Libya...

[92bDad]

Just read an article on Yahoo and a line struck me as ironic and funny. Of course, this is coming from a perspective with myself having strong French family ties (My mom is French)

Long and short, as many of you know, I have conservative views mixed in with no doubt confusing views...but at the end of the day, I too am able to laugh at the stereotype placed on the view of the French, especially when it comes to Fighting...

Thus, the funny part of this article:

__________________________________________________ ______________

"France, a leading advocate of military action, said it was cautious about the ceasefire announcement and that the "threat on the ground has not changed."

__________________________________________________ ______________

Here's a link to the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110318/wl_nm/us_libya

The state of world affairs has gotten ugly over the past few years...am I naive, is this state of unrest going on all the time, and as an American I and we are simply clueless to what is happening around the world, or is this state...the level of unrest, intensified?

Is it as intense as appears, or is it a perspective of media hype and over reporting?

Is the violence reported, playing on the Psyche of mankind and making things worse?

Has it gotten so bad that the French are advocating offensive actions?

[rabbitproof]

The French are reportedly eager to act (along for all the "normal" reasons) due to sharp criticism for slow support for the movements in Tunisia and Egypt.

[GermanDunk]

Germany chose "undecided". Maybe we wanted to show some clemency, because Muahaha al Gadhafi bought many guns in our stores.

[Underdog]

...and boom goes the dynamite.

[GermanDunk]

Yeah. We learn: Being member of the UN Human Rights Council and member of the OPEC can cause you trouble.

[Arne]

This is the best German foreign policy decision in years. Now we should simply leave Afganistan, leave the UN and declare ourselves neutral in foreign affairs.

One can dream...

[Underdog]

March 20, 2003: America attacks Iraq
March 19, 2011: America attacks Libya

Must be something in the air this time of the year...

[alexamenos]

Launching a war against a nation that isn't a remote threat without even the pretense of following the constitution.

The train is off the tracks.

[ribosoma]

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

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Launching a war against a nation that isn't a remote threat without even the pretense of following the constitution.

The train is off the tracks.

1:08 of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkpvON6IpNs

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Launching a war against a nation that isn't a remote threat without even the pretense of following the constitution.

The train is off the tracks.

Right, because the more sensible thing to do is let that madman massacre his own people.

[rabbitproof]

What bothers me about Libya is that the same shit is going on in Yemen, Bahrain and the Ivory Coast... everything feels willy-nilly. What's the procedure for action?

I thought it was....

"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."
- Senator Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan

Right, because the more sensible thing to do is let that madman massacre his own people.

Those people were rebelling against their government - does a government no longer have the right to defend itself?

If Americans revolted against our government, you can be damn sure they'd react with violence... Do you really think the British and French would invade Washington D.C. over that, or do you think the US government would be completely justified in defending itself?

Also, reports are coming out of Libya that US warplanes just bombed a hospital... Is it somehow better for a foreign government to indiscriminately kill civilians than a sovereign government? I bet the dead don't see a difference.

Sure Gaddafi is a madman, but if that's reason enough to take him out, you'd think we would have done it sometime in the last 41 years... Is now a good time to mention that Libya is the 3rd-largest oil producer in Africa, 17th-largest in the world? It's a hell of a "silver lining" that all of America's enemies happen to be sitting on the world's largest oil reserves...

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Those people were rebelling against their government - does a government no longer have the right to defend itself?

They don't have a right to slaughter peaceful demonstrators. Which is what they have consistently done since the beginning.

If the US is intervening to try and save the people of Libya from this madman then I say it is tax dollars well spent and support it fully.

Originally Posted by Underdog

If Americans revolted against our government, you can be damn sure they'd react with violence...

Let me know when the US government is headed by a madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him then we can talk about your analogy.

[alexamenos]

Let me know when the US government is headed by a madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him then we can talk about your analogy.

Inasmuch as the president has launched a war contra to the clear wording of the constitution, the us government is effectively headed by a dictator. It'd be imprudent in my view to wait until we have madman dictator who is slaughtering peaceful protests to oppose such lawless behavior, for obvious reasons.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan

Let me know when the US government is headed by a madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him then we can talk about your analogy.

Kind of ironic that you cut the Kent State link out of the quote, since Nixon was considered a "madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him" by more than a few Americans after that incident...

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Kind of ironic that you cut the Kent State link out of the quote, since Nixon was considered a "madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him" by more than a few Americans after that incident...

That is the difference between the US and Libya. In the Libyan regime, Gaddafi stayed in power as long as he wanted. While Nixon would have had to face the American people in a re-election.

That is why America is a democracy and Libya is a dictatorship. Very simple.

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Inasmuch as the president has launched a war contra to the clear wording of the constitution, the us government is effectively headed by a dictator. It'd be imprudent in my view to wait until we have madman dictator who is slaughtering peaceful protests to oppose such lawless behavior, for obvious reasons.

So you are saying Obama is a dictator? I'm sorry, but that is a load of BS. Feel free to discuss your viewpoints with others, my discussion with you is over.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan

That is the difference between the US and Libya. In the Libyan regime, Gaddafi stayed in power as long as he wanted. While Nixon had to potentially face the American people in a re-election.

That is why America is a democracy and Libya is a dictatorship. Very simple.

No sh!t, Sherlock - nobody debated America's system vs. Libya's. Maybe if you hadn't cherry-picked my post, we wouldn't be discussing the word "dictator" and instead be talking about a government's right to deal with uprising.

Libya is not America. They don't have to play by our rules... but our government has certainly been guilty of using violence towards it's own people in a time of peaceful protest, no different than Libya, so that's hardly justification for us to go to war with them...

This is about oil, no different than all of our Middle East interests in the past 150 years.

[alexamenos]

Feel free to discuss your viewpoints with others, my discussion with you is over.

I'm heartbroken.

[Usually Lurkin]

I'm so confused. Are you guys saying that when the US acts like Qaddaffi (whether it's Nixon or Obama), we shouldn't spend US blood (or money?) to stop it, because governments have a right to quell an uprising as they see fit? We should just let it happen because whoever is in charge is in charge?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

but our government has certainly been guilty of using violence towards it's own people in a time of peaceful protest

Not systematically, though. Kent State was pretty much a one-off, and a lesson at that.

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Originally Posted by Underdog

No sh!t, Sherlock - nobody debated America's system vs. Libya's. Maybe if you hadn't cherry-picked my post, we wouldn't be discussing the word "dictator" and instead be talking about a government's right to deal with uprising.

Libya is not America. They don't have to play by our rules... but our government has certainly been guilty of using violence towards it's own people in a time of peaceful protest, no different than Libya, so that's hardly justification for us to go to war with them...

And you didn't cherry pick? Isolated occasions where the US government fired on peaceful protesters doesn't count as consistently doing it. Gaddafi has been doing it for decades. Americans can feel safe protesting against their government, Libyans can't and it is NOT EVEN CLOSE. Your analogy does not hold weight.

Originally Posted by Underdog

This is about oil, no different than all of our Middle East interests in the past 150 years.

Of course it is partly about oil and partly because NOBODY liked Gaddafi. Everybody wants to see that guy gone and are glad to help the Libyan people in their rebellion against him (well, except for maybe Hugo Chavez and a few others but you get my point).

But for Bahrain and Yemen on the other hand, you won't see action taken against them since they are our allies.

[DirkFTW]

Like rabbitproof said, same stuff is happening elsewhere, but we don't do anything... I thought I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain and shot protesters there. And years ago, we sat twiddling our thumbs while Darfur burned. We are not consistent, either in trying to save people or in letting people save themselves. I don't even think we are consistent in supporting our allies, like Israel, anymore. The only consistency appears to be the quest for more black gold.

Now my personal thoughts are that we should be helping wherever people are in need, but that's just me. I also think if we tapped into our own natural resources, our foreign policy wouldn't be so dependent on securing foreign oil. But that's also just me. Weird that hugging trees are maybe keeping us from hugging more people.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'm so confused. Are you guys saying that when the US acts like Qaddaffi (whether it's Nixon or Obama), we shouldn't spend US blood (or money?) to stop it, because governments have a right to quell an uprising as they see fit? We should just let it happen because whoever is in charge is in charge?

I'm trying to say something more fundamental than that. Namely, if the president is not going to follow the rules, then what we think doesn't really matter. We the people may think a particular cause is worthy, but what we're really doing is ceding the power to the president to do what he likes, when he likes, without respect to laws which he's sworn to uphold and without respect to the very important separation of powers.

The constitution is unequivocally clear on which branch of government has the authority to declare war (it's not the executive branch nor is it the UN Security Council). The president has sworn to uphold the constitution. The president, by launching an attack on a foreign country without authorization from congress has unquestionably committed a very high crime, and all that this implies.

The prudent course of action would be for congress to impeach Obama and then set about debating whether we should wage war on Libya.

This of course isn't going to happen. The train is so far off the tracks that congress will (for the most part) manage not to notice the abject executive usurpation of their powers. They'll probably just order up some freshly printed dollars from the fed to pay for the Libyan mission creep, then get to work on the next boondoggle.

The train is so off the tracks.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm trying to say something more fundamental than that. Namely, if the president is not going to follow the rules, then what we think doesn't really matter. We the people may think a particular cause is worthy, but what we're really doing is ceding the power to the president to do what he likes, when he likes, without respect to laws which he's sworn to uphold and without respect to the very important separation of powers.

The constitution is unequivocally clear on which branch of government has the authority to declare war (it's not the executive branch nor is it the UN Security Council). The president has sworn to uphold the constitution. The president, by launching an attack on a foreign country without authorization from congress has unquestionably committed a very high crime, and all that this implies.

The prudent course of action would be for congress to impeach Obama and then set about debating whether we should wage war on Libya.

This of course isn't going to happen. The train is so far off the tracks that congress will (for the most part) manage not to notice the abject executive usurpation of their powers. They'll probably just order up some freshly printed dollars from the fed to pay for the Libyan mission creep, then get to work on the next boondoggle.

The train is so off the tracks.

Can't argue with that.
But it makes me wonder where is the breaking point? When is a president kicked out of power? Lying to congress about sexual relationships seems to be close.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Can't argue with that.
But it makes me wonder where is the breaking point? When is a president kicked out of power? Lying to congress about sexual relationships seems to be close.

If President lying was the point:
Kennedy -- Bay of Pigs, etc
Johnson -- no new troops
Nixon -- Watergate
Ford -- (exempt as he was never voted in)
Carter -- Iran hostage
Reagan -- Iran Contra
Bush Sr -- no new taxes
Clinton -- nothing to say here except there is not enough space to type it all
Bush Jr -- not enough space to type it all
Obama -- just more of the same - Libya

So, I can't say as any of them should have stayed in power. This takes you back to before my time.

[GermanDunk]

Who armed Libya. The Guardian has collected some background information

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If President lying was the point

That depended on what your definition of was was.

[rabbitproof]

Why Libya?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/wo...agewanted=1&hp

[92bDad]

I'm confused, not the first time, nor the last time.

Reading through some of these posts...I read concern over the same thing happening on other countries, while the complaints appear to be why this one and not that one...or why not all of them. In other words, are people trying to say all or nothing?

Is there not some good that can come from helping some?

On the flip side, I understand that reports have linked some rebels to Al Quida and other forms of Terrorist. So who is the enemy and which side is the USA Supporting?

At the end of the day...WHO is in charge?

It appears as though these so-called leaders are Damned if they do and Damned if they don't.

I heard a quote today..."Fear is because the danger is real...lack of action makes the danger more powerful"

[alexamenos]

So who is the enemy and which side is the USA Supporting?

This seems to me like the sort of question one ought to at least attempt to answer before embarking upon a war.

[GermanDunk]

No one knows it, since it is the 1st case ever, that the NATO becomes engaged without a member being attacked.

[rabbitproof]

There it is!! Can't stand that $4 gasoline....

"http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-purchase-oil-libyan-rebels-thus-funding-flickers-al-qaeda"


That's what's up. So do we want to cut back our imported oil by 1/3rd or not?

[alexamenos]

Rand Paul tried to get a vote on a resolution concerning presidential powers under the Constitution, but democrats have effectively killed the bill without allowing it to come to a vote. The resolution was worded exactly as follows:

'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.'

It's little wonder that democrats reject this sentiment (without even allowing it to come to a vote) given that the author of the aforementioned resolution is quite radical and a generally unsavory person.

[rabbitproof]

The French are showing some big brassy ones.

They're going into Ivory Coast for legit reasons (I think)!