Author Topic: Obama's illegal war (Read 66932 times)

I'm not defending anything. We shouldn't have gone in. But going in wasn't illegal. Might be a little difficult for a CT nut to grasp that distinction.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #105 on:** March 22, 2011, 10:42:26 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on March 22, 2011, 10:40:21 AM

I'm not defending anything. We shouldn't have gone in. But going in wasn't illegal. Might be a little difficult for a CT nut to grasp that distinction.

I still want his ass impeached asap. And not once, I want obama impeached daily for so long as we can come up with valid reasons which by my count is about 5,986 at this point.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #106 on:** March 22, 2011, 10:47:50 AM »

Six Libyan villagers shot by US team rescuing pilot.
channel 4 ^

Channel 4 News International Editor, Lindsey Hilsum, says that the villagers were shot when a US helicopter picked up the pilot who had ejected from the F-15E Eagle plane after it experienced a mechanical failure.

The US aircraft crashed on Monday night and was found in a field outside Benghazi and landed in rebel-held territory.

The local Libyans who were injured in the rescue mission are currently in hospital. They are the first confirmed casualities of allied operations, almost four days after operations began. At the time of writing, no one had died as a result of the gunfire.

Lindsey Hilsum has been in the hospital where some of the injured were taken. She has spoken to the father of a young boy who expects to have his leg amputated due to a bullet wound.

Gauging the reaction of locals in the area, she said: "the local Libyans do not seem resentful, they still want the coalition forces to keep operating."

Both crew members ejected and have now been flown out of Libya by US personel, according to a US military spokesman.

He said the crash was "not due to enemy or hostile actions."

The pilot and a weapons officer were aboard the fighter jet, having set off from from Aviano Air Base in Italy. On experiencing the mechanical difficulties, both pilots ejected safely, but suffered minor injuries.

The pilot was rescued by the US helicopter soon after crash landing and opposition rebels recovered the weapons officer, taking "took good care of him" before coalition forces picked him up some time later.

(Excerpt) Read more at channel4.com ...

Dos Equis · « **Reply #107 on:** March 22, 2011, 10:48:05 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 22, 2011, 10:42:26 AM

I still want his ass impeached asap. And not once, I want obama impeached daily for so long as we can come up with valid reasons which by my count is about 5,986 at this point.

He's not getting impeached and I don't want my tax dollars wasted on another one of those fiascos. I just want him slowed down by the House and out in 2012.

Option D · « **Reply #108 on:** March 22, 2011, 11:14:26 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 22, 2011, 10:42:26 AM

I still want his ass impeached asap. And not once, I want obama impeached daily for so long as we can come up with valid reasons which by my count is about 5,986 at this point.

did you say the same with bush?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #109 on:** March 22, 2011, 11:20:21 AM »

Quote from: Option D on March 22, 2011, 11:14:26 AM

did you say the same with bush?

I loathed Bush for many reasons and fet that he was disgusting for his abdication on immigration, spending, dubai ports, and a few other isues.

He was a NWO stooge for his trying to get us signed up for a bunch of shitty trade deals, and at the end gave away the store to the banking cartel. He dithered on the Iraq war and let that go on way too long and let the contractors rape the taxpayer.

That being said, what Bush did was nothing in scale compared to what we see now.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #110 on:** March 22, 2011, 12:27:01 PM »

Obama Mission du Jour in Libya: “Installing a democratic system”
Hotair ^ | March 22,2011 | Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has launched an American military operation in Libya, but has had trouble deciding on exactly why. Several weeks ago, Obama called for Moammar Gaddafi’s ouster. When he launched military operations against Gaddafi’s regime, however, Obama insisted that he would only act within the UN mandate of protecting civilians. Yesterday, Obama tried to claim both missions simultaneously by saying that our military wouldn’t try to push Gaddafi out, but that we’d still push him out some other way. What that was, Obama didn’t really know.

According to a transcript of a call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, we’re back to “regime change” — and a familiar goal:

The White House suggested Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

According to a White House readout of a Monday night call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the two leaders “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”

The term “installing” suggests the goal of regime change.

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for clarification.

In their defense, they seem to be more confused than anyone at the moment about what Obama really wants. We can’t ask Obama, since he’s touring South America while everyone else puzzles over his intentions for the military intervention in Libya. Similarly, Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton are both out of the country as well, leaving Joe Biden running the show … presumably.

The term “installing” sounds more proactive than just “regime change,” which could be just limited to taking out Gaddafi and key members of his regime. Of course, the US hadn’t even gone that far of late in describing their goals in this new war, claiming not to be targeting Gaddafi or his command and control while someone rains bombs down on both. But “installing a democratic system” sounds an awful lot like the nation-building on which both Obama and Hillary heaped criticism while running for President in 2007-8.

Seems like everyone’s a neocon these days. Here’s the big question: How does one “install” a “democratic system” from 30,000 feet? Congress might like to hear that answer as well.

Kazan · « **Reply #111 on:** March 22, 2011, 12:38:31 PM »

Great more "nation building"

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #112 on:** March 22, 2011, 12:40:49 PM »

White House: Helping install 'a democratic system' is goal in Libya
By Sam Youngman - 03/22/11 10:23 AM ET

The White House suggested Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

According to a White House readout of a Monday night call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the two leaders "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will."

The term "installing" suggests the goal of regime change.

In an e-mail, White House press secretary Jay Carney said there is no change in the U.S. military mission, which he wrote was clearly focused on protecting civilians. He also noted Obama's remark Monday that Gadhafi is no longer fit to lead.

From the onset of the strikes against Libya, senior administration officials have said the goal is to create an atmosphere where Libyan rebels would be able to oust Gadhafi from power.

Obama has struggled to reconcile the stated U.S. policy of wanting Gadhafi out of power with the U.N. mission of protecting the Libyan people.

At a press conference Monday in Chile, Obama said it is "very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies."

But the president faces an increasingly hostile backlash from Capitol Hill about the specific definition of the mission.

This story was updated at 2:43 p.m.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission

Dos Equis · « **Reply #113 on:** March 22, 2011, 01:17:47 PM »

Quote from: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 12:38:31 PM

Great more "nation building"

Been doing a lot of that lately. $:-\$

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #114 on:** March 22, 2011, 01:21:43 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on March 22, 2011, 01:17:47 PM

Been doing a lot of that lately. $:-\$

WRONG BB!

Obama has been doing a lot of nation COLLAPSNG & DESTROYING lately - namely - our own.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #115 on:** March 22, 2011, 01:42:26 PM »

Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy:U.S. Military Docum

Well known to the United States policymakers in Obama White House and Clinton State Department along with the National Security Council but not widely known to American mainstream media, the U.S. West Point Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center document reveals that Libya sent more fighters to Iraq’s Islamic militancy on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps more alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The analysis of the Combating Terrorism Center of West Point was based on the records captured by coalition forces in October 2007 in a raid near Sinjar, along Iraq’s Syrian border.

The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million).

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebe...

Jadeveon Clowney · « **Reply #116 on:** March 22, 2011, 01:48:19 PM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 08:54:15 AM

It's not illegal, but it's goddam stupid.

How is this not "illegal"? Did Gadaffi pose an imminent threat to our national security?

tu_holmes · « **Reply #117 on:** March 22, 2011, 01:53:31 PM »

Quote from: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:48:19 PM

How is this not "illegal"? Did Gadaffi pose an imminent threat to our national security?

It's not illegal because as commander and chief of the armed forces, The President has the power to order these strikes.

That's pretty simple... Was Vietnam illegal? It certainly wasn't a war authorized by congress.

If an imminent threat is a requirement for a legal war, then everyone in Congress in 2003 should be tried for an illegal war for voting to go to war in Iraq.

Jadeveon Clowney · « **Reply #118 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:01:10 PM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 01:53:31 PM

It's not illegal because as commander and chief of the armed forces, The President has the power to order these strikes.

That's pretty simple... Was Vietnam illegal? It certainly wasn't a war authorized by congress.

If an imminent threat is a requirement for a legal war, then everyone in Congress in 2003 should be tried for an illegal war for voting to go to war in Iraq.

In 2003 they argued imminent threat and got Powell to put his credibility on the line. As Commander, President has power to act responsively/offensively if an imminent threat. Or so I understand.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #119 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:04:30 PM »

Quote from: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 02:01:10 PM

In 2003 they argued imminent threat and got Powell to put his credibility on the line. As Commander, President has power to act responsively/offensively if an imminent threat. Or so I understand.

Vietnam was an imminent threat?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #120 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:06:04 PM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 02:04:30 PM

Vietnam was an imminent threat?

Two wrongs dont make a right. I thought obama was supposed to the smartest potus ever to sit in office and realize the folly of past mistakes.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #121 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:07:01 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 22, 2011, 02:06:04 PM

Two wrongs dont make a right. I thought obama was supposed to the smartest potus ever to sit in office and realize the folly of past mistakes.

Woh woh... i'm not talking right or wrong.

I know you've seen my posts talking about it being wrong... but that doesn't make it illegal.

It's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend, but it ain't illegal.

Kazan · « **Reply #122 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:07:31 PM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 02:04:30 PM

Vietnam was an imminent threat?

At the time any spread of communism was thought to be an imminent threat to the US, the point is the original intent in the constitution and what the CIC clause has become are 2 completely different things. I would think all would agree that the POTUS shouldn't be able to just attack whom ever he feels like whenever he feels like.

Jadeveon Clowney · « **Reply #123 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:09:45 PM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 02:07:01 PM

Woh woh... i'm not talking right or wrong.

I know you've seen my posts talking about it being wrong... but that doesn't make it illegal.

It's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend, but it ain't illegal.

It's illegal if it isn't authorized by the constitution.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #124 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:10:20 PM »

Quote from: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 02:07:31 PM

At the time any spread of communism was thought to be an imminent threat to the US, the point is the original intent in the constitution and what the CIC clause has become are 2 completely different things. I would think all would agree that the POTUS shouldn't be able to just attack whom ever he feels like whenever he feels like.

Yes, I do agree... but Presidents do it anyway.