The War in Libya

[Marek]

Under American law this is an illegal war, congress never gave permission for this.

Whether or not Congress must give permission is still up for debate, with at least 30 years of near unanimous precedent suggesting that Obama was acting within his legal powers. A conclusory statement like that is certainly not justified.

 

[Chris81]

It is amazing to me that we can fire 100 tomahawk missiles and bomb a countries air fields, air defenses, and other military targets yet we're are not officially at War. Apparently we are just enforcing a UN resolution, no big deal, and we really don't need to get approval from congress for this action. It is clear that our Constitution requires that the President officially declare war and that it must be approved through Congress. We do this as a check and balance so that the President does not act in his own capacity to fight wars of his own choosing. Unfortunately since the end of World War II Presidents have strayed from seeking legitimate authority by a number of legal tricks. Primarily we no longer fight wars, we perform police actions, enforce international resolutions, or pursue aggressive diplomacy.

I have heard on the news the administration seeks to hand over much of the responsibility of enforcing the no fly zone to our other UN partners. I certainty hope so, and let us all hope we don't commit any ground troops to this battle. We are busy in Iraq and Afghanistan and until we leave those countries I see no reason to start another mess in Libya.

 

[TerranceL]

Whether or not Congress must give permission is still up for debate, with at least 30 years of near unanimous precedent suggesting that Obama was acting within his legal powers. A conclusory statement like that is certainly not justified.

This isn't the first illegal war that a president has declared.

 

[JoyJuice]

The US is a sovereign nation and the UN has no right to tell us when we can and cannot go to war.

Under American law this is an illegal war, congress never gave permission for this.

No one has declared war. No one is telling anyone anything, but I think we do honor treaties, and the UN is a treaty organization started by us. I don't think it is as black and white as you may think.

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

This war was needed and it is humane, but Obama definitely did not go about it right.

 

[childofTHANATOS]

This war was needed and it is humane, but Obama definitely did not go about it right.

How is it needed???

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Yes I said war. Let's review the facts: we have established a no-fly zone over Libya and bombarded the country with Tomahawk missiles. In any sane world this would be considered an act of war.

You're wrong. This isn't a war. This is simply a kinetic military action. There's a difference.

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

How is it needed???

It was needed to thwart a coming slaughter of civilian dissidents by Gaddafi.

 

[childofTHANATOS]

It was needed to thwart a coming slaughter of civilian dissidents by Gaddafi.

Fair enough...but it leads us down a rabbit hole.

Why don't we do that every time something like this occurs? Rwanda or Darfur for example? What is so special about Libya? Is it the fact that the UK and France want this?

And if our job in the world is the that of police officer, shouldn't we get paid for this? How is investing our own dwindling resources into tearing down and rebuilding countries honestly bettering ourselves here at home? Wouldn't that money be better spent here or not at all?

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

Why don't we do that every time something like this occurs? Rwanda or Darfur for example?

That's a good question and I agree, I think it comes down to many different factors like: money, public outcry, gains through political motivations, possibility of future stable government, dissidents seeking true democracy and freedom (as in we do not support communist uprisings only the ones who want freedom). These things must be considered before continuing with a strategy of war.

All in all though, the war is just and needed and there is a possibility of a free Libya in the future, God willing and then also maybe the gospel will be allowed to be preached to the people. (under Gaddafi this was illegal)

Wouldn't that money be better spent here or not at all?

Money is not everything.

 

[childofTHANATOS]

That's a good question and I agree, I think it comes down to many different factors like: money, public outcry, gains through political motivations, possibility of future stable government, dissidents seeking true democracy and freedom (as in we do not support communist uprisings only the ones who want freedom). These things must be considered before continuing with a strategy of war.

I think your are getting at the heart of the matter here. What are these factors and under what light are they properly interpreted? Why Bosnia and not Rwanda? We could rack our brains over such matters. We could try to find to an answer that is most comfortable for us. But why bother? The Iraq and the Afghan war are hardly anything for America to celebrate. And this war will prove to be another waste of American money and lives. All we will have to show for it is debt.

Money is not everything.

Can't argue against that...but are you going to endorse a war tax for this war? How do you plan to pay for it?

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

We could try to find to an answer that is most comfortable for us. But why bother? The Iraq and the Afghan war are hardly anything for America to celebrate. And this war will prove to be another waste of American money and lives. All we will have to show for it is debt.

That is how you choose to see it and you are allowed to see it that way, but remember you do not know what would have happened if we did not invade the Middle East after 9-11, much greater catastrophes could have happened, who knows what Iraq and Afghanistan would look like now, possibly the cries for freedom that went out because of these wars could have sparked the riots and rallies for freedom we now see in other countries in the Mid-East at the moment. The Middle East is changing and hopefully I pray for the better, and yes I do believe that this in part should be accredited to the USA.

 

[MoonlessNight]

You're wrong. This isn't a war. This is simply a kinetic military action. There's a difference.

I really hope that you're being facetious. Words are supposed to reflect reality. They aren't supposed to be magic incantations that change the nature of something by calling it something different.





Unrelated to that response, I do regret focusing my confusion and frustration at liberals because, as has been noted, the conservative response to this hasn't exactly been inspiring. Many indeed are criticizing not for his illegal act, but that he didn't act illegally sooner.

So accept my apologies for sliding this into more of a partisan debate. The instigation for this thread was my frustration in dealing with certain liberal posters in another thread on this specific issue, so I made the thread to bring the issue to the forefront.

I would alter the original post, but I think that it's a bit late for that to be anything other than Orwellian. What's done is done there.

 

[Marek]

This isn't the first illegal war that a president has declared.

I really hope that you're being facetious. Words are supposed to reflect reality. They aren't supposed to be magic incantations that change the nature of something by calling it something different.

There's no question that this was an act of war. Where reasonable minds disagree is whether or not Obama has authority to direct troops in the manner that he did. You two are clearly in the minority when you look at past actions by executives and legislators. Of course, that's not to say you're wrong. There needs to be a point where military aggression directed by the president has gone too far. I don't think we've reached that point in this case.

Unfortunately for you, courts won't touch the issue under the political question doctrine, Congress won't cut funding, lest they look like they aren't supporting the troops, and once the executive branch feels they have the authority to act, they'll rarely give up that power. So unless there's a complete government overhaul in at least one of these branches, you can expect military action of this nature to continue.

 

[childofTHANATOS]

...but remember you do not know what would have happened if we did not invade the Middle East after 9-11, much greater catastrophes...

Here is the problem with your logic: "invade the Middle East after 9/11". First off, the Muslims that flew those planes into the WTC were mostly from Saudi Arabia...we didn't invade that country.

Google: Iraq Saddam Euro

Is it really about Islam and democracy?

...possibly the cries for freedom that went out because of these wars could have sparked the riots and rallies for freedom we now see in other countries in the Mid-East at the moment.

You could possibly make this claim (although it would still be weak) if some of these "democratic" movements were not antithetical to US aims. I would argue that the Muslims of North Africa are sick of living under despotic dictators including the US's puppets.

The Middle East is changing and hopefully I pray for the better, and yes I do believe that this in part should be accredited to the USA.

We can agree that it is changing...and I share your hope that it is for the better. And maybe we do deserve some credit, we have established so many puppets in that region. Maybe...just maybe...they got fed up with our imperialism and now are attempting to take control over their own destinies and their own resources.

 

[Conservativation]

all these operations are a bust. there is "hair' on every war we have going. I hate the inconsistency on both sides. The whole kinetic thing is hilarious, and the term is redundant anyway...kinetic action is redundant. whatever.


Its time to stop all these fights, im a conservative and Bush supporter.....and Ive been done with Iraq and Afg. for years.....waste of time

i recall the cries that we cant get involved in iraq's "civil war" from the left. Um......what exactly is the libyan struggle? Defending the current stuff while slamming Bush is stupid. the issue with Bush'war is we should have been done by about late 2004....over and out.

 

[Ton80]

i recall the cries that we cant get involved in iraq's "civil war" from the left. Um.....

There was no Iraq civil war until after Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq's government. This was not the case in Libya. Do you always compare apples to oranges?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

There was no Iraq civil war until after Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq's government. This was not the case in Libya. Do you always compare apples to oranges?

Well, there was a coup attempt shortly after the first Gulf War.

 

[Ton80]

Well, there was a coup attempt shortly after the first Gulf War.

In the early 1990's?

Who cares? That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[KarateCowboy]

“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,”

-Barack Obama, 2007