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

Just thought I would throw this out there.

If Obama started bombing America and getting the army to shoot innocent civilians because they were protesting and the UN intervened to held America out then would you all be crying the UN have started an illegal war? Didn't think so.

Oh and it isn't a war! Stop calling it one people.

As an american I do acknowledge our government is corrupt, tyranous, thieves who has started many a unjust war...HOWEVER, as for Lybia, Obama did not want toget involved. It was the international communities which came together and in a unified vote decided to stop Ghadafi. France started the raids first. Why cant you pickon them for trying to stop a mass genocide? ( sounds odd when you read the words, "Stop the genocide" right?) One good feature with america is, we wills tep in when asked to help stop a extreme wrong. "Obama is one of our weakest ever presidents, he did nto want to start this air invasion, quit picking on america. At least we americans donot hide behind our actions. most other leaders are underhandedly slyly sneaky in their involvements...get real lybia needs help and the INTERNATIONAL community is comming together to stop the brutal leader...
At least we are not WHIMPS...we see a wrong and work to change it...stop ridiculing one of the only do something about it countries, jealousy is a rotten attribute to your personality, it is kinda ugly.
peace out and stop hating on those who want to stop the genocide.
It just gets me seeing you ignorants actually say such outrageous statements, why is america being exclusively picked on lately...remember it was a international decision which obama was highly opposed to this. ( yet we dont walk away from a cry for help)

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


no congressional approval needed when an international call is placed. it is not exclusively america who has called for this stopping of ghadafi, it was the international commities came together. france wasin their throwing their bomb around before america went in, soooo go throw your hate at france okkkk, o ya and while your add it, remember germany is also helping to stop the leader whois playing genocide on his people..at least ridicule the entire party not just one...what is it with people hating americans so deeply these days....

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Can you explain your reasoning why this war is preferable to you over some previous actions we've been involved with?

That seems rather obvious. The 'right team' is leading the charge this time. Obama is in charge, so it is good and just by default. We're just liberating the poor, oppressed people of the world.

Nah,. Libya's oil reserves are just a coincidence.

Wow, where to begin?

For those of the opinion that it's not a war...It is a war. When you intentionally fire a weapon at another person/people with intent to kill or injure, it's either a war or murder. It's like saying Korea was a police action...really? No, that was a war as well. We have declared war on the Libyan government by firing missiles from sea based platforms into their country with intent to cause harm to their people/infrastructure.

It's illegal what the President is doing...Not really. In fact he can do this for the next 60 days before needing Congressional approval. Actually, he just needs to consult with Congressional leaders (which he's done) and that satisfies the War Powers Act. Everyone should take the time to read it and the comments/examples below it.

We have an agreement/obligation to support UN resolutions and this has been approved by Congress way back in the day. So, Congress has given the President authorization to use military action against another country as long as there is a UN resolution authorizing military action. Implied concent, as it were.

I don't buy into the actions of the UN, but I don't look at it as an illegal act perpetrated by the POTUS or the US government. Bottom line: UN Resolution authorizing force to protect citizens being brutally murdered by a known terrorist regime...US is obligated to assist. Hopefully the POTUS will keep to his promise of no troops on the ground, but I fear special forces teams are already there pinpointing targets.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

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.

We joined NATO against Serbia to intervene in Serbia's ongoing ethnic cleansing against Albanians and Kosovar.

Interesting fact?

Conservatives hate our intervention in former Yugoslavia, just as they now are hating our intervention in Libya. Yet they love the ongoing slaughter of Iraqis and Afghans and Yemenites and Pakistanis in those illegal wars and operations. Conservatives had no problem with Poppy starting an illegal war in Somalia, and never said a peep during twelve years of Iraqi sanctions that caused the death of over 4 million civilians.

It would seem that when we are killing Muslims, it's great. When we're trying to save their lives, the right craps their pants and starts screaming.

Why is that?

I can't say i agree with that. In my view this intervention is clearly for selfish reasons, and not to help anyone but themselves.

If this was about helping people there's many other nations that have been crying out for intervention. They don't happen to be sitting on the natural resources of Libya though.

Republicans are hypocrites, but this intervention is about as genuine as the war in Iraq.

President Obama isn't doing anything illegal as of now.

With that said, I believe that Congress should rewrite the War Powers Resolution into saying: "US Armed Forces are not allowed to be sent overseas for military operations of any kind, unless authorised by congress, regardless of UN or NATO mandates."

This should be the magnitude of power from most to less:
The People> Congress> The President.

No one is tied with anyone.

Clinton's invaaion of Yougoslovia in 1999 was to shut down an ethnic genocide whereas something like 750k Yugoslovs were massacared.

Obama and the US is not leading this invasion of Libya but The Eurpoean Union is in charge of this one. Get the facts correct before you spew lies and disinformation please as it makes your case extremely weak.

Y'all on the right are just pissed off because Iran or North Korea is not the targets.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
No one is tied with anyone.

Clinton's invaaion of Yougoslovia in 1999 was to shut down an ethnic genocide whereas something like 750k Yugoslovs were massacared.

Obama and the US is not leading this invasion of Libya but The Eurpoean Union is in charge of this one. Get the facts correct before you spew lies and disinformation please as it makes your case extremely weak.

Y'all on the right are just pissed off because Iran or North Korea is not the targets.

edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Try again.

Libya conflict: US admiral leading coalition forces

The commander of the military effort to enforce the UN resolution against Muammar Gaddafi is a US admiral who is co-ordinating the air and naval strikes from the USS Mount Whitney, the flagship of the US Navy's Sixth Fleet.

Samuel Locklear III is also a Nato commander and may be chosen to continue in the post. That would give the operation a degree of continuity, though his experience is naval and a key part of the job will be to enforce the no-fly zone and co-ordinate which countries are flying what planes, where and when.

The command structure of the operation should eventually fall within Nato's responsibility, but French, British and US forces could not wait for agreement on this, which is expected to come within 24 hours.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
No one is tied with anyone.

Clinton's invaaion of Yougoslovia in 1999 was to shut down an ethnic genocide whereas something like 750k Yugoslovs were massacared.

Obama and the US is not leading this invasion of Libya but The Eurpoean Union is in charge of this one. Get the facts correct before you spew lies and disinformation please as it makes your case extremely weak.

Y'all on the right are just pissed off because Iran or North Korea is not the targets.

edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Try again.

Libya conflict: US admiral leading coalition forces

The commander of the military effort to enforce the UN resolution against Muammar Gaddafi is a US admiral who is co-ordinating the air and naval strikes from the USS Mount Whitney, the flagship of the US Navy's Sixth Fleet.

Samuel Locklear III is also a Nato commander and may be chosen to continue in the post. That would give the operation a degree of continuity, though his experience is naval and a key part of the job will be to enforce the no-fly zone and co-ordinate which countries are flying what planes, where and when.

The command structure of the operation should eventually fall within Nato's responsibility, but French, British and US forces could not wait for agreement on this, which is expected to come within 24 hours.

Our involvement will be concluded in a couple of weeks so to try and say I'm lying or to try and poke holes in my report is a lie and a falsity.By mid April our involvement there should be ended as we are there to help start it but it is up to The European Union to see it through. This will not be another multi year calamity.

ENGLAND, GERMANY, FRANCE AND ITALY ARE THE FINAL WORD HERE. So you try again!

Going to British media to try and usurp my post, my, my.

www.cnn.com...

BTW, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the paramilitary wing of the United Nations and not that of The United States.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Our involvement will be concluded in a couple of weeks so to try and say I'm lying or to try and poke holes in my report is a lie and a falsity.

ENGLAND, GERMANY, FRANCE AND ITALY ARE THE FINAL WORD HERE. So you try again!

Going to British media to try and usurp my post, my, my.

www.cnn.com...

edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Germany is not in this attack, they voted against it. And Italy didn't get involved.

Europe divided after German rejection of Libya no-fly zone

EDIT: Looks like Italy did join in, according to your CNN article.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Germany is not in this attack, they voted against it. And Italy didn't get involved.

They abstained, which is significantly different. There were no votes against. Resolution 1973.

The following day, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germany would not take part in the military operation, but added: "We unreservedly share the aims of this resolution. Our abstention should not be confused with neutrality."

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Germany is not in this attack, they voted against it. And Italy didn't get involved.

They abstained, which is significantly different. There were no votes against. Resolution 1973.

The following day, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germany would not take part in the military operation, but added: "We unreservedly share the aims of this resolution. Our abstention should not be confused with neutrality."

Are they committing any military forces to the attack and 'No Fly Zone' over Libya?

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Germany is not in this attack, they voted against it. And Italy didn't get involved.

They abstained, which is significantly different. There were no votes against. Resolution 1973.

The following day, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germany would not take part in the military operation, but added: "We unreservedly share the aims of this resolution. Our abstention should not be confused with neutrality."

Are they committing any military forces to the attack and 'No Fly Zone' over Libya?

They are not involved directly with the action but do support it hence the phrase "Our abstention should not be confused with neutrality".

reply to post by Feltrick

For those of the opinion that it's not a war...It is a war. When you intentionally fire a weapon at another person/people with intent to kill or injure, it's either a war or murder. It's like saying Korea was a police action...really? No, that was a war as well. We have declared war on the Libyan government by firing missiles from sea based platforms into their country with intent to cause harm to their people/infrastructure.

Do some research mate like I said it's NOT a war!.

WAR

A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy. It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter. Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it. National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive. To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."

So has anyone declared war?

Yea thats what I thought aswell .……..............no

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Even Bush got approval from Congress for his wars before acting.

Ooo, American congress is the be all and end all for the world. C'mon, the front in Iraq is just as illegal. Personally I don't care but let's not gild the lily here.

Originally posted by simples
reply to post by Feltrick

 

Do some research mate like I said it's NOT a war!.

WAR

A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy. It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter. Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it. National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive. To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."

So has anyone declared war?

Yea thats what I thought aswell .……..............no

Wait...What? The first sentence, mate, basically calls it a war. We just completely obliterated their infrastructure...what, let me rephrase that...We just completely obliterated the Libyan government's infrastructure. We have sided with the rebels without really knowing who "they" are.

I don't understand how you can simply post a paragraph and state that the British, French and US aren't at war?

reply to post by Feltrick


You obviously didn't read it all, it has to be declared a war, which it has nit been declared at all, nit once has anyone that I know of even hinted towers calling it a war. Just because you think it's a war doesn't make it a war.

reply to post by Feltrick


Are you actually keeping up with this story at all? No one has sided with the rebels at all the UN are there fir the civilians not to help out the rebels, the UN have said if the rebels take on gadaffis army they are on there own.

To the above posts...

Hmmm, "... they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

Or by their acts. I would say that the US, British and French have declared "BY THEIR ACTS" war against the Libyan government. Am I wrong? Cruise missles, to me, seem rather war like, but again, perhaps I'm wrong.

Or by their acts. Of course the UN isn't helping the rebels, they're just making it so the Libyan government can't fight back. I mean, they're not fighting with the rebels but against the Libyan government's ability to fight the rebels. How foolish of me! I admit that I got this whole thing wrong.

Never listen to words, see their actions.