Libya vs Iraq: Making Charlie Sheen look rational...

[89Hen]

Define "minimal". I'd say lobbing a couple of hundred tomahawks to dethrone a dictator while employing significant naval and air force prescece off the Libyan coast hardly constitutes "minimal". Turning "control" over to NATO is effectively taking control from one US commander and giving it to another. Plus, since there's no defined endgame by our president, how could we possibly know what the timespan is?

The War Powers Act defines it for you. Look it up if you're curious.

Were you outspoken in opposition to our presence in Iraq from 1992-2003 doing the same thing?

Yes. You were in 2nd grade, you don't remember.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-26/poli ... LLPOLITICS

[Skjellyfetti]

The War Powers Act defines it for you. Look it up if you're curious.

Were you outspoken in opposition to our presence in Iraq from 1992-2003 doing the same thing?

Yes. You were in 2nd grade, you don't remember.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-26/poli ... LLPOLITICS

Wait, 89. Let me make sure I have this straight.

You were against our enforcement of a no-fly zone in Iraq from 1992 until 2003. But you were for our full scale invasion of Iraq that got 4,000+ US troops killed?



Why?


Also interesting that those were Repubicans were bitching about that in 1998... after it had been going on for 6 or 7 years... and after it was initiated under George H.W. Bush (R). I wonder if they were outspoken about it when he was President?

[AZGrizFan]

Yes. You were in 2nd grade, you don't remember.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-26/poli ... LLPOLITICS

Wait, 89. Let me make sure I have this straight.

You were against our enforcement of a no-fly zone in Iraq from 1992 until 2003. But you were for our full scale invasion of Iraq that got 4,000+ US troops killed?



Why?


Also interesting that those were Repubicans were bitching about that in 1998... after it had been going on for 6 or 7 years... and after it was initiated under George H.W. Bush (R). I wonder if they were outspoken about it when he was President?

Obama is a man of peace. Bush is a babykiller.

[ASUG8]

Define "minimal". I'd say lobbing a couple of hundred tomahawks to dethrone a dictator while employing significant naval and air force prescece off the Libyan coast hardly constitutes "minimal". Turning "control" over to NATO is effectively taking control from one US commander and giving it to another. Plus, since there's no defined endgame by our president, how could we possibly know what the timespan is?

The War Powers Act defines it for you. Look it up if you're curious.

Were you outspoken in opposition to our presence in Iraq from 1992-2003 doing the same thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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 still looking for the US national emergency or attack on the US or its territories. I know you've already read and ignored what follows, but then-candidate Obama had a much different perspective when he was busy trying to say all the right things to get elected:

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?)

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.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/200 ... A/ObamaQA/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for my perspective on Iraq up until 2003 - I'm not a fan of war or being world police. If any president has violated the Constitution, overstepped his boundaries, or violated the War Powers Act he should be held accountable for it.

[89Hen]

Also interesting that those were Repubicans were bitching about that in 1998... after it had been going on for 6 or 7 years... and after it was initiated under George H.W. Bush (R). I wonder if they were outspoken about it when he was President?

Not really interesting considering Desert Fox was in 1998, which was what this was a forewarning to.

[Skjellyfetti]

And surely y'all were against our "wars" in Grenada, Libya, Columbia, Panama, etc. under Reagan, right?

[AZGrizFan]

The War Powers Act defines it for you. Look it up if you're curious.

Were you outspoken in opposition to our presence in Iraq from 1992-2003 doing the same thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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 still looking for the US national emergency or attack on the US or its territories. I know you've already read and ignored what follows, but then-candidate Obama had a much different perspective when he was busy trying to say all the right things to get elected:

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?)

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.

AnalJelly gettin' bitch-slapped.

[89Hen]

And surely y'all were against our "wars" in Grenada, Libya, Columbia, Panama, etc. under Reagan, right?

I was 15.

[ASUG8]

And surely y'all were against our "wars" in Grenada, Libya, Columbia, Panama, etc. under Reagan, right?

Objection your honor: deflection.

[Appaholic]

And surely y'all were against our "wars" in Grenada, Libya, Columbia, Panama, etc. under Reagan, right?

Panama = Bush...no, I was a senior in HS and believed what we were dioing was right & just....was also wearing a mullet and Reeboks because I thought they were cool but, upon reflection......

[Skjellyfetti]

Ok. Change it to present tense.

Are y'all against the actions we took in Panama, Grenada, Libya, Columbia, etc.?



I'm not really asking this toward Appaholic. He was always against the Iraq War as far as I remember. He's been consistent and the only one of y'all that has a leg to stand on. I remember arguing quite a bit with AZ, 89, and ASUG8 on the Iraq War. They were gung ho in their support of that clusterfuck.

[89Hen]

I remember arguing quite a bit with AZ, 89, and ASUG8 on the Iraq War. They were gung ho in their support of that clusterfuck.

I'm fairly sure we didn't know each other 9 years ago.

[Skjellyfetti]

I remember arguing quite a bit with AZ, 89, and ASUG8 on the Iraq War. They were gung ho in their support of that clusterfuck.

I'm fairly sure we didn't know each other 9 years ago.

Yeah, but you were still arguing for the Iraq War in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

[89Hen]

I'm fairly sure we didn't know each other 9 years ago.

Yeah, but you were still arguing for the Iraq War in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

You have an interesting memory. You may want to go back and read the old AGS archives.

[Skjellyfetti]

Yeah, but you were still arguing for the Iraq War in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

You have an interesting memory. You may want to go back and read the old AGS archives.

Hmmm. Can you still peruse them? I thought they all got purged?

What year did your support of the Iraq War end? I always thought it was somewhere between November 2008 and January 2009.

[89Hen]

What year did your support of the Iraq War end? I always thought it was somewhere between November 2008 and January 2009.

You're right. It was December 17th, 2008.

[Ivytalk]

And surely y'all were against our "wars" in Grenada, Libya, Columbia, Panama, etc. under Reagan, right?

Objection your honor: deflection.

Sustained!

[ASUG8]

Ok. Change it to present tense.

Are y'all against the actions we took in Panama, Grenada, Libya, Columbia, etc.?



I'm not really asking this toward Appaholic. He was always against the Iraq War as far as I remember. He's been consistent and the only one of y'all that has a leg to stand on. I remember arguing quite a bit with AZ, 89, and ASUG8 on the Iraq War. They were gung ho in their support of that clusterfuck.

I will tell you that I was part of the 79% of Americans that thought it was a good idea to whack Iraq based on the information we had in front of us at the time in 2002. Congress, who I assumed had better information than I did, shared that opinion overwhelmingly in a bipartisan manner - the difference is that I'll tell you I supported it then, while many of today's Democratic incumbents deny their approval.
* Did we find out that there were no WMD's? Yep
* Were mistakes made? Yep
* Was the public misled? Probably - several other countries' intelligence correlated with what we thought we knew
* Was/is there a severe case of "mission creep" with taking the war into Afghanistan/Pakistan? Yep
* Is the world a better place without Hussein? I believe so, but he turned out to be something of a toothless bear when it came to threatening anyone outside of his country.

If you were in the 20% who were against Iraqi invasion in 2002 and knew that nothing would be found then you have my congratulations.

My opinion then was based on a recent direct attack on US soil, and Iraq became a target based on intelligence gathered worldwide. My initial enthusiasm has been dampened since then with seemingly no endgame in sight. That being said, I'm still waiting on seeing how our sovreignty has been threatened in the Libya debacle. To my knowledge, they haven't thrown the first rock at us before or during this invasion.

[AZGrizFan]

Ok. Change it to present tense.

Are y'all against the actions we took in Panama, Grenada, Libya, Columbia, etc.?



I'm not really asking this toward Appaholic. He was always against the Iraq War as far as I remember. He's been consistent and the only one of y'all that has a leg to stand on. I remember arguing quite a bit with AZ, 89, and ASUG8 on the Iraq War. They were gung ho in their support of that clusterfuck.

You have a poor memory for such a young punk. I haven't "supported" the Iraq war for quite some time. OTOH, I ALSO do not support just pulling up stakes and leaving a clusterfuck that WE created behind. That being said, when the new Iraqi gov't said they wanted us the fuck out, I fully supported leaving on the next plane.

[FargoBison]

It's MUCH different, Appa - there's no Congressional buy-in on this exercise.

Because it's required by the War Power Act if you want to send in 150,000+ troops and occupy a country for an extended period of time.

A mission with a minimal footprint, minimal troop committment, minimal timespan doesn't require Congressional authorization.

I wonder why US law makes a distinction between the two? Hmmm. Probably because they're completely different.


If Obama signs off on committing a large number of troops, and we end up losing thousands of soldiers in Libya... I'll be the first to show up at the protests.

Most US taxpayers surely disagree with this being "minimal"....

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, in an analysis this month, estimated that the Libyan no-fly zone could cost $100 million to $300 million per week.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... ya-ops-095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've already spent what? Over half a billion dollars and counting....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03 ... -says.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... ya-ops-095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've already spent what? Over half a billion dollars and counting....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03 ... -says.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great. Let's chop the DoD budget in half. I've been saying we should do that for years. $700,000,000,000. More than the rest of the world combined.


Sounds like the taxpayers would be on board with that. 350 billion dollars a year we now use to pay off deficit instead. I like it.

[Ivytalk]

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... ya-ops-095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've already spent what? Over half a billion dollars and counting....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03 ... -says.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great. Let's chop the DoD budget in half. I've been saying we should do that for years. $700,000,000,000. More than the rest of the world combined.


Sounds like the taxpayers would be on board with that. 350 billion dollars a year we now use to pay off deficit instead. I like it.

Hey, jellybelly, what's the color code for sh*t-brown in your screen name? Don't see it on the key!

[Skjellyfetti]

Dunno. You'd have to ask Willie.

[CID1990]

The War Powers Act allows for warmaking by the President for 60 days before the requirement to go before Congress for an authorization. It specifically limits its use to situations where the United States is under attack or imminent threat of attack (imminent threats to US citizens abroad has also been used as a loose interpretation of the imminent threat portion).

Grenada, previous attacks on Libya by Reagan, all covered under the WPA. Look it up.

Panama? Not covered, but I'll have to read up on that one a little more.

Colombia? What exactly have we done in Colombia that has not either been supported by Congress or invitation from the Colombian government?

NOT under the WPA:

*Desert Storm.. authorized by Congressional roll call vote.
*Desert Shield, etc: authorized by COngressional roll call vote.
*Operation Iraqi Freedom: AUTHORIZED by Congressional roll call vote.

Current attacks on Libya: not authorized by Congress, no imminent threat to US, no attacks on the US. The WPA does not apply.

Watch the next few weeks. The Obama Administration is going to do its best to spin this in such a way that they can argue that it falls under the WPA, and folks like KYJelly are going to fall all over themselves in agreement with whatever specious argument Obama makes.

[grizzaholic]

Dunno. You'd have to ask Willie.

Or whoever donated enough to change it for ya.