| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2011 05:20:26 PM · #26 |
Bush or Obama in charge this needed to be done. I do however think that the United State's stance on the war is the correct one. Currently the US states that it's "goals of the international campaign are "limited" and won't necessarily lead to the ousting of Gadhafi" while France claims, "We want the Libyan people to be able to express their will ... and we consider that it means that Gadhafi has to go." With the current military resources we have stationed around the world we are stretched thin. A quick bombing by Navy vessel's already stationed in the area was the right move to relieve some pressure and help the rebel & allied forces. That being said the French and British have more influence in North Africa than we do, so they should take the lead for once. Most of the Libyan oil goes to Europe anyway.
I do see what you are saying though about people and the media not banging down the door's of the white house b/c a dem's in office. Which seemed to be your major point of this thread more than the actual decision to take action but.....
......you might want to look at your Secretary of State . 
|
|
|
|
03/20/2011 05:34:18 PM · #27 |
I think a lot of Americans are looking for a get out clause...it wasn't us! We're just doing what the others told us to!
There was a resolution put before the UN, of which the US is a part, for a fly zone to be imposed on Libya to protect Libyan people from being attacked by their own leader and his troops. So the US was not coerced by Europe to agree to this action, it was a UN decision taken by all members. China didn't veto the resolution, but they opted out of voting. Russia, India and China believe that the force used to not resonable!
The US, along with Europe, did what they usually do, blow everything up, then try to pick up the pieces afterwards. So, the US are playing an equal and not a minor part in this operation!
ETA: Due to the budget cuts in the UK, we can only afford two rowing boats, a kite and one soldier...but he needs a gun from the UN!
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 17:51:28. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 05:49:14 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by SEG:
I do see what you are saying though about people and the media not banging down the door's of the white house b/c a dem's in office. Which seemed to be your major point of this thread more than the actual decision to take action but..... |
Often the right sees the left as being anti-war across the board, and sees the left's lack of protest to all war as being a sign of duplicity predicated on who holds the White House. IMHO it is a misreading of why the left objects to America going into military conflict. There was little objection on the left to our military involvement in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Haiti or Somalia. There were objections to military action in Vietnam, Iraq (second invasion, not in the first) Grenada, or many others too numerous to list here, where the threat to America was not sufficiently clear.
Going to war when attacked, or when we are supporting allies or treaties is seen as being different than going to war to enforce an ideology or protect or expand business interests. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 05:53:46 PM · #29 |
What do you think the world outcry and support would be if a group of American citizens decided our leader should step down. You know, just suppose the president and congress ceased to follow the US Constitution and started to do whatever the hell they wanted to. Would the UN come to their aid and overthrow the evil leadership ?
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 17:54:24. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:03:45 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
What do you think the world outcry and support would be if a group of American citizens decided our leader should step down. You know, just suppose the president and congress ceased to follow the US Constitution and started to do whatever the hell they wanted to. Would the UN come to their aid and overthrow the evil leadership ? |
You can't seriously be comparing the political undertakings in the USA to what is currently transpiring in Lybia. Unless I am very much mistaken, political undertakings and the ousting of people of differing political persuations occurs on a regular basis in the USA.
Compare that to a despot that has been in power since 1969... and ask yourself if you really do have a problem.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:11:24 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
You know, just suppose the president and congress ceased to follow the US Constitution and started to do whatever the hell they wanted to. Would the UN come to their aid and overthrow the evil leadership ? |
As long as we're speculating on nutty scenarios, let's just suppose the president and congress decided to wear tutus and dine on small children. Would local tailors and restaurants stage a massive protest? |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:14:09 PM · #32 |
Breaking News - France have surrendered..
Some habits are just hard to break. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:17:24 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Breaking News - France have surrendered..
Some habits are just hard to break. |
They can't possibly have surrendered yet... the trees are not yet in bloom
...and we all know that the conquerors like to walk in the shade of the trees in the Champs-élisées. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:21:00 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by kenskid:
So your Prez is in the driver's seat now so suddenly it's not "head-over-heels"? I seem to remember it took MONTHS of diplomacy and a true ACT OF CONGRESS before the U.S. launched air strikes in Iraq. How long did Obama mull this attack over? When will congress be consulted.....where is that God darned drummer !!!!!!!!!! |
Do you understand the difference between the US and the UN? The difference between our war in Iraq part two, a lightly veiled unilateral attack by the United States after failing to convince the UN to take action, and the Libyan situation, where the United States is a minor player in a United Nations action?
The closest analogy is to the UN action in Bosnia, where essentially we followed our European allies into a conflict where we provided limited support. I wont rehash how little international support we had going into Iraq the second time, no one else seemed to want to join us. In Libya the U.N. is going in at the request of the League of Arab States, and Europe is taking the lead in the fighting, as it should be since they get their oil there, and we are busy elsewhere.
You might not like this action, but we are doing the minimum we can get away with. |
I doubt  kenskid cares anything about this action. He just doesn't like Obama and the democrats so he's lashing out. We saw the same thing happen from other conservatives on this site in the healthcare threads a while back. Rather than actually reading the proposed legislation they just accepted their party's talking points. Unfortunately, fact checking seems to be a dirty word these days.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 18:23:38. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 08:19:15 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I doubt kenskid cares anything about this action. He just doesn't like Obama and the democrats so he's lashing out. We saw the same thing happen from other conservatives on this site in the healthcare threads a while back. Rather than actually reading the proposed legislation they just accepted their party's talking points. Unfortunately, fact checking seems to be a dirty word these days. |
Are these facts correct?//www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNL9xIiwB1E |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 09:13:46 PM · #36 |
He's proven his spots for quite a while.
Time Magazine Article for 1986: Targeting Gaddafi
Al Jazeera English Website - Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Bombing
He's hard to feel sorry for. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 09:25:33 PM · #37 |
| Just curious. Are those that are against Gaddafi also for the insurgents? |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 10:05:28 PM · #38 |
[quote=kenskid] So your Prez is in the driver's seat now so suddenly it's not "head-over-heels"? I seem to remember it took MONTHS of diplomacy and a true ACT OF CONGRESS before the U.S. launched air strikes in Iraq. How long did Obama mull this attack over? When will congress be consulted.....where is that God darned drummer !!!!!!!!!!
Kind of hard to believe there is this much political talk on DPC. I get enough of that on FB. HOWEVER...no consultation of congress is needed in a situation such as this. President Obama is Commander in Chief, and can make such a command...Just as former President..and former Commander in Chief...Ronald Reagan, in the 1986 bombing of Libya. Congress was not notified then.
I need to correct myself. Ronald Reagan did in fact have a meeting with bi-partisan members of congress unofficially the day before the bombing. But...this was not required.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 22:20:19. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 10:16:42 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by BigJohnson:
Just curious. Are those that are against Gaddafi also for the insurgents? |
There in lies the thorny point of this. There is a whole lot of political viewpoints that are against US interests in the rebel groups, and how American interests are served is a very debatable point. The state department has pointed this out fairly often and why we are at the back of the pack in this action. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 10:30:18 PM · #40 |
Considering the source... probably NOT.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 10:40:38 PM · #41 |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 11:09:24 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by BigJohnson:
Just curious. Are those that are against Gaddafi also for the insurgents? |
Sigh...that is the whole problem in this thing. Its so clouded as to who is right and who is wrong. I don't think Gaddafi is right, and yes, I do think he shouldn't be in charge of Libya anymore. But does that mean the rebels are right and everything will be sunshine and roses when/if they get into power? I doubt it.
I am very strongly a Pacifist...officially against all kinds of war...and yet, while that was really easy to say during the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, now that is clouded too. My first reaction to media reporting Gaddafi killing his own people is to think that other countries should intervene and stop him from "winning". That is not very pacifist of me at all. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 11:27:10 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by BigJohnson:
Just curious. Are those that are against Gaddafi also for the insurgents? |
No. They're bad guys on both sides, but we generally frown upon the side indiscriminately killing civilians. I don't think the governments involved in this action have any illusions that Tripoli will be a hotspot for honeymooners if the rebels win, but we do know that nothing good can come from Ghadafi staying on. Anything short of a lawless state like Somalia will be an improvement (though that's certainly a worrisome possibility, too). |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 11:45:04 PM · #44 |
What do you think? The Congresswoman begins by discussing OBAMACARE, not the Health Care bill or the official title of the bill. My guess is that her statements that would follow would be just as inflammatory and partisan based on at best severely twist snippets of partial truths. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 11:53:13 PM · #45 |
I am all for kicking Gaddafi's ass. It should have been done several weeks ago. I just want to know when the anti-war libs are going to bring their drum to the White House and beat it night and day. I also want to see Code Pink to get in the action very soon.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by kenskid:
So your Prez is in the driver's seat now so suddenly it's not "head-over-heels"? I seem to remember it took MONTHS of diplomacy and a true ACT OF CONGRESS before the U.S. launched air strikes in Iraq. How long did Obama mull this attack over? When will congress be consulted.....where is that God darned drummer !!!!!!!!!! |
Do you understand the difference between the US and the UN? The difference between our war in Iraq part two, a lightly veiled unilateral attack by the United States after failing to convince the UN to take action, and the Libyan situation, where the United States is a minor player in a United Nations action?
The closest analogy is to the UN action in Bosnia, where essentially we followed our European allies into a conflict where we provided limited support. I wont rehash how little international support we had going into Iraq the second time, no one else seemed to want to join us. In Libya the U.N. is going in at the request of the League of Arab States, and Europe is taking the lead in the fighting, as it should be since they get their oil there, and we are busy elsewhere.
You might not like this action, but we are doing the minimum we can get away with. |
I doubt kenskid cares anything about this action. He just doesn't like Obama and the democrats so he's lashing out. We saw the same thing happen from other conservatives on this site in the healthcare threads a while back. Rather than actually reading the proposed legislation they just accepted their party's talking points. Unfortunately, fact checking seems to be a dirty word these days. |
|
|
|
|
03/21/2011 10:15:12 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
What do you think the world outcry and support would be if a group of American citizens decided our leader should step down. You know, just suppose the president and congress ceased to follow the US Constitution and started to do whatever the hell they wanted to. Would the UN come to their aid and overthrow the evil leadership ? |
Been going on since before the UN and no one has come yet.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 10:22:54. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 12:45:38 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by President 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." -Sen. Obama, 12/20/2007 |
So, what I want to know is: who else authorized the use of U.S. Military force in this?
|
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:25:39 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by President 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." -Sen. Obama, 12/20/2007 |
So, what I want to know is: who else authorized the use of U.S. Military force in this? |
We're obligated, by agreement and treaty, to support our allies and help enforce United Nations actions. No Presidential usurpation of power is required to do this, no Congressional vote, nada. We'd be a laughingstock if we DIDN'T join in this particular action, actually. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:49:23 PM · #49 |
| Gadaffi made the mistake of having his country sitting on a lake of oil. If not for this he could have got away with any atrocity he liked, as is the way with any number of long-serving African despots. Human rights record of many middle-eastern countries is very poor but as long as they trade oil with the west, they're ok. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:01:26 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by President 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." -Sen. Obama, 12/20/2007 |
So, what I want to know is: who else authorized the use of U.S. Military force in this? |
We're obligated, by agreement and treaty, to support our allies and help enforce United Nations actions. No Presidential usurpation of power is required to do this, no Congressional vote, nada. We'd be a laughingstock if we DIDN'T join in this particular action, actually. |
In other words, he was wrong in 2007.
Or the UN is really in control of our military?
Hmmm, let's get militarily involved in a 3rd Middle-East conflict...I think we've earned a pass. Anytime we get involved, anywhere it does nothing for us...the U.S. is always "The Great Satan" or whatever the term of the day. How many times do we lend our help to those who vilify us or otherwise bite the hand that helps.
Anyway, the U.S.'s "allies" participate or not in other actions seemingly at their whim or at least to satisfy the moods of their public.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 15:51:07. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 12:46:11 PM EDT.
