it appears we are over there bombing, killing, dying and blowing up things for our dear brothers in Europe. What the hell for? Can someone remind Belly's favorite president that we are BROKE and can't afford to be trotting all over the world for free? Also, at the end of the day, don't we have enough oil in the ground in the old US of A to take care of our needs and we could help the Euros out ourselves without the likes of Libya? This is so twisted to go to war over oil when WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH and then some.

I agree that this isn't humanitarian at all. If it was, there are far more ruthless places we could go to save humanity. Then I hear all over the news last night that we don't want to remove Qaddafi from power. Then what in the hell are we doing over there risking American lives, murdering civilians, and making Libya a no-fly zone? Is there a mission statement somewhere? What is the exit strategy? What has Congress authorized? Huh? This is so confusing.

I ask this question to those that agree with me that this is more about oil and less about humanitarian relief; do you still or did you ever believe the war in Iraq was anything more than a war for free flow of oil?

Hmm, and now one of our F15s goes down in Lybia. Nice, there's a cool 60+ million, just gets better and better.

BoatShoes;720558 wrote:^How can that be consistent with him being a hardline, ideological libtard?

He's being pragmatic when he has to be on all those issues -- but the man himself, at heart, is the biggest libtard to occupy the White House since FDR. His domestic policies and his past voting record (when he wasn't voting "present") can't be disputed. Also, the fact that he and his Democrat Congress spent like drunken sailors in a bordello is further proof of his libtardness.