|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2011 : 03:33:57 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
| A quick refresher for you. The first Gulf War was sanctioned by UN to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and secure neighbouring countries from any threat that Iraq might pose to them. |
A quick refresher for you on the US Constitution, the president of the United States does not need UN approval to declare war on any nation deemed a threat to the US. He does however need the approval of the US Congress. Declaring this a “Military Action” rather than a war is nothing but just a slick game he plays to avoid having to go before congress. That is the problem. The US Constitution was set up to prevent one man alone from having the power to call a war of his choice.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 03:37:06 [Permalink]
|
| What Obama did was legal. |
Same with Bush.
| Also, there was no time to run this through congress. |
Bull malarkey.
| He is required to put it through congress now. But if you consider the humanitarian aspect of this mission, there wasn't enough time. |
If there was “no time” why did he wait so long to make the decision? And if this is for humanitarian reasons why Libya and why now? There have and continue to be much more dire situations around the world than Libya.
| I would argue that what Reagen did there was plenty of time for. |
I would argue the same against Obama.
| So I don't think the situations are really comparable other than the WPR was used to justify the legality of both actions. I suspect that in Reagen's case, he didn't want to tip his hand and tip off Libya... |
So it does not bother you that a man sits in the white house bombing the nation of his choice without even going through congress? What if a conservative president pulled the same stunt?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 03/26/2011 03:49:00 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 03:41:45 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| At least Bush got approval to do anything he wanted. |
He shouldn't have gotten such approval in the first place. |
That is your opinion. The facts remain that Bush did have full congressional approval for the “military action” against Iraq.
| Obama does anything he wants without approval. |
It's not like Congress has been run by people who got elected on the basis of their wisdom, anyway. Look what they approved for Bush II. |
So we just allow a president to trample the constitution because you think the elected congress is not qualified? I would make the case the sitting president is the one who is not qualified.
| This is not the "change" I voted for. |
You elected a community organizer from Chicago with no track record at all to be president of the US! What the hell did you expect?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 03/26/2011 03:51:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 07:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
That is your opinion. |
Yes, it is. How kind of you to notice.| The facts remain that Bush did have full congressional approval for the “military action” against Iraq. |
I know. The problem was that it wasn't limited.| So we just allow a president to trample the constitution because you think the elected congress is not qualified? |
What a bizarre response. The point was that the US electorate is voting for the wrong reasons.| I would make the case the sitting president is the one who is not qualified. |
It's not about qualifications, it's about checks and balances.| You elected a community organizer from Chicago with no track record at all to be president of the US! What the hell did you expect? |
I expected a liberal.
You also wrote:| So it does not bother you that a man sits in the white house bombing the nation of his choice without even going through congress? |
You didn't actually read the article cited by Kil, did you? Obama is in compliance with the War Powers Resolution, section 8(b) of which "states that further specific statutory authorization is not required to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date" (source). In other words, the President doesn't need to "go through" Congress to initially commit the military to act if the UN, NORAD or NATO has said "we're going to war."| What if a conservative president pulled the same stunt? |
One just did: Obama. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 08:36:14 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Yes, it is. How kind of you to notice. |
You are welcome
| I know. The problem was that it wasn't limited. |
Just your opinion.
| What a bizarre response. The point was that the US electorate is voting for the wrong reasons. |
But that is your opinion, again.
| It's not about qualifications, it's about checks and balances. |
Exactly, Obama should have checked with congress first.
You should have expected someone who was incompetent and unqualified for the job because that is what we have.
| You didn't actually read the article cited by Kil, did you? |
Dude it just stinks to high heaven that he is committing to combat operations without the approval of anyone in the congress. Who cares about the UN! They rarely have the best interest of the US in mind. The president should be held in check by the US congress not the UN and you even said so.
No one knows what Obama is other than incompetent.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 08:43:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
A quick refresher for you on the US Constitution, the president of the United States does not need UN approval to declare war on any nation deemed a threat to the US.
|
A quick refresher on International Law: Loosing a pissing contest against a dictator does not constitute a clear and imminent threat to the safety and sovereignty of your country, and does not grant you the right to launch invasions. Iraq was not a military threat against neither USA nor its allies.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 08:51:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So it does not bother you that a man sits in the white house bombing the nation of his choice without even going through congress? |
Not if there's a United Nations mandate to do so.
What if a conservative president pulled the same stunt?
|
I supported the first G. Bush's decision to lead Operation Desert Storm and the first Gulf War. I would have, regardless if he was a liberal or a conservative. As it turned out he was an idiot, and a very poor breeding stock.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/26/2011 09:03:05 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 08:55:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I would make the case the sitting president is the one who is not qualified.
|
Congressmen who are delusional enough to believe our planet is only 6000 years old are the people not qualified to govern, any country.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 08:59:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Just your opinion. |
And? Is something wrong with that?| It's not about qualifications, it's about checks and balances. |
Exactly, Obama should have checked with congress first. |
Not according to the War Powers Resolution.| You should have expected someone who was incompetent and unqualified for the job because that is what we have. |
Looking back, he's still the lesser of all the evils available at the time.| You didn't actually read the article cited by Kil, did you? |
Dude it just stinks to high heaven that he is committing to combat operations without the approval of anyone in the congress. |
So the answer to my question was no, you haven't read the article.Our treaties with foreign governments and the War Powers Resolution are the law of the land, that's why we care.| They rarely have the best interest of the US in mind. |
As if you know what the best interest of the US is.| The president should be held in check by the US congress not the UN and you even said so. |
Except that Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. Ironic, isn't it, that Congress itself gave away the power to authorize all war in 1973. The law of the United States of America says, in no uncertain terms, that a UN resolution declaring war is good enough for the President to commit our forces to even full-scale military action (not just a no-fly zone) for 60 days, so long as the President reports the rationale and legal basis for such action to Congress, which he has.
Just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal or that he's a rogue war hawk.
If you think it "stinks," then you should petition your Congresscritters to amend or repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution and replace it with language stating that in no case can the President take military action without Congress passing a law authorizing it. Then our treaty allies will be forced to wait for our help for who-knows-how-long while Congress does its normal foot-dragging, even if they're being directly attacked. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 09:29:06 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
If there was “no time” why did he wait so long to make the decision? And if this is for humanitarian reasons why Libya and why now? |
These are such a stupid questions it takes my breath away. First off, he waited because we couldn't do this unilaterally in an arab nation, or anywhere else for that matter. There had to be agreement from the UN and a coalition from NATO plus a thumbs up from the Arab league or this would have looked like another foreign agression by the US. All the ducks had to be lined up to go. In the meantime, Gaddafi was poised to kill large numbers (really large numbers) of his own people. The rebels were begging for western intervention and were dying while waiting for it. Once the UN and NATO and the Arab League agreed on a no fly zone, that was it. There was no time to dick around with congress. Every hour mattered. In a case like this the WPR is used and that's one reason why it exists.
Also asking why Libya? There are any number of reasons. You can ask why some other countries suffering under bad dictatorships aren't getting the same treatment from the world community, and us specifically, but it's a mute point. We can't do everything and we shouldn't. The UN and NATO as well as the Arab League are all together on this one, and that's a rare kind of support for a military action. You would have to go back to the Golf war for that kind of consensus. And given our standing in the world community right now, we just can't act unilaterally and think we can get away with it. We're in deep shit in Iraq and mostly Afghanistan as it is. So Obama was very careful about supplying air support for the rebels. And he was right to be cautious.
What's interesting is the flack he is taking from the right. Some think we should have just gone in. But now that Obama waited for the resolution, with the clock ticking, the right is bitching about his not running it by congress before going. Something he couldn't have done until there was a coalition. So once that was settled, the right is bitching that he should have waited even longer for congressional approval. A few days delay while Gaddafi kills thousands of more people and ends the rebellion.
The truth is, no matter what Obama does, the right will find fault with it. And that's saying nothing about the resistance from the left, who in this particular case I think are wrong. Of course, if this mission turns out to be extended and ground troops are committed by us, I'll join the left in their objections to that. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 10:07:24 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| And? Is something wrong with that? |
Nope.
| Looking back, he's still the lesser of all the evils available at the time. |
We will never know.
Except that Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. Ironic, isn't it, that Congress itself gave away the power to authorize all war in 1973. The law of the United States of America says, in no uncertain terms, that a UN resolution declaring war is good enough for the President to commit our forces to even full-scale military action (not just a no-fly zone) for 60 days, so long as the President reports the rationale and legal basis for such action to Congress, which he has.
Just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal or that he's a rogue war hawk.
If you think it "stinks," then you should petition your Congresscritters to amend or repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution and replace it with language stating that in no case can the President take military action without Congress passing a law authorizing it. Then our treaty allies will be forced to wait for our help for who-knows-how-long while Congress does its normal foot-dragging, even if they're being directly attacked. |
Well I still think it stinks, even if legal, much as you thought of Bush when he was legal. And you yourself agreed with me that Obbama should go through congress.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 10:10:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
If there was “no time” why did he wait so long to make the decision? And if this is for humanitarian reasons why Libya and why now? |
These are such a stupid questions it takes my breath away. First off, he waited because we couldn't do this unilaterally in an arab nation, or anywhere else for that matter. There had to be agreement from the UN and a coalition from NATO plus a thumbs up from the Arab league or this would have looked like another foreign agression by the US. All the ducks had to be lined up to go. In the meantime, Gaddafi was poised to kill large numbers (really large numbers) of his own people. The rebels were begging for western intervention and were dying while waiting for it. Once the UN and NATO and the Arab League agreed on a no fly zone, that was it. There was no time to dick around with congress. Every hour mattered. In a case like this the WPR is used and that's one reason why it exists.
Also asking why Libya? There are any number of reasons. You can ask why some other countries suffering under bad dictatorships aren't getting the same treatment from the world community, and us specifically, but it's a mute point. We can't do everything and we shouldn't. The UN and NATO as well as the Arab League are all together on this one, and that's a rare kind of support for a military action. You would have to go back to the Golf war for that kind of consensus. And given our standing in the world community right now, we just can't act unilaterally and think we can get away with it. We're in deep shit in Iraq and mostly Afghanistan as it is. So Obama was very careful about supplying air support for the rebels. And he was right to be cautious.
What's interesting is the flack he is taking from the right. Some think we should have just gone in. But now that Obama waited for the resolution, with the clock ticking, the right is bitching about his not running it by congress before going. Something he couldn't have done until there was a coalition. So once that was settled, the right is bitching that he should have waited even longer for congressional approval. A few days delay while Gaddafi kills thousands of more people and ends the rebellion.
The truth is, no matter what Obama does, the right will find fault with it. And that's saying nothing about the resistance from the left, who in this particular case I think are wrong. Of course, if this mission turns out to be extended and ground troops are committed by us, I'll join the left in their objections to that.
|
But everything you just said the same case could be made for going into Iraq. An evil dictator who had already killed 100,000’s of his own person, who now, according to defectors, was working on WMD’s. We had plenty of opposition leaders and supporters in Iraq begging for our action, Bush had the full support of congress and the left goes nuts while they point to Obama’s peace prize when he bombs dictators who are no threat at all to the US. Certainly no more of a threat than was Saddam, if even that. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 10:27:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Nope. |
Then why do you keep pointing it out as if there is something wrong with it?Why not? Huckabee and others seem to be re-firing their campaign machines for 2012. You should be doing your damndest to make sure Palin doesn't get the Republican nomination, though, or Obama will win in a walk.| Well I still think it stinks, even if legal, much as you thought of Bush when he was legal. |
And you can work to get the law changed, just like I can work to try to get people to vote smarter.| And you yourself agreed with me that Obbama should go through congress. |
"Should have" doesn't mean "must." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 10:29:44 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
But everything you just said the same case could be made for going into Iraq. |
I'm not going to go through your whole post because I really don't care what you think. I doubt that Obama can do anything that you wouldn't criticize. But the first sentence is such crap, I'll respond. The people of Iraq, mainly the Kurds, were not in eminent danger when we attacked. Yes, Saddam did those things. But in Libya, they were happening NOW and the rebels were begging for our help. That was not the case in Iraq. And you know it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 10:30:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But everything you just said the same case could be made for going into Iraq. An evil dictator who had already killed 100,000’s of his own person, who now, according to defectors, was working on WMD’s. We had plenty of opposition leaders and supporters in Iraq begging for our action, Bush had the full support of congress... |
Bush did not have the support of the UN, NATO or the Arab League.| ...and the left goes nuts... |
Because the decision was unilateral and the "coalition of the willing" was a joke.| ...while they point to Obama’s peace prize when he bombs dictators who are no threat at all to the US. |
Who the hell is doing that? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bombs away
