Hey lurking Freepers - what is the difference between Iraq and Libya?

[TheBigotBasher]

The Tea Party Terror movement issued a challenge in between talking of tax cuts for billionaires and the brilliance of Sarah Palin.

Republishing the meme put out by their Koch Brother masters, one Rethug site wrote

To be clear: if the left and Democrats generally do not savage this President in much the same manner they savaged Bush, if they are not out in the streets protesting, if they are not opposing his reelection, if they are not demanding his impeachment and trial, if they are not hoping for his very death, then they will have shown themselves to be every bit the craven hypocrites that many have long claimed.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/117101/

The difference to anyone who is not a Republican stuck up their own arse is obvious. There are numerous people on the left and right who oppose this INTERVENTION but one criticism can not be laid on this military action. This is a LEGAL WAR whose specific aim is NOT regime change and it has the backing of the United Nations and the Arab League. Then again Republicans never quite understand legality.

The Shrubs backed an illegal war because Sadam Hussein upset Poppy Bush. That is why Blair is facing an Iraq war inquiry in the UK and Cameron is hardly some peace-nik liberal.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zJgf_wDYGjQ/SeAdEsqfZCI/AAAAAAAAAk4/PU5TD1TKJMw/s400/wo+bush+kisses+Arab.jpg

[lutherj]

1. Not sure this is a legal war. Obama failed to consult congress on this one.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/20-1

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” . . . .

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

-----------

Of course, consulting congress would have been a mere technicality. At this point I can't imagine congress ever denying any president the use of military force. That said, I do agree that there is a major difference between this action and Bush's Iraq war. The latter was based on a massive tumor of lies, and it wasn't a response to a popular internal uprising that carries the sympathy and support of most of the world. I certainly don't blame the French for helping us out in the American revolutionary war.

[Night Crawler]

2. If not régime change then what IS the endgame?

What's our exit strategy? How will we know when we've "won"?

*I think I meant to respond to the OP.*

[tekisui]

6. There isn't a win/loss objective. The objective is enforcing a no fly

zone to prevent or mitigate Gaddafi's ability to kill innocent civilians. The endgame is ambiguous still.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Is this a "war" though?

Helping establish/enforce a no-fly zone is a military intervention that we're participating in but I don't view this as in the same league as, say, invading Iraq. Unconstitutional? :shrug:

Did Clinton need approval for what we did in Kosovo? I know Republicans made a stink about it but nobody at the time AFAIK said that that action was illegal and/or unconstitutional but that wasn't considered a "war" either.

[lutherj]

12. While I grant that this action is not on the same league as the Iraq war, nonetheless,

if some foreign power were to hit us with over a hundred guided missiles I have no doubt that we would consider this an act of war. I'm sure Gadhafi considers it an act of war, and it carries with it all the liabilities of war.

Since WWII the whole issue of executive authority in the use of military power has become murky. And obviously there are all kinds of detail and nuance here that would require an expertise that I don't have. My concern is that we on the left may slide to the right in our interpretation of the law when the actions are those of a democratic administration. I would prefer to err on the side of caution and limit the powers of a democratic president, if it help to deter the war-mongering of the right.

[stevenleser]

9. The constitutionality is clear. The President is acting based on a treaty that was properly approved

Treaties like mutual defense pacts can be signed and are Constitutional. These kinds of treaties bind the US to act if a set of circumstances arise (an ally is attacked, for instance).

The UN Charter is clear in what it sets up. Member states are expected to do their utmost to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions.

[lutherj]

13. I take your point. Thanks for the input. nt

B-)

[liberalpress]

10. To make this similar to Iraq...

... we would have to be bombing Qtar

[JoePhilly]

11. Earlier today, CNN reported that Obama also met directly with Congressional

leaders from both parties, some were in person, those who were unable to attend in person were included via video link.

[jschurchin]

3. I know, I know.

About 800 miles.

Am I right?

[Travelman]

5. I'm pretty sure Obama has the legal authority for the initial strike

without having to consult Congress at all. Now, a continuing presence in the skies over Libya might be a different story, but we haven't made it that far yet, or anywhere close to it.

While I personally think that this was an unwise move, that we should have just stayed the hell out of it all together (other than diplomatic channels), I don't think that there's anything illegal about the strikes at all. Wrong? Probably. Ill-conceived, since we have no clue who it is we're casting our lot with here? Absolutely. But illegal? I don't think so.

[lutherj]

8. You may be right, although the legality seems ambiguous. I found the following on wikipedia:

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

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.

--------------

We were obviously not under attack nor faced any serious threat.

[displacedvermoter]

7. How about between Libya and Iran?

I keep hearing McCain and Hillary both would have had us in Iran. Now we are in Libya, and the same folks are now happy for some No FLy Zone.