Where is Obama?

[Bob Riebe]

Obama spent millions to save the slaughter that was supposed to happen in Libya, well this is real, not one of Obama's vivid imaginations.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/02/ivory.coast.unrest/index.html?hpt=T2

[harvick#1]

I just gotta asked why the USA has to be involved with every countries problems, there should be no reason why we are in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. we liberated Iraq from Saddam and nothing else came out of it, people are still getting killed. we need to stop being the world police, we have no money left to do it

[Bob Riebe]

I just gotta asked why the USA has to be involved with every countries problems, there should be no reason why we are in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. we liberated Iraq from Saddam and nothing else came out of it, people are still getting killed. we need to stop being the world police, we have no money left to do it

Iraq is far better than it was under Saddam, the question is why didn't Bush and why isn't Obama forcing them to pay for freedom we gave them with oil money.
Kuwait did.

[F1boat]

Iraq is far better than it was under Saddam, the question is why didn't Bush and why isn't Obama forcing them to pay for freedom we gave them with oil money.
Kuwait did.

It is that attitude which made your country so beloved all over the world. Many years ago in Bulgaria we said that the USSR is like the ancient god Amur - armored, but demands to be loved. What you said sound very similar...

[markabilly]

UN just needs to tell obama what to do.....

[ArrowsFA1]

Oh goody. Another one :rolleyes:

[Mark]

Yet another political thread. It's extremely boring. Nothing else to talk about?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yet another political thread. It's extremely boring. Nothing else to talk about?

What do you mean?

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/45/Thread-Rocks-Mr_T.jpg

[anthonyvop]

It is that attitude which made your country so beloved all over the world. Many years ago in Bulgaria we said that the USSR is like the ancient god Amur - armored, but demands to be loved. What you said sound very similar...


1st off many Americans don't care if you love us. We do care about the 1000's of Children who were in Saddam's prisons held as political prisoners. We care about the Women who were brutally subjugated. We care about the Kurds who were gassed....shall I go on?

[anthonyvop]

Yet another political thread. It's extremely boring. Nothing else to talk about?


Sorry. We can talk about Lindsey Lohan if you wish as we all know that is more important.

Or we can talk about how great the UN is.


Charges fly in killings of 1,000 in Ivorian town

By MICHELLE FAUL
Associated Press

JOHANNESBURG (AP) -- The United Nations and the government it supports in embattled Ivory Coast are trading accusations over the killings of hundreds of civilians in a western town.

The U.N. accused hunters fighting in a force to install democratically elected President Alassane Ouattara of "extra-judicial executions" of more than 330 people in Duekoue.

Ouattara's government Saturday night accused U.N. peacekeepers of abandoning civilians there to vengeful militiamen fighting for incumbent Laurent Gbagbo, who refuses to accept his election defeat.

The Catholic charity Caritas said more than 1,000 were killed over three days last week in one Duekoue neighborhood controlled by pro-Ouattara forces. Caritas said they did not know who did the killing.

So the argument is if the UN failed at it's job protecting the people or the people they support performed the massacre. Considering the UN's tract record on supporting human rights violators like LIBYA I tend to believe the latter.

[BDunnell]

1st off many Americans don't care if you love us. We do care about the 1000's of Children who were in Saddam's prisons held as political prisoners. We care about the Women who were brutally subjugated. We care about the Kurds who were gassed....shall I go on?

I believe that you, and certain of your compatriots, only care about such individuals if the US military action against those responsible for such abuses is carried out under the leadership of a right-wing President.

[anthonyvop]

I believe that you, and certain of your compatriots, only care about such individuals if the US military action against those responsible for such abuses is carried out under the leadership of a right-wing President.

When the US has a Right Wing President I will let you know. So far in my lifetime we haven't

[BDunnell]

When the US has a Right Wing President I will let you know. So far in my lifetime we haven't

Hilarious.

[F1boat]

I believe that you, and certain of your compatriots, only care about such individuals if the US military action against those responsible for such abuses is carried out under the leadership of a right-wing President.

Ownage :D

[Bob Riebe]

It is that attitude which made your country so beloved all over the world. Many years ago in Bulgaria we said that the USSR is like the ancient god Amur - armored, but demands to be loved. What you said sound very similar...They are gladly selling the oil to countries who citizens not only shed not one drop of blood for their freedom, but railed against the allies going in.

[Bob Riebe]

Oh goody. Another one :rolleyes:
Then do not read it or are you so addicted to threads you hate you have to read them so you can add a childish I'm bored response rather than acting like an adult an leave to those who do want to contribute?

[BDunnell]

Then do not read it or are you so addicted to threads you hate you have to read them so you can add a childish I'm bored response rather than acting like an adult an leave to those who do want to contribute?

Have you 'acted like an adult' in every contribution you have made to these forums?

[Bob Riebe]

When the US has a Right Wing President I will let you know. So far in my lifetime we haven't
The fact they seem to be calling the Rino Bush right-wing, only amplifies their ignorance.

Kind of fun though.

[Bob Riebe]

Have you 'acted like an adult' in every contribution you have made to these forums?

As much as you have and probably more.

[BDunnell]

As much as you have and probably more.

Oh yes. I'd forgotten that. Silly me.

[Bob Riebe]

Oh yes. I'd forgotten that. Silly me.

Well at least you admit you are silly and again this post is the same as most of yours zero content that has anything to do with the thread.
Are you sure you are not Glauies alter ego.

[markabilly]

Yet another political thread. It's extremely boring. Nothing else to talk about?

yeah, it is always boring when somebody is getting killed that you do not care about.

Instead let us go back to what you are so gung ho ho ho on, which is killing Libyans to save Libyans from Libyans.

UN air forces managed to kill 12 rebels or more today or yesterday, in bomings.





Stupid me, I thought they were suppose to be saving the rebels from getting bombed by other Libyans..... :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

opps it was 13, not ten.

But as the article says, "mistakes will happen"

but who is counting dead bodies among friends anyway.

Guess it gave a whole new meaning to "April's Fool" when the bombs hit them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110402/wl_nm/us_libya

[ArrowsFA1]

When the US has a Right Wing President I will let you know. So far in my lifetime we haven't
Illuminating.


Then do not read it or are you so addicted to threads you hate you have to read them so you can add a childish I'm bored response rather than acting like an adult an leave to those who do want to contribute?
It's another attack on your President Bob, hence my sarcasm. There are numerous threads along exactly the same lines so I tend to think we don't need yet another one, but still...as you have started another one...

What exactly is it you want from your President? You attack him for getting involved in one country, and not getting involved in another. What's it to be? A retreat into isolationism, or engagement?

[chuck34]

I believe that you, and certain of your compatriots, only care about such individuals if the US military action against those responsible for such abuses is carried out under the leadership of a right-wing President.

I am assuming that you are speaking of George W. Bush. If so then there are several key differences. As discussed on the other thread ... Bush got approval from Congress (number 1 thing a President MUST do). Bush explained the mission to the American people several times. Bush got approval from the UN. Bush had a clear mission, although he didn't really have the best end-game.

Love him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong, George Bush went through the process required to go to war. Obama has not in any way shape or form done any of this. Worst of all, to many, he ONLY went to the UN. I believe that this is what many are taking issue with. I do not want to speak for them, just myself. But I think that my opposition to this action is the same I'm hearing from many others.

[ArrowsFA1]

...George Bush went through the process required to go to war...
There's a few things things that strike me...

The definition of a war: I am not aware of any nation making a formal declaration of war against Libya in the current situation and the absence, or otherwise, of such a declaration is vital when it comes to the way nations interact and conduct their own internal affairs. Saying that the UN has essentially declared war on Libya is not enough.

It is commonly known as the (2nd) "Iraqi War", but was there a actual formal declaration of war in Iraq? It was certainly a military campaign but was it a war?

If, by definition, this is not a war then is Obama entitled to take executive action without the approval of Congress?

[Mark]

Wars don't need to be 'declared' and never have done. The declarations of war we have seen eg during then world wars were more about making a political statement than any legal meaning.

[chuck34]

There's a few things things that strike me...

The definition of a war: I am not aware of any nation making a formal declaration of war against Libya in the current situation and the absence, or otherwise, of such a declaration is vital when it comes to the way nations interact and conduct their own internal affairs. Saying that the UN has essentially declared war on Libya is not enough.

It depends on how you define war. To me, invading a soverign nation's airspace and bombing targets is pretty much an act of war, no matter how you slice it.


It is commonly known as the (2nd) "Iraqi War", but was there a actual formal declaration of war in Iraq? It was certainly a military campaign but was it a war?

The second Iraqi War was not officially a declared war. However, Congress did pass legislation autorizing the use of force. I honestly don't see the difference but some like to play the semantics game.


If, by definition, this is not a war then is Obama entitled to take executive action without the approval of Congress?

Some have argued that the War Powers Act gives Obama the power to do this. But those are not reading the part where it says that there must be an attack on the US or it's interests. Clearly there has not been. Obama even said so in his speach last week. That being said, I'm not sure that I buy into the constitutionality of the act anyway.

[BDunnell]

It depends on how you define war. To me, invading a soverign nation's airspace and bombing targets is pretty much an act of war, no matter how you slice it.

An interesting point is raised by the recognition by certain nations of this provisional authority in Benghazi as the legitimate Libyan government. To these countries, therefore, military operations are not taking place against the sovereign state of Libya, but against a certain group within it. I'm not sure I agree with this position, but nobody would say that we were at war 'against' Croatia, Bosnia, etc during the 1990s.

[chuck34]

An interesting point is raised by the recognition by certain nations of this provisional authority in Benghazi as the legitimate Libyan government. To these countries, therefore, military operations are not taking place against the sovereign state of Libya, but against a certain group within it.

I hadn't heard about nations recognizing provisional authorities. That would certainly be interesting. Then it could be argued that Benghazi being a sovern nation was being invaded by Libya. Interseting.... I don't buy into that, but if some nations want to play that game. At least they would be making an attempt to legitimately justify their actions unlike Mr. Obabma.


I'm not sure I agree with this position, but nobody would say that we were at war 'against' Croatia, Bosnia, etc during the 1990s.

I agree. The "powers that be" would not refer to the Bosnian situation in the '90s as a war. I am not one of those. It was a war as far as I'm concerned. Just think if Russia or China would fly fighter-bombers over the US, UK, Germany, or where ever and started bombing things. Wouldn't we all call that a war? No matter the "justification"?

[BDunnell]

I hadn't heard about nations recognizing provisional authorities. That would certainly be interesting. Then it could be argued that Benghazi being a sovern nation was being invaded by Libya. Interseting.... I don't buy into that, but if some nations want to play that game. At least they would be making an attempt to legitimately justify their actions unlike Mr. Obabma.

I believe that giving this 'organisation' such recognition is absurdly premature, personally. At least it has not been damaging, unlike the German recognition of Slovenia and Croatia as independent states.



I agree. The "powers that be" would not refer to the Bosnian situation in the '90s as a war. I am not one of those. It was a war as far as I'm concerned.

But who against? Not a sovereign nation.

[Malbec]

I believe that giving this 'organisation' such recognition is absurdly premature, personally.

Especially so given the total lack of discipline they've shown. The 13 rebels killed by a coalition airstrike died because they fired on friendly aircraft despite there not having been any enemy aircraft around to fire at for over a week. They fall back at the smallest hint of an enemy presence then charge back forward again regardless of orders. Despite all the rhetoric about being democratic and just etc etc I dread to think what some of these rebels would do if they got their hands on a pro-Gaddafi town. I think we should be reconsidering whether we want to be associating ourselves with this group as closely as we have done so far.

[chuck34]

I believe that giving this 'organisation' such recognition is absurdly premature, personally. At least it has not been damaging, unlike the German recognition of Slovenia and Croatia as independent states.

Agreed, any recognition of any organisation at this point is waaaaaaay too early.


But who against? Not a sovereign nation.

Does war always have to be against a sovereign nation?

[chuck34]

I think we should be reconsidering whether we want to be associating ourselves with this group as closely as we have done so far.

I've been saying that since the beginning. No one seems to be too clear on who these "rebels" are, let alone what their goals/plans/ideas are for ruling once they take control. Stupid, stupid, stupid to go into this thing blind. Not knowing if the people you are supporting are better or worse than the people you are against ... come on, I thought this administration was supposed to be so smart, made up of all kinds of wizz kids. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Despite all the rhetoric about being democratic and just etc etc I dread to think what some of these rebels would do if they got their hands on a pro-Gaddafi town.

A very good point.

[BDunnell]

Does war always have to be against a sovereign nation?

Legally, I don't know. Is it possible for war to be declared in a legal sense against a body other than a sovereign nation?

[Bob Riebe]

Illuminating.


It's another attack on your President Bob, hence my sarcasm. There are numerous threads along exactly the same lines so I tend to think we don't need yet another one, but still...as you have started another one...

What exactly is it you want from your President? You attack him for getting involved in one country, and not getting involved in another. What's it to be? A retreat into isolationism, or engagement?
After the way his party, and he trashed the past president, his lies and incompetence will not be tolerated by me to the least.

Bush was an arrogant Rino, whose ineptness, and rabid spending, was not attacked as it should have by the Hannitys of the airwaves,(Hannity was too consumed by his Clinton paranoia) but compared to Obama's Administration, Bush was a great president.

There is zero reason for us to be in Libya. If Obama is such a great orator he should have been able to talk Qadaffi out of office.
There ARE dictators who are murdering thugs but Obama is a coward who reads a good teleprompter and nothing else. I will no longer give him any quarter.
I had hope against hope that as some of the Rinos said that Obama would be another Bill Clinton but he is not worthy to stand in Clinton's shadow.

He campaigned on what he would supposedly do in Afghanistan, then DO IT. Do not spend millions on a campaign that exists soley for his next election campaign.
I am sure somewhere along the line the fact that no soldiers died in Libya will be part of his rhetoric.

[Bob Riebe]

Especially so given the total lack of discipline they've shown. The 13 rebels killed by a coalition airstrike died because they fired on friendly aircraft despite there not having been any enemy aircraft around to fire at for over a week. They fall back at the smallest hint of an enemy presence then charge back forward again regardless of orders. Despite all the rhetoric about being democratic and just etc etc I dread to think what some of these rebels would do if they got their hands on a pro-Gaddafi town. I think we should be reconsidering whether we want to be associating ourselves with this group as closely as we have done so far.
It was said on one of the TV news shows last night that the rebels had murdered pro-Qadaffi citizens. You will not hear much about this as the U.S. press does not want this farce to be exposed as any more of a cluster-f than it already is.

As much as I dislike Geraldo Rivera his piece from Libya last night with the rebels, confirmed the fear you have, and Geraldo said exactly what you said.

[markabilly]

There's a few things things that strike me...

The definition of a war: I am not aware of any nation making a formal declaration of war against Libya in the current situation and the absence, or otherwise, of such a declaration is vital when it comes to the way nations interact and conduct their own internal affairs. Saying that the UN has essentially declared war on Libya is not enough.

It is commonly known as the (2nd) "Iraqi War", but was there a actual formal declaration of war in Iraq? It was certainly a military campaign but was it a war?

If, by definition, this is not a war then is Obama entitled to take executive action without the approval of Congress?

No Obama is not entitled to take action unless the USA is attacked directly which is the exception under the emergency was powers act. Otherwise he must get Congressional approval
which he has not done.

Under the UN treaty, he can send "peacekeepers" but the total involvment must not be more than a thousand soldiers and they are not to engage in hostilities.

All discussed under the Libya thread. Both Bushes got Congressional approval as required by the Consitution. The only other two presidents who have started anything like the Libya deal since 1954, are (1) JFK, who started us heavy in Nam, (and came very close to pretty much the same thing with the bay of Pigs invasion, and Cuban Misssile Crisis) then LBJ and Nixon did not do much about getting approval except that Nixon got approval or funding earmarked for the war from Congress; (2) Bill Clinton


Wars don't need to be 'declared' and never have done. The declarations of war we have seen eg during then world wars were more about making a political statement than any legal meaning.


Still gung ho, eh?

wrong as to the USA. Don't know about you Englanders. Maybe the PM can just fire off missiles anytime he gets the urge, without any talking or approval from anyone else.




Especially so given the total lack of discipline they've shown. The 13 rebels killed by a coalition airstrike died because they fired on friendly aircraft despite there not having been any enemy aircraft around to fire at for over a week. They fall back at the smallest hint of an enemy presence then charge back forward again regardless of orders. Despite all the rhetoric about being democratic and just etc etc I dread to think what some of these rebels would do if they got their hands on a pro-Gaddafi town. I think we should be reconsidering whether we want to be associating ourselves with this group as closely as we have done so far.

War is hell. Never get in it unless you go all the way.


Indeed. Launching an attack on a country whose policies we don't agree with and hitting targets where innocent civilians are killed is not far away from other topics we are keen to condemn.

You think???

Careful, you are beginning to sound like me........

[ArrowsFA1]

No Obama is not entitled to take action unless the USA is attacked directly which is the exception under the emergency was powers act. Otherwise he must get Congressional approval...
So unless the US is directly attacked (i.e. the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour) the President has no power whatsoever to take any action involving the military?

Doesn't that contradict his role as Commander in Chief the duties of which were laid out by Chief Justice Taney in 1850:
As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.”
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/10-commander-in-chief.html

[markabilly]

So unless the US is directly attacked (i.e. the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour) the President has no power whatsoever to take any action involving the military?

Doesn't that contradict his role as Commander in Chief the duties of which were laid out by Chief Justice Taney in 1850:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/10-commander-in-chief.html

(1) It is only under theWar Powers act, and those powers are very limited. some say the Act itself is an unconstitutional
invasion, esp certain portions about the 60 days,as an invasion of constitutional powers of congress.

Roosevelt asked and received declarations of war against japan and germany

(2) When he said this, Taney was citing the constitution, and note carefully from your own quote:

nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power

After war is declared, it is the responsibility of the president to conduct.

This has been thoroughly discussed in the other thread. Since Roosevelt, the following have violated the Constitution by initiating war without Congressional approval, either direct approval or under the War Powers act: Truman, JFK and Clinton

Even Roosevelt asked congress for a declaration of war immediately after pearl harbor.

(3) still curious about the PM...Is he or is he not entitlted to just fire off a few missiles without anyone's approval?