So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Libya

[Rainbow7]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

His entire campain was flowery speaches telling the masses what they wanted to hear without any intensions of actually keeping his word.

Actually, his entire campaign was based on not saying anything substantive, but making emotional appeals to the credulous and the ignorant.

 

[MC MUSTANG]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

Remember, that the President has the ability and authority to send in Marines and thier support for up to 90 days without any kind of congressional concurrance or approval; this is a result of the National Security Act of 1947 as amended in 1952. Not to rationalise this, but there was no congressional approval of the 31st MEU being deployed to Japan for humanitarian aid either. Not saying that it is right or makes sence, just saying that congressional approval is required to commit troops long term and/or declare war, but the President has wide lattitude for short term operations in a variety of missions and scenerios.

Just my .02, if it is worth that much.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

Your opinion MC is worth much more than .02 and appreciated.
You are right, quite simply. Just sad that in between the black and white of the rules of law there is so much grey that allows for what is obviously war to be called one of twenty other things. Whether we have declared war on Libya or not what we are doing is making WAR against them. If another country fired a single just a single Tomahawk into our country it would be taken as an act of war. We have fired over 200 into Libya. Flown 100s of sorties. It's war. What a most dangerous precedent we are setting.
Now they talk about arming to rebels? Yeah just drop large lots of weapons and ammo into rebel territory and they'll figure out how to use them to beat the tanks rolling thru Misratah right now. We will soon be bombing troops in large numbers. Lunacy it is and we are leading the way.

 

[Pardini]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

It doesn't seem real? I can't believe what we are doing!
We have aligned ourselves with 'Rebels'. These are people we have NEVER ONCE sat down with and found out who's leading them? It's a civilian uprising with no real leadership structure which we are directing from above. If and when He goes who will take over and straighten things out?
They keep saying 'no boots on the ground'? I say IMPOSSIBLE!
No way a final outcome can be achieved without trained troops on the soil.

I'm willing to bet that there is someone secretly in the wings waiting to be inserted into a leadership role. This person will appear at just the right moment and take charge if and when the rebels succeed. He will be the one that NATO, the UN and the US will recognise and deal with. He's already picked, but it won't appear that way. That would poison him politically.

Supposedly no one's coordinating with the rebels. NATO just hits targets in advance of the rebels objectives by coincidence?

Remember, that the President has the ability and authority to send in Marines and their support for up to 90 days without any kind of congressional concurrence or approval; this is a result of the National Security Act of 1947 as amended in 1952. Not to rationalise this, but there was no congressional approval of the 31st MEU being deployed to Japan for humanitarian aid either. Not saying that it is right or makes sense, just saying that congressional approval is required to commit troops long term and/or declare war, but the President has wide latitude for short term operations in a variety of missions and scenarios.

Just my .02, if it is worth that much.

I realize that, but Obama criticized Bush for it and is on the record and written in his book it's a bad idea and he was firmly against it. Then he was against Gitmo, said he would close it but it's still there, not even scaled back. So, one, he's either a liar or two, worse than that has no freakin' idea what he's doing. In his case both, a liar that has no freakin' idea what he's doing.

 

[Rainbow7]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

I'm reasonably sure that Obama is a stooge but what I don't know is who it is that is pulling his strings.

 

[afterhours]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

I'm willing to bet that there is someone secretly in the wings waiting to be inserted into a leadership role. This person will appear at just the right moment and take charge if and when the rebels succeed. He will be the one that NATO, the UN and the US will recognise and deal with. He's already picked, but it won't appear that way. That would poison him politically.

Supposedly no one's coordinating with the rebels. NATO just hits targets in advance of the rebels objectives by coincidence?





I realize that, but Obama criticized Bush for it and is on the record and written in his book it's a bad idea and he was firmly against it. Then he was against Gitmo, said he would close it but it's still there, not even scaled back. So, one, he's either a liar or two, worse than that has no freakin' idea what he's doing. In his case both, a liar that has no freakin' idea what he's doing.

Couldn't he be both? a liar.....and have no freakin' idea of what he is doing.

As far as leadership of the "rebels". there are people we are talking to, that have made the call for help. I am just not so sure that they are the same ones that those fighting in the streets are loyal to.

 

[JGGUNS]

Couldn't he be both? a liar.....and have no freakin' idea of what he is doing.

I would say that it is an absolute certainty that he is both.

 

[Rainbow7]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

Couldn't he be both? a liar.....and have no freakin' idea of what he is doing.

That's pretty much the definition of "Democrat".

 

[BusaWhipped]

Remember, that the President has the ability and authority to send in Marines and thier support for up to 90 days without any kind of congressional concurrance or approval; this is a result of the National Security Act of 1947 as amended in 1952. Not to rationalise this, but there was no congressional approval of the 31st MEU being deployed to Japan for humanitarian aid either. Not saying that it is right or makes sence, just saying that congressional approval is required to commit troops long term and/or declare war, but the President has wide lattitude for short term operations in a variety of missions and scenerios.

Just my .02, if it is worth that much.

I agree with your .02 as far as the laws go. However, when a person criticizes someone one else for doing something, then turns around and does the same thing, that's being a hypocrite at best.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

We need to give the rebs laser designators so our planes can properly target things.
We are just flying over cruising picking out our own targets without direction from below.
The reason the Rebs lost a key city yesterday is because they were pushed back by tanks and we knew nothing about what was going on. Nobody could call us for help. We were completely unaware of what was going on.

 

[Rainbow7]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

And now France/The UN are attacking the Ivory Coast?!

 

[Schexy1]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

I'm reasonably sure that Obama is a stooge but what I don't know is who it is that is pulling his strings.

The same people that pulled the strings on W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and so-on.

 

[Rainbow7]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

The same people that pulled the strings on W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and so-on.

Yeah, because Bush, W and Reagan went out of their way to not only appease but also to empower America's enemies, right? Oh, wait, Reagan won the Cold War. What has Obama achieved, again? - About as much as Clinton, IMO, i.e. nothing. Well, nothing good, anyway.

 

[skydivr]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

What President Obama (and his followers) are learning is called PERSPECTIVE. What sounds all fine and dandy during the election, now comes the cold hard truth.

The problem is, he didn't leave himself ANY wiggle room. He lamblasted President Bush for all the very things he is now finding out that his administration is going to have to do the same thing. But he's never gonna say: President Bush was right and I was wrong/misguided/naive....which is why it looks SOOOOO hypocritical.

I just want to see Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink and Micheal Moore eat a little CROW.

 

[Rainbow7]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

I just want to see Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink and Micheal Moore eat a little CROW.

I don't think Michael Moore has ever eaten just a little of anything...

 

[Schexy1]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

Yeah, because Bush, W and Reagan went out of their way to not only appease but also to empower America's enemies, right? Oh, wait, Reagan won the Cold War. What has Obama achieved, again? - About as much as Clinton, IMO, i.e. nothing. Well, nothing good, anyway.

Reagan won the Cold War is a nice chant, too bad it isn't true. Yes, he was President when the walls came down, but the real fall of the Soviet Union was due to economic and social decline. Please, don't try to take credit for that either. Under Reagan, we provided more economic relief to Russia than under any other president. We paid our farmers to not grow wheat so we could buy it from them. Many of you forget that the Cold War had a third element involved. So, can you really call it is a win when China amassed a nuclear arsenal larger than the US and Russia combined?

The funny thing about the Pawn Brokers is, no matter what policies are inacted (Concervative or Liberal) , they win.

 

[Schexy1]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

What President Obama (and his followers) are learning is called PERSPECTIVE. What sounds all fine and dandy during the election, now comes the cold hard truth.

The problem is, he didn't leave himself ANY wiggle room. He lamblasted President Bush for all the very things he is now finding out that his administration is going to have to do the same thing. But he's never gonna say: President Bush was right and I was wrong/misguided/naive....which is why it looks SOOOOO hypocritical.

I just want to see Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink and Micheal Moore eat a little CROW.

The same thing has happened in the past and will happen after then next few elections also. The only difference is, previous presidents have found a way to make the masses happy. I don't think we will have anything to be happy about in the next decade.

 

[skydivr]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

Reagan won the Cold War is a nice chant, too bad it isn't true. Yes, he was President when the walls came down, but the real fall of the Soviet Union was due to economic and social decline. Please, don't try to take credit for that either. Under Reagan, we provided more economic relief to Russia than under any other president. We paid our farmers to not grow wheat so we could buy it from them. Many of you forget that the Cold War had a third element involved. So, can you really call it is a win when China amassed a nuclear arsenal larger than the US and Russia combined?

The funny thing about the Pawn Brokers is, no matter what policies are inacted (Concervative or Liberal) , they win.

I disagree. Ronald Reagan's leadership/administration did help the US win the Cold War (and probably the major reason), but exactly how it happened is where people miss the boat. We didn't beat them militarily, we BROKE them before we broke ourselves. Reagan put up a military that faced off the Soviets. It cost us a bunch of $$$ (and so up went our deficit), but the Soviets couldn't keep up with our economic might. Then, the Soviets went into Afghanistan (sound familiar?) and spent a ton there. They couldn't borrow from the rich West like the US could. We won the Cold War because we had the deepest pockets. I think Reagan had the foresite to see this. And he had faith in this belief.

Now, it looks like that stategy is being used against us. The Taliban/Al Queada is fighting an insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan that has bled the US economically much more than it ever did militarily. I think they read our playbook and studied how the Cold War was won, and are using it now. All they've got to do is to bleed us until we go broke enough that we quit and can't put up enough money to fight. The US goes broke - and can no longer project globally.

As far as social decline...I'd have to say the same thing that happened to the Soviets is happening here now...it's just that Communisim took away a good human value system fastest. The Socialists/Progressives are doing the same thing to the US right now. We are rotting from within.

 

[Schexy1]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

I disagree. Ronald Reagan's leadership/administration did help the US win the Cold War (and probably the major reason), but exactly how it happened is where people miss the boat. We didn't beat them militarily, we BROKE them before we broke ourselves. Reagan put up a military that faced off the Soviets. It cost us a bunch of $$$ (and so up went our deficit), but the Soviets couldn't keep up with our economic might. Then, the Soviets went into Afghanistan (sound familiar?) and spent a ton there. They couldn't borrow from the rich West like the US could. We won the Cold War because we had the deepest pockets. I think Reagan had the foresite to see this. And he had faith in this belief.

Now, it looks like that stategy is being used against us. The Taliban/Al Queada is fighting an insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan that has bled the US economically much more than it ever did militarily. I think they read our playbook and studied how the Cold War was won, and are using it now. All they've got to do is to bleed us until we go broke enough that we quit and can't put up enough money to fight. The US goes broke - and can no longer project globally.

As far as social decline...I'd have to say the same thing that happened to the Soviets is happening here now...it's just that Communisim took away a good human value system fastest. The Socialists/Progressives are doing the same thing to the US right now. We are rotting from within.

You make some very good points and I can agree with most of them. Yes, we played a part in Russia’s demise, but unfortunately we did not win the cold war. As I stated before, looming in the background is China. Very soon, they will be the economic and military trump card holders. Fortunately for us, they don’t have World Domination aspirations, or so we think. So while the Liberals and Pseudo Conservatives are here arguing over the cost of free health care and the Mexican Border, the True Republicans are pouring billions into foreign economies, pushing the US further down the economic ladder.

 

[Rainbow7]

Re: So now without congressional approval Obama has allowed the UN to commit us to Li

I disagree. Ronald Reagan's leadership/administration did help the US win the Cold War (and probably the major reason), but exactly how it happened is where people miss the boat. We didn't beat them militarily, we BROKE them before we broke ourselves. Reagan put up a military that faced off the Soviets. It cost us a bunch of $$$ (and so up went our deficit), but the Soviets couldn't keep up with our economic might.

That's right! - Reagan used their own pride against them, forcing them to spend themselves into dissolution.