Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003 | Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html)

"Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces."

11. Bush sought and recieved the approval of congress to invade Iraq. Commander Zero didn't even bother to consult congress to attack Libya.

:killingme

11. Bush sought and recieved the approval of congress to invade Iraq. Commander Zero didn't even bother to consult congress to attack Libya.

:killingme

He didn't have to, just as Reagan didn't have to. Obama's first obligation to Congress was to inform them within 48 hours in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, which he has done. The ball is now in the Congress' court as to wether or not they want to stop the military action IAW the WPR.

He didn't have to, just as Reagan didn't have to. Obama's first obligation to Congress was to inform them within 48 hours in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, which he has done. The ball is now in the Congress' court as to wether or not they want to stop the military action IAW the WPR.

Just helping the moronboy identify all those differences:howdy:

1. Bush wasn't a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

2. Iraq was only the second concurrent war, not the third.

3. Bush talked to the American people about what he was doing.



:yay:

Good thing he got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Gitmo has been closed for over a year!

Remember the line that got him elected? "Repeating the failed policies of the Bush administration...."

I guess it's not repeating if he doubles down, right?

He didn't have to, just as Reagan didn't have to. Obama's first obligation to Congress was to inform them within 48 hours in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, which he has done. The ball is now in the Congress' court as to wether or not they want to stop the military action IAW the WPR.

But for the president to act our laws say NOTHING about UN approval but an imminent thret to the us.

Please point out in the war powers act where it says in lieu of a threat to the US approval by the UN can be substituted.

#5 cracks me up
Like you are less dead if killed by a bomb dropped by a fighter than a bullet from an infantryman's rifle

1) Obama is not W.
2) Obama doesn't look like W.
3) Obama doesn't sound like W.
4) Obama doesn't feel like W.
5) Obama doesn't taste like W.
6) Obama doesn't smell like W.
7) Obama is better than W.
8) Obama is smarter than W.
9) Obama is nicer than W.
10) Obama does no wrong.
11) Obama simply ain't W.

But for the president to act our laws say NOTHING about UN approval but an imminent thret to the us.

Please point out in the war powers act where it says in lieu of a threat to the US approval by the UN can be substituted.


It doesn't. That's why the President is required to inform Congress within 48 hours. At that point the Congress can pass a concurrent resolution thus forcing a stop to the military action or the Congress can do nothing and wait for the 60 day period to lapse.

As far as the UN, the WPR does address our treaties and international organizations (ie. UN Security Council Resolutions) but you'd have to read the entire WPR, not just the first section.

He didn't have to, just as Reagan didn't have to. Obama's first obligation to Congress was to inform them within 48 hours in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, which he has done. The ball is now in the Congress' court as to wether or not they want to stop the military action IAW the WPR.

He still didn't get the approval of congress.

By the way, isn't it interesting how a "no fly zone" includes blowing up tanks. Those tanks wouldn't be flying if the bombs didn't make them fly.

Obama is digging around the White House garage looking for W's "Mission Accomplished" banner.

#5 cracks me up
Like you are less dead if killed by a bomb dropped by a fighter than a bullet from an infantryman's rifle

8) Obama is smarter than W.
.

:confused: but Obama only graduated because of affirmative action, that's why he won't release his college transcripts

He still didn't get the approval of congress.

By the way, isn't it interesting how a "no fly zone" includes blowing up tanks. Those tanks wouldn't be flying if the bombs didn't make them fly.


That's right, and he doesn't need it for the first 60 days unless the Congress passes a concurrent resolution to force an end to the military action. He informed the Congress within 48 hours as required by law. Now it's up to Congress to either wait for the 60 period to expire or to pass a concurrent resolution to immediatley stop the military action. The President is acting within the War Powers Resolution.

That's right, and he doesn't need it for the first 60 days unless the Congress passes a concurrent resolution to force an end to the military action. He informed the Congress within 48 hours as required by law. Now it's up to Congress to either wait for the 60 period to expire or to pass a concurrent resolution to immediatley stop the military action. The President is acting within the War Powers Resolution.

What/who constituted the attack or serious threat to the U.S. required under the WPR?

That's right, and he doesn't need it for the first 60 days unless the Congress passes a concurrent resolution to force an end to the military action. He informed the Congress within 48 hours as required by law. Now it's up to Congress to either wait for the 60 period to expire or to pass a concurrent resolution to immediatley stop the military action. The President is acting within the War Powers Resolution.

The post you were arguing with said that he didn't get the approval of congress. Since you agree that he did not get the approval of congress, and that differentiates his actions from Bush, why the hell are you arguing it?

By the way, your interpretation of the law is wrong. Try looking at it objectively instead of trying to find anything that can justify this blatant disregard for the law.

Why do you need to blow up tanks to enforce a no fly zone?

What/who constituted the attack or serious threat to the U.S. required under the WPR?

Nothing/no one. If those requirements were met, the WPR would not have been envoked.

In the absence of those requirements being met, the WPR provides that the President must inform Congress within 48 hours. He did that. Now he has 60 days to continue the military action unless the Congress passes a concurrent resolution which would force an end to the military action. You might want to read the WPR, the whole thing, not just the first section.

The post you were arguing with said that he didn't get the approval of congress. Since you agree that he did not get the approval of congress, and that differentiates his actions from Bush, why the hell are you arguing it?

By the way, your interpretation of the law is wrong. Try looking at it objectively instead of trying to find anything that can justify this blatant disregard for the law.

Why do you need to blow up tanks to enforce a no fly zone?

I so like to think you are the smartest man that ever lived, Oh sorry I've been drinking, it's you that thinks your the smartest to ever live.

Obama is digging around the White House garage looking for W's "Mission Accomplished" banner.

That funny!

By the way, your interpretation of the law is wrong. Try looking at it objectively instead of trying to find anything that can justify this blatant disregard for the law.

Nope. You're not the authority on that. My interpretation is not wrong and I am looking at it objectively, based on the text of the law. You might want to read the WPR, the whole thing, not just the first section.

Why do you need to blow up tanks to enforce a no fly zone?

That is a valid question. We've been refering to it as enforcing a "no fly zone" but I haven't read the text of the actual UN Security Council Resolution so I don't know if it goes further to say something like protecting civilians on the ground or some other language that goes beyound making sure planes don't fly.

This whole thing could be solved if the Congress would do their part under the WPR and pass the concurrent resolution, IAW the WPR, to force an end to our involvement. They could do it tomorrow if they wanted to.

Nothing/no one. If those requirements were met, the WPR would not have been envoked.

In the absence of those requirements being met, the WPR provides that the President must inform Congress within 48 hours. He did that. Now he has 60 days to continue the military action unless the Congress passes a concurrent resolution which would force an end to the military action. You might want to read the WPR, the whole thing, not just the first section.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is 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 if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. 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.

While I think we did the right thing by intervening in Libya, Obama doesn't seem to have followed the law by authorizing the action.

While I think we did the right thing by intervening in Libya, Obama doesn't seem to have followed the law by authorizing the action.

You need to read the entire WPR text. There's a lot more to it than what you highlighted.

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml)




.

You need to read the entire WPR text. There's a lot more to it than what you highlighted.

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml)




.

But none ofit supercedes the requirrements outlined in the first part. Nowhere does it say the rules of engagement don't apply with a UN resolution. The situation still has to meet one of three requirements for the President to commit our forces with or without a UN resolution. Or does the UN resolution now trump our constitution?

You need to read the entire WPR text. There's a lot more to it than what you highlighted.

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml)
.

What part authorized the President to take action without consulting congress?

What part authorized the President to take action without consulting congress?
None of it. That's the whole point of having the WPR. For times when the President starts military action without authorization from Congress the WPR requires notification within 48 hours. At that point the President get 60 days unless Congress passes a concurrent resolution forcing an end to the military operation.


(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.



Notice it says IF. As of today, the President is acting within the bounds of the WPR. He start military action without authorization from Congress. He infomed Congress of that IAW the WPR. Now, it is up to the Congress as to what happens next. They can pass the concurrent resolution thus forcing an end to military action OR they can just wait for the 60 day period to expire.

But none ofit supercedes the requirrements outlined in the first part. Nowhere does it say the rules of engagement don't apply with a UN resolution. The situation still has to meet one of three requirements for the President to commit our forces with or without a UN resolution. Or does the UN resolution now trump our constitution?

This section addresses what needs to happen if the conditions of section 1 have not been met.


(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.



Again, one needs to read the entire WPR in order to understand how it works.

.

While I think we did the right thing by intervening in Libya, Obama doesn't seem to have followed the law by authorizing the action.

Why? I find this fascinating, the enduring strength of the neo con mantra, using American military power to make things 'better' around the globe when all of the evidence of this philosophy in action has failed so poorly time after time.

Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War I
Iraq
Afghanistan

Libya is, clearly, not a threat to our national security any more than dozens of other tin pot dictatorships around the globe. What goes on in Libya does not affect our national interests, at all, unless we are going to make that same argument about all the other messed up places around the globe.

Qaddafi has, to some extent, bent to our will the last 10 years and certainly has taken no belligerent actions against us and, for damn sure, could have been persuaded any number of other ways short of, once again, deploying our military to...to what? Help the other side?

Because why? They are our friends? They're another repressed collection of Jefferson's and Hamilton's eager to employ representative government based on individual rights and limited government, practices we don't do particularly well here at home? We don't know these people, who is in charge, who their leaders actually are, who is actually behind them, their actual motives. We do know that among their are al queda elements with the same agenda as Osama bin Laden; working for fundamentalists Muslim governments in place of corrupt, West leaning despots.

Spending got us in trouble in our economy. Both parties solution is more spending. This neo con impulse is why we are in so much trouble as the land of the free and home of the brave. So, both parties are, once again, doing more. We simply do not have the will in this nation to wage war anymore. We half ass it and make things worse AND inherit the mess. The desire for other people to be 'free' is not a sound basis for military action. At all, especially when we muck it up so poorly.

Why is this the right thing to do and, if it is, why do you care if Obama followed the law or not? Can't he just make up his own law, like the last bunch of neo cons, and pretty much get his way from an inert congress, too?

Our freedoms are declining yet, we still wanna play implementer of truth and justice around the globe?

George Will (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032411.php3)

I hope we get over this while there is still an America left for the world to aspire to.

:shrug:

Nothing/no one. If those requirements were met, the WPR would not have been envoked.

In the absence of those requirements being met, the WPR provides that the President must inform Congress within 48 hours. He did that. Now he has 60 days to continue the military action unless the Congress passes a concurrent resolution which would force an end to the military action. You might want to read the WPR, the whole thing, not just the first section.

The multiple postings on this subject sparked my interest..

It appears to me that you missed the line under Section 1543 Section (a) that states "In the absence of a declaration of war.." It did not state in the absence of all 3 of the requirements being met, as you have stated..

This section addresses what needs to happen if the conditions of section 1 have not been met.




Again, one needs to read the entire WPR in order to understand how it works.

.

This doesn't answer the first question, and again, it's not pertinenent to the debate.

Under what grounds/ authority did the President commit the use of US Military forces in Libya?

Congress hasn't disapproved after the fact does NOT answer the question as to why or how he did it in the first place.

You are suggesting the President can do anything he wants with the military because Congress can say stop later on, but that doesn't meet the requirements, nor the intent of the War Powers Act.

So the question is again, what gave the President the Authority to commit US Forces to take action in Libya? Don't tell me how we can stop it now, tell me how he could LEGALLY commit the forces to begin with.

You are suggesting the President can do anything he wants with the military because Congress can say stop later on, but that doesn't meet the requirements, nor the intent of the War Powers Act.

So the question is again, what gave the President the Authority to commit US Forces to take action in Libya? Don't tell me how we can stop it now, tell me how he could LEGALLY commit the forces to begin with.

There it is.

But I cannot find where the War Powers Act says anything specifically about "kinetic military actions"


Ace of Spades HQ (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/313839.php)

:whistle:

Left wing TV is even more fun-er than normal watching these people prattle on and on and on about the humanitarian aspects of 'saving' Libyans (from Libyans?) and not ONE WORD about...


...oil.

Some Dem congress critter was on and the host-ette asked if he was OK with Obama's actions, if it was constitutional and the guy said...nope. And she acted like she'd just gotten a wrong number. :lol:

:killingme:killingme

RealClearPolitics - Video - Dem: Obama Told Me We Would Be "In And Out" Of Libya (http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/24/dem_obama_told_me_we_would_be_in_and_out_of_libya.html)

5) Obama doesn't taste like W.

Really? :twitch: