Kucinich Warns Obama on Libya War

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
I am not an American so i dont know the finer points of American politics, but am i right in thinking that whatever the UN decides is of more authority than Congress? Surely if they give the ok for military action then surely that superceeds a soverign parliament/congress?


Oh HELL no!


The U.S. is NOT governed by the U.N. Period.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


No....it is specific, the declaration of war. THAT is the specific right delegated to the Congress.

Kucinich is a kook....he is NOT "right". (And to think, as many people here on ATS who criticize President Obama....imagine if any of them were Kucinich supporters at any time??? Can you imagine what a disaster HE would be, as CinC??)

Did it take an act of Congress when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, for the U.S. to respond?? Or, a resolution. AND, are Congressional Resolutions always a requirement???

Some factual refreshers:

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 20 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
I am not an American so i dont know the finer points of American politics, but am i right in thinking that whatever the UN decides is of more authority than Congress? Surely if they give the ok for military action then surely that superceeds a soverign parliament/congress?


Um... Do you know what sovereign means?

I won't ruin the surprise.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Topato
 


first time i ever so much as nodded in agreement with the man



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


To be sure, there is debate over this provision, with many on both sides of the issue. It all boils down to whether you want to allow the president (one person) to have the power to commit lives and dollars to a war (I don't care what you call it, it's a war) solely on his own.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did it take an act of Congress when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, for the U.S. to respond?? Or, a resolution. AND, are Congressional Resolutions always a requirement???


The gulf war was authorized by Congress through a "Use-of-force" resolution.

Here's more on the debate:
www.fact-index.com...

Current status of the U.S. debate

Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. A significant percentage of Americans were found by polls to favor formal declarations of war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terror network; their requests were largely pushed aside as "uninformed" by the White House. They since began to argue that the recent Second Gulf War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized minority in the United States.

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that initated American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Use-of-force" resolution that started the 2003 Gulf War. However, there is some question as to the legality of these authorization of force in some circles. Many who support declarations of war argue that such declarations keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people, while at the same time honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.

Those who oppose this measure say that it only takes more time, and that more lives will be lost for the sake of a political formality. Americans should, they argue, support their presidents and question military actions only after the fact. Notably, those who oppose such activities without formal declaration include among them widows and veterans of most undeclared American wars. However, the courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice Presidents have the power to commit forces with Congressional approval but without a declaration of war.
edit on 20/3/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss


Oh HELL no!


The U.S. is NOT governed by the U.N. Period.


Who is it governed by than?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by forklift

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss


Oh HELL no!


The U.S. is NOT governed by the U.N. Period.


Who is it governed by than?


Our own state and federal governments. The U.S. is a sovereign nation.

Sovereignty - The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I see Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Ron Paul are using the same script.. They both need to understand the warpowers act is not constitutional, and Congress has a little bit less auithority in that area than they think.


My understanding is that the War Powers Act can only be used if the US is under direct attack ? Otherwise Congress must approve regardless of prior notice from POTUS to Congress ?

brill



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
You cant just go out an conquer a continent or the middle east like they used to do in the old days.
Instead, you find some reason to attack, you occupie and take controll, and then move to the next country, ofcourse you leave your army's their to 'rebuild' the country or whatever.
11 years ago I took an atlas and showed my wife what I thought would happen: Iraq, afghanistan, libya, iran...
In 10 or 20 more years it will all be controlled by th USA.
I'm not anti-american, so I don't really mind, but It does make me sad seeing al those lives thrown away. Imagine al the positive things that could be done with the money spend on those missiles... What are they, like a million dollars a piece?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I disagree with his comment that anyone tried to 'downplay' what a no-fly zone' entails. This was made explicitly clear in the media in the past weeks.


Apparently, the Arab League disagrees with that statement. They are feeling a little punked right now.

www.google.com...


Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.

Moussa has told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives." He says "what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."

U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Topato
 


Better hope they dont successfully pull off a fake revolution in the US.

They WANT us to get riled up and start acting wild. They would love a reason to suspend the Constitution.

All this practice of faking uprisings? Controlling the media and internet? You betcha. It will be used in the US at some point. Our Constitution is in the way, and the easiest way to get rid of it is exactly what they are doing in the Mid East.

Pretend it is the people who are "changing the regime."



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by brill
 


The war powers act came about because of Vietnam, and the President escalating troop levels without any offical declaration fo war by Congress.

In an effort to frce the President to be accountble to Congress when deploying military units, Congress passed the war powers act, which required the President to obtain Congressional approval for troop deployments over certain time frames.

Most Presidents refused to acknowledge its legitimacy because its a clear violation of the Constitution when it comes to seperation of powers and responsibilities prescribed..

What Congress has always failed to do, in my opinion for obvious reasons, was exercise their authority over the military by using the purse strings. Just because, as Commander in Cheif, the President orders troops to here or there, does NOT mean Congress has to authorize money for it.

As with the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress could have ended those deployments by refusing to allocate money to pay for it. Instead of doing their job, congress does not want to be the ones painted as anti military. So instead, they stick to the war powers act BS in an effort to force the PResident out to be the bad guy by supposedly bypassing Congress.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
 


The United Nations is not a Democratic body, and cannot tell a country how to run its own affairs, with a few exceptions. Member nations agree to allow the UN to use military forces for breach of peace operations (Article 7 of the UN Charter).

Nations who sign onto treaties and ratify those treaties are somewhat bound by them. US Federal Law prevents foreign treaties from giving Congress any authority they dont already have through our Constitution. Also, any treaty the US signs becomes apart of our Federal Body of Law, which makes those treaties part of Federal Law. It means those treaties can be modified by Congress, or challenged in US courts, even though its an "international" law.

The other answers so far are correct, that all nations are sovereign and the UN is usbservient to those nations, and not the other way around.

Just like how a Democracy works, the Government governs through the consent of the people.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint



lookie here O-Bummer,
if ya wanna be head of the UN,
I suggest you give up ur job
at the WH. It is against the
law to hold both positions at once.

edit on 3/20/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



Head of the UN? Say what?

On what planet is that the case?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I disagree with his comment that anyone tried to 'downplay' what a no-fly zone' entails. This was made explicitly clear in the media in the past weeks.


Apparently, the Arab League disagrees with that statement. They are feeling a little punked right now.



Yeah, the problem with that is, they ASKED for this, and are now pretending they didn't know what it entailed.

How anyone can take this claim of theirs seriously truly blows my mind.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Civilians are going to be killed when they decide they want to act as human shields.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I guess the constitution does not apply to the president.....Hes holding 2 offices 1 president and 2 head of the UN council.A president is to hold only one office at a time i heard.....



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BiGGz
 


And to think i voted for him...How we all got fooled.
edit on 20-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
I guess the constitution does not apply to the president.....Hes holding 2 offices 1 president and 2 head of the UN council.A president is to hold only one office at a time i heard.....


Except that Obama is not "head of the UN" .

Second.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I've been calling for this intervention for a while. I'm glad it's happening.





new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join