Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congress

Libs better shut the fuck up now about "Bush's illegal war"

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Double whiskey, on the rocks?

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Slow news day in Ireland?

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Skin needs to be not sober to really dig in and make the most of this thread. Vodka drunk won't do, either, Skin's a little too mellow for this even vodka drunk. No, it'd have to be either rum or whiskey-drunk to hit that properly riled-up format-abusing state.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

One for the red room all right.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Oops. Wrong moron.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

If it turns out there wasn't actually an uprising in Libya, and Gaddafi never actually attacked any protesters, then I'll oppose this military action as well.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

"Obama isn't doing anything about Libya!!"

"Obama is starting an illegal war in Libya!!"

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Wow, Timmeh. You're starting to smell a bit like 14th Doctor, when he first started to suck.

But before he started raping young boys.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

So it's okay for Obama to fight for oil, but not Dubya.


Gotcha.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Oh, I'm gonna love your explanation for this.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Libya has roughly 2% of the worlds oil. Somehow I don't think that's what this revolves around.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

What? you haven't seen the oil prices climbing since the unrest in Libya?


Or is that $3.50+ on my gas pump a goof?


I mean, yeah, Obama is saying he's fighting to protect the people, but he could have an ulterior motive.
After all, Dubya said he was after Sadam to stop the WMD. But no one believed him. As far as most of his detractors were concerned, he was only there for the oil.

And we now know that even though there were none, there WAS evidence given that there was WMD out there - and in case you missed it, it was on 60 Minutes.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

And that's the only reason you can think of, so naturally it must be true. Thought so.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Well, hell.
Of course, it's Obama, so he must not have a bad, ulterior motive in his entire body.
But if it was Dubya, he would have Simon Legree out-matched for vile evil thoughts, and they could be fit in his pinkie.

Go back over the oil prices and what the PUNDITS were pointing out was causing the rise in oil prices, and thus the rise in gas prices.

And if you think that the ONLY reason that Obama is bombing the hell out of Kadaffi is because he's a mean ol' man who should be forced to retire --- I think I have bridge to sell you.

Hell, with the exception of WMD, Obama's arguments sound, at least to me, like a recycling of what Dubya said about Saddam.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

I'm replying to this to disagree with it, but I could have an ulterior motive.

(gas prices started going up when the Egyptian Revolution was occurring, nearly a month prior to any revolts in Libya)

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

I support Obama on Libya just like I supported Bush on Afghanistan, because they were both able to get broad, international support for their actions from NATO and the UN, and because just about everyone agrees/agreed on the facts.

Iraq, not so much.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Interesting edit.

I don't suppose there's any point in detailing the numerous differences between this situation and Gulf War II....

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

International support is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, however. The question has to do with US constitutional law.

Personally, I think what he said in 2007 is a good principle, but I'm not sure that the Constitution actually requires it.

I think the US involvement in Libya is unwise, however, because I don't see any way the Libyan revolt, whichever way it went, is a threat to the US and I don't agree with the "exporting democracy" and "nation building" mentality.

I think the initial intervention in Afghanistan was fully justified, but that it was not our responsibility to try to make the place into a peaceful country. We should have been out of there years ago, as soon as Al Qaeda was pretty much reduced to impotence. If, after withdrawing, the country returned to extremism and once again became a haven for preparing attacks against us, we could always intervene again. The cost (financial, but especially in human lives, both allied and Afghan) would be significantly less than what we have been doing there for about the last nine years.

I am still not convinced we ever should have gone into Iraq. At the time, my acceptance was to a great extent conditioned on there being a genuine risk of Saddam making WMDs available to terrorists. Not only does it turn out that there were no WMDs, it would appear that the intelligence that indicated that there were such was not as convincing as it could have been, and it was more a case of various Western nations wanting it to be true than simply letting themselves be fooled by it. But regardless of what scant justification there might have been for the initial intervention, the follow-up was not wise and not well done. There again, we should have left them to their own devices and gotten out as soon as we had determined there was no risk (or no longer any risk) to us.

The point is that every time we have gotten involved in "nation building" in Arab or Islamic countries, it has eventually backfired on us. I do not know of any exceptions to this. People tend to look back on what was done with Germany, Japan and Italy and think that by defeating a hostile government and then occupying them you can turn an enemy into an ally. But I do not know of any cases where that has worked, long term, in Arab or Islamic countries.

Basically, the West has taken sides, very clearly, in this conflict, using the principle that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend." I am very surprised that those who so loudly denounced that principle in other cases are not doing so here. We have no guarantee whatsoever that the final result of the Libyan revolt will be a free country with a government that is truly appreciated by the people. And if it isn't, then sooner or later the Libyan people will accuse the West of having put them in place.

And they won't be entirely wrong.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

I haven't dug into the news but apparently some of Bush's harshest critics ARE, apparently, in a lather about this. Kucinich for one.


Also, the honorable Minister Luis Fharrakhan ain't happy either.

[yt=Who the hell do you think you are?]Go9NY3gSsxg[/yt]

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

on the context of the thread:

1. the complaint "how is it you are doing this without a congressional resolution?" is a valid question and, by the way, the Bush comparison works in the reverse of the way it's been cited in this thread - Bush DID have a congressional resolution re Iraq (the wisdom or lack thereof on that action aside)

2. Obama is NOT "rushing into" this - the Europeans drug him into it with great reluctance. As much as i think Obama is largely ham-fisted on foreign affairs, i'm not one to throw him under the bus for the action itself. I do note with some interest that the U.N. got to the point of authorizing force a lot faster than it seemed to on other occasions but that's not a criticism of their choice this time.

3. that said, taking the time to get Congressional ok is his responsibility. As much as I'm reluctant to criticized a high elected official on brain-power (to me it takes a certain amount of intelligence to get to that level) - if i give him due credit for intelligence I have to deduct a lot of point on simple competence (one of the things those who pointed out he lacked executive experience worried rightly about). it doesn't take any more than a basic level of competence between he and his staff to know that there are certain hoops that must be jumped through.

4. I'm ok with the action insofar as it is only stopping overt brutality. Air cover for the side which has no air resources seems a reasonable middle ground. But no, i don't particularly want meddling in what government comes next.
I'm probably missing a point but

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Suppose you never hit the send button before you were completely finished with a thought .....

And I don't suppose you are willing to show the numerous differences between this and Gulf War II????

Except that here there are folks actively fighting Kadaffi and they weren't in Iraq??????

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

But Libya does control a vote on OPEC. And believe me, Gaddafi and his other friends on OPEC (loyal to him) are going to make the remaining council and OUR wallets hurt like a bad assfucking when this is over. We ARE gonna pay for this because there is no way in hell these wasted missiles can win. Gaddafi doesn't need combat planes. It would have ended this a lot quicker, but he'll win with gorilla tactics. There are plenty of loyalists willing to blow themselves up in rebel strongholds for him.

And Liz had it right in the post before mine at least via practicum. By involving ourselves, we're getting ourselves into ANOTHER "potential Gulf War scenario." I warned you people when the frogs started shooting at them, that this was going to spiral out of control fast.

*However, Obama IS the President and as such has Supreme Command of the armed forces which IS entitled to his office. So just remember, he got "us" into this.

On another note the Queen is the codified Supreme Commander of the British forces, ministers be damned. I highly suggest she do something that hasn't been done since Queen Anne, slap down Parliament, then she can fire Cameron or all of them, and call for new elections while recalling her forces. English petrol prices are already skyrocketing out of orbit. They'll reach Alpha Centauri long before man will.

I think both the American and British people have had ENOUGH of this shit with Afghanistan and Iraq. If they want rid of him, they'll do it themselves.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

My internet's been down for the weekend. This may have been covered, but didn't a WF member or two say "there's no reason to destroy the Libyan military intrastructure before we initiate a No Fly Zone?"

Just askin'.......but what would I know, being involved in miltary aviation for 20+ years?

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Obama's like most libs. The rules exist, but they only apply to other people.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

We can draw some parallels on the issue of oil, but the key point is that the West has no intention of controlling the territory of Libya, unlike Iraq.

But it's true that the situation strongly effects the price of oil, if only because the market traders are prone to speculation and hysteria. Saudi Arabia can and has been covering whatever shortfall in Libya's supply, though it has been minimal hitherto.

The easiest way to resolve the oil supply issues, to the extent that they exist, would be to let Gaddafi slaughter the rebels for a quick return to stability. By intervening on behalf of the rebels, the West has ensured the fighting will be drawn out, effectively shooting itself in the foot on the oil interest.

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Care to elaborate some on that point? At what point did the US claim it wanted to control the territory in Iraq?

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Do they have to claim it for it to be blatantly true?

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

Just as much as you would demand the same for Obama which can also be considered a very good possibility. Or do you think that the skyrocketing gasoline prices helps the Obama's image?

Re: Obama fired hundreds of cruise missiles at Libya without a joint resolution fron Congr

What?