UN - Picking sides in the civil war in Libya

H4ever · Post by **H4ever** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:26 pm

Take that bitch over and spend about 400 Billion a year we don't have promoting democracy within? I'm thinking anytime some 3rd world shit heap needs some new roads, bridges, and schools all they have to do is prop up some "meanie" dictator who is being mean to all the people who just want to be free as they jump around in the streets popping caps in the air and shouting "la-la-la-la....death to imperialists!"

Seriously though...I'm thinking isolationism is sounding better and better.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:38 pm

So the Frogs need some target practice. Who are we to deny them that?

Santana should stick to playing guitar anyway, IMO.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:50 pm

I don't see the problem at all. The Arab League is now on record against tyranny, and the French are finally pitching in their fair share. These are scenarios that would have been unthinkable during any prior administration.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:04 pm

88 wrote:
BSmack wrote:I don't see the problem at all. The Arab League is now on record against tyranny, and the French are finally pitching in their fair share. These are scenarios that would have been unthinkable during any prior administration.
Amazing how short some memories are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

At least that war ^^^ was to expel an invader from a UN member country.

Gulf War I wasn't about overthrowing tyranny, it was about maintaining the status quo. Tell me you knew?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:26 pm

BSmack wrote:...and the French are finally pitching in their fair share.

The French are flexing muscle in what they perceive to be their "sphere of influence".

Try not getting too misty eyed.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:17 pm

BSmack wrote:I don't see the problem at all.

Other than the fact that this is a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter which you profess to cherish?

Under what statutory authority is the lazy, fucked up niggger you voted for committing US armed forces into hostilities?

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Which part of section 2, sub-section c is unclear to you?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:53 pm

mvscal wrote:.. attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

If you want to be a cunt, how about Lockerbie? How about the Berlin disco bombing that killed American servicemen? Or is there a statute of limitations on paying back a terrorist?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:02 pm

Are you attempting to suggest that terrorist attacks 30 years ago have created a national emergency requiring an immediate military response without statutory authorization?

That's a pretty feeble line of bullshit even from a tard like you. Why don't give it another go and see if you do a little better or you can just admit that your lazy, fucked up niggger Pres__ent just started an illegal war for (European) oil while he was on vacation in Brazil.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:29 pm

YEEEE HAWW, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

GET YOUR WAR ON MAH NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNIN NIGGA!!!

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:34 pm

BSmack wrote: The Arab League is now on record against tyranny

..............

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:41 pm

We're involved in enforcing U.N. sanctions. Gadhafi had an opportunity to pull his troops back and refused....in violation of the U.N. demands. The CIA should have sanctioned a hit on this terrorist training POS 30 years ago.

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:46 pm

The Seer wrote:
BSmack wrote: The Arab League is now on record against tyranny
..............

I thought the only thing they were on record about was the utter and complete destruction of LT2's homeland.

Oh well...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 pm

Mace wrote:We're involved in enforcing U.N. sanctions.

Those so called sanctions are, themselves, a blatant violation of the UN Charter.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Oh, BTW, we don't involve ourselves in using US armed forces to enforce UN sanctions without specific statutory authority from the United States Congress.

Now this is an illegal war.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:10 am

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) - The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

I'm pretty sure Congress has been notified.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:13 am

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:26 am

Mace wrote:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) - The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
I'm pretty sure Congress has been notified.

Who gives a fuck if they have? Did they pass a specific statutory authorization for this action and is it really appropriate to "notify" Congress that US forces have already been committed to war (after the fact) by breaking off a phone call from your vacation in Brazil?

Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:47 am

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

--Ospearchucker 2002

Who knew Owarmonger was such a fucked up, lying hypocrite? Seems like even the most willfully myopic, cock swallowing sack jockies are having a tough time defending this illegal war for (European) oil.

What happened to BSpermburp?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:52 am

mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) - The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
I'm pretty sure Congress has been notified.
Who gives a fuck if they have? Did they pass a specific statutory authorization for this action and is it really appropriate to "notify" Congress that US forces have already been committed to war (after the fact) by breaking off a phone call from your vacation in Brazil?

Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?

Can't you fucking read? He has 48 hours to notify Congress and can keep the forces deployed for 60 days, and another 30 days for withdrawal....without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. It's called the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read it again and then STFU.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:05 am

What kind of parallel universe is this? Avi is complaining about stomping some "sandniggger" ??? He's complaining aboout the U.S. war machine being deployed?....Let's connect the dots....hmmmm...Libya, like Egypt, had been co-opted into playing ball with the Western/Zionanzi alliance. He had become their boy, and now that he's being shitcanned, Avi--and the Western corporate whores and the Zionazis watching very nervously--are saying "hold on..,let's make sure we do everything by the letter."

Well, when we hear Avi or the other seething Tea Baggers actually demand that America stop wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on insanely expensive weapons systems as well as actual illegal invasions, we'll know some waking has occurred.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:31 am

Mace wrote:He has 48 hours to notify Congress and can keep the forces deployed for 60 days, and another 30 days for withdrawal....without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. It's called the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read it again and then STFU.

WRONG

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/arch ... tion.shtml

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:38 am

mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote:He has 48 hours to notify Congress and can keep the forces deployed for 60 days, and another 30 days for withdrawal....without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. It's called the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read it again and then STFU.
WRONG

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/arch ... tion.shtml

Yo, mv...help a bro' out...

Could you lure Felcho into this thread and hold him here for a while? He's shitting up my comic book thread.
Just mention Israeli regional dominance or American carrier groups in the Mediterranean and have him chase his tail 'till Monday or so.

Thanks bud. Owe you one.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:57 am

mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote:He has 48 hours to notify Congress and can keep the forces deployed for 60 days, and another 30 days for withdrawal....without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. It's called the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read it again and then STFU.
WRONG

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/arch ... tion.shtml

Didn't you read the link you posted?

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:24 am

You're completely out to lunch, Mace.

The reporting protocol you cite is used in such cases as U.S. forces have been put into action due to one of the conditions which mvscal cited (sec 2c) being present.

None of the three conditions in sec 2c exist.

It's a complete fabrication and a president simply does NOT have any authorization to take the actions he's taken.

We have a president, not a king.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:25 am

poptart wrote:You're completely out to lunch, Mace.

The reporting protocol you cite is used in such cases as U.S. forces have been put into action due to one of the conditions which mvscal cited (sec 2c).

None of the three conditions in sec 2c exist.

It's a complete fabrication and a president simply does NOT have any authorization to take the actions he's taken.

We have a president, not a king.

So NOW you guys are complaining? Sorry fuckos, there's precedent going back to Reagan that says you're off your fucking rockers.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:38 am

poptart wrote:You're completely out to lunch, Mace.

The reporting protocol you cite is used in such cases as U.S. forces have been put into action due to one of the conditions which mvscal cited (sec 2c) being present.

None of the three conditions in sec 2c exist.

It's a complete fabrication and a president simply does NOT have any authorization to take the actions he's taken.

We have a president, not a king.

If what you're saying were true, there would be no need for this:

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:47 am

Mace wrote:
poptart wrote:You're completely out to lunch, Mace.

The reporting protocol you cite is used in such cases as U.S. forces have been put into action due to one of the conditions which mvscal cited (sec 2c) being present.

None of the three conditions in sec 2c exist.

It's a complete fabrication and a president simply does NOT have any authorization to take the actions he's taken.

We have a president, not a king.
If what you're saying were true, there would be no need for this:

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Goddamn, you're stupid. The only time a president can deploy US forces into hostilities without a DoW or SSA is in response to a national emergency. The pres. is given discretion in how he responds to that emergency but the section you just cited means that Congress shut it down if they aren't in agreement with his response.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:53 am

Yep.

Justification of this action taken by Barry will be nothing but very lame spin.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:12 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote: He's complaining aboout the U.S. war machine being deployed?

In the absence of any clear American interest, you're goddamn right.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:23 am

88 wrote:I'm pretty sure Reagan didn't obtain Congressional approval before bombing Libya in 1986.

It wasn't necessary. It was a direct response to the disco bombing which was an emergency reponse to an attack on US armed forces. The bombing was on April 5th. The airstrike was on April 15th.

Grenada was less defensible. In fact, it was completely indefensible but at least it had the bad excuse of being in our strategic interests in the context of the Cold War.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:41 am

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote: He's complaining aboout the U.S. war machine being deployed?
In the absence of any clear American interest, you're goddamn right.

I don't think you comprehend Libyan potential :?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:43 am

I don't think you comprehend American interests.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:46 am

Well, they're often at odds with each other, so something consistent would be a starting point. It's this giant mass of contradictions - which is a problem in itself.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:18 am

You're talking but you're not saying anything.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:32 am

Strikes me as the policy now is no different than ten years ago, but this one is actually achievable at very little risk. I can't properly articulate it myself, it just seems that there's been this turning point in attitude and it reflects frustration, indecision and a general sense of being lost. 'American Interest' is debatable, in what sense? The general welfare? The market? The national intersest? What?

It's worth being guarded over a term like that.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:13 am

2007

Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Barry: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:35 pm

poptart wrote:2007

Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Barry: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Seems to me the Congress was informed and consented. McCain and Liebermann have been making the rounds on the news talk shows for weeks advocating a no fly zone and all that goes with it. They're pissed it took so long.

But I see the contradiction. We smash Libya but allow the rulers in Yemen and Bahrain to shoot their protesters with barely a whimper. But that's different because those are our 'allies' in the war against terrorism.

Heard where B-2 stealth bombers hit Libya airfields. B-2's that are stationed at Whiteman AFB in Knob Knoster, Missouri. That's one helluva' round trip. My guess is they had to refuel inflight 3-4 times.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:39 pm

War Wagon wrote:But that's different because those are our 'allies' in the war against terrorism.

So was Gadhafi, allegedly.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:02 pm

Martyred wrote:
War Wagon wrote:But that's different because those are our 'allies' in the war against terrorism.

So was Gadhafi, allegedly.

Allies?! Pshaw. The man's practically family...

To our son, the honorable Barack Hussein Obama,

As I have said before, even if, God forbid, there were a war between Libya and America, you would remain my son and I would still love you. I do not want to change the image I have of you. All of the Libyan people are with me, ready to die, even the women and children. We are fighting nothing other than al-Qaida in what they call the Islamic Maghreb. It's an armed group that is fighting from Libya to Mauritania and through Algeria and Mali. ... If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?"

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:30 pm

War Wagon wrote:Seems to me the Congress was informed and consented.

Congressional consent is granted in the form of a declaration of war or joint resolution granting specific statutory authority to the president to use armed force not a couple of douchesicles making the rounds on Sunday talkshows.

Got it?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:33 pm

BSmack wrote:The Arab League is now on record against tyranny, and the French are finally pitching in their fair share.

Arab League criticizes West's strikes on Libya

TRIPOLI (Reuters) – Western forces pounded Libya's air defenses and patrolled its skies Sunday, but their day-old intervention hit a diplomatic setback as the Arab League chief condemned the "bombardment of civilians."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110320/wl_nm/us_libya

Oh, would care to remind the class what happened the last time we let the French drag us into a war that didn't involve us?