Is the war in Libya legal?

[originalpckelly]

[inna]

1. why such obvious negative bias for choice #4? unrec'd just for that.

[damntexdem]

9. I called for it to happen, applaud it, and consider it legal.

But I feel that option #4 reflects an important position, though one I don't share.

[ZombieHorde]

13. I am only guessing here, but I think option #4 is for pacifists. nt

[Cleita]

2. Not for us. Only Congress should declare war

or so says our Constitution that no one these days seems to honor.

[originalpckelly]

6. On the other hand, the part of the legislative branch that ratifies treaties...

did ratify the one creating the UN, didn't it? So there is a check and a balance on it, right? They didn't have to ratify the treaty, now did they?

Or do you not agree with that?

GET THE US OF THE UN?

Isn't that a rather conservative proposition?

And don't give me that constitution bullshit, no one pays attention to it anyway these days. I guarantee you there are a shitload of unconstitutional things you think are great policy and never give a second thought to their constitutionality.

[Cleita]

16. Wow! A bit perturbed aren't you?

Did I say GET THE US OF THE UN? (I think you meant "out of the UN.) No. You did and don't put words in my mouth. You are always doing that and I finally have to tell you I don't appreciate it. What I said is true enough for several elected Democratic politicians, not conservatives, who said the same thing and are also becoming concerned over our need to go to war at the drop of a hat and without a debate in Congress.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. nor did the Senate need to pass a resolution calling for a no fly zone over Libya

But they did

[fittosurvive]

37. Ratification of the UN treaty did not alter the enumerated powers of the legislature.

The matter of war is something that should be debated and decided by our elected representatives. It should not be decided by an appointed council that cannot be held accountable by the American People.

[originalpckelly]

41. Where have you been the 50+ years the UN has been around?

Didn't talk about this then, right?

But now that there is a legitimate action being taken to preserve the lives of Libyans, NOW you give a shit, right?

[fittosurvive]

49. Legitimate...?

Was it a legitimate action when, despite Gaddafi's known history of thuggery, the UN saw fit to appoint Libya to the Human Rights Council? The whimsical naure of their morally bankrupt policies is demonstrated in that he is seen as a champion of human rights one day and a homicidal maniac the next.

But the real question is who should decide whether the US initiates a state of war against another nation that has not attacked us.

I'm sorry, but America's self-interests must determined by rational debate and adherence to our founding principles.

[originalpckelly]

52. Those founding principles included considering black dudes 3/5 of whites.

Some founding principles.

[fittosurvive]

55. That was not a founding principle. This IS the founding principle.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[originalpckelly]

60. "all men are created equal" And what about women?

:shrug:

Just sayin'. They could even remember half of the population in their little scheme.

[fittosurvive]

82. You will have to forgive the framers for not agonizing over questions of

politically correct etiquette.

It used to be mankind, now it is...humankind?

[originalpckelly]

87. Oh, so sorry. So that's why women couldn't vote?

I thought it was because the men were pigs and had no respect for women, but I see now the errors of my ways.

[Tx4obama]

96. They didn't consider slaves or women people. Only white men. n/t

[fittosurvive]

108. ...and your point is...?

[originalpckelly]

117. 1. These are not the kind of people we should idolize.

2. Even if you were to do so, we honestly do not follow the US Constitution as law anymore, aside from elections and actions in the Senate.

[fittosurvive]

129. I don't idolize or follow men, I follow ideas. Having said that, as a political group,

the framers were a phenomenon unprecedented in history. They recognized the chance to create a country of individual liberty for the first time in history and they had both the intellect and the courage to pull it off.

To judge them by modern standards is to demonstrate an ignorance of the ideologies that were in effect at that time and those that preceded them. The principle of individual rights was an unknown concept and they staked everything to create the first nation of the Enlightenment.

[TorchTheWitch]

138. So you seem to be ok with Bush's notion that the Constitution is only

good for wiping your ass. Funny, at DU we used to have a huge problem with that idea and now DUer's shamelessly embrace it. Suddenly the same ugly bullshit that came out of the mouths of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of those evil bloodthirsty crooks is being spewed all over DU. And now THIS. Actually embracing the horrifying idea that our Constitution - the rule of law - is JUST A PIECE OF PAPER only good for wiping your ass and we should all just turn up the music and dance all over it because who cares about that silly little useless Constitution and the rule of law?

What. The. Fucking. FUCK.

[originalpckelly]

140. You are not interested in the rule of law.

I can guarantee you there are many ideas you support that are unconstitutional.

[walldude]

8. Obama has 45 days to get Congress to declare war

after that it's an illegal occupation... I think it was set up this way in case of emergency, so the President could respond quickly without authorization if needed...

I never really thought a Democratic administration would take Bush's "signing statement" ball and run with it though...

[Motown_Johnny]

26. where did you get that from?

The war powers act gives the Commander in Chief 60 days before needing to begin a withdrawal, or to gain approval from congress. No declaration of war is necessary.

[originalpckelly]

33. And where does it say that in the US Constitution?

It doesn't say that.

Where does it say the Congress may allow the President to conduct a war for 45 days without first authorizing it?

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

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;"

It doesn't say the President has a 45 day trial period for the war. (And as the poster above points out, it's actually sixty days.) That's stupid, if you are in a real war, the President might go around banging on bee hives in order to start shit.

It's only the law that says that, but the law is out of sync with the US Constitution.

On the other hand, this is legal under the UN treaty properly ratified by the Senate.

[MrCoffee]

3. Was Libya a threat to the international peace on March 16, 2011?

If yes, the war is legal. If no, the war is illegal.

[Lucinda]

47. x2

[Quantess]

4. I'll go ahead and Rec it then.

I'm not particularly concerned if it is legal. Because it probably is, but it's still not something the USA can afford right now.

[BlueJac]

5. When the US is in volved it's legal...........

we can kill other peoples people anytime we want. Don't try this at home world leaders!


:sarcasm:

[The2ndWheel]

7. Depends on who you ask

[doc03]

10. Has any war we been in the last 60 plus years been legal? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

11. No

This war is illegal and should be stopped immediately.

[originalpckelly]

12. How is it illegal?

[MrCoffee]

14. How would you characterize the situation in Libya prior to UN S/Res 1973?

Unrest? Economic protests? Civil disobedience? Democratic uprising? Violent protests? Civil war?


I'm just curious...

[Amonester]

19. I'LL *risk* a Rwanda '2'.

I know (in advance) it still won't make any difference to you and your peers but, hey, I'll take a shot anyway.

Legal.

[MrCoffee]

21. It was a genocide?

Can you identify the national, ethnical, racial or religious group that was targeted?


Edited to add: The UN Security Council made no mention of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in S/Res 1973.

[Amonester]

22. Go ahead, put a tag on human beings.

That's how the imperialists you seem to fake loathing so much always 'acted' to advance their self-serving points.

You know the song, it's called 'Blamed if u do, blamed if you don't'

Good luck. Oh, and don't fear too much. Better for the health.

Be comfortable.

[MrCoffee]

23. Well, ok then

If you don't want to answer my question, why not just say so?

[Amonester]

25. another question?

how many others do you have?

[MrCoffee]

24. And by the way, comparing Libya to Rwanda seriously devalues the hundreds of thousands who died

But that's sort of beside your point, isn't it?

[Amonester]

134. So what you're saying is like, well, thousands died there, so what?

Or just, 'so?' Let's give gawdawfull the get-go message he can massacre hundreds of thousands more last weekend because, eh, we didn't lift a finger last time thousands were at risk....

Wow, nice meeting you.....


Not.

[originalpckelly]

34. It was not a genocide, it would have been and was becoming quickly a MASSACRE!

And we do have the right to intervene to bring stability to the world. That's the point of the United Nations.

[MrCoffee]

45. There is a defined legal framework under which the Security Council can invoke Chapter VII

Article 39

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Again, the question remains, was Libya a threat to the international peace on March 16, 2011? That was the operative language the UN Security Council used in S/Res 1973 to invoke Article VII.

[BlueJac]

15. Now we love war!

Unreal

[moparlunatic]

17. Didn't you hear?

These are Freedom bombs.:eyes:

[Motown_Johnny]

28. we love saving innocent lives !

Real

[MrCoffee]

30. No, we don't

"How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?"

"That's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer."


http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=22

[gateley]

18. Other: Doesn't matter -- we're there, and if it turns out to be illegal, nothing will

be done.

I think Obama followed the laws, though, from the legal "experts" I've seen discussing it, but that doesn't mean people aren't displeased at how this came down.

[Tx4obama]

71. Here's a link to a great discussion by legal experts

http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/did-obama-buck-congress-on-libya.html

[gateley]

86. Thanks! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. No. But it will be when Gadhaffi invades Poland.

Or, bombs Pearl Harbor.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. why not ask people to read the War Powers Act before answering?

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

^snip^



In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--





Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

[MrCoffee]

31. War Powers Act has nothing to do with it

Read Chapter VII of the UN Charter

[originalpckelly]

36. And where in the US Constitution does it give the President the power to do this?

This says nothing about getting us into a war:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

The War Powers Resolution is completely made up out of thin air, it might as well have been a year. There is no limit, aside appropriations, regarding military involvement. It's a law, not something in the US Constitution, and it does appear that a proper war must be completely and totally authorized by the Congress.

In this case, this would be authorized under the treaty power of both the President and the Congress.

And I will tell you, you mean War Powers RESOLUTION, not the Act, the Act was something during WWII.

[MrCoffee]

42. The only court the Constitution authorizes is the Supreme Court

Congress made up the federal judiciary out of thin air in 1789.

Congress can and does delegate its powers all the time. The War Powers Act is only one example.

[originalpckelly]

43. It's called the War Power Resolution, and it's bad idea to delegate like that.

You cannot plan out the various implications for our system of checks and balances when that happens.

[MrCoffee]

44. Whether it is a good or bad idea is irrelevant, it is a Constitutional delegation

[originalpckelly]

46. And where does it say in the US Constitution that the Congress may delegate its powers?

:shrug:

[MrCoffee]

48. SCOTUS decided that

And since SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, they have the right to say that.

[originalpckelly]

50. And where does the SCOTUS get off doing that?

Do they have the power delegated to them in the US Constitution to authorize a delegation of power by another branch?

"Article.III.
Section.1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section.2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;— to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;— to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;— to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State;— between Citizens of different States;— between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section.3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

And where does it give the SCOTUS power to approve of a delegation made by one of the other branches?

Where does the delegating power stop? If they can give away one power specifically outlined in the US Constitution, why not the legislative authority, another explicitly delegated power? What's the point of even having a system with a constitution, if no one actually follows the damn thing?

Wouldn't it change the checks and balances and the ability to separate powers if you could just delegate them all to one branch or another, or another?

Bueller? Bueller?

Really?

[MrCoffee]

54. SCOTUS consistently holds delegation and separation of powers...well, separate

There is an extremely long line of case law dealing with delegation. I'm talking hundreds of cases.

This is a pretty decent resource for the question: http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/03-delegation-of-legislative-power.html

[MrCoffee]

57. As far as SCOTUS having the power to approve of delegation...they just flat out stole that one

Marbury v. Madison...we'll never see one branch of our government flat out steal power like that again. Shrub was a lightweight compared to John Marshall.

[Xithras]

97. What in the world are you talking about?

"Congress made up the federal judiciary out of thin air in 1789."


U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The authorization for the federal judiciary is right there, in plain old black and white text.

Congress still maintains the authority to create a new court system even today. They cannot, however, shift that authority to the President without a constitutional amendment.

[originalpckelly]

103. Precisely.

It's not a great system, and honestly the US Constitution needs to be rewritten for today's realities, but don't fuck with basic and explicit delegation of power.

[MrCoffee]

109. You are correct, of course. I misspoke.

[wildbilln864]

32. as legal as bushes wars are. nt

[pampango]

35. Rather have the UN authorizing military action than the US congress which rarely say "NO".

Requiring UN approval would have prevented Vietnam (Russia and/or China would have vetoed) and W's Iraq War which the UN would not have signed off on. My guess is that it would have prevented practically every other US military adventure in the last 50 years.

[originalpckelly]

38. I couldn't agree more.

It would certainly have prevented some of the more bloody conflicts in our history. And now when the dude has authorization from the UN to do something, he's getting reamed for it.

The treaty's legality has not before been challenged by others on the left, but now when it suits them, it has been.

[David__77]

39. Either way, it is immoral and unjust.

It's an interesting question regarding "law," I suppose. I think the whole concept of "international law" should be scrapped for the most part, except for a few conventions regarding conduct of war. Under those relevant conventions, this war would be considered illegal. But we are living in the new world order of creeping one world government.

[sad sally]

51. Maybe another major crisis will bring the world's people in line?

In a statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994, David Rockefeller said, "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order."

[David__77]

56. Ugh Rockefeller.

This gang of neo-liberal doctrinaires and bloodthirsty globalists have a clearly defined agenda to destroy sovereign states, to depoliticize the broad numbers of people, and to lower expectations about living standards and human progress. Reading these statements and position papers is a great window into the worldview of these sick, demented individuals.

[lovuian]

40. its invasion and WWIII

wait and see

[Tx4obama]

53. The UN's no-fly zone is legal.

There is NO war.
No one has declared war.

The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution on March 1st asking the UN to impose a no-fly zone and the UN has.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x717373

[zorahopkins]

58. So The UN Snaps Its FIngers, and the US Jumps?

I get it that the UN imposed a no-fly zone.

But why does the US have to commit its forces to imposing that no-fly zone?

Russia didn't commit any of its forces.

Nor did China.

The US should not be at war -- any war!

[Tx4obama]

61. I think it's the other way around. The U.S. Senate requested the NFZ and the UN jumped. n/t

[zorahopkins]

64. So The UN Really Is A US Puppet?

I think you are on to something there --

The UN's action in imposing a no-fly zone was not an action of "The World Community".

In reality, the US simply exerted its influence to get what it wanted all along.

The US seems to be itching for another war.

When we we ever learn -- War is NOT the answer!

[Tx4obama]

67. The protesters in Libya requested the UN to impose the NFZ first. n/t

[originalpckelly]

68. Ooops, don't tell them the truth.

They get pissy if you do that.

[zorahopkins]

70. So We Are Engaged In An Illegal War Because

So we are engaged in an illegal war because some people in Libya requested UN action?

Or is it because the US Senate requested UN action?

Which is it?

I am getting confused.

[originalpckelly]

73. Protester council asked for help before Senate passed resolution...

before the UN passed resolution, before the world started bombing the shit out of Gaddafi positions to institute the no-fly zone.

[zorahopkins]

76. Russia And China Are Part of The UN

Russia and China (and Saudi Arabia, too) are all part of the UN.

Why aren't they bombing the shit out of Gaddafi positions?

Couldn't the US simply have told the UN, "Sorry, we're somewhat busy elsewhere. We're engaged in two other illegal wars."

[originalpckelly]

85. All of the countries you cite have terrible human rights records for their own people...

something tells me they couldn't give a shit about the suffering of the Libyan people.

China is probably waiting to take advantage of the oil that will be freed up if they fail to get Gaddafi out of there, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that Russia sells Libya's forces arms. And Saudi Arabia is going to need all the armed forces it can get for when the Arab revolution circus comes to town.

[zorahopkins]

95. And The US Has A Wonderful Human RIghts Record?

Gee, I guess that means that the US has just a wonderful human rights record.

Would that be the same United States that has the highest percent of its own population in prison?

Would that be the same United States that introduced AIDS into the Black population?

Would that be the same United States the tortured people?

Would that be the same United States that continues to hold people in Guantanamo?

Would that be the same United States that continues to wage two illegal wars -- in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Would that be the same United States that kills innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Something tells me that the US couldn't give a shit about the suffering of the Libyan people. The US is probably waiting to take advantage to the oil that will be freed up.

That, and the US loves war (see: Viet Nam, Korea, Granada, Iraq, Afghanistan).

[originalpckelly]

100. Yeah, we summarily execute people for adultery, disappear journalists...

and even kill people to harvest their organs.

We're no where near as bad as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia when it comes to these things, but I too am disgusted with our record. It's just not the same magnitude.

And who supported the Koreans in the North? China.
And who sold weapons to both North Korea and Viet Nam? Russia.
Who attempted to place nuclear tipped missiles in Cuba? Russia.
Who invaded Afghanistan first? Russia.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

119. +1,000,000,000

If I could.

Here is a list of wars the U.S. has been involved in since the creation of this Country.

Yeah we are a peaceful nation. :sarcasm:

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

Question for all, not to zorahopkins, who gets it!

If we were such a peace loving nation, why would we have such a strong anti-war movement?

[Amonester]

126. The US surely could have told the UN that, but didn't.

The US voted in favor of the resolution while probably 'hoping' Russia and China would also vote in favor of it, but hey, they both Russia and China chose to 'abstain'. The US did not ask for your kind permission before voting in favor of it, and voted in favor of it, hoping it would be adopted. Turned out (bad luck for many here) that IT DID.

You know, it's that freedom to get out and go vote for something you think is important to you, or just to stay home because you're pissed at the idea of not having it your way or because you're just playing political games, whichever fits your agenda of the moment.

Once again, again, and again (how many times do you need to read this?), would either or both Russia and China have decided to exert their right to VOTE against it, neither Russia, nor China, nor the US, nor any other country would have entered in this.

It's not rocket science, really. Call it 'gambling' 50/50 if you want.... I am glad perhaps thousands of babies, children, women and men who don't want to have anything to do in this, still have a chance at trying to live their lives in peace. BTW, why are you against them having that basic human right of theirs respected?

You know how the lyrics go 'Between a rock and a hard place', or the 'Blamed if you don't, then blamed if you do' meme?

Either way you choose, you will end up being blamed anyway. Why not be blamed then, and save SOME (or many) lives????

[Tx4obama]

75. The UN is emposing the NFZ because ....

Gaddafi said he was going to go into Benghazi (population 670,000) and kill everyone!
The Libyan people petitioned the UN to impose a NFZ, and the U.S. Senate also passed a resolution requesting The UN to take action including imposing a NFZ.

Now, see how easy that is to understand ;)

[zorahopkins]

79. So The US Really Wanted War?

I think I understand.

The US (a known war-mongering country -- see: Iraq and Afghanistan) went to the UN and said, "Let us bomb the shit out of Libya."

And the UN, instead of DIRECTING the US to end its illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at once, said, "OK, US please bomb the shit out of Libya".

And the US said, "Hot Damn. Another WAR! We love to bomb! Good for business and profits!"

[Tx4obama]

81. Don't be ridiculous...

NO ONE wants wars or fighting.
The US wants to protect the Libyans from being massacred by Gaddafi.

And don't put the blame of Iraq and Afghanistan on President Obama - that was Bush's bullshit!

[zorahopkins]

89. No One Wants War?

You say, "NO ONE wants wars or fighting", and then you ask me not to be ridiculous??

I know lots of people who want war.

Many of them are in a Huge Five-Sided Building on the Potomac River.

Some are in a buildings on Wall Street.

I do NOT want US resources to be used in acts of war.

I want our resources to be used for teachers and librarians and to feed hungry children.

The US could have told the UN, "NO!" when it was asked to impose a no-fly zone (China and Russia did).

Instead, the warmongers that we are, we jumped at the opportunity to send cruise missiles into Libya.

War is never the answer.

[Tx4obama]

91. So ,you would just let the people of Benghazi die.

Well I disagree with you.
I think human life is worth more than library books.
Ciao!

[zorahopkins]

98. The US Is NOT The World's Policeman

The US is not the world's policeman.

We aren't taking an military action in Darfur. People are dying there.

Don't you care about the people of Darfur?

I would prefer to re-build the city of New Orleans -- and provide homes for those left homeless by Hurricane Katrina -- than to have American bombs fall in Libya.

And I would prefer to feed starving children right here in the US that to have American bombs fall in Libya.

War is not the answer.

[Tx4obama]

104. No matter how much you'd like to see those other things done....

the money appropriated to the Defense department is not going to be reduced or shuffled over to other projects.

Letting Gaddafi massacre the people of Benghazi is not acceptable.

[Tx4obama]

106. You did not answer the question.

You want to see Gaddafi massacre the men, women, children of Benghazi?
What is your solution? To do nothing?

[zorahopkins]

111. How Many People Would You Have Let Saddam Kill?

I seem to recall that, after the US invaded Iraq, one of the reasons used was, "The US HAD to do SOMETHING. Saddam and his sons were KILLING LOTS of people!"

We are doing nothing in Darfur (but then, there's no oil there).

We did nothing in Rwanda (no oil there, either).

No Blood for Oil!

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

127. What about Darfur?

What about Bahrain, Yemen, the list goes on and on.
Citizens of those and other countries fired upon and no response from the great U.S.

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL.

Then;
Sorry to say but the US does want and need to fight wars. Wars make money. Bottom line. PROFIT.

100 Tomahawks give or take a few tens, at a cost of $1,400,000 - average unit cost (TY$)

100 x $1,400,000 - average unit cost (TY$) Do the math.

Who makes them?

Hughes Missile Systems Co., Tucson, Ariz.

Makes financial sense to me. Its the only real manufacturing base we have left.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

[Tx4obama]

83. So, you wanted Gaddafi to go into Benghazi and massacre the people of Benghazi?

How many of the 670,000 men, women, and children in Benghazi would be okay with you for Gaddafi to kill?

[zorahopkins]

101. How Many Hungry American Children Do You Want To Starve?

How many hungry American children do you want to starve?

How many elderly Americans do you want to die for lack of medical care?

Each one of the bombs we dropped on Libya cost a lot of money.

I would rather use that money to feed hungry children and take care of sick and elderly people.

How many hungry children and sick elderly people would it be OK with you to die?

[originalpckelly]

107. In turn, I'd say the same to you. The price of oil will rise because of such a conflicted nation...

it's like killing two birds with one stone. We can bring stability and make sure the price of oil is lower.

All of the things you talk about in your post would become greatly reduced. More people out of work, more people losing their homes. The elderly might not be able to afford food or heating oil in areas that use that.

Children might not be able to afford food, because of course farmers need diesel.

So I ask you, how many people in Libya and our nation need to die?

[zorahopkins]

114. So It Is All About The Oil

I knew it.

The illegal war in Libya is all about the oil.

America needs oil, so bomb Libya!

Two birds with one stone, indeed!

[originalpckelly]

120. Do you drive a car?

Does it need gas?

Do you understand how many people here would die if the price of oil rises to high?

Why not?

You're willing to ignore the suffering of those people for money, why shouldn't we pay attention to it for oil?

You'd probably say no blood for oil.
But I'd say no blood to save money.

I'm trying to point out that we are linked with the Libyans, even though we don't get oil from there, other countries that do will go on to the market looking for oil we buy to replace what they've lost in Libya, and that will cause the price of oil to rise for the US.

And there will be Americans who die because of higher oil prices.

[Tx4obama]

132. Going into Libya to protect the 670,000 people of Benghazi was NOT about oil.

We did not go there to get their oil.
The UN went in because the Libyan people petitioned for a No Fly Zone.
The U.S. Senate passed a resolution on March 1st requesting the UN to protect the PEOPLE of Libya.

Now as far as oil goes, like it or not, oil is one of the USA's national security concerns.
Without oil/gas people would freeze in the winter, semi-trucks could not deliver goods and FOOD.
Americans would not be able to afford gas in order to drive to work.
Many businesses would not be able to operate and would lay off hundreds of thousands employees - many businesses use oil by-products in order to produce plastics, chemicals, tires, etc.

NO WE DID NOT GO INTO LIBYA BECAUSE OF OIL.
Actually Libya sends most of their oil to Italy and France and other European countries.

Why is it so hard for some folks to accept the fact that The USA did not want to see Gaddafi massacre the people in Benghazi !!!

[Tx4obama]

115. You did not answer my question. How many dead Benghazians are okay with you?

And even if we did not go to Libya the defense money would not be shuffled to other departments.
The missiles used in Libya were made and paid for years ago, and they have expiration dates on them, if they sit on the self and then expire they are replaced with new ones - that is not going to change.
Using them or not using them does not bring the cost down.

Now, how many dead Benghazians are okay with you? All 670,000 of them?
Do you not like the people of Africa?

[zorahopkins]

118. I Like The People of Africa

In fact, I like the people of Darfur a lot.

Many of them are dying.

And yet the US is doing nothing to save them.

How many people in Darfur are you OK with dying?

Don't you feel guilty that the US isn't saving the people of Darfur?

And did you know that Saudi Arabia stones people for adultery?

Are you OK with that?

The US isn't doing ONE THING to save the people of Saudi Arabia!!!! How many dead Saudi Arabians are you OK with?

[Tx4obama]

122. Have the people of Saudi Arabia asked the UN for intervention?

Again, give me a number, how many dead Benghazians are okay in your book?

10,000? 100,000? 670,000?

Before the NFZ Gaddafi already had 8,000+ killed.

[fittosurvive]

59. If someone launched a couple hundred cruise missiles into the United States

what would you call it?

[originalpckelly]

63. And what would you call it if our government slaughtered thousands of Americans...

and carried out a bombing campaign against us just for protesting against it?

Talk about a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Dayum.

[fittosurvive]

66. I believe the last time that happened, the called it a civil war.

[originalpckelly]

69. And then again, when you look at our "Revolution" it met the textbook defnition of civil war as well

Funny that.

Tories and Patriots ring a bell?

[fittosurvive]

74. Indeed, and the Tories are still the conservatives. But there is no longer

a king calling the shots.

I don't believe the US is supposed to have one either.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

128. They are ..

just not using explosives.

They are, originalpckelly, they are.

[Tx4obama]

65. You are overlooking the fact that .....

Gaddafi publicly said he was going to go into Benghazi and kill all the people there.

I don't recall any U.S. President ever saying he was going to go house to house and kill citizens.

The UN is not launching missiles to kill civilians, the missiles are aimed at and are taking out Gaddafi's air force and military bases.

[fittosurvive]

80. Is the same UN that appointed Libya to the Human Rights Council?

The objectives of this policy are nothing more than a bevy of ever-changing random whims. One of the initial objectives, as articulated by Obama, was to depose Ghaddafi. And while his removal no doubt remains an objective, it is no longer stated as such.

I'm sorry, but that is the type of logic that makes my head spin.

[MrCoffee]

62. Please answer this question (no one else will)

Was Libya a threat to international peace and security on March 16, 2011?

[originalpckelly]

72. This would be the textbook situation of why the UN even exists.

This isn't just about Libya, who knows how this violence would have spread. It's already been observed that there have been revolutions in other countries, and that this is all linked together into one larger revolution. Who knows how other political leaders would respond to their own people doing this, and who knows what larger conflict might have arisen from this situation. The purpose of the UN is to basically prevent another all out world war. It has done that very well, even when two massive powers faced off against each other.

[MrCoffee]

77. But it is just about Libya

The specific finding of the UN Security Council was that "the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security".

The military action is only limited to Libya. If, as you suggest, there is one larger revolution, which would unquestionably be a threat to international peace and security, why not expand the theater of operations? Give the coalition a broader spectrum of options to deal with what would certainly be an incredibly complex situation?

I'm really not trying to be aggressively argumentative, I just think it's a vitally important question as to whether the UN Security Council acted legally.

[fittosurvive]

90. It is an important question and it has not been answered.

Perhaps I could be persuaded that this merits the sacrifice of American lives and resources. However, that would require a rational contemplation and debate of issue by my elected representatives.

I will never be convinced by an anonymous and unaccountable council of unknown morals and principles.

[Tx4obama]

93. There is no way ever that the GOP will have a rational contemplation and debate.

[fittosurvive]

105. Neither has this council of appointed and unaccountable gangsters.

[originalpckelly]

94. The actions of Libya are in that context, there is no need to do anything in other nations, yet.

But to ignore the facts of recent history, that this revolution in Libya was peaceful when started and was inspired by the actions of the people of other countries in the region, demonstrates its international character.

In addition, you have no idea how the people of bordering countries may have interpreted Gaddafi's actions. We just don't know. The purpose of the UN is to put out the fire in a house, before it spreads to the whole city.

It is far, FAR more effective than the League of Nations in this respect.

[Tx4obama]

78. Yes, I agree.

There are protests in Jordan.
Someone was killed and 100+ injured.
Jordan came out immediately trying to say that the government does not approve of protesters being killed or injured.
All the leaders over there are really watching their step now!

I think the NFZ in Libya is going to make the leaders in Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Cameroon Mauritania, Bahrain, etc. think twice before attacking their own country's protesters.

[MrCoffee]

84. You are arguing for preemptive war by the UN

You do realize that, right?

[Tx4obama]

88. It is not preemptive war. It is a NFZ that is being implemented to protect Libyans.

The UN has asked Gaddafi to cease fire several times.
If Gaddafi pulls his troops out then the missiles would stop.

[fittosurvive]

113. That sort of logic could lead one to believe that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

was actually a humanitarian act to establish a no-fly zone over Hawaii in order to protect the Hawaiian people.

[originalpckelly]

121. This has come to a point where you have pushed it so far a FUCK YOU is in order.

All those in favor of FUCK YOUing fittosurvive say AYE.

I honestly cannot believe you'd say something like that.

[fittosurvive]

131. Actually, it was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

But since you are so serious, I will point out that there were no accounts of Japanese "boots on the ground.":)

[Tx4obama]

124. You comment is almost too ridiculous to respond to.

No, that is NOT logical.
The USA was not killing its own people in Hawaii and not threatening to kill any.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had NOTHING to do with a humanitarian act or none in order to 'save' lives.
Perhaps you need to go research the facts - Gaddafi was killing civilian protesters and even some of his own soldiers (those that refused to attack the protesters) BEFORE the NFZ mission started.
The people of Benghazi petitioned The UN for intervention to create the No Fly Zone.

Comparing The UN's NFZ to protect the people of Libya to Japan's attack of war on the USA is ludicrous.

[originalpckelly]

92. A preemptive war is one where you are not responding to agressive actions.

In this case the international community is defending the people of Libya from the aggressive actions of its leaders.

[MrCoffee]

102. In that case, the answer to your original question is no.

The war in Libya is illegal.

[Modern_Matthew]

99. War is wrong even when a piece of paper says it's fine. Please don't respond with sob stories. nt

[Tx4obama]

110. It would be wrong to allow Gaddafi to massacre the men, women, and children in Benghazi.

Life isn't fair, sometimes you have to pick the least worst of two choices.

[MrCoffee]

112. You're reframing the question

Are we talking morality or legality?

[fittosurvive]

116. That would depend on what sort of people they are.

While it true that all men are created equal, all ideologies are not, e.g., Declaration of Independence > Al-Qaeda Doctrine for International Political Warfare.

What if it turns out that the consequences of this action results in the arming of our enemies?

Remember the Mujahideen?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

133. "What sort of people they are",

That scares me.

That comment just scares the ever living daylights outta me.

Think about it, go to bed tonight, thinking of that statement.
Good Dreams. Sweet Dreams.

You, you fittosurvive, may not be someones idea of "that sort of person" .
What then?

What the shit have we become? Our consequences? Our conscience?

"That would depend on what sort of people they are."

Shame, Shame on You.
Shame, Shame on You.
Shame, Shame on You.
Shame, Shame on You.
Shame, Shame on You.

[fittosurvive]

136. You should be more frightened by the nature of your undefined hierarchy of values.

?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

137. Oh, please explain

exactly what "hierarchy of values" ?

Evertt's, Maslow's, Scheler's, Werttrager's?

Mine?

Examine.... "That sort of person"

I know it lends itself to a bit of critical thinking, but of course, you are up to it!

My hierarchy of values does not come from a copied text to make myself sound important.

Examine the line, your thought, your process to get to that thought, your need to type 'That Sort of Person"
Is it racist? Nationalistic? Or just not really thought out?

That line invokes, in some, a fear factor. Is that what you were going for?

How would YOU feel if you were described as "That sort of person".

Then put it into you context you used it.

Yeah, scary. And shame on you.

[fittosurvive]

139. The hierarchy of values which holds that Americans are not obligated to sacrifice

their sons, their daughters or their assets on the altar of an undetermined value.

As you suggest, let us examine "that sort of person." If my neighbor's son is killed in a war to save "the sort of person" who has embraced the doctrine of Al-Qaida, his life has been sacrificed to a lesser value.

It is true that the ideology, or the "sort of person" my neighbor's son died to save is not known, but it is not out of the realm of reality that his sacrifice could further the cause of a Mujahideen "sort of person." It has happened before.

Is what we presently know about the objectives and the consequences of this action really enough to justify attacking Libya? Or should we know more before we risk the lives and resources of the American People? My hierarchy of values says that we should know more.

Now, if it can be determined that the "sort of person" we are trying to save believes in the concept of individual freedom and liberty, this action would be transformed from an unknown value, to a worthwhile endeavor.

So...yes, it depends.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

141. Fear factor then,

I fought in Viet Nam, I think I killed, I will never know; my remorse, my guilt, my life.

Was the thought going though my head at the time, my ideals, my way of life, his ideals, his life?

No, it was my survival ...... or his.

I could not live with myself if I thought my life may be sacrificed to someone with "lesser value".
I believe the honor of my combatant believed the same.

All human life, despite beliefs, hold the same value. Exactly the same value.

This ideal is why I am a Democrat. Today that value system may be in jeopardy, I want to believe not.

I voted no, by the way. I do not believe we should be involved. On moralistic grounds there are many
other countries we should have been involved in, but are not, were not.

This action is not about people, it is about greed, such as the other conflicts we are engaged in are.

Though I do believe that there is no "sort of people". To state that is just wrong. That is what I took exception with.

Namaste.

[fittosurvive]

142. I have no idea what it is that you are saying.

First, you say "I could not live with myself if I thought my life may be sacrificed to someone with "lesser value".
Subsequently, you assert that "All human life, despite beliefs, hold the same value."

I'm sorry, but those two statements cannot coexist. You cannot assign a higher value to your own life, as you do in the first statement, and simultaneously maintain that all life is of equal value, as you declare in the next.

The only value system in jeopardy relates to the irrational notion that all things are equal, which is the consequence of an undefined hierarchy of moral values that does not distinguish good from evil.

[Runework]

123. Dangerous Precedent

Presidents are taking on more and more power, as far as overseas actions free of Congressional approval or oversight. Just wait what a republican one will feel emboldened to do next.

This isnt just about Libya.

[Tx4obama]

125. Go do some homework

There was no declaration of war in Korea (police action), Vietnam, either Gulf War, Somalia, Afghanistan, or any of the smaller actions.
The last time that the US declared war was against Italy and Germany in World War II.

The precedent was set a long time ago, and already used by republican presidents.

[Runework]

130. Go read more carefully

"or oversight", I typed. That oversight rapidly dissolved under bush jr and is carrying on under obama

[Tx4obama]

135. I hate to say it but re Libya massacre, John McCain is getting the truth out on FoxNews

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/hannitys-situational-war-ethics-if-y

[howard112211]

143. Other: It doesn't matter. Superpowers do what the hell they want anyway.

Whether it is legal or not depends on which lawyer you ask. But at the end of the day, this is an academic exercise because obviously "might makes right".