Didn't Reagan go off attacking other nations without approval of congress?

[Soul Crusher]

The bombing still involved US servicemen he just got the events mixed up.

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.   

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.  .     

[kcballer]

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!

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.  

[Neurotoxin]

A real President.    Unike the present piece of trash.    

[Hugo Chavez]

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.   

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.  .     

It's ok to actually say, "oops, sorry, I got that wrong"  I've done it several times.

[Hugo Chavez]

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!

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.  

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...

[Soul Crusher]

It's ok to actually say, "oops, sorry, I got that wrong"  I've done it several times.

I mixed up the terrorist acts.  Ooopsss.   I'm now PWNED!  

[Straw Man]

The bombing still involved US servicemen he just got the events mixed up.

yep so the "rationale" he thought he was giving you was completely wrong

and Reagans response was (per Wiki - though again I recall the events myself)

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 can only imagine the 100's of vitriolic posts from 333 if this was Obama's response to such an event

[Hugo Chavez]

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.

[Straw Man]

  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 agree

not ownage

but definitely a pattern of carelessness

[Hugo Chavez]

I agree

not ownage

but definitely a pattern of carelessness

I got no beef whatsoever, he owned it, it's all good, we all screw up...  one issue at a time.

[blacken700]

I mixed up the terrorist acts.  Ooopsss.   I'm now PWNED!  

new hamshire, Massachusetts, continent, country it's all good, your in good company 

[Straw Man]

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)

I'm sure he'll do something similar again soon enough

[Hugo Chavez]

I'm not belaboring the point (not beyond here at least)

I'm sure he'll do something similar again soon enough

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.

[Fury]

We need to support our allies, simple as that.

The British have supported us in Afghanistan and Irak as well

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.

[Fury]

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.

[Straw Man]

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 already agreed it was not ownage

I'd like to see more factual debate of this board and less of the nonsense that seems to be the norm on this board

[Dos Equis]

(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.

Hoisted by his own petard. 

[RUDE BUOY]

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

[Soul Crusher]

amen

How about we intervene in Camden, Detroit, Bed Stuy, St. louis, Compton, etc?

[Fury]

amen

It's a pathetic double standard. Especially coming from places like the UN, who sat there and did nothing while hundreds of thousands of native black Darfurians were genocided by the Arab Muslim janjaweed. Now THAT was an event that warranted intervention.

[RUDE BUOY]

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

[loco]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[GigantorX]

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.

The govt. will pick and chose, simple as that. Libya has oil and access to waterways, we don't buy the oil but a few of our allies do. There is your answer, although Bahrain is home to the 5th fleet.

This just seems so clusterfuckish from the lead up, the justification (was there one?) the allies involved and the Arab Leage going one way then another.

The problems with this are many: How long do we continue this attacks/no fly zone? Are ground forces really off the table? What are the aims of this operation? Is it to topple the Col. or bomb stuff, blow up SAM sites? If it isn't to topple the Col., then why are we even bothering with this? Who are the rebels and what are their intentions? What do they want at the end of all of this? Will they be friendly towards the West or a wild card?

And really, have any of these questions been answered? What the fuck is going on? I can't see this ending well and having a lasting positive effect. If the "coalition" (NATO? UN? WTF?) bombs and bombs and bombs and the Col. is still in charge at the end....that won't look very good on an already shaky resume. As BF said, if we don't intervene in other countries that are in the same situation, how will that look? What will the Arab Street and the world say/react to us leaving non-oil exporting countries alone to die in a revolutionary fire?

This isn't good. If France/UK want the oil then go get it. We shouldn't be bombing Libya, at least not under some real, real, real shaky pretense and no clear goals and no clear outs and no clear plan.

[Hugo Chavez]

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.

But here's the way it goes: I've been protesting, bitching, posting, writing about this shit for 15 years or so.  I'm starting to get up there in age, have a family and becoming less and less involved as time goes on.  The next gen is coming along and while they seem to be totally fucking oblivious to me, I assume they are going to start bitching too...  Only problem with that is they are inherriting a government more out of control and a world more out of control than I started with.  It's WTF for me, but the norm for them.  Down the road, the WTF for them will be OMFG for me and I'll be an old man.

The one thing I've tried to tell people is to judge things by the direction it sets and see what's next to come.  To try to think about what is next if we allow this or that to happen.  I've spent years being laughed at and mocked for that...  I don't know what else there is to do or say, it's feels pointless and perhaps that's the years and age setting in.  It is what it is but some people tried...