Libya update

I think what we're looking for is a sense of proportion.

I believe in a full spectrum of military responses. It's not a black and white issue.

As I've already said, there's really no comparison. Bush followed the letter of the law from start to finish in a much tougher situation. Obama couldn't even manage to follow the law when it was much, much easier.

I really, really don't understand the dodging on this issue. The reason he's not gone is the same as why Clinton wasn't successfully impeached. No one even argues the right/wrong of the issues involved. They're really resigned to the fact that the Senate is under the control of the president's party and everyone knows it's not going to go anywhere. Plain and simple. Politics right there in your face.

It really is a philosophical difference between what people expect from their politicians, isn't it?

True. He managed to snow the majority of Congress and the majority of the American people on a total fabrication.

So your answer would be "yes, it doesn't count" to my second suggestion?

One that he himself believed, no?

And you favor the Obama approach of not even working with Congress and the people, apparently...

Anyone who disagreed with Bush was dismissed as a traitor or terrorist sympathizer.

Congress doesn't have to give approval every time a drone takes out a terrorist in Yemen.

Considering the extremely limited role of the US and the fact that this was a NATO mission I don't believe Congressional Approval was necessary. This wasn't Vietnam, this wasn't Iraq. This was the US as part of NATO using our unique C3 and quick response abilities to help our our allies until they could take over. We were only in the lead for what, 1, 2 weeks?

This is the one that stinks the most of western meddling. France and Italy (Italy at first) all the sudden go regime change? Not likely!

Unless you're dealing with THE nation that supplies them with their sweetest crude - the one that would be the biggest interruptions to their economy.

Their oil supply was interrupted, and that is the only reason the Euroweenies chose to intervene.

This wasn't a noble war like Iraq.

Yeah France isn't a fan a regime change! You must be completely ignorant of the last.... I don't know hundred years of French Foreign Policy and military history!

No, they weren't.

Because he said so? Complete this sentence for me: "All politicians are liars, except when________."

Given the massive amounts of evidence that (1) there never were any nukes, except on paper and (2) whatever chemical/biological agents previously noted had been destroyed, you're left with a President who's either (A) straightforward but incredibly stupid or (B) a liar and a con artist.

Which would you prefer?

Yemen, arguably, falls under a different, already approved mission. You know, the one Bush actually got approval from Congress for.

It doesn't matter one whit whether we were leading or we were providing bombs and support as our military (you) are in harm's way. I'm surprised at you. The authorization to use military force is NOT subject to NATO direction. It's subject to Congressional approval except on a short term basis. Obama has had plenty of opportunity to gain this approval yet he hasn't even tried.

The initial period was the only part of this that Obama was actually in compliance with the law but that was by default, not by any design on his part.

As I've said before, Libya here smacks a lot of Bosnia. Europe decided they needed some help taking out someone that was bothering them so they came to us. Because it wasn't actually in our interests, it became an OK thing for American Democrats and libs to support.

This was not a drone taking out a few terrorists. This was an attack by US military forces against the legal gov't of a sovereign nation with the intent of removing it from power. This required and continues to require congressional approval.

What American military members are currently in harms way in Libya?

Still sulking over the blow-job, are you? Try to stay on topic.

Still dodging from the real topic here? Au contraire. You stay on topic!

You mentioned American forces being used to support NATO actions yourself. As well, aren't we still providing logistics and munitions?

All right. I'll take "First U.S. President to bomb Libya without Congressional approval" for $1,000, Alex.

America was in charge of enforcing the No Fly Zone (per UN SCR, which IS binding on the US), after which we turned control over to NATO. After that our participation with manned planes dropped precipitously, to the point where I think our last manned mission (using a P-3 and an A-10) occurred less than a month after our involvement started.

I don't know how much more limited or 'short term basis' you can get.

Again, as I understand it, manned or drone is irrelevant. Military involvement is what's outlined by the War Powers Act. And, let me get this correct, you're saying the SCR takes precedence over US law? Hmmmm. I wonder why the President didn't point that out to Congress when he basically told them to take a flying leap?

Close, but not quite. The U.S. has legally bombed Libya under the War Powers Act before. Mr. Obama is the first to bomb it illegally, though...

Nope.

This.

So what do they use the Foreign Legion for?

Man, you're right! I didn't go back 100 years!

Quick, let me do so:

1. The US will fight Banana Wars.
2. The UK will suppress the Boers when they rise up.
3. I have a feeling Japan is about to go into conquest mode.

Hey retard, last hundred years != one hundred years ago. I means from a hundred years out UP TO TODAY.

Seriously, go hit up some wikipedia before you make yourself look any more stupid. The French are heavily involved in the affairs of their former colonial possessions, have more foreign bases than any country but the US, and an expeditionary military that they are not afraid to use.