GOP challenge on Libya: Cheer or not to cheer? (Politico)

[Dos Equis]

The senate voted 100 to 0 to give Obama the power to drop bombs into Libya.

it's that simple.

Senate resolution 84, wasn't it?  BB, you and I keep butting heads on this one - you first didn't seem to believe the senate voted for it - and when i posted the link, you got all quiet.

I don't give a shit what the libyans do, but I am cool with american-killer kadaffi being out of there.  and whoever gets in will certainly not have the terror/insulation infrastructure that kadaffi had after 4 decades. 

So yeah, more of the senate supported bombing libya than bombing iraq or even afghanistan, right?

LOL!  I haven't been butting heads or getting quiet with you about anything, because I usually ignore you.  

What exactly did the resolution say and when was it passed (before or after the bombing started)?  And what did the House have to say?  I'd like to see their unanimous vote, since "everyone" wanted this.  

[Dos Equis]

us senate approves resolution supporting and calling for a no fly zone over libya
Published March 28
Views: 1702

 abuseFYI -

On March 1, 2011 - the US Senate passed by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 85 which recognized and applauded the "courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights and strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms.

The resolution also urged "the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

This resolution was debated, sponsored and passed by unanimous consent in the US Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.85:

Also - under the UN Participation Act of 1945 - passed by Congress in 1945 and signed in to law by the President:

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein"

I'm looking for the part that indicated the Senate wanted war in Libya, but don't see it.  Imposition of a no-fly zone is far different from what we did (are doing). 

[240 is Back]

The repubs were the FIRST to go on sunday talk shows and talk about the need to bomb libya and deliver the NFZ.  kerry joined repubs graham and mccain and others.

Many getbiggers actually SUPPORTED it (as did newt!) until obama got on board.  Then, they were suddenly against it.  Or they took the unique position of "but but he should have decided faster" since, after all, we all know pudgy 31 year olds on getbig have more understanding of war details than say, those actually conducting the wars.

The Senate voted 100 to 0 to give the President the power to bomb bomb bomb away on a terrorist who killed americans.  It's that simple.  The politics came in afterwards, but really, it's so pathetic and minor.  Our leaders wanted the dude out, and he's on his way out.

Did it take longer than they would have liked?  Sure.  But can you list the last war that went "according to plan"?  Certainly not iraq or afghanistan, and they are wins.

[240 is Back]

LMAO...  BB, i'm disappointed you didn't follow this.  you dig this legal stuff:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr112-85

It was a nice quiet effort to give obama the ability to bomb while allowing the senators of both parties to have minimal dirt on their hands for it.  You see, sometimes our leaders have to vote for risky things they know is right - i mean, who would vote to allow kadaffi to slaughter 5000 people as he had promised?   But they know the iraq vote video clips were rubbed in their face over and over and over again.  So, they do it quietly by unanimous-


Introduced Mar 1, 2011
 Passed Senate Mar 1, 2011
 
Last Action: Mar 1, 2011: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this resolution. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Votes: Mar 1, 2011: This resolution passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
 

[OzmO]

Basically, this is another of the many reasons every senator and congressman needs to get thrown out of Washington. 

[240 is Back]

Basically, this is another of the many reasons every senator and congressman needs to get thrown out of Washington. 

And it surely defeats the argument that "nobody wanted us to get involved in libya".

They ALL seemed to want it - they just didn't want their fingerprints on it, in case it went bad and kadaffi stayed. 

And many repubs gloated when it didn't work as fast as they wanted.  I don't remember them gloating when iraq wasn't going well tho.  weird.

[240 is Back]

MITT ROMNEY.... put out a press release bragging about how he supported the no-fly zone. 

hilarious.  Everyone trying to get credit now   

[OzmO]

Government for the people, by the people............RRRRRR RRRIGHT!

[OzmO]

MITT ROMNEY.... put out a press release bragging about how he supported the no-fly zone. 

hilarious.  Everyone trying to get credit now   

Flip flopping whore mount. 

[Dos Equis]

LMAO...  BB, i'm disappointed you didn't follow this.  you dig this legal stuff:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr112-85

It was a nice quiet effort to give obama the ability to bomb while allowing the senators of both parties to have minimal dirt on their hands for it.  You see, sometimes our leaders have to vote for risky things they know is right - i mean, who would vote to allow kadaffi to slaughter 5000 people as he had promised?   But they know the iraq vote video clips were rubbed in their face over and over and over again.  So, they do it quietly by unanimous-


Introduced Mar 1, 2011
 Passed Senate Mar 1, 2011
 
Last Action: Mar 1, 2011: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this resolution. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Votes: Mar 1, 2011: This resolution passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
 

You are as bad as Joe Biden.  The resolution was to protect civilians through imposition of a no-fly zone, not take sides in a civil war.  This is part of the reason I usually ignore you.  lol

[Fury]

Cheer for what, you pathetic Obama dicksuckers?

Cheer that the Eurotrash imperialists get their oil and we get footed with a multi-billion dollar bill? Oil has been falling for weeks, thus indicating that Libya wasn't the cause for price increases and all the QE is.

Cheer that we gifted an entire country to a group of people who, per capita, sent more fighters to Iraq to kill Americans than any other region on the planet?

Cheer that yet another Arab state has fallen to radical Islamists who have countless jihadists intermixed in their ranks?

Cheer for a group people who, on video, are shown beheading one of Gadhafi's soldiers they captured and who are also responsible for the mass graves an English paper found?

Cheer that Obama has allied himself with mass-murderers of Americans?

Cheer that Obama has given millions of dollars, training and weapons to people who want to kill Americans?



Only a real group of assholes would defend this as some sort of accomplishment. Thanks for not letting me down, clowns. Allying yourselves with Al Qaeda and other jihadists just to find something to cheer about for Obama's presidency. How disgustingly shallow and pathetic. Warmongering c*nts.

[240 is Back]

You are as bad as Joe Biden.  The resolution was to protect civilians through imposition of a no-fly zone, not take sides in a civil war.  This is part of the reason I usually ignore you.  lol

haha they gave obammers the power to drop bombs and kill libyans.  

you can try to defend their artument with phrases like 'protect civilians'.

One can argue that the best way to protect civilians is to kick out a leader who attempted to slaughter them.  Which is exactly what the UN, Obama, and the US Senate have done.

[Kazan]

haha they gave obammers the power to drop bombs and kill libyans.  

you can try to defend their artument with phrases like 'protect civilians'.

One can argue that the best way to protect civilians is to kick out a leader who attempted to slaughter them.  Which is exactly what the UN, Obama, and the US Senate have done.

Yes of course, obviously that is what they meant - protecting civilians = regime change

Here let me lay it out for you here since you don't seem to get it. The US, UN, NATO who ever you want to call it, took sides in a civil war. Maybe the rebels win maybe they don't, but the final outcome is going to be bad for the US either way. Kadhaffi stays, he's going to have a bone to pick with Europe and the US. The rebels win, the US and Europe start fucking around under the guess of helping them get a "constitution" and "democracy". Soon the crazies who we try to force out of the process get pissed, then violent, then take over via force. Gee wonder what will happen after that? But we got Kadhaffi

What happened in Afghanistan after we supported the cavemen against the Russians? We got the Taliban, and an Al Queda training ground.

[240 is Back]

protecting civilians = regime change

Yes.  Absolutely.  Any time a leader says "I will go into your town tomororw and murder 5000 people in cold blood", then one way to remove that risk is to remove that leadership.

Maybe the rebels win maybe they don't, but the final outcome is going to be bad for the US either way.

hey, one is going to be better than the other.  Kadaffi has remained in power thru a nice inability to be found, a huge bankroll, and 42 years of oranization.  These new chumps will be easier to control, better for oil prices, etc.  You CANNOT say they're "the same".  Hell, maybe we'll install that rebel leader who "lived in virginia with zero history of the last 20 years"... hell, install a US company man in there... that would make things MUCH easier.


I'll consider this an issue we should not debate anymore.  Nothing to argue really.

[Skip8282]

Yes.  Absolutely.  Any time a leader says "I will go into your town tomororw and murder 5000 people in cold blood", then one way to remove that risk is to remove that leadership.

hey, one is going to be better than the other.  Kadaffi has remained in power thru a nice inability to be found, a huge bankroll, and 42 years of oranization.  These new chumps will be easier to control, better for oil prices, etc.  You CANNOT say they're "the same".  Hell, maybe we'll install that rebel leader who "lived in virginia with zero history of the last 20 years"... hell, install a US company man in there... that would make things MUCH easier.


I'll consider this an issue we should not debate anymore.  Nothing to argue really.

How the fuck do you keep figuring that what's coming after this douchebag is going to better?

[Kazan]

Yes.  Absolutely.  Any time a leader says "I will go into your town tomororw and murder 5000 people in cold blood", then one way to remove that risk is to remove that leadership.

hey, one is going to be better than the other.  Kadaffi has remained in power thru a nice inability to be found, a huge bankroll, and 42 years of oranization.  These new chumps will be easier to control, better for oil prices, etc.  You CANNOT say they're "the same".  Hell, maybe we'll install that rebel leader who "lived in virginia with zero history of the last 20 years"... hell, install a US company man in there... that would make things MUCH easier.


I'll consider this an issue we should not debate anymore.  Nothing to argue really.

You don't want to debate because you no clue what you are talking about. The US doesn't have the ability to install anyone anymore, that time is over. The strongmen are the only thing that keep the crazies in check. Obama is as fucking clueless on the ME as you are.

[Fury]

You don't want to debate because you no clue what you are talking about. The US doesn't have the ability to install anyone anymore, that time is over. The strongmen are the only thing that keep the crazies in check. Obama is as fucking clueless on the ME as you are.

He's really embarrassing himself here trying to spin that as some sort of accomplishment for the Constitution-destroying moron in the White House.

[Kazan]

He's really embarrassing himself here trying to spin that as some sort of accomplishment for the Constitution-destroying moron in the White House.

It gets old trying to explain this shit. Who gives a fuck about the constitution or illegal wars, we got Kadhaffi

Why aren't we bombing Syria? Why aren't we kicking ass in the Sudan?

[Fury]

It gets old trying to explain this shit. Who gives a fuck about the constitution or illegal wars, we got Kadhaffi

Why aren't we bombing Syria? Why aren't we kicking ass in the Sudan?

Assad has only slaughtered 2,000+ people while Gadhafi may or may not have killed some people in a civil war. He's not important. Same for Darfur. 500,000+ dead native Darfurians at the hands of the Muslim imperialists is fine.

[Kazan]

Assad has only slaughtered 2,000+ people while Gadhafi may or may not have killed some people in a civil war. He's not important. Same for Darfur. 500,000+ dead native Darfurians at the hands of the Muslim imperialists is fine.

Like I said Kadhaffi pissed off someone in Europe (Britian or France or both) and using NATO ( NATO is supposed to be a defensive treaty system not offensive) they go after Kadhaffi.

[Soul Crusher]

For a supposed ron paul fan, 180 really seems to love military adventurism.

[240 is Back]

How the fuck do you keep figuring that what's coming after this douchebag is going to better?

Because the group coming in is a disorganized mob of half-asses with toy guns and minimal money.

kadaffi is worth 32 million and ran the place with an iron fist, and in 40 years the USA couldn't kill him. 

So yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, methinks it'll be easier to control the new group than it was to control kadaffi

[Kazan]

Because the group coming in is a disorganized mob of half-asses with toy guns and minimal money.

kadaffi is worth 32 million and ran the place with an iron fist, and in 40 years the USA couldn't kill him. 

So yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, methinks it'll be easier to control the new group than it was to control kadaffi

Yeah sure they will, controlling a bunch of crazy allah akbar mother fuckers will be much easier. Kafhaffi has something to loose they don't. 

[240 is Back]

they have oil control to lose

[Kazan]

they have oil control to lose

What exactly makes you think they care about oil? The fuckers will strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves and as many infidels as they can up. I really don't know where the fuck you come up with this shit