Why is it that I can never be happy to be a libertarian and a Libertarian and just shrug off crap like this by saying, "I have no respect for either half of the Republocrat Party"? To be proven correct, that Obama is no better than any of the Republican Presidents, is small comfort, when the proof of my correctness is that he's doing something illegal, immoral, and just plain stooopid. He is, arguably, worse. Backward Baby Bush at least had enough respect to lie to us and tell us that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, instead of admitting that he was merely enjoying the opportunity to take out the guy who insulted his Daddy by invading Kuwait on his watch. Obama is simply telling us to our face that he's gonna do whatever the hell he wants and Congress can't stop him. (He already knows that the Supreme Court won't intervene because for as long as I can remember they've been a bunch of pussies who look the other way when both the President and Congress use the Constitution for toilet paper, for example the unconstitutional "War on Drugs.") Especially now that Qadaffi (or whatever the oh-so-trendy transliteration of Arabic names is this week) is on his way out of power. If he was really a threat you'd think somebody would have dropped the hammer on him several years ago. This is such a damn shame. The only reason I could feel at all good about Obama was that at last the American people showed the world that we are not racists and elected a guy who doesn't look like most of us. (And for the record, yes indeed I would have felt the same way about the first President with a vagina, who even then I thought would do a better job and now I'm sure of it.) So here we have our first Afro-American President, and instead of being a MLK he's a combination of Adam Clayton Powell, Marion Barry, Jack Johnson (a local despot here in Maryland) and every other incompetent, disreputable Afro-American politician who grandstanded his way into office during my lifetime. He has made it more difficult for other Afro-Americans to rise into important offices, because the people who don't like Afro-Americans will be out in full force for the next ten elections, and us old hippies who still have our civil rights picket signs in the closet will wonder if the next guy is really a good guy this time or if the Afro-American community is just jinxed and can't offer us a politician with any sense of honor. The Korean War was just as illegal, and right there the Supreme Court became a bunch of pussies for not speaking out against it. The problem with the Korean War was that it was the top of the "slippery slope." Every warmongering politician beholden to the so-called "defense" industry lobbyists said, "Hey, we got away with taking sides in Korea's civil war. I guess we'll be able to get away with doing the same thing in Vietnam's civil war." The next thing we knew, America's economy was artificially inflated by the war industry. Half the people I knew in the 1960s and 1970s worked in "defense" plants, carefully manufacturing stuff that was destined to be blown up, the epitome of the "throwaway economy" that the nascent Green movement was trying to tell us was not sustainable. Don't we all wish now that we had spent that money on rebuilding and improving the nation's infrastructure, which is collapsing around us now that we've got no money to do it? And what little money we've got, Obama wants to keep throwing it into the bottomless pit of war. I recently read a statistic that it costs one million dollars per year to equip and support each American soldier who is participating in the War on Islam. Or as one columnist put it recently (paraphrased), "The U.S. military budget is eight times the size of the military budgets of Russia and China. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if we cut that back to just seven times as large. We could use the money to repair all the broken escalators in the Washington subway system and replace our 125 year-old water mains, and have enough left over to fix all those ancient highway bridges that engineers refuse to drive over because they don't trust them any more."
So why pick on Obama, the precedent was set long ago? The war on Vietnam was eventually approved by Congress. Please don't use the financial argument, if you thought the war was justified, you would not be complaining about the price. The Bush administration allowed Wall Street to "bankrupt" us, and then they use that as an excuse to end social spending. Now you are doing the same thing with the spending you don't like. I don't watch Fox, I agree with Obama and they don't.
He should present his case before Congress (that's what it's for). He is not in violation of the Constitution. He can send the entire army overseas to invade France and not be in "violation of the Constitution" (which says nothing for international law). I think the War Power's Act is in violation of the separation of powers and if the Congress wants the US "out of Libya" then they can cut off funding. ~String
If he's not in violation of the constitution, then he doesn't have to present any case before Congress. This whole appeal is a political ploy on the part of Republicans.
It was only implied, he never said it directly. But I think he could have made a different case, that Saddam did harbor Islamic terrorists such as Abu Nidal and the bombmaker for the 1993 WTC bombings.
Ah, we're calling it "participation" now? Do you mean it like shares in a company? The US sure does "participate" everywhere. Myself... not interested.
Since when did the USA have the Constitutional authority to invade other nations simply because we don't like their rulers? I think you'll find that to be one slippery slope. I mean, perhaps one day someone won't like what you do. Or I do. The ONLY reason Libya is being invaded is because they have oil. That is the only reason.
The government of Libya committed murder on it's people, it bombed it's own cities, what more do you need to justify international intervention? They just wanted to protest conditions, and that brought them the death penalty. The Libyan people want to join the rest of the free world, and I think we should help them. In the end, their oil will be sold just like it is in any other country. The existence of oil should not make Libya's leaders unaccountable for their actions.
Oil-rich nations can also more readily rebuild themselves after war. A war in a country that is poor like Afghanistan is more devastating. That makes the choice to go to war easier in places like Libya or Iraq.
What about Bahrain and Saudi Arabia? They're US allies, so they are allowed to crush their people under their royal boots.
first off the request should be intelligently particapate. and secondly considering you violence first solution mechenism you in no place to question or condemn anyone elses viewpoint.
right because demanding a course of action that makes the problems worse rather than better is so adult.
Let me ask this another way: Since when did the US Constitution give the POTUS the authority to unilaterally initiate war against ANY other nation. Secondly, under Gaddafi Libya has invested heavily in modern infrastructure and education. Most people support his rule. Which is their culture and why you'll find, minus an assassination attempt, he'll still be around for some time. Thirdly, it's illegal to assassinate a sitting leader. You don't find any moral conundrums in supporting one group of tribes against another? You say it's OK to use force and kill people who support Gaddafi's tribe and yet turn around and say it's immoral for Gaddafi to use force and kill people attacking his tribe. What kind of idiotic logic is that? That makes zero sense and is none of our business besides. If YOU want to fly over and fight for the insurgents - go for it. Don't send in other Citizens to die for a set of moral ideals you want to promulgate. YOU pay for it with your savings. Don't ask other Citizens to spend their educational fund or saving for the bombs needed to kill the Western tribes of Libya. One would think after Vietnam we'd have learned this lesson :shrug:
You are someone with no moral compass whatsoever, only a disturbing idea of sovereignty. Gaddafi can do anything he wants to other human beings because he gained ownership of the country through his gangsterism, no one voted for him. Everything that we value as citizens has been denied to the Libyan people, they can't even say a thing about it without being shot. To call it mere tribalism should be deeply offensive to anyone who believes in human rights.
Once again, Since when did the US Constitution give the POTUS the authority to unilaterally initiate war against ANY other nation? This is a matter of law. And not just ANY old law. We're talking about the foundation of the US Republic. Ad hominid attacks on my character or second guessing my moral compass isn't answer that question. What makes you think the insurgents are any different than Gaddafi? I find it odd that you support killing Gaddafi's grandchildren as moral? Even though the UN charter specifically dictates it as illegal to assassinate a head of state. Lastly, you're not in Libya. You have ZERO idea as to what is happening there. You only know what the talking heads tell you. THAT is why we have a government in the structure that is it. Because there ARE a lot of Congressmen and women who DO know exactly what's going on in Libya. THEY decide who we attack IN DEFENSE. NOT the POTUS. It's called separation of powers and has generally served us well. I am 100% sure that if the USA was in imminent danger then Congress would declare war. Obama has had well over a month to make his case. He has not made it. That's probably because the truth is much different than you think it. Gaddafi actually garnishes wide support from Libyans. Libyans are actually learning to hate Americans. So, why not butt out of their business? What do you think of the Vietnam war? You must think murdering those thousands of children was moral? Was it? I mean, they were Communist after all. They did repress dissent after all. Funny thing is. Murder those mothers and their children, didn't seem to make things a dam bit better. Leaving them alone did.
