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.
Originally posted by Danbones
is not Obama illegally chair of the UN security council at this time?
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.
Originally posted by Danbones
is not Obama illegally chair of the UN security council at this time?
Originally posted by Danbones
Isn't obama illegally siting as chair of a UN commity while serving as prez?
Ron Paul says the war is illegal
Correct me if Im wrong
isn't the US suposed to run its ownself?
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.
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?
There was no declaration of war.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.
Which, in my opinion, are far preferable compared to some previous actions we've been involved with.
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I'm just quoting you, dereks.
As I stated above, I expected this sort of behavior on this thread.
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