Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003

[nhboy (Premo)]

Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003 | Informed Comment

"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."

[Gilligan (Premo)]

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

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

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

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.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

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

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by nhboy

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.

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?

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by awpitt

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.

[itsbob]

#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

[Toxick]

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.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by itsbob

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.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by awpitt

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.