Why are we sticking our noses in to attack yet another Moslem country

[Galen Sevinne]

According to the Constitution it is the job of Congress to authorize any act of war.

This isn't an act of war. The resolution approving the no-fly zone and its enforcement passed 10-0 with the express support of the Arab League and the National Transitional Council. The resolution authorizes "all necessary means" to protect civilians, except for the launching of a foreign occupying force. Ostensibly, "all necessary means" includes engaging Qadaffi's forces from the air. Possibly knocking off Qadaffi, too.

This is an international coalition, authorized by the United Nations, backed by the Arab League, participated in by Arab countries, and directly in support of an internationally recognized rebel organization.

Anyway, Congress is too busy creating jobs. But first they have to defund NPR because that is job killer, oh yeah and defund planned parenthood and also make sure head start is ended. But maybe before jobs, they need to try to make sure the citizenry loses humane access to healthare. ok then maybe we can get to jobs, jobs, jobs... Wait there is that little problem with workers rights that needs to be ended too before we can start to create job bills.

After that there might be some time to pass a resolution for taking out Qadaffi like Reagan did...oh wait, that's right Reagan didn't either.

So maybe we can all just get on our high horses and find more ways to criticize Obama because so far that is the only new job I have seen the GOP house create.

[AirFlacco]

Think again Galen. You are so uninformed.

International force? Yea, sure - in name only. That's why almost every strike except for the ones
made by a couple of British and French planes were made by U.S. planes over the
weekend. Over 114 U.S. cruise missiles from US Stealth bombers and ships hit Tripolli and other cities.
See vid .

And these attacks would seem to go beyond the UN mandate of no fly zone but that's the
way the Pentagon interprets it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/2...against-libya/



Korea was a UN operation too but 56,000 Americans were lost doing
most of the fighting, just like now.

The only job OBY has created is filling out his NCAA basketball brackets while you laughed
at Walker for saving over 1500 jobs in Wisconsin so what do you care about jobs?


THE U.S. AIR FORCE HAS JUST EFFECTIVELY BECOME OWNED BY THE U.N.


HENRY KISSENGER AFTER THE KOSOVO BOMBINGS.

[NCRAVEN]

This isn't an act of war. The resolution approving the no-fly zone and its enforcement passed 10-0 with the express support of the Arab League and the National Transitional Council. The resolution authorizes "all necessary means" to protect civilians, except for the launching of a foreign occupying force. Ostensibly, "all necessary means" includes engaging Qadaffi's forces from the air. Possibly knocking off Qadaffi, too.

This is an international coalition, authorized by the United Nations, backed by the Arab League, participated in by Arab countries, and directly in support of an internationally recognized rebel organization.

He starts out on the right foot and than....

Anyway, Congress is too busy creating jobs. But first they have to defund NPR because that is job killer, oh yeah and defund planned parenthood and also make sure head start is ended. But maybe before jobs, they need to try to make sure the citizenry loses humane access to healthare. ok then maybe we can get to jobs, jobs, jobs... Wait there is that little problem with workers rights that needs to be ended too before we can start to create job bills.

After that there might be some time to pass a resolution for taking out Qadaffi like Reagan did...oh wait, that's right Reagan didn't either.

So maybe we can all just get on our high horses and find more ways to criticize Obama because so far that is the only new job I have seen the GOP house create.

shockingly he takes this to a partisan argument with lots of BS misinformation and accusations without info. I am shocked.

Oh and btw Galen. NPR said they would be just fine without Federal funding before congress votes to defund them. Why give any one any amount of Federal money they don't need? :grbac:

[AirFlacco]

LOL - Those strikes mentioned above already cost us over half billion dollars so OBY will be catching
up to W's spending on wars in no time flat and
the DEMs got on their high horse and blasted OBY for not going thru Congress, just like
TL said above. Everyone is on their high horse blasting our non-leader except Galen. ILMAO.

http://www.breitbart.tv/kucinich-sla...-war-rhetoric/

So much for Galen's comments on the UN resolution.

Like I said, shit happens and the Prez will get around anything to start a war.

[Galen Sevinne]

LOL - Those strikes mentioned above already cost us over half billion dollars so OBY will be catching
up to W's spending on wars in no time flat and
the DEMs got on their high horse and blasted OBY for not going thru Congress, just like
TL said above. Everyone is on their high horse blasting our non-leader except Galen. ILMAO.

http://www.breitbart.tv/kucinich-sla...-war-rhetoric/

So much for Galen's comments on the UN resolution.

Like I said, shit happens and the Prez will get around anything to start a war.

"Everyone"??? Or just Dennis Kucinch? You are the drama queen trap. I love Kucinich but he is wrong here and he knows it. "catching up to "W""??? too funny. There will never be a president in U.S. history that will match the incompetence of "W" especially when it comes to war. A decade long war in Iraq that has resulted in absolutely nothing.

[TLaMana]

Congress didn't give approval and that is what matters. This President shouldn't answer to the UN, he should answer to Congress and the American people. He has done neither.

[AirFlacco]

"Everyone"??? Or just Dennis Kucinch? You are the drama queen trap. I love Kucinich but he is wrong here and he knows it. "catching up to "W""??? too funny. There will never be a president in U.S. history that will match the incompetence of "W" especially when it comes to war. A decade long war in Iraq that has resulted in absolutely nothing.

Listen dope, I already posted a lot of links of many DEMs dissing OBY,
do I have to pull them out for you again. Here's some of them in addition to the one above
Get your head out of OBs ass so you can see them.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/de...hip-on-budget/
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20383
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131866...-deal-with-gop
http://www.americanconservativedaily...as-they-hoped/

That last link goes back to day 1 and his picking of the cabinet, the liberals were so upset
with OBY. Now these links sure look like everyone is pissed at his leadership.

OBY is the weakest president in US history.

And again, you know nothing. Over 25M people live in freedom in Iraq, a mere point you can't
see because you have your nose up OBYs ass.

K said exactly what TL said about going before Congress.

It's in Article 1 of the Constitution. Read it. I know that reading can
be difficult for you.

And btw, Ws coalition had more countries in it as this one. Count em here.
More liberal lies from people like Galen.

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=289154

[AirFlacco]

Actually, OBY did go to Congress - 2 days later. Oh BTW guys, we're at
war with Libya.



Thing is, had he gone ahead of time to ask permission Congress probably
would have given it. Afterall, the DEMs wouldn't want him to look bad at
re-election time with people saying he can't lead and all that and the GOP
wouldn't want their war image tarnished, so he would have gotten approval.


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/2...ya-operations/


And here it is Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that says the President must go before Congress to
wage or Declare War. We won all the declared wars but wars like Vietnam which were undeclared were
lost and we lost over 56,000 men in Korean War with over 140,000 other casualties because Congress
did not approve of that UN action.

Congress did not approve of UN actions in Bosnia or the Gulf war either.

A literal reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the Korean and Bosnian Wars amounted to bold, unconstitutional power-grabs by Presidents Truman and Clinton.


The President is clearly breaking his oath and the law by not going before the Congress to wage war and
UN actions do not over-ride the constitution as Galen says and wishes.

http://www.ponderpost.com/2010/10/co...esident-wages/

[Galen Sevinne]

I am not necessarily saying I agree with Obama on the Libyan intervention but I do agree with his methodolgy. I agree with Mr. T (which is probably one degree from agreeing with Trap) in that the US needs to stop being the world police.

What I agree with is that Obama, and he made it crystal clear to all, is resetting America's relationships and standing in the world. There are reasons I knocked on doors for him and will do it again because of just how he is going about this Libyan and the whole Arab uprising. He is working to create international consensus, allowing countries closer in proximity and more affected to take the lead, recognizing the U.N. and being deliberate and methodical.

Gone are the reckless days of "W" and "you are either wit' me or against me". This is the epitome of arrogance and ruined America's standing around the world. Obama is more cerebral and tempered in his response and the world will appreciate this.

We will see how Libya goes. I hope Obama keeps his plan to pull American influence out within days...no more than a couple weeks. The intervention saved a 10's of thousands of lives that would have been slaughtered by Qaddafi's forces. If we can accomplish this without a drawn out occupation, ground forces and loss of American lives than that should be seen as a true American success. One that we can proud of for a change...yep, I said it. There are times I am not proud to be American. Live abroad and you will understand better. Doesn't mean I don't love my country.

As Obama said in his Nobel Peace speech;

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.


What you are seeing isn't weakness and lack of leadership as conservative talking points will try to lead you believe. It is the transformation of American presence in a new world where your enemy isn't seen or always known. You can't just show up with the biggest stick anymore.

[NCRAVEN]

Galen, shocking as it is, I agree with you to a point. I don't want to be the world's policemen, I don't even want there to be a need for one. But if we don't who will? I mean who stepped up and said we'll enforce a no fly zone for the people of Libya.

"There are times I am not proud to be American"
Now wonder you like Obama so much, you to have a lot in common. :D

[AirFlacco]

Galen - you cleaned that post up a lot better but you are still off.

You still didn't read all those links I posted from liberal DEMs criticizing OBYs
lack of leadership. Those are liberal talking points, not conservative. You can't
see them cause you still have your head up OBYs ass.

W was reckless? Hell, he went before Congress like the law states and
Congress voted on invading Iraq. Even most of your liberal DEMs voted
on it. The Senate voted 51-47 in favor of the war and W asked for and got
$99.7B to start it. That was just chump change to get the war going compared to
what has been spent since.

Even Rham Emmanuel wanted to kill Hussein. This is the country's #1 liberal speaking.

___________________________________________________
REP. EMANUEL: I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, OK?
_______________________________________________

So Galen would have to say his boy Rham is reckless too.


Four years later those DEMs criticized the war while after they gave W permission to wage it.
More liberal hypocrissy.

I'm not sure any of this will get Gadafi out but it will save lives. The irony
here is that these rebels are financed by the very group we are trying to
destroy in Iraq and Afghanistan - Al Queda.

We're actually allies with them in Libya at the moment giving them a few last
minutes to their rebels while even pumping some more weapons into
them.

Now that is reckless.

[Mista T]

But if we don't who will? I mean who stepped up and said we'll enforce a no fly zone for the people of Libya.

So why should US servicemen put their lives on the line for the people of Libya (i.e. future terrorists)? It's not our fight, and Libya provides little/no strategic value to the US. If the Moslems believe that someone should be providing military aid to the Libyan "freedom fighters" or whatever is the name for the Moslem terrorists du jour, let them provide the planes, ammo, and pilots. If the Europeans feel threatened, I'm sure that the have plenty of firepower to take on the Libyans without our help. It's not our fight!

Does Obama have even half a brain? :grbac: If Bush had pulled a stunt like this w/o Congessional buy-in, he'd have been impeached, and rightly so.