Big can of whupass has just been opened on Ghadafi

[stebo0728]

Well Im not sure of all the constitutionality of it, but I know at some point, the President can launch a war, and he has I think 9 months to get a Congressional approval after such action, and if the congressional approval is not forthcoming in the time frame allowed, then we roll back the campaign. Obama's statements in 2007 was that the President only has this ability when the engagement is for domestic well being, not for "charity wars". As far as Im concerned, I can get behind this sentiment. Whether its how its supposed to be, I dont know, but I like the general principle of it.

BUT - now we have Obama launching military action WITHOUT preapproval, for a non-essential campaign, just exactly what he already declared by his own words to be unconstitutional. So either he launched an unfounded smear campaign in 2007, or he just completely disregards his mandate to uphold the constitution now, which is it?

[AZhitman]

R/T: Agreed. I'm just pointing out that your questions re: the Libya situation are valid, and I echo them. As such, and in consideration of this statement...

Where, in my opinion, the faults lie is in his nearsightedness of removing a dictator without a plan for the day after.

...I would challenge anyone to show me the difference between GWB c 1991 and BHO c 2011. That statement holds JUST as true today as it did for the previous administration.

No free pass for BHO just because of his party. It's "...the new boss, same as the old boss..."

[audtatious]

Does everyone think Biden needs to start impeachment procedures?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA[/youtube]

lolz

[mattblancarte]

Our involvement in Libya is not even remotely grounds for impeachment, guys. It's also 100% legal.

We have not declared war. We have not declared even a peacekeeping mission. It's simply been described as a "humanitarian" mission. Essentially, the plan thus far has been to protect innocents from Libya's Col. I have heard absolutely nothing from the current administration in regards to removing the Libyan regime, other than Obama suggesting the Col. step down.

POTUS has about 50 days left to get something passed in Congress, and they have the ability to do something about this much sooner if they so choose to introduce a bill.

It's a completely different scenario from 1991, 2003, etc. Just do the research.

Z - I will do my best to respond to your post asap. I'm ridiculously swamped with work right now and am having trouble keeping up with you fine gents.

[audtatious]

The video shows what a joke their whole impeachment floor show was. What Bush did wasn't grounds for impeachment either but it didn't stop the top Dems from throwing it out.

[mattblancarte]

No argument there. Politics as usual, unfortunately.

[audtatious]

Yes it is.

I am much more anti-Republican than I was 10 years ago. BUT, I'm no less anti-Democrat than 10 years ago. They both are making sucking sounds when they walk. Time for someone to pop in and start making hard choices instead of lobbing some bombs and taking off to Rio for vacation.

[mattblancarte]

The true colors of an independent. Right there with you. I loathe both sides and the "football game" that is our modern political system.

Confirmation bias just destroys most people's ability to rationally parse information. Stupid human psyche... Not much that can be done about it.

[AZhitman]

^ THERE we go.

I'm just glad we're so humanitarian these days... Makes me all warm and fuzzy.

In fact, I think I hear Sudan, Tibet, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, China, Cambodia, Laos, Venezuela and Mexico are next up for bombing runs. Don'tcha feel all patriotic?

[audtatious]

Since becoming President he has already ordered strikes in the following countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Kenya, Algeria, and Libya

He's a warmonger

[IBCoupe]

Eh... "grounds for impeachment" is always "whatever the House of Representatives wants it to be." The President bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia could have been grounds for impeachment. The President buying a breed of dog originating from Portugal could have been grounds for impeachment. The President being too black could have been grounds for impeachment.

Maybe not the last one; I think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Bill of Rights would get in the way of that. But the point is "could be grounds for impeachment" is a laughable statement made by those who don't know how impeachment works, or by those preying on the ignorance of others who don't know how impeachment works.

There might be a legal defense to what the President did, there might not. The President doesn't have the authority, as far as I can see, under the Act getting us into the UN to unilaterally give military aid to a UN action. Don't know what the post-9/11 laws said, though. In any event, no impeachment actually brought from the House will actually succeed in the Senate, so it's pretty much a moot point.

[audtatious]

It's a Democrat that is whipping the impeachment stick....You are correct, it will go nowhere anyway.

[audtatious]

In other news...

Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

That doesn't look good. Soon everyone can pull out and leave our fumbling President holding the ball.

[IBCoupe]

I'm aware that it's a Democrat. It's Kucinich, and this is the third President in a row that he's sought to have impeached, if memory serves.

[IBCoupe]

And I don't think we'll be stuck with anything. The point of letting the UN take the lead and joining in with them means that we're not obligated to stick around.

That's what's so humorous about Republicans - first accusing the President of sitting on his hands, then accusing him of doing too much, and at no point realizing there's a method to the madness.

[IBCoupe]

And don't get me wrong about Kucinich - it's admirable. He stands up for Congressional authority in the realm of military powers whenever possible. He told Congress back when the Iraq War started being unpopular that Congress, having the power of the purse, could stop the war at any time.

Unfortunately, he doesn't stand up that much.

/short joke.

[themadscientist]

Ever since the Clinton impeachment. it's been a trendy thing to try. A legitimate tool of counterbalance in our governmental structure has been turned into a childish taunt. Typical Washington bs. How about we hold a recall election on the whole lot of them right now?

[szh]

In other news...

Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

That doesn't look good. Soon everyone can pull out and leave our fumbling President holding the ball.

I wondered how long the coalition would last.

By the way, the 1991 Iraq War had far more countries in that Allied coalition than the current anti-Libyan coalition. Bush Senior did a better job of convincing other countries (including Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh) to send troops to fight against Iraq than our current POTUS.

Z

[AZhitman]

^ Ummmm.... zing?

p.s. Why not Sudan? Oh wait. Wrong thread.

[mattblancarte]

I'm struggling to see a close similarity between Desert Storm and the current situation in Libya... Perhaps you gents can enlighten me. Not meaning to patronize.

You guys bring up a good point in that we clearly could have chosen several other conflicts to engage in. The UN didn't pass a resolution for any others, though, so we didn't.

[AZhitman]

Despot is believed to be killing dissidents in his country. Humanitarian alarms go off. We go in to overthrow said dictator.

Or, how about, "angry brown people being mistreated in arid locales - please bring missiles."

[mattblancarte]

That's not what provoked the Gulf War though... The catalyst for international response was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the fear of increased Iraqi influence in the region.

I don't even think it could be said that we invaded Iraq in 2003 for a similar reason. We invaded Iraq because the Bush Administration sold Congress on the non-existent WMD threat to our nation and allies.

The whole "bad-guy" Saddam excuse was used after we couldn't back up the WMD claim, if I'm not mistaken.

"angry brown people being mistreated in arid locales - please bring missiles."

Reminds me of George Carlin's bit on our love of bombing brown people.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzrQSba-1k4[/youtube]

[AZhitman]

...but again, we're not rehashing 1991. Hell, most of you weren't watching it unfold in real time. At the time, it was a grave concern - history books aren't real effective at conveying the tone of the time.


Anyhow, this is now. And we've got a POTUS who has no idea what he's doing... Since when does the UN dictate what we do? Who FUNDS the bulk of the UN? Who's the enemy? What's the objective of the rebels? Who's their leader? What are they upset about? And how does it affect me, the average US citizen?

[themadscientist]

...but again, we're not rehashing 1991. Hell, most of you weren't watching it unfold in real time. At the time, it was a grave concern - history books aren't real effective at conveying the tone of the time.

I was. I know the tone you speak of. Joined the Corps in 92 and most of the guys in my first unit were ODS vets.

[mattblancarte]

Definitely true. I was a small child during those years, and I barely remember anything regarding the Gulf War. In fact, my earliest political memory is of President Clinton's inauguration. We watched it live in my 2nd grade class.

Either way, I was just trying to point out that our current involvement in Libya bears almost no resemblance to 1991 and 2003 (although, I do remember 2003 vividly). Those were much different times, with much different leadership (both at the UN and domestically).

To be honest, I still think Obama is doing a pretty good job handling the situation. I highly doubt the situation will provoke any larger response from the US. If anything, we'll be pulling back our already small level of involvement.

To quickly answer your questions:

- The UN doesn't dictate what we do. It has a heavy influence on us, as we have a heavy influence on it.
- The UN is funded collectively, albeit not exactly pro rata. Our commitment is several billion per year.
- The enemy here is Colonel Gaddafi, as he is slaughtering innocents.
- The rebels are trying to reform their nation's government.
- A man named Mahmoud Jibril is currently the Prime Minister of the interim government of Libya.
- They feel that Col. Gaddafi has been abusing his powers for long enough.
- Well, this is a rather open-ended question. I would say that it largely affects your political views, and in some VERY minor way will affect your economic future.

[AZhitman]

GF's brother was a tank cmdr... Made it one week in-country before he came home with a debilitating leg injury from (alleged) friendly fire.

[audtatious]

And I don't think we'll be stuck with anything. The point of letting the UN take the lead and joining in with them means that we're not obligated to stick around.

That's what's so humorous about Republicans - first accusing the President of sitting on his hands, then accusing him of doing too much, and at no point realizing there's a method to the madness.

You are right. It took the media to start making news reports about what he should do doing before he got off his hands.

[IBCoupe]

Sure, you could make that post hoc assertion, but what seems more plausible is that it took a UN resolution. Even if you think the President is inept, a claim presented by Greg with absolutely no supporting evidence, do you really think so little of the Joint Chiefs?

Or are you doing the tongue-in-cheek thing again?

[audtatious]

lol, I will continue down my path.....It took just one UN resolution for it to be OK to bomb another country this time? Why not, say, 18 or more? I seem to remember someone acting after 17 and being accused of acting too fast.

[IBCoupe]

17 UN resolutions authorizing force?

And are you forgetting the point you're trying to make? We didn't take the lead on this one. After those 17 UN resolutions authorizing or not authorizing force, were we leading the charge?