Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
soon7x7
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:54 am

The US just lobbed $160 million in cruise missiles over the net, our jet fighters are dropping bombs and being shot at. Our "intention" is not to get Qaddafi and the rebels we are now allegedly helping are Al Qaida sponsored. While I will refrain from the "don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining cliche"...well don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining! This to me is war in any language. This is no tennis match. Why Washington insists on spoon feeding lies all the time...
Getting this despot at this juncture doesn't sound like a bad idea as he has a jaded past as we all know...defiantly responsible for Pan Am 103, the German disco bombing, a contract on Colonel Oliver North, his children and wife, and an attempt at assassinating President Reagan. Now he is murdering his own people. Does the white house believe we have no egg on our face as we pretentiously let France and Britain spearhead this action?...Mr. Qaddafi will now be further enraged at the western powers if he remains breathing oxygen. Does our President really think that Mr. Qaddafi will settle down with a courteous apology? Mr. Qaddafi may be out of his mind but in my opinion Mr. Obama lacks one. $20 million to a special ops group would have taken care of business and many lives spared. Sadly the US has lost its stones, common sense and honesty...if it ever had any. Who is really running the United states these days anyway? Who really makes the final decisions on anything anymore or are decisions even on the menu..perhaps just throwing dodo on a dart board that has critical issues mapped out is how decisions are made but whatever the case...our great country is truly in the hurt locker and I think this to be tragic not only to we Americans but the world. You must have a Oasis in the middle of a desert...we used to be that...sadly no more.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:58 am

Why the heck do we need to stick our noses into the affairs of other countries and risk American lives and waste MY tax money in the process?   

Flame away.

[Edited 2011-03-23 17:58:32]
 
soon7x7
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:43 am

Jeff Hellman (spelling), a CEO of general Electric played a role in the decision here. Several months ago Mr. Obama brought him in into his administration, while remaining the GE CEO. Correct me if I am wrong but not only is this a conflict of interest but I believe it is also illegal. Once Obama was elected GE took a high position as they were massive contributors to Obama's campaign. They were after several jet engine contracts that were pending in the US military as well as this whole "going green" farce which was only designed to inject industry dollars which GE also wanted the lions share of. Makes one wonder what this fiasco in Libya was motivated by. Funny how the US is everywhere on the globe except here in the continental US. Sounds like I am US bashing?...yep, I am...currently the US is a mere shadow of the country I once knew. The complexion of this bureaucracy has countered 180 degrees to the constitution,...intentionally. how did we fund this "war" in Libya since we are broke...obtain another loan from China?...By the way...if you fly Cessna's, China recently purchased Textron/ Lycoming. Oh...and the new Lear 85 will be manufactured in Mexico...our friendly neighbor. Unemployed you say?...well there you go. Lastly...GE terminated 45,000 jobs in the US recently but opened up 14,500 jobs in China while investing 18.5 million in China. Bombs away....!!!!!!!!         
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:56 am

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
This to me is war in any language.

Technically, the US hasn't been at war since World War II. Everything since has been a "combat operation". So while you may disagree with what the White House is calling this, and I'd say you have a decent argument, remember that the language is nothing new.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 1):
Why the heck do we need to stick our noses into the affairs of other countries and risk American lives and waste MY tax money in the process?

Because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:59 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Just like bringing freedom to the Iraqis was? Seems there's a double standard.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:04 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
Just like bringing freedom to the Iraqis was? Seems there's a double standard.

One was explicitly authorized by the UN. The other wasn't. That, in my mind, makes a substantial difference.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Springbok747
Posts: 3993
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:34 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Yeah..especially when oil is involved.
אני תומך בישראל
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3730
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:41 am

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 1):
the US hasn't been at war since World War II.

Currently the U.S. is involved in quite a few wars e.g. Terror, Drugs, Poverty, Obesity,..etc, etc, etc.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:11 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
One was explicitly authorized by the UN.

Since when does it make a difference what the UN thinks? To take it a step further, what did the Libyans do to deserve the assistance of the US and other nations in getting out from under their evil dictator more than the Iraqis did to get out from under theirs?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:39 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
Since when does it make a difference what the UN thinks?

That's your belief. I don't subscribe to it. It's not appropriate for one country to act unilaterally when their security is not threatened. But if the UN authorizes something, that's another matter.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:59 am

I think... well my job kinda prevents me from speaking politics... probably a good thing lol.

But yeah, by all intensive purposes we are at war, but "going to war" isn't good politically. Funny how one word can change so much. I've seen so many double standards in the past 10 years, I wish the bashing would stop on both sides, and until then, I hope Libya can achieve peace  
 
cpd
Posts: 6715
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:10 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
I think... well my job kinda prevents me from speaking politics... probably a good thing lol.

Don't you just hate that - I'm in that position too where I can't comment about a lot of things that I'm burning to comment about, only the occupation is different. But sometimes saying nothing is good too.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
I wish the bashing would stop on both sides, and until then, I hope Libya can achieve peace

Politics these days has gone quite nasty, that's something I can say very resolutely. It's a blood-sport of vicious invective and heavy personal attacks.

I think it's the right thing to do what is happening at the moment -with a bit of luck, it'll all be over quickly for the sake of everyone involved.

[Edited 2011-03-23 22:13:07]

[Edited 2011-03-23 22:14:46]
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23483
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:20 am

The previous administration chose to involve this country in war based on false intel. The current administration decided to let the nations who are having their uprisings do their thing until they asked us for help. I don't know why the right hates that so much.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:30 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):
The previous administration chose to involve this country in war based on false intel.

...but we didn't leave after not finding WMDs and getting rid of Sadaam did we? Nope. We are still there spending dollars on schools and hospitals while trying to set up a new democratic government. So again, why is helping the Libyans get rid of their dictator better than helping the Iraqis get rid of theirs?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):
The current administration decided to let the nations who are having their uprisings do their thing until they asked us for help.

The Iraqis asked for help in 1991. There were uprisings during the Gulf War from rebels who fully expected assistance, and then the coalition left.

I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, but you have to admit that the intervention in Libya and the intervention in Iraq are variations on a common theme.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:55 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
...but we didn't leave after not finding WMDs and getting rid of Sadaam did we?

We couldn't - the power void that existed once Saddam was gone would have been orders of magnitude worse had we not stuck around, flawed as our post-war plans were. And that would have left the door open for all sorts of unsavory characters to take over (some of whom managed to squeeze through the door anyway). That doesn't mean that we went in in order to free the Iraqis.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
The Iraqis asked for help in 1991.

And got it, in the form of no-fly zones designed to protect them from attack from Saddam's government. Same as we're doing now.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, but you have to admit that the intervention in Libya and the intervention in Iraq are variations on a common theme.

If you're talking about the first Gulf War, I'd agree. If you're talking about the second Gulf War, not so much.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:11 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Not this time...

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):

One was explicitly authorized by the UN. The other wasn't. That, in my mind, makes a substantial difference





Who gives a crap what the UN thinks. Because the UN says so it must be right..What a joke

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
That's your belief. I don't subscribe to it. It's not appropriate for one country to act unilaterally when their security is not threatened. But if the UN authorizes something, that's another matter

At least Bush had the approval of Congress. Not the UN like Obama..

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
We couldn't - the power void that existed once Saddam was gone would have been orders of magnitude worse had we not stuck around,

And that will not happen without boots on the ground in Libya?

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

According to the Barack Obama Administration, it is a ‘kinetic military action’. That may of may not be done in a few days or a few weeks. That we may or may not be in charge of. That is on a Humanitarian mission to remove Qaddafi. Or maybe not..  
 
D L X
Posts: 12719
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:56 pm

Can someone point out where in the Constitution it says that the President must ask Congress permission to conduct military activity?

The problem is that Congress has been trying since the 70s to grab a piece of the Commander-in-Chief title, but the Constitution is clear who is the Commander-in-Chief.



And the hypocrisy from the right is stunning.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
lobbed $160 million
Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
And the hypocrisy from the right is stunning.

And since we we complain about the cost of Military Operations? Its a complete lack of support of the troops.
Step into my office, baby
 
Quokka
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:32 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Can someone point out where in the Constitution it says that the President must ask Congress permission to conduct military activity?

I suspect, but I am not a constitutional expert, that Article 1, Section 8 may cover it: "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

The Constitution may be clear on who is "Commander in Chief", but I am not so sure that the "Commander in Chief" is authorised to declare war given the Constitution's statement to the contrary. As I am not a US citizen, I won't presume to make a judgement either way. The current debate is clearly, for whatever reasons (which may have nothing to do with the actual distinction), centred on whether the intervention in Libya is war or a military activity.Congress is best provided for to make that decision.

[Edited 2011-03-24 07:36:12]
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:44 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Can someone point out where in the Constitution it says that the President must ask Congress permission to conduct military activity?

Well according to the constitutional Scholar in Chief

Quote:
from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

This should dispel any thoughts on what Obama would think on Libya.

And here's what then-Sen. Hillary Clinton said in response to the same question from Savage; it's at least as clear as Obama's answer:



Quote:
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action -- including any kind of strategic bombing -- against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation [GG: also supported by Obama] to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority

There has to be some purpose to Article I, Section 8's assignment of the power "To declare War" to Congress; what is it? As Yale Law Professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway put it:



Quote:
No existing statute or treaty allows this action. Gaddafi isn't linked to Al Qaeda, so an attack against him isn't supported by the resolution authorizing force against terrorists involved in 9/11. If Obama goes it alone, he must return to Bush-era assertions that the president, as commander-in-chief, can unilaterally launch the nation into war. . . .

We are at a crossroads. President Obama can deal a death blow to our constitutional commitment to checks and balances in war-making. Or he can establish a precedent in constructive congressional engagement which will serve as a model for the foreign policy challenges of the twenty-first century.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...enwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
to conduct military activity?

It is called war...

RTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

Nothing about an ambiguous military activity that has nothing to do with defending the US or it's citizens.
And since it does not point that out it would mean that he does not have that power.

[Edited 2011-03-24 08:11:03]
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8597
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:44 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Can someone point out where in the Constitution it says that the President must ask Congress permission to conduct military activity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw

To reinforce:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Adpa5kYUhCA

Note the Obama statement in the end of the last video.

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
And the hypocrisy from the right is stunning.

Yeah, but. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r_RWHiC7K3k
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
D L X
Posts: 12719
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:21 pm

Quoting Quokka (Reply 18):
The Constitution may be clear on who is "Commander in Chief", but I am not so sure that the "Commander in Chief" is authorised to declare war given the Constitution's statement to the contrary.

This is not a declaration of war (something that hasn't been done since 1941).

Quoting windy95 (Reply 19):
Well according to the constitutional Scholar in Chief

Dodged! I asked you to show where in the Constitution it says the president must ask congress's permission.

It isn't in there. As much as Congress would like it to be, it isn't in there.

You in particular are being a hypocrit.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 19):
It is called war...

No, it is not.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14091
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:57 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 19):
President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

Maybe Obama did advise Congress ? That's what happened here for this action, but I have no idea if it's constitutional (both right and left agree on the action, so it doesn't matter).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Quokka
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:35 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):

This is not a declaration of war (something that hasn't been done since 1941).


I agree, but it is a warlike situation. Does the US have a legal definition of war?
The US has been drawn into a number of conflicts around the globe since WWII and there has been much debate over whether the conflicts were/ are morally/ legally/ expediently justified. Don't get me wrong: I am not bashing the US on this one. (For personal reasons I welcome the intervention in Libya, but I recognise that many others will not.)

But if the question of Constitutionality is raised, then we need to ask what constitutes war? Is it simply armed conflict between nations, under obligations adopted by treaty or otherwise, or is it a declared state of war? I.e. must the US specifically declare that it is in a state of war with another state? The same question may apply to other countries/ states, but most other states do not have an Article 1, section 8.

Further, beyond the question of whether it is necessary for Congress to state that a condition of war exists, one must ask whether the President, as C-in-C, can wage war without specifically declaring one to be in existence when Congress itself hasn't . There are precedents. The Vietnam War never existed for the simple reason that it was never declared. Afghanistan and Iraq were never declared as wars against those particular countries. A far broader declaration was made: the war on terror which has no territorial boundaries or identifiable enemy in the conventional sense.

That war raised the whole question above the kind of war that the framers of the Constitution had in mind. At the same time it raises even more sharply the question of who may declare war. Can the Executive do it without the approval of Congress. Or is Congress merely expected to postdate approval once the executive has acted? The Constitution may be clear, but the circumstances have changed. Should the Constitution be modified to reflect the change in circumstances?
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:53 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Dodged! I asked you to show where in the Constitution it says the president must ask congress's permission.

It does not so he does not have that power. And even the Scholar in Chief believes so. The Constitution gives powers. The lack of it being in their does not give the power to them. If it is not in their then they need to add it if that is what they would like to do.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 19):
It is called war...

No, it is not.

Definition of War.

a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict

a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
You in particular are being a hypocrit.

Please explain how. The Constitution does NOT give the President the power and even the Constitutional Scholar admits to that. Sorry no Hypocrisy here.

Quoting Quokka (Reply 23):
.e. must the US specifically declare that it is in a state of war with another state?

Which is a power of congress
 
AM744
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 11:05 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:54 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
Since when does it make a difference what the UN thinks?

The invasion of Irak looked wrong from the outside whereas taking action in Libya seems somewhat founded. I think several nations agree on that, and the votes casted at the Security Council reflect it.

If a given country is unwilling to take part in these combat operations, perhaps it's time to reconsider holding a seat as a permanent member in the UN Security Council.
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:04 pm

Quoting AM744 (Reply 25):
The invasion of Irak looked wrong from the outside whereas taking action in Libya seems somewhat founded. I think several nations agree on that, and the votes casted at the Security Council reflect it.

Yes if you consider Libya a war for Oil and to keep a mass exit of illegals from flooding into southern Europe thne it looks somewhat founded. For any other reason it does not. Why not Rwanda?Sudan? N. Korea? Myanmar? Now Syria? Iran?
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:12 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):
Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Dodged! I asked you to show where in the Constitution it says the president must ask congress's permission.

It does not so he does not have that power.

You are correct that it does not say that the president must ask the permission of Congress. Therefore, he doesn't have to.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):
The Constitution gives powers.

One of which is that the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and thus has the authority to order military action.

I'd note that Congress never declared war on Iraq either.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:49 pm

Don't call it war, it's 'kinetic military action'.   

article

Boots on the ground too - 2,200 from Camp Lejeune.

article
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:57 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 26):
Why not Rwanda?Sudan? N. Korea? Myanmar? Now Syria? Iran?

Because the international community has given their blessing to this one. Why they haven't given their blessing to others is a good question, but to sit this one out just because there's no consensus on other countries is idiocy.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
GDB
Posts: 14114
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:10 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
$20 million to a special ops group would have taken care of business and many lives spared.

Might be worth considering that what you might have seen in movies or video games is not the same as real life.
It's more messy for a start.

Suggest you use the resource of the Internet with reputable sources, to look up the (illegal) US attempts (often with Mafia help) to bump off Fidel Castro. They were numerous and often farcical.
He'll die in his bed of old age.

When Reagan lashed out in 1986 (killing Qaddafi's 2 year old daughter) it spurred the mad Colonel on to even worse support for terror.
More quietly, more effectively, his attempts to get his hands on Uranium mined in Chad in the same period, were stopped by French military action, eventually running him out of the place by 1987.

Ironically, also at this same time, another still problematic regime, Iran, was getting themselves a whole bunch of weapons, from the US, by telling their proxies in Lebanon to free a few US hostages. (Other nationals held there had years more captivity since their governments were not about to give in to this sort of terror).

If anything, Sarkozy was pretentious last Saturday, with Benghazi about to fall, by getting his pilots out there to attack the artillery and tanks doing the threatening.
Then telling the others, including the President, PM Cameron, what was happening!
Caused a stir, still side of the Atlantic wise, it's usually the other way around doing something then telling your allies!

But needs must, that's the problem with getting too hung up of the word 'war'.
It means different things to different people and different times.
When you have proper UN sanction and keep to the limits of it, you need not worry about the word 'war' at all!

US is not at war with Libya, a UN authorised Coalition, of which the US is a member, is carrying out the writ of the said UN resolution.
Not so new, the same applied when throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:20 pm

Quoting AM744 (Reply 25):
If a given country is unwilling to take part in these combat operations, perhaps it's time to reconsider holding a seat as a permanent member in the UN Security Council.

By that standard, China and Russia should be removed?

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
When you have proper UN sanction and keep to the limits of it, you need not worry about the word 'war' at all!

You are confusing UN law with US law. From this side, I really don't know what to say about that, it is so ludicrous. But if the UK wants to spend blood and treasure in Libya based on UN votes, I have no objections...
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8597
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:46 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
But needs must, that's the problem with getting too hung up of the word 'war'.
It means different things to different people and different times.
When you have proper UN sanction and keep to the limits of it, you need not worry about the word 'war' at all!

US is not at war with Libya, a UN authorised Coalition, of which the US is a member, is carrying out the writ of the said UN resolution.



What has happened in Libya is an act of war. No ifs or buts about it. The nations involved are indeed at war, whether dirctly or indirectly through an UN "permission".
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
dragon6172
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:58 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 19):
It is called war...

No, it is not.

If it looks like a war, smells like a war... and people are dying like they do in a war... then it is a war.

I don't mind so much the conversations about whether the President was right or wrong to not consult congress, I just think it is a bit of an insult to anyone who has died or been wounded over there to say it wasn't war but a "kinetic military action."
Phrogs Phorever
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
Because the international community has given their blessing to this one. Why they haven't given their blessing to others is a good question, but to sit this one out just because there's no consensus on other countries is idiocy.

Why is it our mission to get involved in a Civil War. To pick sides. We do not even know who or what the other side is This is Europe's war and we should of stayed out of it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
You are correct that it does not say that the president must ask the permission of Congress. Therefore, he doesn't have to.

But the President and Vice President are both on record stating that they have to. For once iIam agreeing with Obama and Biden. But now the hypocrisy of this administration continues. Biden wanted to impeach Bush for the same reason.

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):
The Constitution gives powers.

One of which is that the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and thus has the authority to order military action.

Order Military action for the Defence of this country and citizens. Not to support the European war for Oil and prevention of a mass Muslim migration.

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
I'd note that Congress never declared war on Iraq either

But they had the resolution that authorized it at least.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:37 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
This is Europe's war and we should of stayed out of it.

Your opinion. I'd argue that when there's a government that's bombing its own people, the beacon of freedom in the world kind of has an obligation to show up and help out.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
But the President and Vice President are both on record stating that they have to.

And thankfully the President and VP can't change the Constitution just be making comments.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
Order Military action for the Defence of this country and citizens.

That's not specified in the Constitution.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
But they had the resolution that authorized it at least.

Which was a symbolic PR move only. Had Congress said no, Bush still would have gone in. And it would have been constitutionally acceptable.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
AM744
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 11:05 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:37 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 31):
By that standard, China and Russia should be removed?

Probably. They seem to veto decisions and throw their political weight on the table rather than take part in actual military actions that cost lives and money. The US, UK and to a lesser extent France seem to be more committed. E.g. In an ideal world, if North Korea goes even crazier at some point then China, being a Security Council member, must be the first to step up and reestablish order, not the US.

On second thought I'm not sure how willing are western powers in launching joint military operations with Russia and China.

Bottom line is that I think the UN Security Council does serve a purpose and its the best the world has to deal with this kind of situtations.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14091
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
Not to support the European war for Oil and prevention of a mass Muslim migration.

That may be true for Italy, which has strong ties do Libya and its oil. Note that it's not really the country leading the action, to say the least.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:52 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
This is Europe's war and we should of stayed out of it.

Your opinion. I'd argue that when there's a government that's bombing its own people, the beacon of freedom in the world kind of has an obligation to show up and help out

They are bombing them because they started a civil war. And who says we are on the right side? Who are we protecting with this beacon of freedom? We have no idea who we are backing.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
But the President and Vice President are both on record stating that they have to.

And thankfully the President and VP can't change the Constitution just be making comments

They are not changing it they are saying that it is not in there so that would be unconstitutional. You and DLX are arguing that since Kinetic Warfare is not covered by the constitution then the President must be able to do it. Obama and Biden in the past have argued the exact opposite of you two. Why is that so hard to understand? They should know right? We had been told repeatedly that he is a constitutional scholar but know we are not supposed to believe him  

Are you also implying that anything and everything that is not covered in the Constitution becomes a Presidential power  Wow!

I also cannot believe that I support those two in their views and for that I am called a hypocrite.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Bush still would have gone in. And it would have been constitutionally acceptable.

To me it would not have. They do not have the power.
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:57 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
But they had the resolution that authorized it at least.

Which was a symbolic PR move only. Had Congress said no, Bush still would have gone in. And it would have been constitutionally acceptable.
Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
Order Military action for the Defence of this country and citizens.

That's not specified in the Constitution.
Quote:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that 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. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

So yes the resolution was indeed proper according to the War Powers act and the President is required to use the Military for the Defense of the Country. Not to help Europe keep their Libyan Oil supply open.
 
futurepilot16
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:26 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 28):
Boots on the ground too - 2,200 from Camp Lejeune.

Yea. i'm not surprised someone like you would actually trust that article. Especially when the source is from places like
http://www.infowars.com/camp-lejeune...libya-to-strike-at-qadhafi-forces/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2693202/posts
The only legitimate source comes from WTIC 12, and those Marines are headed to a SHIP, not BOOTS ON THE GROUND, like you claim....nice job though!
Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
But they had the resolution that authorized it at least.

Big deal....Congress basically authorized the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while signing the death sentence for thousands of US and coalition troops. But no....in your opinion at least the war was justified because congress approved it.   . However, now we have a humanitarian situation, but you have a huge problem with it because the president didn't consult congress first on the issue. I'm sure if DUBYA was in power, you would be fumbling left and right to come up with excuses for why this action by the US is justified.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):
Why is it our mission to get involved in a Civil War. To pick sides. We do not even know who or what the other side is This is Europe's war and we should of stayed out of it.

Well that's not your call to make. Complain about it all you want but this is the world we live in. There will always be military action and sometimes we have to support our allies, that's how the international political system operates.

[Edited 2011-03-24 14:30:41]
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
 
D L X
Posts: 12719
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:30 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
You are correct that it does not say that the president must ask the permission of Congress. Therefore, he doesn't have to.

UGH! Negating typo.   Those are the worst.

We are on the same page.

Quoting dragon6172 (Reply 33):
If it looks like a war, smells like a war... and people are dying like they do in a war... then it is a war.

This is untrue. A war is when the United States battles another nation. We are not battling Libya. We are enforcing a no-fly zone in their ongoing civil war. Afghanistan was a lot closer to a war than this, in that we were actively trying to overthrow the government at the same time as capturing the leader of a criminal terrorist organization (non-state). Vietnam should have been a war with a formal declaration (but I'd need to study the facts more to be sure of my opinion on that).

There's a pretty good reason why WWII was the last time we declared war - it's the last time we were actually trying to force another COUNTRY, as opposed to an individual or group within a country, to submit to our will. Korea was a civil war. Vietnam was (kind of) a civil war. Iraq I should have had a declaration of war. Iraq II, I'm not sure. But basically, times have changed - the US does not battle against a particular country nee a country anymore.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 38):
You and DLX are arguing that since Kinetic Warfare is not covered by the constitution then the President must be able to do it.

False.

I am saying that the President is commander-in-chief, and as such is empowered to direct military action.

BTW, "kinetic warfare" is not a term I am at all familiar with, and have never used. Please do not falsely attribute me.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 38):
Are you also implying that anything and everything that is not covered in the Constitution becomes a Presidential power

No, Mir and I are both stating that the President has the power as Commander-in-Chief to command the military.

What's the problem that prevents you from accepting that? I think that would go a long way to understanding your issue.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 39):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

So yes the resolution was indeed proper according to the War Powers act and the President is required to use the Military for the Defense of the Country.

Is the War Powers Act part of the Constitution?

better question: did the military hop because the Congress said hop? (A: No. They hopped because the President ordered them to.)
 
windy95
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:32 pm

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 40):
However, now we have a humanitarian situation, but you have a huge problem with it because the president didn't consult congress first on the issue. I'm sure if DUBYA was in power, you would be fumbling left and right to come up with excuses for why this action by the US is justified

Humanitarian is the excuse for this war that is for oil and stopping another flood of Muslim refugees into Europe. And once again you would be wrong because I was not a fan of the Iraq war and the decision to go in

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 40):
There will always be military action and sometimes we have to support our allies, that's how the international political system operates.

Our system does not bypass congress and follow the UN.

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 40):
Big deal....Congress basically authorized the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while signing the death sentence for thousands of US and coalition troops

But the point is he still followed the law according to the War Powers act. Obama has not followed his own opinion and has done it the way he actually railed against.
 
soon7x7
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Everything since has been a "combat operation".


Or..."the Business of War"...caching$$$

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 6):
Yeah..especially when oil is involved


Japan attacked America over oil...this historically protracted into another arena of WWll.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
This is not a declaration of war (something that hasn't been done since 1941).


It is to the 20 year old that has just taken a bullet and is wondering if he will ever see home again, it is to the 2 F-15 crew members that punched out, never really thinking they would ever have to do it...declared officially or not...War is war. Since 1941, we have Korean Vets, Viet vets, Desert storm vets, Iraqi vets, Somalian vets, Afghanistan vets, Pakistan vets,...now Libyan vets. Can't be about oil...price still going up and all the "Oil rich Nations" we have helped have thanked us by tightening the oil $$$ nus around our necks.

When Pan am 103 went down over Lockerbie, Pan Am N739PA/747-100 and killed 190 souls, Libya, specifically Mr. Qaddafi proudly took responsibility for this heinous crime, while his countrymen danced in the streets. Now the American bashing nations enjoy US oil dollars and while dancing in the streets...once their backs are against wall, we take heat for not rushing in to save them?....B/crap!...   
 
GDB
Posts: 14114
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:36 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 32):
What has happened in Libya is an act of war. No ifs or buts about it. The nations involved are indeed at war, whether directly or indirectly through an UN "permission".

'War' as many define it, is more gloves off than what is happening in Libya.
If you can invade the enemy, you do.
Coalition is not doing that.
If you can flatten their military, leadership, industrial, food production, transport and all other useful infrastructure, you do.
The coalition is selectively targeting the first of those, maybe the second, not touching all the others.

Brazil could have come out against the UN Resolution, abstention might not be a thumbs up but it's not to register being against either.
Does 'permission' in inverted commas mean I think the UN should be the body that decides these sorts of issues as did NOT happen in Iraq.......unless I don't happen to agree with it?
We have a saying, 'you have to take the rough with the smooth'.

Make no mistake, there is real nervousness in the UK, certainly in the US and the others too, about this situation.
Unlike Iraq, events on the ground in Libya have driven events.

It is entirely possible that if Qaddafi had not been so bloodcurdlingly threatening to Benghazi, the UN vote still might have gone the other way.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:23 am

You know what kills me is that we give money to Libya for their military..In fact Obama lobbied to congress to have that money doubled up to this conflict where they suspended it...So it is conceivable that we can be bombing equipment that we in fact bought..Add to which as much as I don't want to see genocide these people in Libya celebrated 9/11 and danced in the streets as well as welcomed a known terrorist who was responsible for the Lockerbie PanAm 103 bombing with open arms..I am getting sick and tired of us giving money to all these tyrants around the world who give us the finger anyway and hate us anyway when all our states are broke and we are going after teachers and working people.
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2348
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:50 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
I'd argue that when there's a government that's bombing its own people, the beacon of freedom in the world kind of has an obligation to show up and help out.

This is happening in Ivory Coast right now. So why isnt there a bunch of Typhoons, Rafales, Hornets, B2's, navy vessels etc etc all showing up there to help out?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl.../africaandindianocean/cotedivoire/

The people of Libya drew the winning lottery ticket I guess...
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:59 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
We couldn't - the power void that existed once Saddam was gone would have been orders of magnitude worse had we not stuck around, flawed as our post-war plans were.

And what assurances do we have that there won't be a void if Qaddafi leaves? Certainly we need to make some effort to make sure the wrong people don't get into power, and that is not necessarily easy or cheap.

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
And got it, in the form of no-fly zones designed to protect them from attack from Saddam's government. Same as we're doing now.

Fine but are people going to tolerate the same results now: a somewhat hampered but still powerful dictator?

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
That doesn't mean that we went in in order to free the Iraqis.

But we did anyway. Perhaps the people of Libya will ultimately be screwed over by the fact that Qaddafi didn't seek WMDs more aggressively so there is no excuse to remove him for good. Certainly taking action to lead to the removal of Qaddafi is not something to be taken lightly. He's a bad guy, but there are worse guys out there. Qaddafi isn't doing anything to us (anymore) so we have no reason to remove him, just protect the civilians.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 25):
I think several nations agree on that, and the votes casted at the Security Council reflect it.

The UN has no power. The UN can't make anyone do anything. They can't make nations enact a no-fly zone over Libya. Only states can do that, and they have.

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
Because the international community has given their blessing to this one.

The international community has no real power on this at all. They can talk and build a consensus, but there is nothing the international community can do to force or prohibit a country from taking action other than taking action themselves. The American government should do what is best for America, regardless of what the international community thinks about it.



Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
a UN authorised Coalition, of which the US is a member, is carrying out the writ of the said UN resolution.

Not exactly. Several states are carrying out a writ of the UN, which is a consensus of many of the same nations. They are there because they believe they should be, not because the UN tells them.

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
Not so new, the same applied when throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Same as above: not the UN, it was individual states that formed a coalition.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 31):
UN law

No such thing. The so-called "UN law" is just an agreement between states. If any state breaks it, there is no recourse from the UN, just other states, unless they don't want to. Not that there aren't benefits to playing nice, but the UN itself has no power of coercion.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 36):
Bottom line is that I think the UN Security Council does serve a purpose and its the best the world has to deal with this kind of situtations.

It is a forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
soon7x7
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:00 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
The American government should do what is best for America


Truer words were never spoken but sadly this is no longer the case. Apparently apologizing to the rest of the world for our successes as a nation seems to be in vogue these days. If martians finally landed on planet earth and demanded that they be taken to "your leader"...just whom might that be...?...Charlie Sheen?...he makes more sense than the beltway boyz and that's not saying much...obviously.   
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: US/Libya Not At War?...says White House

Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:13 am

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
The people of Libya drew the winning lottery ticket I guess...

Yes, they did. Lucky them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
Fine but are people going to tolerate the same results now: a somewhat hampered but still powerful dictator?

If Qaddafi gets his act together and stops bombing his own people, I could tolerate him staying in power in the short term. Long term a different solution will have to be found, and hopefully it won't take 10+ years the way it did with Iraq. But protecting civilians is as far as the UN resolution allows us to go, and I don't think we should exceed that mandate.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: casinterest, Newark727, Tiredofhumanity and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos