If Bush had ordered the same military action against Libya without congressional approval....

[FLAprogressive]

...the same actions as Obama ordered, would you support it?

[leftstreet]

1. Irag, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran....get down with the sickness

Doesn't matter which party is in power

[Baclava]

37. In the fields the bodies burning. As the war machine keeps turning ...

Oh right...sorry....

War is Peace

[wtmusic]

2. Obama didn't need congressional approval.

He hasn't declared war.

I can't believe people are still pushing this stuff. :eyes:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLAprogressive]

4. +1

[Zanzoobar]

5. Gawd. Let's call it peace: Obama declares peace on Libya. Drops bombs.

Misguided to say the least.

[JackRiddler]

6. Wait, is this supposed to be ironic or something? Can no longer tell satire from reality...

It's only a war if it's declared as such? Is that your answer?

[markpkessinger]

7. If you drop a bomb in a forest....

...and there's no Congress willing to call it "war," did it really happen? ;)

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. ONLY congress can declare war.

Under the War Powers Act, the president can send troops into battle without congressional approval IF we are attacked or an attack is imminent. He is forbidden to commit troops to battle when not under direct threat without congressional approval.

We were not attacked. We were not about to be attacked. Libya is not an ally who is under attack. Ergo, he needs to take it to Congress, just as he himself said two years ago, while campaigning.

[wtmusic]

12. That's nice. One small problem: committing troops to battle is not declaring war.

Did we declare war in Bosnia? What about Somalia? What about North Korea?

Time for a history refresher.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. So if somebody burglarizes your house are you supposed to let him go

because he got away with burglarizing a dozen other houses before yours?

Per the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1975, the military MUST answer to civilian control - and, as the Pres is CIC, that means HE must answer to civilian control. When Bush took us into Afghanistan and Iraq, most of his claims - virtually ALL his claims - were spurious, but he DID take it to congress for authorization. Being a member of the UN, and having an agreement to contribute troops to UN actions, is NOT an authorization to release troops to that action. It was wrong in VietNam, it was wrong in Panama, in Grenada, in Somalia, in Bosnia. It was NOT wrong in Korea, because we were allied with S Korea, and when the north attacked the south the attack encompassed attacks on US troop in S Korea. Korean and Vietnam are not really relevant, anyway, because they pre-date the War Powers Act.

I know history. I've lived through a good chunk of it. Just because past presidents have repeatedly ignored the War Powers Act, that doesn't mean we should ignore it too.

Perhaps YOU should do some reading up.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

[wtmusic]

17. No, you just need to read your own link.

"1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand."

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. And the courts never screw up.

Tell that to Dred Scott.

[wtmusic]

32. Fair enough.

What is constitutionality? Some think it's whatever the Supreme Court decides. I agree with you there - it's a matter of opinion.

We disagree on this case, but IMO they got it right.

[walldude]

41. Are you serious?

14 people flew 2 airplanes into the WTC. We declared that an ACT OF WAR. We invaded 2 countries in retaliation.

What it's time for is it's time for people to stop playing with words. You fly a plane over someones country and drop a fucking bomb it's an act of WAR.

George Carlin would be having a fucking field day with the use of "words" in this situation. too bad I'm not as clever as he was.

[zorahopkins]

33. You Are SO CORRECT!

It is just plain WRONG WRONG WRONG to say the President Obama has declared war.

I'm with you....I just cannot believe that people are still pushing that stuff.

He has declared (say it with me) "Kinetic Military Action".

:sarcasm:

[sabrina 1]

38. He didn't need it because we no longer abide by the

Rule of Law. We have a 'unitary executive' now, almost a king actually.

[FLAprogressive]

8. Boy, I didn't know so much of DU opposed what Obama is doing.....

[arcane1]

9. I'm all over the damned place about it

and honestly I don't know what to believe. I might have information overload, from so many perspectives and aspects and facts and opinions, all in a week!

I just might need a break :beer::smoke::boring:

on edit: I didn't vote

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Just what IS he doing?

I grudgingly support the no-fly zone - he needed to go to congress to get approval first, however. And the no-fly zone morphed immediately into a no-tank, no-truck, no-troop zone, with air strikes on ground troops. Grouond troops have NOTHING to do with a no-fly zone. Usually it take weeks or months for mission creep to set it - not hours.

Doesn't it seem a little odd that the very day the so-called no fly zone is announced we had dozens of cruise missiles just waiting to pounce? That with our military stretched thin in two wars, we had combat aircraft ready to fly in Libya? It takes time to put that much hardware on line.

Does that give you pause at all?

What makes you think you are seeing everything that's going on? Remember the PNAC?

[Turborama]

18. British, French and American ships had been off the coast of Libya for weeks

Some of them carrying out evacuations.

Some subs had been there, too. Subs can move really fast, BTW.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. As I said. They've been planning this 'intervention' for weeks.

I seen reports that one of the rebel leaders is a CIA guy - our chosen successor to Gadaffi. Every other popular uprising has specifically asked the west to NOT intervene, yer here 'the rebels' (the CIA guy?) request help from the imperialists. Oh, and THIS place has oil, and was one of the 4 top targets of the PNAC.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

[RickFromMN]

10. We are acting like we are the world's police force. Is that really what we wish to be?

Does the world really want us to be the world's police force?

In the United States we have a court system.
For better or worse the court system is supposed to check the power of police run a muck.
One can argue the court system doesn't always do a good job, but having a court system is better than nothing.

If we are going to be the world's police force, who is going to be the world's court system?
Who is going to check our police power when we run a muck?

[Rex]

13. We've been the worlds police force for over a hundred years.

Since the Spanish American War. Democracy and capitalism are great words we throw around, but we still have an empire. As much as people would love to say China is a world superpower, not at all. America is the only country that has military bases all over the world...when is the last time Saudi Arabia built a military base in America? We rule the world with our police force like deployment of military assets. Probably why we outspend everyone combined in military expenditures.

We ARE THE police force of the world, that probably will never change.

[wtmusic]

14. The UN is acting like it's the world's police force

and that's a good thing.

The US happens to have the most forces to bring to bear to enforce UNSC resolutions.

The alternative is...what? Not getting involved if we witness crimes against humanity that we might be able to prevent?

Taking turns being the world's police force? Setting up China as the world's police force? You tell me. :shrug:

[RickFromMN]

30. I feel bad I have to agree. We are the world's police force.

I still feel bad about what I believe George Bush Junior did.
I feel bad we tortured people under George Bush Junior's reign.
There is no excuse for this abuse of police power.

How can we balance the need to act swiftly, when a "crime" is being committed,
with the need to prevent our abuse our police power.

Would people be comfortable if our actions were subject to world court review?
I see problems with this approach. A court is supposed to be unbiased.
The countries that would make up a world court would be biased.

We we don't have to act swiftly, should there be a court system where we need a court warrant?
One might argue the United Nations Security Council could act as the world court.
From my vantage point, I do not see the United Nations Security Council acting in an unbiased manner.

I can't think of a solution. Can anyone think of a solution?

Please note...I don't believe, for one moment, President Obama will torture people.
I believe President Obama is a good man. He will do what he can to prevent abuse.

We can't speak for the Presidents to follow Obama.
I have nightmares someone like a Tea Party person might become President one day.
I don't have to give names of the people that come to mind, or the "fighting" words they like to use.
There's no telling what atrocities our police force might commit under another President's reign.

[wtmusic]

35. I feel very bad about what Dubya did

but Dubya didn't get UN approval to enter Iraq.

This is the crux of the matter. If we ever have a hope of reducing international violence it's going to have to be through the UN. It's far from perfect, far from democratic, but when push came to shove in 2003 they told Dubya "no".

In the long run Dubya's flaunting of UN authority will more damaging to world peace than any individual conflict.

[The2ndWheel]

36. "Does the world really want us to be the world's police force?"

Who else will enforce the world's rules? The US military is the de facto global military. Nobody else is paying for one. Sucks for the US tax payer, but that's the setup we have.

"If we are going to be the world's police force, who is going to be the world's court system?
Who is going to check our police power when we run a muck?"

There is no governing body that can tell the US Government no. We won't be bombed in retaliation, we won't be economically sanctioned, and our leaders won't pay any penalties. I don't see or hear any national governments really having too big of a problem with this setup either.

[jberryhill]

19. It is a simple thing called "trust"

When you say "the same actions", do you mean in concert with the international community - the real one, and not some ginned up "coalition of the willing"?

[FLAprogressive]

21. the exact same actions under the exact same circumstances.

[jberryhill]

25. Like I said...

You are looking for some rational basis for what boils down to trust.

Bush, to me, was always like the boy who cried wolf. That does not mean that when someone else cries wolf I discount them, particularly when the person strikes me as more perceptive and cautious about wolves.

Obama, IMHO, has a much greater appreciation for the legal framework, both US and international, which to Bush is like trying to explain Mozart to my pet dog.

I trust the guy. I did not trust Bush's motivations or intelligence.

[Runework]

40. "in concert with the international community"

Nato is the international community?

btw what's the 'legality' of Nato conducting this? does the UN Mandate authorize it?


anyway this is still mostly a US action

[libodem]

20. I don't like more war

But this is hell of a lot less contrived, UN and other nations supported than Iraq. Plus Momar is a psycho-maniac. Those people need rescued. I do pray they get something better for the regime change. Say sometimes things are not much better.

[upi402]

22. i support obama in this humanitarian action

not so naive that i don't think there's more going on, but..

i think big brother should act as though he were a member of the family of man when little brother is being beaten to death by a bully. i may be wrong, i know. but this is 180 degrees different from iraq;

true coalition
arab involvement
arab aproval
based on truth -so far as i can tell
getting out, not installing corporatist rule & law

we need to learn from history and use our power to protect the powerless from hobbesian actors. this is a movement, a planetary shift sparked in the cradle of like -mesopotamia

[inna]

24. "humanitarian action", lol.

[jberryhill]

26. That's a very persuasive argument you have there /nt

[upi402]

28. I know, I know

I may burn for this. But the general thrust is not prifiteering by Obama and pals, it's freedom from brutish tyranny in the end. Hope I'm not proven wrong, but since everyone I respect feels differently - I suspect I'm lacking information.

[inna]

29. or perhaps you're more idealistic than some (and I mean it as a compliment,

really! - certainly compared to my jaded, cynical self). :-)

[inna]

23. strongly oppose now, and strongly would've had.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. If there was international support and we committed troops, I'd be ok

With his decision

[Puregonzo1188]

39. Is anyone really going to admit that they support Obama's actions,but would of opposed it if Bush

did it?

I think we know what would happened.