It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton & Obama Now Have A Tie: Illegal Wars Under Their Belts

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
is not Obama illegally chair of the UN security council at this time?


And which law is he breaking?




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Even the HuffPo is against this action. Hilarious!

War in Libya: Barack Obama Gets in Touch with his Inner Neocon


Candidate Barack Obama ran for president on a platform of change. Many policies deserved reform, none more than President George W. Bush's propensity to initiate unnecessary wars of choice. Iraq was a debacle from the start; the shift from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency in Afghanistan turned that conflict into a second disaster.

Since taking office President Obama has left U.S. troops in Iraq and expanded the war in Afghanistan. Now he has taken America into its third war in a Muslim nation within a decade--to promote "global peace and security," he claimed, the usual justification used by presidents to enter conflicts which serve neither. President Obama obviously has found his inner Neocon and joined Washington's RepubliCrat Party.

The president received much criticism for taking so long to decide to enter the Libyan civil war. But war is a momentous decision which deserves more consideration than the length of time it takes for one of Washington's many think tank warriors to dash off a pro-war op-ed. As expected, the potential whiff of gunpowder in the air brought out the famed Sofa Samurai who pushed America into the two other wars in which the U.S. is still entangled. President Obama was right to take longer to decide.

Now he deserves criticism--for deciding wrongly.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
is not Obama illegally chair of the UN security council at this time?


No It The Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

What I'm trying to say is that in this instance it is not the US rally the global troops to start an illegal war.

This is a joint resolution that has now been implemented by Nato and steps were taken to ensure that the implementation of a no fly zone is legal.

A few countries abstained, ie Germany, Russia and China.

Don't get me wrong it could all go pear shaped as I'm sure Gaddafi sees it as an act of war.

But this time the US was not the main instigator even though they may well have or end up with the largest input of troops.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Isn't obama illegally siting as chair of a UN commity while serving as prez?


No, just a lie posted by Obama haters


Ron Paul says the war is illegal


And he is wrong again, the UN authorised it....


Correct me if Im wrong
isn't the US suposed to run its ownself?


You are wrong again, the US does run itself



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


thats quite the load of malarkey

if the us congress didn't OK the war ( which makes it ILLEGAL
)
and the UN is your justification
and then you say
the US runs itself?


OK
you do realise you sank your own post there?
edit on 20-3-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


So, let me get this straight. The U.S. federal government is running itself, but the U.N. is authorized to call the shots for our military?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

In this ambition he was supported by the leftwing international lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, who claimed to have found a right for "states to render assistance to innocent civilians battling for their lives" wherever that might be. This right apparently "emerges or crystallises" not from any democratic decision but from "state practice, conventions, writings of jurists and dictates of collective conscience". To this is added the bizarre claim that a "responsibility to protect" the underdog in a civil war "devolves on to the security council" and, if not, on to any Tom, Dick or Harry. In other words, military aggression is anything you can pay a lawyer to justify. It is the Bush-Cheney theory of zero national sovereignty, and could be used to justify every aggressive war by Washington or Moscow over the last 50 years.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I guess when the US did wako, ruby ridge...and kent state
they made regime change in the US
LEGAL!
well yee ha!
edit on 20-3-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 
the Us has a law that presidents aren't allowed to sit as chairman of orgs like the UN while prezident



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
The U.S. federal government is running itself, but the U.N. is authorized to call the shots for our military?


Where do you get that claim from? Your claim the attack on Libya was illegal, but it is not illegal at all.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
And this is excuse enough to you to not get Congressional approval to declare war on a non-threat to the United States? Even Bush got approval from Congress for his wars before acting.
There was no declaration of war.

As another member pointed out, as per the War Powers Act, the President may use the armed forces, absent a declaration of war or statutory authorization, for a period of 60 days [50 USC 1544(b)]. Without Congressional authorization he is required to submit a report, within 48 hours of the introduction of the armed forces into hostilities, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate [50 USC 1543(a)].

I suspect, if operations last more than the 60 days, the Obama administration will get a joint resolution from Congress to authorize the use of military force. But even if it didn’t, and if push came to shove, I’m not sure the executive branch wouldn’t win that constitutional battle.

There is significant precedent for Presidents to authorize military operations based on, for example, UN Security Council resolutions, such as the one relevant here to the operations in Libya.

The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter in 1945. The military action the President authorized is pursuant to a treaty made in the name of the United States. It can be argued, and it has, since the Korean war, in occasions such as this one, that the President is “executing the law,” as per Article II Section 3 — “[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” — since the Charter is part of the “supreme law of the land” as per the Supremacy clause of Article VI.



So, let me get this straight. The U.S. federal government is running itself, but the U.N. is authorized to call the shots for our military?
Member states aren’t obligated to participate in the hostilities mandated by UN Security Council resolutions. The United States, like any other member, can choose not to participate militarily.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
the Us has a law that presidents aren't allowed to sit as chairman of orgs like the UN while prezident


Care to quote the exact law that states that? No, of course you cannot!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
The U.S. federal government is running itself, but the U.N. is authorized to call the shots for our military?


Where do you get that claim from? Your claim the attack on Libya was illegal, but it is not illegal at all.


From your claims above stating this war is legal because "the UN authorised it". So this means for the U.S. President to order an attack on a sovereign nation not threatening any other sovereign nation, including the U.S., all the President needs is the authorization of the U.N.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Some of you would do well to read some history.


On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.


Congress authorized presidential orders in accordance with UN security council actions under the United Nations Participation Act.

Unless congress changes the constitution to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any order the president gives as commander in chief is an act of war and requires congressional approval, we're going to continue to have actions such as this. Which, in my opinion, are far preferable compared to some previous actions we've been involved with.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 



Which, in my opinion, are far preferable compared to some previous actions we've been involved with.


Can you explain your reasoning why this war is preferable to you over some previous actions we've been involved with?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
this war is legal because "the UN authorised it"


I strongly suggest you do some research before posting more rubbish here, and read UN Security Council Resolution 1973


So this means for the U.S. President to order an attack on a sovereign nation not threatening any other sovereign nation, including the U.S., all the President needs is the authorization of the U.N.


Who said that? Again, do some research, the answer to that has been posted here.

You seem very confused



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
we have a no-fly zone in place in Libya to keep a monomaniacal dictator from exterminating a city full of people for the high crime of not wanting him in power.


That's a bunch of crap.... he's not their "monomaniacal dictator." The war is illegal, the administration is illegal for obeying a private, foreign un-elected body and not the will of the people. And that goes for the other puppet western governments.... private global government is now being flaunted in our faces and many here are its cheerleaders.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
this war is legal because "the UN authorised it"


I strongly suggest you do some research before posting more rubbish here, and read UN Security Council Resolution 1973


So this means for the U.S. President to order an attack on a sovereign nation not threatening any other sovereign nation, including the U.S., all the President needs is the authorization of the U.N.


Who said that? Again, do some research, the answer to that has been posted here.

You seem very confused


I'm just quoting you, dereks. If you wish to dance around your own answers, then go right ahead. As I stated above, I expected this sort of behavior on this thread.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

I'm just quoting you, dereks.


Actually you are taking it out of context...


As I stated above, I expected this sort of behavior on this thread.


Well, you make false claims then get upset when those false claims are pointed out to you...

And still waiting for the law about Obama chairing a UN meeting - funny how you seem unable to find any such law....
edit on 20/3/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


First, this isn't a war. The definitions and indications of the word are sometimes vague and misconstrued. I won't refer to it as such, for now.

I prefer this particular action over others such as the Korean War. In the current Libyan instance it's very clear that this is not a US only action, it's an international action against a oppressive dictator killing his people.

You and I can argue over the semantics of what is war and what constitutes force against a foreign state and what doesn't (First Barbary War had congressional authorization but was not formally called 'war'). However, the constitutiution only states that congress can declare war, it doesn't say what war is.

Firing a few tomahawk missiles at strategic points, in conjuction with other nations actions by air and sea, while not moving ground forces into battle, to me, does not constitute war and does not require congressional approval.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by metamagic
 
the Us has a law that presidents aren't allowed to sit as chairman of orgs like the UN while prezident



let me offer a counterargument with the same quality of evidence "No it doesn't!!"

I asked which law he was breaking and you didn't answer. Please do or admit that you just made it up.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join