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.

 

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
1. is our presence in Libya ok with you? No, we have now killed more libyans in a week than the enemy is accused of doing.
2. When you voted for Obama did you ever imagine he would behave like GWB when it came to military aggression? I really did not, I trusted his "change". But now it clarifies that it is not him, it is the elite pulling his strings. All since JFK are puppets.
3. Do you agree with Obama that shooting missiles from drones does not a "war" make?

This is the most important and was my reason for posting:

To truly understand this question with an open mind I must switch the story and stand in the other mans shoes.
From this point of view Obama and I would have to consider the question, would we consider this an act of war if China/Russia aided these so called domestic terrorists? Think about it, the sovereign citizen movement or some other grass roots protesting group gets fed up and starts to protest pysically. China/Russia rushes out to the US for there support, training and arming. Well the China/Russia invaders stood by and said, this is not working the US army to to great and now our coup if failing. So China/Russia posts a no fly zone over america and starts to shoot down all planes militarty or not. So america sends in massive ground troops and does not fly, the coup starts to fail again and this week long kenetic military action is starting to look like a year long war. So China/Russia meet up and say WTF man, what are we going to do now if we can not officially invade with out own troops yet???? Simple the China/Russia leader says.... DRONES




Ok ok, I think that China/Russia commited many acts of war in the above ref fictional story... that would not happen to anyone and is silly at best..... right???
edit on 16-6-2011 by freethinkin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
As Kucinich said, OBAMA CAN TELL THAT TO A JUDGE...

And see what happens. Obama, or any president who want to be King can go to hell.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


Of course he argues, he's a liar...... er.....lawyer. That's what lawyers do, they circumvent the law. Bush and the Neo-cons never once said "Oops, our mistake, no WMDs here. Let's go fellas, everybody out!" The progressives will use what works when they're in control. There was this "Patriot Act" thingee, anybody remember that?



Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives--professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems. - Barack Obama


This has been the deal forever and the historical evidence always backed it. Here Barry admits it. Did we ever doubt this? Adjectives surrounding the elected official's name don't ensure their actions.

The Democrats and the Republicans work us over like tag team wrestlers. One kicks us in the groin, the other tags in and gouges our eye. They both are working toward dissolution of the constitution. They are two sides of the same coin. They are the same team. The media covered and promoted public disagreements are for our benefit. It maintains the pretense. Like the current bs with the budget and debt ceiling. It'll be a good show, they will come to what they promote as "compromise" and in reality nothing will be done.

That Barry and the progressives are hawkish when it suits them is no surprise.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Obama had his fingers crossed when we started.
So it doesn't count.

Also, Obama has court precident on his side. I cite the case I know You Are But What Am I vs The State Of California 1937 as an example.

________________________________________________________________________

Seriously? I can't believe this administration. The arrogance is overwhelming.


Lets not forget the case of Rubber vs Glue, August 25, 1985
To wit; "I am Rubber you are Glue, that which bounces off me will undoubtedly stick to you"
edit on 16-6-2011 by Scoriada because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJDoggie84
reply to post by Scoriada
 


1. is our presence in Libya ok with you? No... And all the wars or what ever the heck they're calling them!

2. When you voted for Obama did you ever imagine he would behave like GWB when it came to military aggression? Never in a million years, and now he's worse than GWB

3. Do you agree with Obama that shooting missiles from drones does not a "war" make? Total rubbish, blowing things up = WAR

I'm totally disgusted with this president and the congress for letting this happen



I could be wrong, but I think congress was off on one of their breaks when obama followed nato's orders to start bombing, if I remember right, they were due back in session within the next couple days of the non-war of obama's. But obama's dreaming if he thinks firing missiles into another country isn't an act of war, I mean how can he possibly think otherwise?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Can you, or someone, please explain to me what our involvement in Libya is then? How can we expend military force in a foreign country without it being an act of war?

You said that a declaration of war does not need to be made nor must the use of force be granted, so then does that mean the President has the authority to deploy and engage US military personnel and resources at tax payer expense however he wishes?

How can a political leader be targeted as a military leader when we are (supposedly) not engaged in war with them? To me, that would be the same thing as Seal Team 6 going to China and busting down Jintao’s door Bin Laden style



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


I agree that we shouldn't be in Libya.

I technically support Obama. I don't agree with a whole lot these days.

Lawfully (going by law) there is a difference between War and an Attack.

Lawfully Obama is correct (though I personally hate it)

I wish all the troops were f*cking home.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


Well, I'm hardly an Obama supporter, and surely that Human is insane. Launching missiles at another country is an act of war, period.

What a douche He is.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by amaster
Can you, or someone, please explain to me what our involvement in Libya is then? How can we expend military force in a foreign country without it being an act of war?

I guess call it what you want. No amount of explanation is going to change the minds of people. If you think its a war, then call it a war. Dont know what else to tell you.



Originally posted by amaster
You said that a declaration of war does not need to be made nor must the use of force be granted, so then does that mean the President has the authority to deploy and engage US military personnel and resources at tax payer expense however he wishes?

Actually what I said was Congress is not required to use the term "declaration of war". They can use whatever language they want when describing the authorization of the use of the military. Under the Constitution the President is the Command in Chief, and as such can issue orders and send the miliotary where ever he chooses. Congress has the authority, again per the constitution, to decide if they are going to pay for those deployments or not.

Its a check and balance. If the President goes off the deep end and decides to ignore congress, then congress can draw up articles of impeachment.



Originally posted by amaster
How can a political leader be targeted as a military leader when we are (supposedly) not engaged in war with them? To me, that would be the same thing as Seal Team 6 going to China and busting down Jintao’s door Bin Laden style

People are hung up on the war terminology. War, combat operations, armed conflict. etc etc etc.

In the case of Libya, and since people are stuck on the war terminology I ask you this. What exactly do you call the UN Resolution creating the no fly that authorizes the use of military force against elements of Libyan armed forces? Granted the resolution is geared towards protecting civilians from massacre however the question remains.

Also, if you look at the press release you can see a thin line where NATO is saying they are not targeting Kadafi. They state they are attacking command and control locations, and his bunker was one of them.

Secondly, your assuming the US is the one behind the strike on his compound when this has never been confirmed. There are countries other than the US taking part in this operation, maybe you should ask those countries if they were the ones behind it?

Why are people going after the US when we are not the ones leading the operation?
Why are people demanding answers about if the US is at war or not, while ignoring the UN authorizzation for military action?

Did the UN delcare a war against libya when they passed a resolution that allows foriegn military units to attack libyn military units?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Well Obama could be like Bush and just say he doesn't recognize the War Powers Act and continue on his way of course Bush had both houses of Congress.

And really Obama can justify it all day but in the end if Congress decides he is violating it than that is the end of the story. They can defund this whole campaign if they have the willpower and boy will Obama look like the fool then. I imagine he is scrambling right now trying to call in every favor he can possibly muster up.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   


Questions for you Obama supporters,
1. is our presence in Libya ok with you?
2. When you voted for Obama did you ever imagine he would behave like GWB when it came to military aggression?
3. Do you agree with Obama that shooting missiles from drones does not a "war" make?


1. I'm not happy about Libya nor any of our foreign conflict, but I trust Obama to handle this mess made before he was born, and yes I believe Libya falls into that category.
2. No and I still don't. Again our dirty dealings with Islamic/Muslim nations started a long time ago with the sole purpose of creating long lasting, massive confusion all so we could get our hands on the oil. I believe that what Obama is doing now, even though I HATE any loss of life on any side, is paving a road out. And I don't trust anyone else to do it.
3. I disagree with Obama here.

The fact of the matter is, is that we cannot just apologize and beg for forgiveness for what our country has done over the last 60+ years. We have generated the hate that we now need to protect ourselves from, and we also need to answer the calls for help where our help is wanted. We also need to be practical in realising that a great deal of our economy is tied up in Muslim countries and not just from a military standpoint. This was my viewpoint even under GW Bush, not at 1st but it did come after fighting every liberal bone in my body and seeing what I perceive to be the truth. The difference between Bush and Obama IMO is that Bush created, quite intentionally, a scenario for perpetual war, Obama is going to get us out of it. Again it's not just a simple matter of pulling the plug and apologizing, as much as I wish we could.

Congress is seriously pissing me off at the moment. This is not new for a President to do. Also they have the information they requested as of day 60. They chose not to bring it to the floor. I've said this many times with sources on the forums. This is posturing pure and simple, the lawsuit is ridiculous. The presidential race is on and the vote for the budget is due up again and who knows what else they're angling for in all of this. But it is very clear, they want Obama to look bad. All congress simply has to due at this point or at anypoint after 60 days is pull the defense budget. If they were so morally opposed to our support role they would have brought this to the floor for a vote by now. Think about that last sentence if nothing else I've said rings true. They have the full authority to deny funding for any war or military action so why haven't they used it?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

The difference between Bush and Obama IMO is that Bush created, quite intentionally, a scenario for perpetual war, Obama is going to get us out of it. Again it's not just a simple matter of pulling the plug and apologizing, as much as I wish we could.




So bombing another country (Libya) that is not attacking us nor has threatened us is an example of getting us out of wars that Bush started?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Well Obama could be like Bush and just say he doesn't recognize the War Powers Act and continue on his way of course Bush had both houses of Congress.

And really Obama can justify it all day but in the end if Congress decides he is violating it than that is the end of the story. They can defund this whole campaign if they have the willpower and boy will Obama look like the fool then. I imagine he is scrambling right now trying to call in every favor he can possibly muster up.


Congress won't defund the war because they are wussies. It is easier for Ron Paul to sue the President than making a political theater and risking to be on the wrong side of history should Kadaffi start throwing chemical rocket attacks or launching terrorist attacks (whether real or false flag) into the middle of Europe.

I smell a rat.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Well Obama could be like Bush and just say he doesn't recognize the War Powers Act and continue on his way of course Bush had both houses of Congress.

And really Obama can justify it all day but in the end if Congress decides he is violating it than that is the end of the story. They can defund this whole campaign if they have the willpower and boy will Obama look like the fool then. I imagine he is scrambling right now trying to call in every favor he can possibly muster up.


You know, you can bring Bush up as many times as you want, but the fact remains that not only did Bush ask Congress for authorization to go to war in Afghanistan, he also asked congress for authorization to attack Iraq.

The Congress, both houses controlled by Democrats, approved those requests - BOTH of them.

So the attack son Iraq and Afghanistan is nowhere near the argument of Bush and the "neocons" ignoring the war powers act. They actually complied with it.

Out of curiosirty where is your blind hatred towards the Democrats who approved Bush's request?

Or is that topic taboo because you would actually be forced to blame someone other thAn Bush and a Republican?

If youR are going to invoke history, please extend the rEst of us the courtesy of actually knowing history and the details contained bEfore making a claim that is untrue.

respectuflly.
edit on 17-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vikus

Originally posted by Kali74

The difference between Bush and Obama IMO is that Bush created, quite intentionally, a scenario for perpetual war, Obama is going to get us out of it. Again it's not just a simple matter of pulling the plug and apologizing, as much as I wish we could.




So bombing another country (Libya) that is not attacking us nor has threatened us is an example of getting us out of wars that Bush started?



Care to show us how the current situation in Libya is a result of Bush's actions?

This is all Obama.
Also, what exactly would you classify a UN resolutin that authorizes the use of force against a country while never declaring war?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


Any president will circumvent the War Powers Act and provide an explanation as to why it does not apply to what they're currently trying to do with the US military.

Most people would do the same thing if they were pres. no matter what party or group they're affiliated with.


So, to me.. no real surprise there.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Care to show us how the current situation in Libya is a result of Bush's actions?
This is all Obama.


All your arguments assume there actually is TWO PARTIES..

Most don't buy that BS anymore..

They are just two sides of the same coin..



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Care to show us how the current situation in Libya is a result of Bush's actions?
This is all Obama.


All your arguments assume there actually is TWO PARTIES..

Most don't buy that BS anymore..

They are just two sides of the same coin..


For a person who does not reside inside the United States, or better have an idea of how your Government works, the only BS I see in these threads usually comes only when you post.

As I stated before, this has nothing to do with Bush, since he was out of office for quite some time until Libya popped up on the radar screen. Contrary to your once again wrong claim, they arent the same.

This is all Obama.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



For a person who does not reside inside the United States, or better have an idea of how your Government works, the only BS I see in these threads usually comes only when you post.


What does where I live matter that you feel the intense need to continually bring it up??
If fact, how do we even know YOU live where you say or are what you say??

And I don't know how MY Government works??
Who says? You??

My statement has been repeated thousands of times on ATS and proven by actions..
There is no true Two Parties..

Maybe it's you that's naive enough to think different.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join