Lybia was diectly ehing trhe bombing of barracks and killing of marines and Reagan retaliated.I just wanted to know if Reagan attacked other countries without approval from congress. I don't need any excuses. I don't agree whatsoever with what Obama has done in this case. I'm only asking because I had trouble finding absolute info on this and wondered if anyone knew for sure. I'm not out to bitch slap Reagan, just trying to see if I remember right or not.
Obama is setting a completely different precedent by saying we are going here to protect the citizens and setting the groundwork for endless wars and police actions all over the place.
Yemen, Baharain, Ivory Coast, etc are all going through the same thing - is obaa going to sed troop and resources ove there too to protect those people?
I just wanted to know if Reagan attacked other countries without approval from congress. I don't need any excuses. I don't agree whatsoever with what Obama has done in this case. I'm only asking because I had trouble finding absolute info on this and wondered if anyone knew for sure. I'm not out to bitch slap Reagan, just trying to see if I remember right or not.
I know that - I ws just giving yo the diference in rationale. We were retailiating for dead marines, Obama is openin the way for endless war, endless police actions, endless world cop, etc.he aint the only president to do so
i dont get why he rushing to get involved places like africa and the middle east are fvcked have been for thousands of years. Blood begets blood nothing any outside source claiming to help can do to ever change this. The people of these nations are brought up on a hefty dose of violence and death and in turn a lot of them not all of them return the favor. It saddens me to say but i have agree with your statement let em kill each other it seems they will never be happy until they do
Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries.yah this is true and really what it boils down to now
So legally, Obama is in the clear on this as Reagan was. No, I don't like it either.
::) ::) ::)
roll your eyes, but you know i'm right.he just doin it in all his blackness and thats why people being hard on his ass
reagan did dirt, then "didn't recall" it. Bush 1? LMAO. clinton got away with tons of shit. bush did whatever he wanted. obama's just doing what every other president did.
Not saying I like it but....
Neither McCarthy nor Somin mention, however, the War Powers Act, which was passed in the wake of the Vietnam War in an effort to reign in Presidential war power, but which actually enhances that power greatly and gives the President the ability to commit U.S. military forces without seeking Congressional approval under a wide variety of circumstances. As summarized by Wikipedia, the Act “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.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/congress-the-president-and-war-powers-under-the-constitution/
he just doin it in all his blackness and thats why people being hard on his ass
is this true, 33?i guess if you really look at the states now you could be right there is no race just rich and poor maybe classism is the worlds biggest problem now
i know the use of race in your posts only started a short while back.
obama doesn't see black/white. he sees elite, and the rest of us poor scrubs. his skin color is nothing but clever marketing.
let's face it, obama has become bush, reagan, clinton, etc. nothing more, nothing less. unless you have a thread complaining about reagan 'forgetting' shit... piss off. go take the piss.
Bottom line is that Obama himself said in 2007 he was against all of this and it was not constitutional.I'm not an Obama dildo making excuses for him ::) I'm just fuking trying to get the goddamed facts straight so I understand what I'm fucking looking at. Step down buddy.
But now the obama dildos are still making excuses for him. Disgusting.
is this true, 33?
i know the use of race in your posts only started a short while back.
obama doesn't see black/white. he sees elite, and the rest of us poor scrubs. his skin color is nothing but clever marketing.
let's face it, obama has become bush, reagan, clinton, etc. nothing more, nothing less. unless you have a thread complaining about reagan 'forgetting' shit... piss off. go take the piss.
LOL. Getbig is not 25 years old you dope. And I like how you always excuse the misdoings of your messiah and lord savior by trying to go back and find somethinhg else someone else did.
Yeah, really a good example for that. ::)
Good find Hugo! I guess this means it's legal and Obama is off the hook as long as the US pulls out of Libya within 60 days, if congress does not authorize this military action.unfortunately this looks like the case... I seem to remember a few things going down like this before but wanted to make sure I was remembering right. I thought I remembered people talking about this issue a long time ago and found this reference.
33,
Do you condemn Reagan for his obvious lies when he said that he had forgotten important details about the Iran-contra affair?
So basically the only thing you can call Obama out for is being a flip flopper on this... Unfortunately the count of politicians doing that is mighty high, not counting Ron Paul who I swear to god seems to be absolute in his opinions decade after decade lol..
Yeah, he lied. Funny - I will call it straight yet you will NEVER condemn a damn thing your messiah does, no matter how bad, no matter how dishonest, no matter how contradictory, you just look back to equivocate it with something someone did in the past.There's no evidence that Reagan lied. Epic good dude, don't tarnish his name without proof ok...
nice.
There's no evidence that Reagan lied. Epic good dude, don't tarnish his name without proof ok...
Why do we cherry pick which countries to intervene in? Why have we thrown the Iranian populace to the wolves twice now while we enter a civil war in Libya?Good question... wondering the same shit for quite a while...
Good question... wondering the same shit for quite a while...
3333, what's up with the Reagan bashing :-\
Why do we cherry pick which countries to intervene in? Why have we thrown the Iranian populace to the wolves twice now while we enter a civil war in Libya?dont forget the people of Zimbabwe
(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.yes yes, I posted it here days ago and several have been posting it constantly since.... It makes him a flip flopper on opinion but from what i understand, he's legal in what he's doing.
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
“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,” Obama responded.
yes yes, I posted it here days ago and several have been posting it constantly since....
Yes, guess why Hugo?what?
what?
Why do people keep posting obama's own words on this?well no fucking shit... It points out what an assbackstabbing flip flopping sack of shit he is.
yes yes, I posted it here days ago and several have been posting it constantly since.... It makes him a flip flopper on opinion but from what i understand, he's legal in what he's doing.
yes yes, I posted it here days ago and several have been posting it constantly since.... It makes him a flip flopper on opinion but from what i understand, he's legal in what he's doing.
But, this is the caveat:Yea, I think we all get that... That's what people have been talking about in several threads. No offense.
does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
What threat is Libya to the USA? The reason why the left called Bush a war criminial was because to them Iraq was not a threat and had nothing to to do with 911. Why is the left so quiet now?
In order for Obama's actions to be legal he has to show Lybia was going to ATTACK USA. If he can't prove that then his action was illegal and therefore a war criminal just like the left claimed Bush was a war criminal.
That is debatable:It's not debatable according to the Wars Power Act. I agree, the president shouldn't be able to do this shit without going through congress. But legally, I think he is in the clear...
From Article I section 8
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
The POTUS may be CIC, but where is the immanent threat to America or its assets?
241 Marines lost their lives in '82. that was a direct attack/immanent threat to a US asset
Yea, I think we all get that... That's what people have been talking about in several threads. No offense.
I edited the post you should take a look at the war powers act ( is it unconstitutional? Probably but it on the books)yea, I agree without even looking at your post... but the problem is there and it still leaves Obama legally in the clear on this.
yea, I agree without even looking at your post... but the problem is there and it still leaves Obama legally in the clear on this.
yea, I agree without even looking at your post... but the problem is there and it still leaves Obama legally in the clear on this.
Yes, but under the war powers act he needs to report back to congress and fully account for this as well as future plans.
Bama is gong to get steam rolled on this by both sides wih only Kerry, McLame, and Lieberman giving him cover.
so you're saying that Obama did not notify Congress within the 48 hours required? Any links to prove this... Maybe we can nail this down to impeachable right here!
What about Grenada?
Yea, that's the trick... we have to show or see that he didn't notify congress in the 48 hour time... If anyone can show that, we got ourselves a real cause.
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
I haven't seen any of this information reported, so I really don't know. B could be a real problem in this instance
This is another situation( if you believe it to be) of US assets, in this case US citizens put in jeopardy abroad.
Just a couple a weeks ago there was posts with Obama not getting any respect in the middle-east and that Bush was so feared and respected bla bla..
Maybe he took offence?
After all Trump cant attack him on being weak and afraid of confrontation anymore
What about Grenada?I was thinking there were a few examples of this but I couldn't find proof online... The search engines are harder and harder to use these days, geared toward giving you a million results rather than letting you pin it down with all the right keywords... I keep getting results from the major search engines that don't even have the words I searched for in the document. fuckers...
If he is disrespected for not starting any wars and promote peace like you argued then this must give him respect and ffear from the middle east surely.
He has shown to be willing to start wars even without the congress it seems.
The man got cujones
Just a couple a weeks ago there was posts with Obama not getting any respect in the middle-east and that Bush was so feared and respected bla bla..
Maybe he took offence?
After all Trump cant attack him on being weak and afraid of confrontation anymore
If he is disrespected for not starting any wars and promote peace like you argued then this must give him respect and ffear from the middle east surely.
He has shown to be willing to start wars even without the congress it seems.
The man got cujones
Okay Obama stays out of Libya while the French(of all people lol) and the British(our closest allies) attacks? All right-wingers would be screaming traitor, pussy, leaving our allies behind, soft on foreign policy bla..bla..BULLSHIT!!!... I would be happy as fuck if those guys did all this shit on their own without us... Anybody bitched about that I would be happy to tell them off. If France and those guys wanted this, them them fucking go do it.
He goes in and he is a war-mongerer.
Got it.
I have taken side with the right many times in here but now you are just like little children whining...
Okay Obama stays out of Libya while the French(of all people lol) and the British(our closest allies) attacks? All right-wingers would be screaming traitor, pussy, leaving our allies behind, soft on foreign policy bla..bla..
He goes in and he is a war-mongerer.
Got it.
I have taken side with the right many times in here but now you are just like little children whining...
We need to support our allies, simple as that.
The British have supported us in Afghanistan and Irak as well
I can see your logic here, but what threat does Libya pose to the UK? They were just dealing with Gaddafi, release a terrorist for oil. Did Gaddafi renege on the deal? There has to be more of a reason than what is being reported.
And who exactly are these rebels? We don't know shit about them, but are ready to clear the way for them to take over? Something stinks about this whole deal.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.
The United States has not deployed ground forces(Yet) into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect the oil fields and prevent oil prices from going any higherso in other words .......
there fixed it for :P
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.LOL, looks more like they sold the idea of just a no fly zone and then went under the fine type of the deal to launch an all out shock and awe campaign. Bush formed his coalitions by paying states millions and Obama with his UN buddies by tricking them lol... nice....
The United States has not deployed ground forces(Yet) into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect the oil fields and prevent oil prices from going any higher
there fixed it for :P
The funniest part of this whole thing is the UN citing humanitarian crisis as their reason for action, shit most of their policies foment humanitarian crisis, while their officials accept bribes and slave out kids.
The funniest part of this whole thing is the UN citing humanitarian crisis as their reason for action, shit most of their policies foment humanitarian crisis, while their officials accept bribes and slave out kids.bah most of us are to distracted to be bothered by what they do behind the scenes just the way they like it ;D
i heard this morning that we don't give a shit about slaughters in any country that doesn't export either oil or terrorismthe Saskatchewan civil war things got real yo thanks for you guy's help
True or false?
And if false, please give examples of US interventions to save lives where neither was present.
Lybia was diectly ehing trhe bombing of barracks and killing of marines and Reagan retaliated.
Obama is setting a completely different precedent by saying we are going here to protect the citizens and setting the groundwork for endless wars and police actions all over the place.
Yemen, Baharain, Ivory Coast, etc are all going through the same thing - is obaa going to sed troop and resources ove there too to protect those people?
?
what boming of barraks are you talking about
?He's confused. Don't stress him over it, just post the wiki link for him to read.
what boming of barraks are you talking about
1983, 241 Marines killed when the barracks in Beirut truck bombed
He's confused. Don't stress him over it, just post the wiki link for him to read.
I assumed ( I remember it because I was a senior in highschool and we talked about it extensively in civics class) it was that but wasn't aware that Libya had anything to do with thatexactly
Reagan didn't bomb Libya until 1986 and supposedly in retaliation over a terrorist bombing on a nightclub in Germany
The bombing still involved US servicemen he just got the events mixed up.
A real President. Unike the present piece of trash.
With so many kind acts of peace in that region over their peaceful history, its hard to keep track sometimes. But like I said t involved retaliating for dead marines.It's ok to actually say, "oops, sorry, I got that wrong" I've done it several times.
So I guess now the libs in favor of this equate dead marines in thesame level of important as jihadis, al quada, etc since those "rebels" are filled to grills with jidadist elements. .
Wow this is actually a solid thread. Good points on both sides and not a spam attack of Obama pictures and youtubes. Congrats getbig some actual debate!You missing the old days here too? We had threads going like this all the time for a while... But it kinda fell to shit...
My 2 cents. I agree with the position taken by Obama. I've said all along that if this has NATO support or UN support then we should act. The US however, can not be drawn into this as the only combatant. There are still a ton of issue that need to be worked out, but as has been posted, i believe inaction would have led to a mass genocide of the rebels.
It's ok to actually say, "oops, sorry, I got that wrong" I've done it several times.
The bombing still involved US servicemen he just got the events mixed up.
The U.S. Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon. Their withdrawal was completed on February 26, four months after the barracks bombing; the rest of the multinational force was withdrawn by April 1984.
I mixed up the terrorist acts. Ooopsss. I'm now PWNED!::) It's not ownage making a mistake, the ownage comes if you don't own up to it. We all goof, the problem is when we try to cover it up. It's all good, no ownage for admitting a mistake.
::) It's not ownage making a mistake, the ownage comes if you don't own up to it. We all goof, the problem is when we try to cover it up. It's all good, no ownage for admitting a mistake.
I agreeI got no beef whatsoever, he owned it, it's all good, we all screw up... one issue at a time.
not ownage
but definitely a pattern of carelessness
I mixed up the terrorist acts. Ooopsss. I'm now PWNED!
I got no beef whatsoever, he owned it, it's all good, we all screw up... one issue at a time.
I'm not belaboring the point (not beyond here at least)maybe, but I don't think it's important to go there. This was really a minor oops and he owned up to it. That's the part that I would love to see more of on this board. There are thousands of threads here that go on and on because someone is trying to cover up for their error. 3333 is good in my book on this occation and I hope others follow his example. Few people own up to their goofs here. I wish more would... I always have and have never been attacked for admitting a mistake. I would love for others to do the same as it would really benefit the overall debate on this forum.
I'm sure he'll do something similar again soon enough
We need to support our allies, simple as that.
The British have supported us in Afghanistan and Irak as well
maybe, but I don't think it's important to go there. This was really a minor oops and he owned up to it. That's the part that I would love to see more of on this board. There are thousands of threads here that go on and on because someone is trying to cover up for their error. 3333 is good in my book on this occation and I hope others follow his example. Few people own up to their goofs here. I wish more would... I always have and have never been attacked for admitting a mistake. I would love for others to do the same as it would really benefit the overall debate on this forum.
(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
“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,” Obama responded.
And for all you pathetic advocates of this intervention on the basis that it's preventing a "humanitarian crisis", does that mean you're also advocating for military interventions in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Iran, China and other countries because the ones listed are brutalizing their people as we speak.amen
amen
amen
How about we intervene in Camden, Detroit, Bed Stuy, St. louis, Compton, etc?how bout we dont make guns liquor and drugs available with a block of each other in those areas
Not saying I like it but....
Neither McCarthy nor Somin mention, however, the War Powers Act, which was passed in the wake of the Vietnam War in an effort to reign in Presidential war power, but which actually enhances that power greatly and gives the President the ability to commit U.S. military forces without seeking Congressional approval under a wide variety of circumstances. As summarized by Wikipedia, the Act “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.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/congress-the-president-and-war-powers-under-the-constitution/
Though Obama seems to be operating by the law, I still think this law is unconstitutional. Many laws in the US seem to be. Sometimes it seems people in the US government wipe their butts with the US constitution. That can't end well.
And for all you pathetic advocates of this intervention on the basis that it's preventing a "humanitarian crisis", does that mean you're also advocating for military interventions in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Iran, China and other countries because the ones listed are brutalizing their people as we speak.
Though Obama seems to be operating by the law, I still think this law is unconstitutional. Many laws in the US seem to be. Sometimes it seems people in the US government wipe their butts with the US constitution. That can't end well.yea, a lot of people have had a beef with that for a long time. It goes way back. Obama is just the latest to pile on.
Teh Libyans had the weapons of mass destruction the whole time and obama had to react man he did it for us man. Obama almost died for us man
BOOOM!!!! AN IM OUT DIS BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!
BOOOM!!!! AN IM OUT DIS BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!
He's being facetious.undeed
(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
“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,” Obama responded.
wow, Im not sure what just happened lol...
Wrong you asswipe and obama dildo and 95% er, Gadaffi gave them up over the past 8 years and has cooperated with giving up radical islamists in Libya.
Of course yur master, hero, messiah, and lord savior can't have that since he supports the MB elements within the rebels, so now gadaffi must o since it advances jihad, islamism, etc.
lol.. shut up fag...lol
He's being facetious.
lol.. shut up fag...lol
I'm not defending Gadaffi, but get the fucking record straight moron.
All joking aside, it does show that Obama is not in charge. He is doing a lot of the same Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did. He is doing a lot that goes against everything he ever said or supposedly believes. I know politicians often say one thing and then do another, but this is different. Obama is often acting like a far right wing, neo-con, neo-capitalist, teabagger.
so dis man a ass pirate?
still i have no clue of what youre talking about.. but at any rate...
shut up fag
so dis man a ass pirate?
no doubts.. man o man.. i bet hes the type of guy that... ......hahahahahahaha
Hope & Change!
2012 "It could have been worse"
ha ha a ha!!!
no doubts.. man o man.. i bet hes the type of guy that... ......hahahahahahahalol the good ole days
for sure.. this tiny takes teh protien from Tap...are you saying that 333 is the kinda guy who is the first to suggest playing hide the sausage in the bun at poker night?
are you saying that 333 is the kinda guy who is the first to suggest playing hide the sausage in the bun at poker night?
Option FAIL is again left to nothing but insults as kneepadding obama has failed once again.obama is a shady fuck just like all that were before him
rude.. this fuckin assclown ignores the fact that i say i disagree with just about everything obama had done.. like 48 times i said that to this prick...but because he is with the All Or none shit.. he feels i kneepad obama..
this fag comes on here and makes up blatant lies.. but im the fucked up one
rude.. this fuckin assclown ignores the fact that i say i disagree with just about everything obama had done.. like 48 times i said that to this prick...but because he is with the All Or none shit.. he feels i kneepad obama..lol i feel you man our generation can talk about this bullshit till we are blue in the face but the only reason we can talk about such things so in depth is because the way news and what everyone does is so accessible now a days. These fools in office have been shady and only out for their own best interests since the words don't tread on me were first uttered obama aint the first he aint the last
this fag comes on here and makes up blatant lies.. but im the fucked up one
And for all you pathetic advocates of this intervention on the basis that it's preventing a "humanitarian crisis", does that mean you're also advocating for military interventions in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Iran, China and other countries because the ones listed are brutalizing their people as we speak.
No, we don't. The British govt. was up to its neck in the negotiations for releasing the Lockerbie bomber for oil. The only reason France and England are doing anything at all is because they have oil interests at stake, not because they actually care about the people. But unlike France and England, Libya is of no strategic value to the US.
Yeah i have always believed foreign policy changes little from president to president.
Not just foreign policy. Like Clinton and like Bush, Obama is doing nothing to regulate derivatives. That's a huge part of what destroyed the economy, and it will destroy the economy again soon if nothing is done about this.
Not just foreign policy. Like Clinton and like Bush, Obama is doing nothing to regulate derivatives. That's a huge part of what destroyed the economy, and it will destroy the economy again soon if nothing is done about this.
wow, Im not sure what just happened lol...
Afghanistan and Irak has no strategic value to the British either so..
Explain please...
so you think government intervention/regulation should have exisited in the stock market?
so you think government intervention/regulation should have exisited in the stock market?