PDA

View Full Version : General Politics US taking action in Libya


Pages : [1] 2

BIG_DADDY
03-18-2011, 12:31 PM
Bloomberg TV right now. Obama making announcement

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:34 PM
Obama is a NeoCon. Proof they're just a bunch of leftists.

Jaric
03-18-2011, 12:34 PM
Great. Fucking great. Another war.

Dayze
03-18-2011, 12:35 PM
hooray!

oldandslow
03-18-2011, 12:35 PM
Obama is a NeoCon. Proof they're just a bunch of leftists.

I am with you on this one...I don't know what Obama is, but entering another damned war of choice at this point in time is the definition of insanity.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:36 PM
Great. ****ing great. Another war.

Of course, the UN exists to facilitate war and make more of it.

"UN has just authorized the use of 'all necessary means' [i.e., "war"] to 'protect' Libyan civilians. Yeah, there’s nothing like a full-scale war – particularly when conducted with the use of American fighters and bombers – to “protect” those on whom the bombs will fall. George Orwell would have understood the illogic of this, while the mainstream media will no doubt hail it as a 'humanitarian' undertaking!" says Butler Shaffer over on Lew's blog.

I love the humanitarian claims part and how we get to pay for this.

Discuss Thrower
03-18-2011, 12:37 PM
Over/under on the years until a Libyan national kills Americans for retribution for getting involved in this?

BIG_DADDY
03-18-2011, 12:37 PM
Looks like he is going to lay out terms for Ghadofi. Restore water and food. Quit killing people ect. HE will never comply. Looks like carpet bombing and no ground troops.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:38 PM
I am with you on this one...I don't know what Obama is, but entering another damned war of choice at this point in time is the definition of insanity.

Well, I should say, leftists with guns because there are those that aren't.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Looks like he is going to lay out terms for Ghadofi. Restore water and food. Quit killing people ect. HE will never comply. Looks like carpet bombing and no ground troops.

Presidents now function as the Emperors of the world.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:41 PM
Over/under on the years until a Libyan national kills Americans for retribution for getting involved in this?

Good point. Gaddafi was already saying he would side with Bin Laden and AQ before this news came out should we get involved. Even though he was saying AQ was behind the uprisings. He'll find someone to work with eventually....or his supporters even if they lose....you'll see. Take a side, make a new enemy. It's a given.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 12:43 PM
What happened to 'No Wars For Oil, Man'?

Hydrae
03-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Stupid
Stupid
Stupid

orange
03-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Over/under on the years until a Libyan national kills Americans for retribution for getting involved in this?

Do you think it will be BEFORE or AFTER a Yugoslav does it?

patteeu
03-18-2011, 12:44 PM
I am with you on this one...I don't know what Obama is, but entering another damned war of choice at this point in time is the definition of insanity.

Agreement between BucEyedPea and oldandslow is proof that BucEyedPea is a leftist. ;)

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 12:46 PM
Do you think it will be BEFORE or AFTER a Yugoslav does it?

Are you talking about the Muslim who shot and murdered two US Airmen in Germany last week?

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:46 PM
pale-cons, libertarians and non-violent leftists have overlaps in certain areas.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 12:46 PM
Direkshun is on his way now, he's volunteering as a human shield.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 12:47 PM
pale-cons, libertarians and non-violent leftists have overlaps in certain areas.

Yeah, just like conservatives, libertarians and strong-national-defense leftists.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:48 PM
Direkshun is on his way now, he's volunteering as a human shield.

:LOL: It's the humanitarian thing to do.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:48 PM
This has nothing to do with national defense, nor did Iraq. It's a war of choice.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 12:49 PM
Direkshun is on his way now, he's volunteering as a human shield.

I hope his first punch in the face doesn't come from an AGM-114 Hellfire.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 12:49 PM
This has nothing to do with national defense, nor did Iraq. It's a war of choice.

I didn't say it did, leftie.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:49 PM
* crickets*

go bowe
03-18-2011, 12:50 PM
Direkshun is on his way now, he's volunteering as a human shield.oh c'mon...

he's not volunteering...

he's been ordered to go by his marxist masters...

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:12 PM
Why are US Marines on there way to Libya:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110302/world-news/us-warship-headed-to-libya-officials

BIG_DADDY
03-18-2011, 01:13 PM
On a side note, this is a perfect move for Obama prior to the election.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:14 PM
Why? Even the demographic on Fox News poll last night was at a 50/50 stalemate on sending us into Libya.

orange
03-18-2011, 01:14 PM
On a side note, this is a perfect move for Obama prior to the election.

"A lot can happen in a year and a half." - former President George H. W. Bush

go bowe
03-18-2011, 01:16 PM
Why are US Marines on there way to Libya:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110302/world-news/us-warship-headed-to-libya-officials from the halls of montezuma to the shores of TRIPOLI...

orange
03-18-2011, 01:20 PM
from the halls of montezuma to the shores of TRIPOLI...

Two weeks ago. I would hope they're there already.

BIG_DADDY
03-18-2011, 01:21 PM
"A lot can happen in a year and a half." - former President George H. W. Bush

Difference being I never supported Bush and was against Iraq.

orange
03-18-2011, 01:22 PM
Difference being I never supported Bush and was against Iraq.

A simple "H" makes a world of difference. Don't tell me you're too young to remember... my beard just turned a lighter shade of gray.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:24 PM
Two weeks ago. I would hope they're there already.

It's nice to find out two weeks later.

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp314/pauly_cy/morePCpics/barackbrackets.jpg

Dallas Chief
03-18-2011, 03:22 PM
Presidents now function as the Emperors of the world.

wow

Chief Henry
03-18-2011, 03:56 PM
Two weeks ago. I would hope they're there already.

Who will be the FIRST liberal MSM member to ask...."Whats the definition of victory" or "What will be our exit strategy in Libya" ?

Chief Henry
03-18-2011, 03:56 PM
It's nice to find out two weeks later.

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp314/pauly_cy/morePCpics/barackbrackets.jpg




ROFL

thecoffeeguy
03-18-2011, 04:16 PM
It's nice to find out two weeks later.

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp314/pauly_cy/morePCpics/barackbrackets.jpg

That is awesome! :LOL:

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 04:44 PM
wow

I see things from a true conservative ( limited govt ) perspective not as an internationalist progressive like yourself.
That's exactly how they act these days...as if DC is the new Rome with a Progressive twist. Meanwhile, this will cost billions to enforce.
It's not the spending that matters it's what it's spent on. There is no difference between the two sides in the end.

memyselfI
03-18-2011, 04:56 PM
Another day, another Arab country to bomb...

Lite just HAD to do it just as Regular did. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 04:59 PM
Another day, another Arab country to bomb...

Lite just HAD to do it just as Regular did. :rolleyes:

Yup!

I like what this says:

Neocon States of America To Attack Yet Another Muslim Country
Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 17, 2011 05:44 PM

The US electoral dictatorship will now, with its NATO minions, attack Libya, North African treasury of sweet crude, to expand and tighten the empire’s grip on the Muslim peoples, and to be able to deny oil to China. And no, this scheme is not to put down tyranny, ...

Barack is a puppet to the same types.

chiefsnorth
03-18-2011, 05:07 PM
I am glad we have Nick Sarkozy to provide leadership in this time of crisis.

HonestChieffan
03-18-2011, 05:08 PM
I am glad we have Nick Sarkozy to provide leadership in this time of crisis.


Well said.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 06:12 PM
I am glad we have Nick Sarkozy to provide leadership in this time of crisis.

Crisis? For the US? Is Libya a threat to us? Nope.

I see where you're at, you support Global Governance like a good NeoCon which is what Nick Sarkozy is. Although it is his backyard more than ours.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 06:14 PM
Well said.

HCF supports Global Governance too.


Just wait when it get's used on us here. If there ever is any efforts by the states to nullify and troops are sent in, don't expected someone to put a NoFly Zone above us for that.

Bewbies
03-18-2011, 07:47 PM
I don't know how I feel about this. Watching the douchebag in Libya bomb his own people makes me sick, but I don't see how this has anything to do with us....

However, I do know waiting several weeks to make up your mind was 100% the wrong move. Seems to be his MO though, never acts quickly...

englander
03-18-2011, 08:31 PM
I don't know how I feel about this. Watching the douchebag in Libya bomb his own people makes me sick, but I don't see how this has anything to do with us....

However, I do know waiting several weeks to make up your mind was 100% the wrong move. Seems to be his MO though, never acts quickly...

Do you feel the UK, France, or UN took to long to act as well?

go bowe
03-18-2011, 08:53 PM
Do you feel the UK, France, or UN took to long to act as well?actually, they all acted reasonably quickly, given how these things usually work...

but it may be too late now that the tyrant is using heavy weaponry...

what's your impression?

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 12:33 AM
I don't know how I feel about this. Watching the douchebag in Libya bomb his own people makes me sick, but I don't see how this has anything to do with us....

However, I do know waiting several weeks to make up your mind was 100% the wrong move. Seems to be his MO though, never acts quickly...

Evil Triumphs when Good Men do nothing.

I get your point. What makes this U.S. move to Libya so exhausting is not that we don't want to help because I think the majority of "We The People" do want to help. But emotionally as a "whole people" we are emotionally exhausted as a 'country' from these wars we are in currently and not because it is 'war in and of itself' although exhausting I agree but moreso because we are fighting these wars with "one hand tied behind our back".

There is nothing more discouraging,disheartening and defeating to the American spirit than knowing you can win and yet fight as though the opponent is your equal. It totally goes against our American DNA not to win.:shake: This is what is exhausting.

Obama always sets back in crisis and is finally forced to finally commit to a decision for numerous reasons but I think the top 2 reasons are that

1: Marxist Libs always sit back and wait for the polls to tell them what to do before they make any political decision which more often than not hurts you in the long run.

2. On top of waiting for the poll numbers the Marxist Libs worldview is so void of real world reality of life in general that when "real world sh**" hits the fan" they really don't know what to do other than stand back and panic behind closed doors,however,the panic is revealed in public by "severe incompetence".

Obama waits because he is incompetent and moreso he waits because he is waiting on his "political puppeteers"(a la teleprompter) to tell him how he needs to respond to the crisis.:thumb:

True competent leaders 'know' when to act immediately(regardless of poll numbers) and when to wait the crisis out depending on the situation(regardless of poll numbers).

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 02:22 AM
The problem with these sorts of intervention is that there is a really fine line between a humanitarian intervention and a war. There are multiple points of entry for a humanitarian intervention to escalate into a war, including the possibility that the intervention either doesn't help, or makes things worse.

Regarding Libya, I feel like this situation has Kosovo as its ceiling (in terms of success) and Somalia as its floor (in terms of failure).

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 02:34 AM
There are multiple points of entry for a humanitarian intervention to escalate into a war, including the possibility that the intervention either doesn't help, or makes things worse.


War is already happening. Gaddafi is slaughtering his own citizens.

Time to turn him and all his supporters into pulp.

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 02:49 AM
Eh. I don't disagree, necessarily, but the equation is more complicated than that.

The murderous efforst of Gaddafi, or however we're deciding to spell his name today, are close to being matched by the dictators in Yemen and Bahrain, and are no where close to the atrocities committed by the juntas in Burma or the Congo. To say nothing of Iran.

Add to that the fact that we are near-incapable of another war that will do little to nothing to further American interests, and likely will greatly jeopardize them as the narrative inevitably spins to "the US is bombing more brown people."

These two factors, at the very least, should guide us heavily to refrain from the inevitable temptation to escalate our involvement.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 03:17 AM
Blood for oil, anyone?

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 03:32 AM
Blood for oil, anyone?

Yeah.

I'll take the humanitarian help over a war any day. I hope, at the end of the day, that's what we're committed to doing.

Mile High Mania
03-19-2011, 07:12 AM
Send an elite group of Rambo's to do the deed and then claim you have no idea how it happened.

patteeu
03-19-2011, 07:27 AM
War is already happening. Gaddafi is slaughtering his own citizens.

Time to turn him and all his supporters into pulp.

How many dead people does it take to qualify for the "slaughtering his own citizens" description to apply? A dozen? A couple hundred? A few thousand?

And does it matter whether these citizens are innocent bystanders or armed members of the revolution?

RNR
03-19-2011, 08:16 AM
Evil Triumphs when Good Men do nothing.

Really? That is why we are jumping in? We are wanting to defeat evil? If this is our reasoning than we have surly let evil triumph in the Congo where millions (yes millions) have been raped and murdered. I guess "Good men" haven't noticed. Maybe your quote should be more along the lines of "Good profits fail when Powerful Men do nothing" This is nothing more than keeping a hand on the oil spigot~

HonestChieffan
03-19-2011, 08:23 AM
Interesting how this decision, if you call it that, has a lot more questions among us than answers or firm positions. I know I have a lot of reservations and deep down inside I dont see this coming to a good end even though I think the bat crazy bugger needs to be gone. Somewhere I think there was a movie line "Some folks just need killin". Gadoofy is one without a doubt.

RNR
03-19-2011, 08:28 AM
Interesting how this decision, if you call it that, has a lot more questions among us than answers or firm positions. I know I have a lot of reservations and deep down inside I dont see this coming to a good end even though I think the bat crazy bugger needs to be gone. Somewhere I think there was a movie line "Some folks just need killin". Gadoofy is one without a doubt.

Yes he does, but there is a awful long list of folks that just need killing~

HonestChieffan
03-19-2011, 08:37 AM
Yes he does, but there is a awful long list of folks that just need killing~

You are right.

BigMeatballDave
03-19-2011, 09:19 AM
Barack is a puppet http://www.gifbin.com/bin/sw50sw8sw578.gif

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:21 AM
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/sw50sw8sw578.gif

So was Bush and Clinton.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:22 AM
Evil Triumphs when Good Men do nothing.
Yeah, but govt is ham fisted way for fixing evil. This is govt action. Odd, I thought conservatives weren't into global governance.

So, would you have been for our newly formed Republic to fix the Jacobin-evil of the French Revolution?
They eventually settled things out and there was no resentment toward us afterwards either.

If anyone things this is for the Libyan people, then I've got a bridge to sell ya'!

go bowe
03-19-2011, 01:50 PM
Really? That is why we are jumping in? We are wanting to defeat evil? If this is our reasoning than we have surly let evil triumph in the Congo where millions (yes millions) have been raped and murdered. I guess "Good men" haven't noticed. Maybe your quote should be more along the lines of "Good profits fail when Powerful Men do nothing" This is nothing more than keeping a hand on the oil spigot~you're absolutely right about the congo...

black people + no oil = little interest in the west...

thecoffeeguy
03-19-2011, 02:04 PM
I am glad we have Nick Sarkozy to provide leadership in this time of crisis.

Ya, no shit. Talk about a leader who is actually leading.

Surprised Obama is not playing golf.

scott free
03-19-2011, 02:06 PM
Its definitely always an eye opener to see which crisis the world decides it just has to act upon.

Ethnic cleansing, mass murder, systematic mass rapes & making military conscripts of children is okay to let continue in the Sudan, Darfur, Rwanda, Malaysia etc.

BUT LET US NOW SPEAK WITH ONE CLEAR VOICE! THE PEOPLE OF LIBYA, AND THEIR OIL, WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A TYRANT NO LONGER!

Rausch
03-19-2011, 02:08 PM
Why are US Marines on there way to Libya:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110302/world-news/us-warship-headed-to-libya-officials

This should be stated as a question.

And a good one at that...

Saul Good
03-19-2011, 02:09 PM
This is nothing more than keeping a hand on the oil spigot~

Is that a bad thing?

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 02:18 PM
Its definitely always an eye opener to see which crisis the world decides it just has to act upon.

Ethnic cleansing, mass murder, systematic mass rapes & making military conscripts of children is okay to let continue in the Sudan, Darfur, Rwanda, Malaysia etc.

BUT LET US NOW SPEAK WITH ONE CLEAR VOICE! THE PEOPLE OF LIBYA, AND THEIR OIL, WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A TYRANT NO LONGER!

It's hardly an "eye opener."

Donger
03-19-2011, 02:22 PM
Sounds like Obama ordered some Tomahawk strikes on Libya's air defenses.

RNR
03-19-2011, 02:25 PM
Is that a bad thing?

"Evil Triumphs when Good Men do nothing" Was listed as a reason we are involving ourselves. I just pointed out the reason I think we are interested. I want cheap gas as much as anyone. Our leadership past and current refuses to develop our own. So here we go~

Bewbies
03-19-2011, 02:54 PM
Really? That is why we are jumping in? We are wanting to defeat evil? If this is our reasoning than we have surly let evil triumph in the Congo where millions (yes millions) have been raped and murdered. I guess "Good men" haven't noticed. Maybe your quote should be more along the lines of "Good profits fail when Powerful Men do nothing" This is nothing more than keeping a hand on the oil spigot~

My wife and I are adopting from the Congo right now. We'll be flying over to Kinshasa late fall/early winter. The DRC is the sexual assault capital of the world. Millions and millions of people have been killed there in the last few years.

If we adopt a girl we figure we've saved a child from rape, AIDS etc, if we get a boy we have maybe taken a child soldier off the front line a few years from now.

What's going on in the DRC is HORRIBLE, and over here we hear nothing at all about it.

It's sad that we're so quick to act against 'evil' if they live over oil, but we'll write off 'conflict minerals' as illegal and ignore evil somewhere else.

I hate what's going on in Libya, but we have no business being there.

vailpass
03-19-2011, 03:00 PM
My wife and I are adopting from the Congo right now. We'll be flying over to Kinshasa late fall/early winter. The DRC is the sexual assault capital of the world. Millions and millions of people have been killed there in the last few years.

If we adopt a girl we figure we've saved a child from rape, AIDS etc, if we get a boy we have maybe taken a child soldier off the front line a few years from now.

What's going on in the DRC is HORRIBLE, and over here we hear nothing at all about it.

It's sad that we're so quick to act against 'evil' if they live over oil, but we'll write off 'conflict minerals' as illegal and ignore evil somewhere else.I hate what's going on in Libya, but we have no business being there.


If you want to think you are making some sort of difference by bringing one of them over here than have at it. But don't think to sermonize about it; the US allocates her resources where they will produce the greatest return. That isn't evil, it's survival. And one of the many reasons we aren't the festering third world shithole that Darfur and surrounding areas are.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 04:24 PM
We have fired missiles.

http://i.imgur.com/QlXfB.jpg

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 04:25 PM
US fires 110 missiles at targets in Libya

Obama said military action was not his first choice.

"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

A senior military official said the U.S. missiles were launched from Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is "deeply aware" of the risks of taking any military action.

Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff, said no U.S. aircraft were flying over Libya at this time and no U.S. forces were on the ground.

Libyan TV claimed that earlier airstrikes by French jet fighters had hit civilian areas in Tripoli, but the report couldn't be independently confirmed, The Associated Press reported. The news agency also reported ambulances were rushing to "civilian casualties" in Tripoli, Reuters reported.

Earlier, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said allied air forces had gone into action over Libya and were preventing Gadhafi's forces from attacking the rebel city of Benghazi.

A French official said a French fighter jet had fired on a Libyan military vehicle, in the first reported strike in the international campaign to enforce a no-fly zone. Overall, at least four Libyan tanks were destroyed in French attack, Al Jazeera reported.

French Defense Ministry spokesman Thierry Burkhard said the the initial air attack was reported around 1645 GMT Saturday (12:45 pm ET), and that no hostile fire on French jets had been reported.

France sent a dozen Mirage and Rafale jets Saturday to survey the one-time opposition stronghold of Benghazi and the 150 kilometer-by-100 kilometer no-fly zone, Burkhard said.

"All aircraft that enter into this zone could be shot down," he said.

The strike came less than two hours after top officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world agreed in Paris to launch a risky military operation to protect civilians from attacks by Gadhafi's forces.

It also came after Libyan government forces attacked Benghazi earlier Saturday, apparently ignoring a proclaimed cease-fire.

"Our planes are already preventing air attacks on the city," Sarkozy said adding that military action could be halted if Gadhafi stopped his forces.

"Our determination is total," the French leader said.

Asked if the aim of the military intervention was to overthrow Gadhafi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Paris for the meeting about Libya, did not answer the question directly but said the aim of Western powers was to protect civilians.

"If the international community is to have credibility ... then action must take place," Clinton told a news conference.

Clinton added that "we have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Gadhafi will commit unspeakable atrocities."

Battle for Benghazi

On the ground, Gadhafi's forces had pushed into Benghazi, defying world demands for an immediate cease-fire and forcing rebels to retreat.

Before the allies announced their action, a warplane was shot down over the city and Sky News correspondent Emma Hurd — who was in Benghazi but joined a growing exodus fleeing to the east — said there were cheers from the rebels when it crashed following the sound of anti-aircraft fire.

NBC News' Jim Maceda told the TODAY show that it was later revealed that the jet was one of those captured by the rebels. He said it was not clear if it was shot down by Gadhafi's forces, rebels on the ground by mistake or simply had suffered a mechanical failure.

Meantime, hundreds of cars full of civilians headed out of the city, a Reuters correspondent said.

"Do we have to wait till he (Gadhafi) kills us all before the (world) acts. We are very disappointed," said Adel Mansoura, an air traffic controller fleeing with his family.

"When we heard the U.N. resolution, we were very happy and thought we had our freedom but now we have been left on our own to the killers," he said at a petrol station where dozens of other cars lined for fuel as they fled.

The head of the rebel National Libyan Council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, said the international community must act swiftly to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.

"Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi," he told Al Jazeera television. "The international community is late in intervening to save civilians from Gadhafi's forces."

"Today in Benghazi there will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council," he said. "We appeal to the international community, to the all the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians."

Government blames rebels
Al-Jazeera reported the Libyan government said in a statement that its forces were defending themselves.

"The gangs of al-Qaida attacked the units of the Libyan armed forces stationed to the west of Benghazi," the statement said, according to the official Jana news agency.

The statement also said the rebels had used "a helicopter and a fighter jet to bomb the Libyan armed forces in blatant violation of the no-fly zone imposed by the U.N. Security Council."

Gadhafi also said Saturday the U.N. resolution authorizing international military intervention in Libya was "invalid."

He said he had sent a message to Obama defending his decision to attack rebel cities: "If you found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do."

Gadhafi also sent a letter to the French and British leaders and the U.N. secretary general, saying they would "regret" any intervention. "Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans," he said.

Libya had declared a unilateral cease-fire on Friday after the U.N. Security Council authorized a no-fly zone over Libya.

But fighting persisted anyway.

"Fighter jets bombed the road to the airport and there's been an air strike on the Abu Hadi district on the outskirts," Mohammed Dwo, a hospital worker and a rebel supporter, told Reuters.

He was speaking at the aftermath of an apparent firefight between rebels and men they claimed were two mercenaries who had infiltrated the city and had been driving a car which they said contained a crate of hand grenades.

The two men, in civilian clothes, had been shot dead and rebels produced blood-soaked identity papers they said showed them to be of Nigerian nationality.

"We were sitting here and we received gunfire from this vehicle then we opened fire and after that it crashed," rebel fighter Meri Dersi said.


Smoke billows from a Benghazi neighbourhood Saturday as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south.

SOURCE: http://networks.org/?src=msnbc:id:42164455

BigRichard
03-19-2011, 04:28 PM
US fires 110 missiles at targets in Libya

Obama said military action was not his first choice.

"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

A senior military official said the U.S. missiles were launched from Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is "deeply aware" of the risks of taking any military action.

Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff, said no U.S. aircraft were flying over Libya at this time and no U.S. forces were on the ground.

Libyan TV claimed that earlier airstrikes by French jet fighters had hit civilian areas in Tripoli, but the report couldn't be independently confirmed, The Associated Press reported. The news agency also reported ambulances were rushing to "civilian casualties" in Tripoli, Reuters reported.

Earlier, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said allied air forces had gone into action over Libya and were preventing Gadhafi's forces from attacking the rebel city of Benghazi.

A French official said a French fighter jet had fired on a Libyan military vehicle, in the first reported strike in the international campaign to enforce a no-fly zone. Overall, at least four Libyan tanks were destroyed in French attack, Al Jazeera reported.

French Defense Ministry spokesman Thierry Burkhard said the the initial air attack was reported around 1645 GMT Saturday (12:45 pm ET), and that no hostile fire on French jets had been reported.

France sent a dozen Mirage and Rafale jets Saturday to survey the one-time opposition stronghold of Benghazi and the 150 kilometer-by-100 kilometer no-fly zone, Burkhard said.

"All aircraft that enter into this zone could be shot down," he said.

The strike came less than two hours after top officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world agreed in Paris to launch a risky military operation to protect civilians from attacks by Gadhafi's forces.

It also came after Libyan government forces attacked Benghazi earlier Saturday, apparently ignoring a proclaimed cease-fire.

"Our planes are already preventing air attacks on the city," Sarkozy said adding that military action could be halted if Gadhafi stopped his forces.

"Our determination is total," the French leader said.

Asked if the aim of the military intervention was to overthrow Gadhafi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Paris for the meeting about Libya, did not answer the question directly but said the aim of Western powers was to protect civilians.

"If the international community is to have credibility ... then action must take place," Clinton told a news conference.

Clinton added that "we have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Gadhafi will commit unspeakable atrocities."

Battle for Benghazi

On the ground, Gadhafi's forces had pushed into Benghazi, defying world demands for an immediate cease-fire and forcing rebels to retreat.

Before the allies announced their action, a warplane was shot down over the city and Sky News correspondent Emma Hurd — who was in Benghazi but joined a growing exodus fleeing to the east — said there were cheers from the rebels when it crashed following the sound of anti-aircraft fire.

NBC News' Jim Maceda told the TODAY show that it was later revealed that the jet was one of those captured by the rebels. He said it was not clear if it was shot down by Gadhafi's forces, rebels on the ground by mistake or simply had suffered a mechanical failure.

Meantime, hundreds of cars full of civilians headed out of the city, a Reuters correspondent said.

"Do we have to wait till he (Gadhafi) kills us all before the (world) acts. We are very disappointed," said Adel Mansoura, an air traffic controller fleeing with his family.

"When we heard the U.N. resolution, we were very happy and thought we had our freedom but now we have been left on our own to the killers," he said at a petrol station where dozens of other cars lined for fuel as they fled.

The head of the rebel National Libyan Council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, said the international community must act swiftly to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.

"Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi," he told Al Jazeera television. "The international community is late in intervening to save civilians from Gadhafi's forces."

"Today in Benghazi there will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council," he said. "We appeal to the international community, to the all the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians."

Government blames rebels
Al-Jazeera reported the Libyan government said in a statement that its forces were defending themselves.

"The gangs of al-Qaida attacked the units of the Libyan armed forces stationed to the west of Benghazi," the statement said, according to the official Jana news agency.

The statement also said the rebels had used "a helicopter and a fighter jet to bomb the Libyan armed forces in blatant violation of the no-fly zone imposed by the U.N. Security Council."

Gadhafi also said Saturday the U.N. resolution authorizing international military intervention in Libya was "invalid."

He said he had sent a message to Obama defending his decision to attack rebel cities: "If you found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do."

Gadhafi also sent a letter to the French and British leaders and the U.N. secretary general, saying they would "regret" any intervention. "Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans," he said.

Libya had declared a unilateral cease-fire on Friday after the U.N. Security Council authorized a no-fly zone over Libya.

But fighting persisted anyway.

"Fighter jets bombed the road to the airport and there's been an air strike on the Abu Hadi district on the outskirts," Mohammed Dwo, a hospital worker and a rebel supporter, told Reuters.

He was speaking at the aftermath of an apparent firefight between rebels and men they claimed were two mercenaries who had infiltrated the city and had been driving a car which they said contained a crate of hand grenades.

The two men, in civilian clothes, had been shot dead and rebels produced blood-soaked identity papers they said showed them to be of Nigerian nationality.

"We were sitting here and we received gunfire from this vehicle then we opened fire and after that it crashed," rebel fighter Meri Dersi said.


Smoke billows from a Benghazi neighbourhood Saturday as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south.

SOURCE: http://networks.org/?src=msnbc:id:42164455

I wonder if this should be started in the main board? Seems like it is big enough to go there.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 04:29 PM
I don't think it's that big until we send in ground forces.

We're just squashing cockroaches with our mighty war penis.

BigRichard
03-19-2011, 04:30 PM
I don't think it's that big until we send in ground forces.

We're just squashing cockroaches with our mighty war penis.

Hope you don't mind but I am going to start one.

Donger
03-19-2011, 04:31 PM
I don't think it's that big until we send in ground forces.

We're just squashing cockroaches with our mighty war penis.

I'd be stunned if Obama gets feet dry before hostilities end.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 04:31 PM
Use this article.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

HonestChieffan
03-19-2011, 05:09 PM
I'd bet a lot we have boots on the ground..Special Forces and Ops no doubt...This Obama claim we have none and will have none will bite him on the ass.

Bewbies
03-19-2011, 08:40 PM
If you want to think you are making some sort of difference by bringing one of them over here than have at it. But don't think to sermonize about it; the US allocates her resources where they will produce the greatest return. That isn't evil, it's survival. And one of the many reasons we aren't the festering third world shithole that Darfur and surrounding areas are.

I get that, I really do. I'm just tired of how it's sold to us. Call it what it is....

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 08:49 PM
I'd be stunned if Obama gets feet dry before hostilities end.

He should be giving back his Nobel Peace Prize for starting a war.

Then, Obama should be impeached for not seeking a Declaration of War from congress as Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution demands. He didn't even seek a make a fake appearance with an "authorization" to use force which his criminal predecessor got.

Don't you guys on the right go crying about Obama's other unConstitutionalities. You can't pick and choose what you want to usurp and justify it with "nobel" reasons. You have no right to complain about such usurpations of our most cherished document—ever again.

Funny, how all you righties love the UN now. Meanwhile, the left hides behind the UN.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 08:52 PM
I get that, I really do. I'm just tired of how it's sold to us. Call it what it is....

It has nothing to do with survival especially ours. It's about regime change that the West can control. ( prolly for BP)

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 09:13 PM
Eh. I don't disagree, necessarily, but the equation is more complicated than that.

The murderous efforst of Gaddafi, or however we're deciding to spell his name today, are close to being matched by the dictators in Yemen and Bahrain, and are no where close to the atrocities committed by the juntas in Burma or the Congo. To say nothing of Iran.

Add to that the fact that we are near-incapable of another war that will do little to nothing to further American interests, and likely will greatly jeopardize them as the narrative inevitably spins to "the US is bombing more brown people."

These two factors, at the very least, should guide us heavily to refrain from the inevitable temptation to escalate our involvement.

I agree. As long as the French and Britain are taking the lead I don't have much problem with it.

Dave Lane
03-19-2011, 09:26 PM
Interesting how this decision, if you call it that, has a lot more questions among us than answers or firm positions. I know I have a lot of reservations and deep down inside I dont see this coming to a good end even though I think the bat crazy bugger needs to be gone. Somewhere I think there was a movie line "Some folks just need killin". Gadoofy is one without a doubt.

God damn it we agree again. Personally I'd like to see his people catch him and string him up Mussolini style on live TV.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:26 PM
I agree. As long as the French and Britain are taking the lead I don't have much problem with it.

It violates the UN Charter which is about nation states attacking each other and forbids intervention in internal matters of a sovereign state.

Plus we're footing the bill or most of it. You don't have a problem with THAT?

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:26 PM
Wow! Look at all the Americans pissing on the US Constitution—openly.

Dave Lane
03-19-2011, 09:28 PM
I'd bet a lot we have boots on the ground..Special Forces and Ops no doubt...This Obama claim we have none and will have none will bite him on the ass.

It would be damn smart to insert some special ops forces with SAT intel and more to help the opposition. Then get them the hell out and let the Libyans sort out the mess.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:30 PM
A principled liberal/progressive calls for the impeachment of the current “liberal” murderer in the White House.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/axCLQQzMtsw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dave Lane
03-19-2011, 09:30 PM
Plus we're footing the bill or most of it. You don't have a problem with THAT?

You hate the UN so what does its charters mean to you? Also what bill? For a few missiles that we already had?

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:33 PM
The Great Anglo-American Gaddafi Deception (http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland44.1.html)

Hint: "It's really about the dollar. I really only survives as the world’s reserve currency because the majority of the oil producers demand payment in dollars....Although Iran now sells oil in other currencies, the other major oil-producing nations still demand payment for oil in US dollars thus requiring ALL nations to utilize dollars as a reserve currency. "


Wonder if that's what's really behind the false charges and verbal attacks on Iran? Saddam was going to start taking the Euro instead of the dollar too.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 09:34 PM
It violates the UN Charter which is about nation states attacking each other and forbids intervention in internal matters of a sovereign state.

Plus we're footing the bill or most of it. You don't have a problem with THAT?

It does?



To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:34 PM
You hate the UN so what does its charters mean to you? Also what bill? For a few missiles that we already had?
But you love it so why doesn't the Charter resonate with you?

For me it's because this is a fraudulent act based on that.
Also it's our tomahawks that were built with American taxpayer's money. That means my money.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 09:39 PM
Also it's our tomahawks that were built with American taxpayer's money. That means my money.

Oh, damn.

Let's not use them, then.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:42 PM
It does?

Ahem! You forgot that your passage applies to matters outside the domestic jurisdiction of any state. This is a bad precedent.... for sovereignty.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; (this doesn't apply to Chapter 7 regarding force for international disputes between nations.)

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:46 PM
Oh, damn.

Let's not use them, then.

But, but I thought the Brits and the French were taking the lead?


With 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya by the US. at least 50 million there.


Keep droolin' about starting a war. :drool:

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 09:49 PM
Yeah, but govt is ham fisted way for fixing evil. This is govt action. Odd, I thought conservatives weren't into global governance.

So, would you have been for our newly formed Republic to fix the Jacobin-evil of the French Revolution?
They eventually settled things out and there was no resentment toward us afterwards either.

If anyone things this is for the Libyan people, then I've got a bridge to sell ya'!

With all due respect, who said anything about governing? What about just helping your fellow man? I agree I don't think this is for the Libyan people at all but at the same time I don't think we should just set back and watch innocent people be slaughtered when we could significantly help without governance.

At the same time I get your point about just letting the chips fall where they may especially with a majority of the people who hate us and would love to see us dead and avoiding all the lost lives of our troops and $$ spent. But there still are some innocent people who do not feel this way about us and need help.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 09:49 PM
Ahem! You forgot that your passage applies to matters outside the domestic jurisdiction of any state. This is a bad precedent.... for sovereignty.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; (this doesn't apply to Chapter 7 regarding force for international disputes between nations.)

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

I think you are wrong But if you still aren't convinced there is Article 39-42

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:57 PM
I think you are wrong But if you still aren't convinced there is Article 39-42

No. Those passages APPLY to disputes between nations. Not inside nations.

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 09:59 PM
Keep droolin' about starting a war. :drool:

This isn't going to be a war.

The Libyans are pathetic.

We're cutting out a cancer.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-19-2011, 09:59 PM
This is the responsibility of the Libyan people and we should keep our noses out of it. Team America World Police!

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:00 PM
With all due respect, who said anything about governing? What about just helping your fellow man? I agree I don't think this is for the Libyan people at all but at the same time I don't think we should just set back and watch innocent people be slaughtered when we could significantly help without governance.

At the same time I get your point about just letting the chips fall where they may especially with a majority of the people who hate us and would love to see us dead and avoiding all the lost lives of our troops and $$ spent. But there still are some innocent people who do not feel this way about us and need help.

With all due respect, you're free to don a uniform and start your own version of the Abe Lincoln brigades if you feel you need to help your fellow man with bombs. You have no right to use my govt or my money to do this. This is another entangling alliance emerging something some of our Founders warned of. These people are essentially tribes, who take turns persecuting one another. You have no idea how the other side will govern or if they will not persecute those who fought for Ghaddafi. It's a civil war which are the worst kind of conflicts. I mean Ghaddafi took power in a coup overthrowing the monarchy. This is just a coup by those who do not support him.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:03 PM
This isn't going to be a war.

The Libyans are pathetic.

We're cutting out a cancer.

And replacing it with a different cancer. Got it! :thumb: You trust govt institutions and media too much.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:04 PM
This is the responsibility of the Libyan people and we should keep our noses out of it. Team America World Police!

:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

KILLER_CLOWN
03-19-2011, 10:04 PM
And replacing it with a different cancer. Got it! :thumb:

Ironically this is actually how we treat our own people with Cancer in America.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 10:06 PM
No. Those passages APPLY to disputes between nations. Not inside nations.

As long as the Security Council approves it it is legal under the UN.

Here is a basic fact about the world that mainstream US media - and politicians like Kerry - generally find distasteful to acknowledge. The Charter of the United Nations rules out the use of military force by one UN member state against another except in two cases: self-defense against armed attack and actions approved by the UN Security Council.

Obviously, Libya has not attacked the United States, and there is no realistic prospect that it will do so.

Therefore, because it is an act of war, in order to be legal under international law, the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya must be approved by the UN Security Council. There is no way around it.
First, international law says that it would be unlawful for another country, or even a set of countries, like NATO, to intervene militarily, either through a no-fly zone or through the introduction of foreign troops, without the authorization of the UN Security Council. Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter prohibits other countries, as I said, including NATO, the United States, Britain, from using military force against another state--in this case Libya--except in self-defense. And there's no argument here that there's any self-defense. So the only way that this would be legal under international law would be for the UN Security Council to authorize it. Now, Chapter VII of the UN Charter does allow the UN Security Council to authorize, in certain cases, military intervention.

by the 1990s that provision was interpreted in a number of instances to reflect the notion that even civil conflicts within a nation often have international consequences, as you're seeing in Libya, namely, hundreds of thousands of refugees, which cause tensions with other countries. And therefore--for example, in the situation of Haiti in the 1990s--the Security Council believed that it was not only international conflicts with one state against another, but also conflicts or problems within a state, to the extent they caused for international tensions and caused for problems of peace and security, that could allow the Security Council to use force against another country. The real question here is both the legitimacy of using other force and the advisability. I do think the Security Council has the authority to use force. And in Somalia, for example, the Security Council authorized the use of force, even though it was an internal conflict, as it did in Haiti.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:07 PM
As long as the Security Council approves it it is legal under the UN.

No it's not. That's called a usurpation—exactly how our own Constitution was watered down by previous presidents. This is how such institutions expand their powers.
You like that sort of thing because you agree with the action. If it's true, which it isn't, then they don't even need a stinkin' written Charter dirk.

What Obama has done is a violation of International Law. He is an aggressor.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 10:10 PM
No it's not. That's called a usurpation—exactly how our own Constitution was watered down by previous presidents. This is how such institutions expand their powers.
You like that sort of thing because you agree with the action. If it's true, which it isn't, then they don't even need a stinkin' written Charter dirk.

It is true. Just read what I posted and then you will understand.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:11 PM
It is true. Just read what I posted and then you will understand.

No it isn't. You're cherry-picking. The part I quoted is what applies. The rest gets read with that in mind because you can't separate a part from the whole.
They have violated their own charter and this is a BAD precedent for sovereignty—including ours.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:17 PM
dirk please show your sources with a link...it sounds like someone's opinion who wants to go into Libya and is arguing mission creep.


BTW a No Fly Zone is an act of war by the UN members. And NATO is under the UN.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 10:31 PM
No it isn't. You're cherry-picking. The part I quoted is what applies. The rest gets read with that in mind because you can't separate a part from the whole.
They have violated their own charter and this is a BAD precedent for sovereignty—including ours.

We will agree to disagree then. The Security Council has the final say and Chapter VII of the UN Charter gives them permission to use military force.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 10:31 PM
It's been published in several places, but here you go:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/08/954046/-No-Fly-Zone-Senator-Kerry,-the-UN-Charter-is-Supreme-Law

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:34 PM
I just googled part of your quote. That's a man named Lobel. The interviewer says Article 42 applies to "international" conflicts. That means other nations. Then he relies on earlier precedents, what were not that clear-cut, to justify a more clear-cut internal dispute that is not causing an international conflict or tensions. He uses the word "plenary" which is what Constitutional usurpers in the US used to justify Bush's actions. Lobel doesn't ever even refer to the part I quoted—at all! And the interviewer reads it as there really being no international law. Even Lobel agrees that it's a politicized decision.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:37 PM
We will agree to disagree then. The Security Council has the final say and Chapter VII of the UN Charter gives them permission to use military force.

I still want the link to your quotes.

The Security Council is bound by the Charter or logically they don't need a charter.

orange
03-19-2011, 10:37 PM
dirk please show your sources with a link...it sounds like someone's opinion who wants to go into Libya and is arguing mission creep.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/08/954046/-No-Fly-Zone-Senator-Kerry,-the-UN-Charter-is-Supreme-Law

He definitely is not arguing to go into Libya. He wanted to severely limit the intervention and absolutely require UN approval.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:41 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/08/954046/-No-Fly-Zone-Senator-Kerry,-the-UN-Charter-is-Supreme-Law

He definitely is not arguing to go into Libya. He wanted to severely limit the intervention and absolutely require UN approval.

Is this the same Senator Kerry who voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq in October 2002, which was never authorized by the UN Security Council?


He's actually calling the UN Charter the "Constitution of the World." :doh!:

The United Nations Charter is not an obscure document that can be safely ignored when it is convenient to do so. It is the founding document of the United Nations. It is the Constitution of the world.

That's what Daily Kos provides for back up. Anyhow, if the Charter is against intervening inside a country with force, but only between nations I would think that NoFlyZone applies to the other nation that is aggressing on another nation—not for some other countries being allowed to aggress. LOL!

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 10:43 PM
I still want the link to your quotes.

The Security Council is bound by the Charter or logically they don't need a charter.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 10:46 PM
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

No not that. I can get that on my own which I already did. I want the link to the quotes that explains what that person's opinion is about what the UN Charter says.

orange
03-19-2011, 10:50 PM
No not that. I can get that on my own which I already did. I want the link to the quotes that explains what that person's opinion is about what the UN Charter says.

I thought you said you saw it. Here's the whole interview - you can read it or watch.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6408

You might want to check it out. The whole thing is about this very point - internal conflicts vs. external.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 10:53 PM
No not that. I can get that on my own which I already did. I want the link to the quotes that explains what that person's opinion is about what the UN Charter says.

Here you go

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6408

Bio

Jules Lobel is vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and a professor at University of Pittsburgh school of Law. He is an editor of a text on civil rights litigation and of a collection of essays on the U.S. Constitution, "A Less Than Perfect Union" (Monthly Review Press, 1988). He also the author of numerous articles on international law and foreign in several publications including the Yale Law Journal and Harvard International Law Journal.
<hr width="80%">

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. Events continue to unfold in Libya as NATO continues to meet to decide whether or not to create a no-fly zone in Libya. The Arab League has called for one. Officials in the United States, and particularly in Europe, have said there may be one, but they won't do it without authorization of the UN Security Council. There seems to be a general understanding that it wouldn't be legal without it. But is it legal with it? Now joining us to talk about the issues of international law and the no-fly zone in Libya is Jules Lobel. He's vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. Thanks for joining us, Jules.

JULES LOBEL, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Thanks for inviting me.

JAY: How do you see the issues of international law here? Just to paint the picture, Gaddafi's forces are moving towards Benghazi. It seems rather clear that the vast majority of the people in Benghazi would like to see regime change. They'd like to see the downfall of Gaddafi. They certainly don't want to rejoin an old version of Libya. And the people in Benghazi have called for two things in massive demonstrations. One, they've called for a no-fly zone. Two, they've said they want no other kind of foreign intervention. They don't want any foreign troops on their soil. But they've distinguished between this no-fly zone and direct foreign intervention. So what does international law tell us?

LOBEL: First, international law says that it would be unlawful for another country, or even a set of countries, like NATO, to intervene militarily, either through a no-fly zone or through the introduction of foreign troops, without the authorization of the UN Security Council. Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter prohibits other countries, as I said, including NATO, the United States, Britain, from using military force against another state--in this case Libya--except in self-defense. And there's no argument here that there's any self-defense. So the only way that this would be legal under international law would be for the UN Security Council to authorize it. Now, Chapter VII of the UN Charter does allow the UN Security Council to authorize, in certain cases, military intervention.

JAY: Let me read Article 41 and 42 so people know just what we're talking about. Article 41 says: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." Article 42 says: "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." Jules, the controversial issue here is to--it says to maintain international peace and security. So this provision usually is meant to be conflict between states, not inside a specific country.

LOBEL: That's correct. However, by the 1990s that provision was interpreted in a number of instances to reflect the notion that even civil conflicts within a nation often have international consequences, as you're seeing in Libya, namely, hundreds of thousands of refugees, which cause tensions with other countries. And therefore--for example, in the situation of Haiti in the 1990s--the Security Council believed that it was not only international conflicts with one state against another, but also conflicts or problems within a state, to the extent they caused for international tensions and caused for problems of peace and security, that could allow the Security Council to use force against another country. The real question here is both the legitimacy of using other force and the advisability. I do think the Security Council has the authority to use force. And in Somalia, for example, the Security Council authorized the use of force, even though it was an internal conflict, as it did in Haiti.

JAY: But what's the justification for when it's an internal conflict? There has been this kind of thesis developed of humanitarian intervention. If there seems to be loss of life at such a scale the word genocide sometimes gets used, just when and how does the UN decide such a thing?

LOBEL: Well, the UN has, really, plenary power to make that decision. The UN's decision really is not reviewable. But what the UN has said in other cases is that where a conflict reaches--an internal conflict reaches such a scale and such a magnitude so it's not just a localized conflict between two competing forces in a particular country, but it reaches such a scale in magnitude both to have dramatic humanitarian implications for the entire region and also to create refugees, which then create tensions with other countries within the region, that can then invoke the provisions of Article 41 and Article 42.

JAY: Well, you've had an argument kind of emerging from France, which said they no longer recognize the Gaddafi government and they recognize the--I think what is being called the Libyan National Council. The Arab League that called for a no-fly zone said that Gaddafi has lost his right to sovereignty. I mean, how do--on what basis can they say such things?

LOBEL: Of course countries have the right to politically say on their own, or the Arab League has the right to say, this government no longer has legitimacy and we're going to de-recognize it, or we're not going to recognize it anymore. But they don't have the right to authorize the use of military force, including a no-fly zone. Only the Security Council has that right. But the fact that there are all of these governments in these--in different countries which are creating tensions with Libya I think would give at least the United Nations the plausible rationale that a no-fly zone would be legal. The problem here is that I don't think the Security Council has exhausted all peaceful options, and I think that the problem is in general that the concept of humanitarian intervention, as we pointed out before, is very politicized, it's used very selectively, and it has in history been used by great powers only in those countries where they have some particular interest where they want to use armed force. So I think the world and the Libyan people should be very suspicious about either a no-fly zone or any other form of military intervention here.

JAY: The problem now seems to be is that the international law seems to be what the Security Council says it is. So if the big powers can decide in a certain situation--like, [in] Libya they can intervene with a no-fly zone; and then they can't agree on Israel and Gaza, so they don't. It sort of means there almost is no international law anymore. And am I reading it correctly?

LOBEL: Well, it--no, there is international law, but it's enforced by a very politicized body. Now, in fact, in this case, as has often happened, China and Russia have refused to countenance any intervention or military intervention. And therefore the restraint is the fact that you need the agreement of all five permanent members of the Security Council, which I think they're unlikely to get here. So I think as a matter of international law it's unlikely that a no-fly zone will be approved. But if it is, I still think it would be a mistake in this situation, because it would introduce Western intervention into a situation where I think this has to be resolved by the Libyan people. And I certainly hope that the Libyan people oust a dictator who's been oppressing them. But to say that it should be done by the force of foreign arms or by US planes bombing and enforcing a no-fly zone I think would be a mistake.

JAY: So what happens if we're looking at a situation where Gaddafi's forces are about to bomb Benghazi, where the vast majority of people have clearly said they don't want to live under this regime, they do want a no-fly zone, but they don't want foreign troops? But if we start to see the bombing or a real onslaught on Benghazi, what would you say?

LOBEL: Well, I think the pressure, obviously, then would mount, and to the extent that the casualties became a humanitarian, genocidal situation, there might be more justification for intervening. However, even then I would say that there've been many situations where internally, from the perspective of the internal forces, people have been able to beat back a dictator. And hopefully the United States and other countries could find other ways of aiding the forces that are for democracy in Libya without resorting to military force.

JAY: Okay, just quickly on Bahrain, the government there has asked the Saudis to send, apparently, 1,000 policemen to put down the protesters. What does international law tell us about this?

LOBEL: Well, international law has generally allowed a government to request aid from neighboring governments, and that's what they've done. So, generally, it would be permissible under international law, as long as it hasn't reached the situation of a civil war, at which point, traditionally, international law required that all foreign powers stay out of it, both intervening on the side of the rebels or on the side of the government in both situations. But at this point I assume that Bahrain says, we haven't reached a situation of a civil war, and therefore it's lawful for us to ask the Saudis for aid. But the situation in Bahrain simply emphasizes the dangers of foreign intervention, because in one case, politically, you might use it to aid the Libyan opposition; in other cases, you're going to be using it to aid a royalty, or in the Saudi case, if there was protests in Saudi--to aid the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And there the Security Council, with the--because of the United States' and Britain's support for Saudi Arabia, would take a totally different position.

JAY: I mean, in Libya you could argue it's a civil war, in which case they should stay out.

LOBEL: Exactly. Exactly. I think that there's a good argument in Libya that they should stay out of the situation. But it shows the politicized nature of this whole humanitarian intervention, both--certainly when individual countries, like Saudi Arabians or the United States does it, but even when the Security Council does it. And that's what it--why it makes me and many of the people at the Center for Constitutional Rights very wary and very skeptical about this whole development of humanitarian intervention.

JAY: Thanks very much for joining us, Jules.

LOBEL: Thank you.

JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:10 PM
I thought you said you saw it. Here's the whole interview - you can read it or watch.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6408

You might want to check it out. The whole thing is about this very point - internal conflicts vs. external.

That's the one I parsed just above. This Lobel guy is just a usurper ignoring the passage that applies. He just ignores it and uses earlier precedents that weren't as clear-cut as this and which may also have violated the same passage.
It's his opinion. It's not what the Charter says.

This may just make Ghaddafi dig-in an persecute his people more. It didn't do jack for getting rid of SH. In the early days of the protests the anti-Ghaddafi protesters held up signs opposing any foreign intervention. This is the right approach. These people hate foreign interventionists more than their dictators.

I propose the majority that is now unhappy with Obama to go to the UN to call on some other nations to liberate us from the Obama Administration complete with a No Fly Zone. This is the argument you and dirk are making in a nutshell.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:11 PM
Okay dirk, just checking. That's who I thought it was. I already responded to his argument though.

orange
03-19-2011, 11:20 PM
This Lobel guy is just a usurper ignoring the passage that applies. He just ignores it and uses earlier precedents that weren't as clear-cut as this and which may also have violated the same passage.
It's his opinion. It's not what the Charter says.


This Lobel guy is an expert and professor in international law. He's not ignoring anything - INCLUDING what the law really is in practice, not theory. He's saying this is what they actually do - and he doesn't even like it.

"I think that there's a good argument in Libya that they should stay out of the situation. But it shows the politicized nature of this whole humanitarian intervention, both--certainly when individual countries, like Saudi Arabians or the United States does it, but even when the Security Council does it. And that's what it--why it makes me and many of the people at the Center for Constitutional Rights very wary and very skeptical about this whole development of humanitarian intervention."
Maybe you should write him a letter about how the U.N. Charter only grants enumerated powers.

:hmmm:

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:22 PM
This Lobel guy is an expert and professor in international law.
I don't need any appeal to authority on this. I go by the document.

orange
03-19-2011, 11:24 PM
Maybe you should write him a letter about how the U.N. Charter only grants enumerated powers.


I don't need any appeal to authority on this. I go by the document.

http://growabrain.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c858253ef0133ed98102a970b-800wi

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:24 PM
Maybe you should write him a letter about how the U.N. Charter only grants enumerated powers.


:LOL:

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:29 PM
http://growabrain.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c858253ef0133ed98102a970b-800wi

So Laurence Tribe claims to be a Constitutional expert and lawyer and I disagree with him on more than you can image and there are other's on the opposite side of him that are experts too.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 11:38 PM
BTW orange, the UN is an expensive joke. The world is ruled by power. In the case of the UN a certain 5 powers have created something whereby they could run the world but give running it rhetorical cover. Powerful countries will do what they like and they do so by abusing the UN inside the UN as well. It's also a haven for spies.

go bowe
03-20-2011, 01:14 AM
With all due respect, who said anything about governing? What about just helping your fellow man? I agree I don't think this is for the Libyan people at all but at the same time I don't think we should just set back and watch innocent people be slaughtered when we could significantly help without governance.

At the same time I get your point about just letting the chips fall where they may especially with a majority of the people who hate us and would love to see us dead and avoiding all the lost lives of our troops and $$ spent. But there still are some innocent people who do not feel this way about us and need help.well, i'll be...

i totally agree with you on this...

HonestChieffan
03-20-2011, 06:02 AM
Just more confusing ....Is Obama just positioning we are not "leading" for some reason? BBC seems to think US is running the show, French Media says we are, and even old Star and Strips says it.....Why is Obama making such a play?

http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-led-coalition-begins-attacks-on-libya-s-air-defense-systems-1.138336?localLinksEnabled=false

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 08:35 AM
Okay dirk, just checking. That's who I thought it was. I already responded to his argument though.

Your argument was dumb.

HonestChieffan
03-20-2011, 08:36 AM
Your argument was dumb.


Carnitas again for Illini KU.


Ever fix it?

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 08:42 AM
Carnitas again for Illini KU.


Ever fix it?

Oh yeah twice. It is freaking awesome. Thank you thank you thank you.

The last time I made me own green verde sauce and after it was done cooking instead of pouring the sauce back over it I used the green sauce. Very very good.

HonestChieffan
03-20-2011, 08:44 AM
Oh yeah twice. It is freaking awesome. Thank you thank you thank you.

The last time I made me own green verde sauce and after it was done cooking instead of pouring the sauce back over it I used the green sauce. Very very good.

Dude!

Try taking the meat and skillet fry it crisp


Killer

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 09:15 AM
Dude!

Try taking the meat and skillet fry it crisp


Killer

Next time I definitely will

banyon
03-20-2011, 09:23 AM
I don't need any appeal to authority on this. I go by the document.

No, you don't.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:43 AM
Your argument was dumb.

Projection. Your argument relies on an appeal to authority....a logical fallacy.

The Mad Crapper
03-20-2011, 09:45 AM
This is almost as stupid as bombing Serbia.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:47 AM
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people.* And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'... ROFL @ US interests!

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'... ROFL



* people who had signs up to not intervene because these guys hate interventionists more than they hate their dictator. They know it comes with strings attached.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 10:10 AM
Libya's make-up was and still is tribal (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/03/13/libya-does-not-exist/)
The notion of a unified system of political checks and balances or a unitary centralized state is foreign to Libyans.
It's only be held together as such via force and dictatorship since the Italians colonialized it. Then the WWII victor England installed their emir.

"Western intellectuals and politicians bring their cultural bias in favor of cosmopolitanism to bear on a region that has always lived in another way altogether."

Their experience with a national state has been entirely negative. They do not share a national identity—something that UN meddlers insist on putting in tribal areas that resist it making a bigger mess. Witness Somalia and the use of derogatory terms such as "war lords."

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 10:25 AM
The Arrogance of Empire
Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 20, 2011 09:01 AM

Christopher Dickey, Paris bureau chief of Newsweek, i.e., pal of the CIA, was just on MSNBC. His voice dripping with arrogance—and I only saw a few moments of his interview—he said that, of course, there would be civilian casualties in Libya, but to talk about them was just to aid the “Arab theater of war.” Neocon and friend of the CIA Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings then condemned any talk of civilian casualties, especially by the Arab League, which must be “walked back” so no other comments are made. Here’s what is happening. The Arab world, very different from the Saudi-run Arab League, is outraged over the attack on Libya, and the Sauds, etc. are feeling the pressure for having joined with the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim US in killing even more Arab Muslims. But, but, isn’t Gaddafi a monster? Of course. He is a head of state. But the US no-fly, no-drive, no-walk zone has turned attention to Obama, who has killed vastly more civilians than Gaddafi.


Expect blowback you folks supporting this imperial act covered in noble rhetoric.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 10:29 AM
Next time I definitely will

BTW don't forget that the Iraq war caused the Rs to lose congressional and a presidential election.

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 10:39 AM
No, you don't.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

You are wasting your time banyon I already posted this and she ignored it.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 10:54 AM
You are wasting your time banyon I already posted this and she ignored it.

Funny how banyon relied on the US Constitution instead when Bush was in power. I should to find those posts and re-post them.

BTW group agreement doesn't make it correct. It can be herd mentality. Also the UN's Charter of Human Rights is not binding on the UN. It's just a standard they strive for but is non binding.
This gets invoked for humanitarian intervention at times but is also bogus.


If I am so wrong then this article shows that your position is no slam dunk as others agree with mine. Such arguments simple show an evolution which the UN charter doesn't make room for in its words.
The SC should follow the written agreement not just do what it thinks is right. You and banyon omit the passage that applies. Besides I already saw those.


... the UN Security Council has authorized use of force in situations that many states would have previously viewed as “internal” conflict

http://wiki.ask.com/Humanitarian_intervention

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 11:00 AM
Funny how banyon relied on the US Constitution instead when Bush was in power. I should to find those posts and re-post them.

BTW group agreement doesn't make it correct. It can be herd mentality. Also the UN's Charter of Human Rights is not binding on the UN. It's just a standard they strive for but is non binding.
This gets invoked for humanitarian intervention at times but is also bogus.

This is not the Charter of Human Rights. It is Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which clearly spells out what the Security Council can do in regards to military force

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 11:04 AM
This is not the Charter of Human Rights. It is Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which clearly spells out what the Security Council can do in regards to military force

Except, as I told you before, even that is still monitored by my passage. The SC cannot just intervene because it can call something other than what it is.

I only mentioned the HRs because that gets used as an excuse to intervene too.


7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.



NOTHING!

banyon
03-20-2011, 11:12 AM
Funny how banyon relied on the US Constitution instead when Bush was in power. I should to find those posts and re-post them

http://wiki.ask.com/Humanitarian_intervention

Go for it.

I don't know for the life of me how you got to be so educated with such piss-poor reading comprehension.

All I said was that your argument for why the UN couldn't act was wrong. Now, as usual, you illogically assume that I must embrace all of the positions of your ideological opponents.

Point of fact, the only other post where I stated whether or not I supported the military action in Libya was that I thought we had enough to do with the 2 wars we are already in. So, no, I don't "support this just because it's a leftist president".

Beyond this, based on what I know right now (which is just cursory news reports), I tend to agree with George Will (particularly at 1:10 and 7:40 into the video:

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMDA2NDEyMjU2OTQmcHQ9MTMwMDY*MTIyODk2NyZwPTEyNTg*MTEmZD1BQkNOZXdzX1NGUF9Mb2NrZV9FbWJlZCZn/PTImbz1jZDYxMDZkNDNlZmE*ZDdhYWUxZWExOGE5OTJmNzE*NyZvZj*w.gif" /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,124,0" width="344" height="278" id="ABCESNWID"><param name="movie" value="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="flashvars" value="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=13178889&showId=13178889&gig_lt=1300641225694&gig_pt=1300641228967&gig_g=2" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="344" height="278" flashvars="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=13178889&showId=13178889&gig_lt=1300641225694&gig_pt=1300641228967&gig_g=2" name="ABCESNWID"></embed></object>

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 11:13 AM
Except, as I told you before, even that is still monitored by my passage. The SC cannot just intervene because it can call something other than what it is.

I only mentioned the HRs because that gets used as an excuse to intervene too.






NOTHING!

The SC can intervene that is not what you are getting

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 11:15 AM
Article 2:

#1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Libya is a sovereign member. Do you know what sovereign means? It means autonomous; not controlled by outside forces; supreme authority


#3 All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Do you know what the word "international" means? It means concerning or belonging to all or at least two or more nations. Inter means "between" or "among"

#4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The members of the SC are violating this passage here. It is inconsistent with the purpose of the UN.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 11:16 AM
The SC can intervene that is not what you are getting

In other words they can do whatever they want despite the language of the WHOLE document or cherry-pick a part out do commit an illegality and make it seem legal.

So the Charter means nothing and it's not needed. Got it!

banyon
03-20-2011, 11:17 AM
Except, as I told you before, even that is still monitored by my passage. The SC cannot just intervene because it can call something other than what it is.

I only mentioned the HRs because that gets used as an excuse to intervene too.



7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.


NOTHING!

Good grief.

Bolded part: part BEP chose to read.

Underlined part: part BEP glossed over which directly limits the application of what she wanted to emphasize.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 11:19 AM
UN Charter


CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.



Clearly it's purposes were established for relationships BETWEEN nations....which is what the very word nternational means.

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 11:19 AM
Got it!

Damn it is about time

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 11:20 AM
Good grief.

Bolded part: part BEP chose to read.

Underlined part: part BEP glossed over which directly limits the application of what she wanted to emphasize.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 11:20 AM
Damn it is about time

That was sarcasm.

May I ask what act against any nation Libya has committed recently?

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 11:31 AM
From the:
The Oxford companion to politics of the world

Sovereignty

In Article 2 (1) the principle of "sovereign equality" is endorsed. And Article 2(7) affirms that even the UN is bound to respect the "domestic jurisdiction" of states: thus territorial supremacy is privileged over the enforcement of international obligations.



Link (http://books.google.com/books?id=2wd30pXJxpYC&pg=PA790&lpg=PA790&dq=The+UN+Charter+cites+international+relations+over+internal+relations+of+a+state.&source=bl&ots=JJCrD5SDm9&sig=wGOEnnmqG7rD72oFO7Pf7w-KeFg&hl=en&ei=PDiGTZyzCJOztwehq8nWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 11:39 AM
United Nations Charter
As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter

The Preamble should serve as an interpretative guide and it states the UN was formed to get rid of the scourge of war. Yet the members of the SC start a war? Specious reasoning, dirk.

orange
03-20-2011, 11:59 AM
Responsibility to Protect in the United Nations

At the 2005 World Summit, Member States included RtoP in the Outcome Document agreeing to Paragraphs 138 and 139. These paragraphs gave final language to the scope of RtoP (i.e. it applies to the four crimes only) and to whom the responsibility actually falls (i.e. nations first, regional and international communities second).

Paragraphs 138 and 139 state:


138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

– 2005 World Summit Outcome Document.[2]

In April 2006, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 in resolution (S/RES/1674), thereby formalizing their support for the norm.[6] The next major advancement in RtoP came in January 2009, when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a report called Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. This report argued for the implementation of RtoP and outlined the three principles of RtoP.

1. Principle One stresses that States have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (mass atrocities).

2. Principle Two addresses the commitment of the international community to provide assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations from mass atrocities and to assisting those, which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

3. Principle Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt mass atrocities when a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations.[7]

This report led eventually to a successful debate in the General Assembly in July 2009. This debate marked the first time since 2005 that the General Assembly had come together to discuss RtoP. 94 Member States spoke and were generally very supportive although some important concerns were voiced. RtoP was brought center-stage during the debate, and members, having agreed upon the norm’s importance at the 2005 World Summit, spent most of the time discussing how to implement RtoP in crisis situations around the world. Some of the main priorities leaving the debate were for regional organizations like the African Union to play a strong role in implementing RtoP, to strengthen early warning mechanisms in the United Nations, and to better define the roles UN bodies would play in implementing RtoP.[8][9]

One outcome of the debate was the first RtoP resolution adopted by the General Assembly. The Resolution (A/RES/63/308) showed that the international community had taken note of the debate and not forgotten about RtoP. The text of the resolution acknowledged the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s report as well as the debate and promised to commit RtoP to further discussion in the GA.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 12:32 PM
That doesn't do it either orange. For one Libya is a civil war not genocide. Furthermore, this document you pulled is nothing more than an expansion of the UN's authority, using the SC which is obligated to uphold the UN's charter and vote within that mandate or original agreements—not just to expand it by 5 nations. They just want to dominate all the other nations. This is another reason why I am not a UN supporter because such institutions, just like govts, expand their role later. This is how we lost our own country's federalism.

Anyhow, this just shows that the UN is ultimately dangerous and a threat to our own sovereignty. For if the 5 nations that dominate the UN, mostly the west, don't recognize sovereignty whether we like what's going on inside a country or not, then it does not bode well for our own.

Time to disband this international organization established by two socialists: FDR and Stalin who likely saw it as a stepping stone to global governance or world control....no matter what the people in each nation feel about it and in the name of ending war by creating more wars since it's founding.....145 and counting.

orange
03-20-2011, 12:45 PM
For one Libya is a civil war not genocide.

That's just your opinion. The UN has a different opinion.

And quite simply, the UN and its member states have acknowledged limits to Sovereignity and the right and responsibility of international bodies to act in countries' "internal" affairs. The "sovereignity argument" doesn't fly anymore - just like Libya's airforce.

There's more to the UN than just the Charter.

And, ironically, the African Union - of which Gaddafi was the chief proponent - was first to adopt the principal of Responsibility to Protect.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 12:56 PM
That's just your opinion.
Nope! Not just mine.

The UN has a different opinion.

Hmmmm :hmmm: Is that why some members abstained? China, India, Russia, Germany and Brazil abstained from voting and expressed serious reservations on a no-fly zone over Libya.

Yeah! Uh huh! The entire UN has the same opinion and is united— NOT !

IOWs you mean the Security Council's opinion— which is acting outside the treaty or charter on which it was originally formed.

And quite simply, the UN and its member states have acknowledged limits to Sovereignity and the right and responsibility of international bodies to act in countries' "internal" affairs.

Well they shouldn't. This is just a stepping stone to world govt. Sovereignty for others is sovereignty for America. IMO this is dangerous thinking but then progressives love to control for outcomes they prefer. The world is imperfect. Leave it alone.

There's more to the UN than just the Charter.
The Charter is what people signed onto as part of the treaty. They should not be given expanded authority which is what is happening. In fact the best way to deal with this metastasizing cancer of an organization is to get rid of it. No treaty should be valid if it over rides the US Constitution.

And, ironically, the African Union - of which Gaddafi was the chief proponent - was first to adopt the principal of Responsibility to Protect.
So what. He's also spoken out against this violating the UN's Charter too. :hmmm:

patteeu
03-20-2011, 01:07 PM
This debate is ridiculous. It doesn't really matter what the UN rules are. If it was important enough to us, we'd take action even if it was indisputably against UN rules. It's merely a facade that we find convenient for PR and influence reasons. I'm all for using the UN as a tool to serve our purposes, but the importan part is "our purposes".

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 01:08 PM
That's called NeoConservativism.

This matters to Progressives who I am debating. If it doesn't matter to you then show it.


Pat's position summed up:

A NeoCon Global Govt (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul255.html)


The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime — regardless of the nature of that regime.



Progressive enslavers unite. This does not bode well for the Tea Party or nullification. There won't be any No Fly Zone for us, should be resist.

orange
03-20-2011, 01:28 PM
That's just your opinion. The UN has a different opinion.


"The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,

Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),

Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect (there are those words again) the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,

Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,

Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,

Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel,

Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note of the final communiqué of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, and the communiqué of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union of 10 March 2011 which established an ad hoc High-Level Committee on Libya,

Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note further of the Secretary-General's call on 16 March 2011 for an immediate ceasefire,

Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,

Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of those refugees and foreign workers, and calling on the international community to support those efforts,

Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities,

"Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya,

"Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul Ilah Mohamed Al-Khatib and supporting his efforts to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Determining that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,

"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, .....


Hmmmm :hmmm: Is that why some members abstained? China, India, Russia, Germany and Brazil abstained from voting and expressed serious reservations on a no-fly zone over Libya.

Yeah! Uh huh! The entire UN has the same opinion and is united— NOT !

Aye 10, Nay 0, Vetoes 0

United enough.

...


IOWs you mean the Security Council's opinion— which is acting outside the treaty or charter on which it was originally formed.

Well they shouldn't. This is just a stepping stone to world govt.

Original Intent FTW. You realize you just elevated Joe Stalin to Founding Father status? Is he Thomas or James?

orange
03-20-2011, 01:31 PM
You realize you just elevated Joe Stalin to Founding Father status? Is he Thomas or James?

No, wait. He's obviously Ben - UNCLE Ben.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 03:55 PM
Aye 10, Nay 0, Vetoes 0

United enough.


Original Intent FTW. You realize you just elevated Joe Stalin to Founding Father status? Is he Thomas or James?

Wow, out of 192 members. Uh hmm... that is just one united group all right. :doh!: Seems like more are not united.

No I have not elevated Stalin to Founding Father status since those two words with a capital letter stand only for certain revered Americans. That's like saying Marx is the Founding Father of Socialism. LOL! ROFL

The earlier part of this post I quoted I could care less about and falls under my earlier arguments— that the UN is expanding its role incrementally and in Fabian manner. It will continue to do so if not stopped. It's a Trojan Horse.

patteeu
03-20-2011, 04:59 PM
Pat's position summed up:

A NeoCon Global Govt (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul255.html)

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that that has anything to do with my position, much less how it sums it up.

banyon
03-20-2011, 06:31 PM
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that that has anything to do with my position, much less how it sums it up.

It's the narrative that's been fed to her for years on her fringe political outlets. This mentality is pervasive there. You must (and are assumed to) fit into one of the predetermined ideological boxes so the narrative and rhetorical catch phrases will work.

dirk digler
03-20-2011, 08:25 PM
Looks like Khamis Gaddafi might have been killed today. So sad

patteeu
03-21-2011, 09:04 AM
It's the narrative that's been fed to her for years on her fringe political outlets. This mentality is pervasive there. You must (and are assumed to) fit into one of the predetermined ideological boxes so the narrative and rhetorical catch phrases will work.

I think you're right.

durtyrute
03-21-2011, 03:44 PM
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people.* And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'... ROFL @ US interests!

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'... ROFL



MARCH 19, 2011
* people who had signs up to not intervene because these guys hate interventionists more than they hate their dictator. They know it comes with strings attached.

This

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 04:50 PM
I said the power to declare was listed in Article 1 Section 8 earlier which is easily googled to see that it is written:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power:

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

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;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

go bowe
03-21-2011, 05:33 PM
I said the power to declare was listed in Article 1 Section 8 earlier which is easily googled to see that it is written:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
what's this? the founders authorized punishing offenses against the law of nations?

they recognized international law? omng, noooeessss...

The Mad Crapper
03-22-2011, 10:29 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/NobelPrize_CrackerJack.gif

BucEyedPea
03-22-2011, 07:50 PM
...he also says the Constitution is CLEAR on "WHO" gets to declare ( commence ) on going to war. No where does the Constitution list this under the Executives powers. Both sides of the aisle violate this.

Point made at 11:07 onward:
We break it we're gonna have to own it and rebuild it.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aji9ZKevipU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

go bowe
03-22-2011, 08:05 PM
honey, isn't ron paul a statist or a neocon in drag?

or maybe a lino?

enquiring minds and such...

orange
03-22-2011, 08:10 PM
...he also says the Constitution is CLEAR on "WHO" gets to declare ( commence ) on going to war. No where does the Constitution list this under the Executives powers. Both sides of the aisle violate this.

Point made at 11:07 onward:
We break it we're gonna have to own it and rebuild it.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aji9ZKevipU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Judge Nappy has even less relevance than Ron Paul, if that's possible.

But there is one thing Paul can do. He and Kucinich and all other like-minded Congressmen could actually introduce a Constitutional Amendment spelling out war powers - since the nation has NEVER supported their reading of the Constitution. And if it's "too hard" to get an Amendment passed/ratified, well

Amendments 27
Impeachments 0

BucEyedPea
03-22-2011, 08:28 PM
Judge Nappy has even less relevance than Ron Paul, if that's possible.

This doesn't refute anything. Shame on you.

But there is one thing Paul can do. He and Kucinich and all other like-minded Congressmen could actually introduce a Constitutional Amendment spelling out war powers - since the nation has NEVER supported their reading of the Constitution. And if it's "too hard" to get an Amendment passed/ratified, well

There's NO need for an Amendment as it is unambiguously written with the "enumerated power" given to Congress and no such enumerated power given to the President.

You're asking for an extra Constitutional action. Then again, that is a solution for dumbass uneducated politicians. But I believe there's more to it than just that.

The power elite doesn't even want this settled by the Supremes. While it was working it's way up Carter granted draft dodgers amnesty so it never got heard. Convenient huh? That tells me all I need to know. Certain people want to ignore it because they don't want to be bound down by the "chains of the Constitution."

People like you and donger. Two peas in a pod.

Please re-read Article 1 Section 8.

orange
03-23-2011, 01:43 AM
This doesn't refute anything. Shame on you.


He claims the war in Afghanistan is "illegal."

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed in joint resolution, Senate 98-0, House 420-1

This is the same guy who said the Fourteenth Amendment is "unconstitutional."

Shame on you for putting any stock in that fraud.

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2011, 07:00 AM
Two weeks ago. I would hope they're there already.

It's real funny, idiot...

2200 marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

"In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that's protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces," said Captain Timothy Patrick, a marine with the 26th MEU.

A press release from the 26th MEU reads, in part:

"Protecting the innocent and conducting combined operations are what we are designed to do, our forces are doing both as part of the U.S commitment to protect Libyan citizens."

Patrick says that marines from the 26th MEU are coming on the end of their deployment. They will be replaced with marines from the 22nd MEU.

http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp314/pauly_cy/morePCpics/baghdadbarack.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 08:44 AM
He claims the war in Afghanistan is "illegal."

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed in joint resolution, Senate 98-0, House 420-1

This is the same guy who said the Fourteenth Amendment is "unconstitutional."

Shame on you for putting any stock in that fraud.

Who's "he"?


BTW, an authorization for using force is not a Declaration of War—which creates a legal state, and a clear start and end to hostilities and defines an actual enemy.

patteeu
03-23-2011, 08:54 AM
Who's "he"?


BTW, an authorization for using force is not a Declaration of War—which creates a legal state, and a clear start and end to hostilities and defines an actual enemy.

It satisfies the constitutional requirement. The superficial form is irrelevant.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 09:02 AM
Nope


I've already argued this extensively with you before and I am not going to argue it again. Just go back an re-read our previous debates.
The form may not matter, that it creates a legal state of war does matter.

patteeu
03-23-2011, 09:23 AM
Nope


I've already argued this extensively with you before and I am not going to argue it again. Just go back an re-read our previous debates.
The form may not matter, that it creates a legal state of war does matter.

I don't need to reread it. I already understand your incorrect opinion. I'm just setting the record straight. It's what I do.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 09:48 AM
Nope


not that I saw anything

patteeu
03-23-2011, 09:51 AM
LMAO

RNR
03-23-2011, 09:53 AM
"It may be that oil is a important issue here" Well no shit Mr Paul~

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 09:58 AM
"It may that oil is a important issue here" Well no shit Mr Paul~

Yeah but what does this mean exactly? Because it really shouldn't be a reason for military action or war or whatever you want to call it.

The oil will flow no matter who wins though—sooner or later. Either side needs customers.
A full out war would be much more of a problem for oil flowing. In fact, Gaddafi could sabotage it for revenge.
If any sabotage happened it would invite other suppliers to pump more and there'd be a temporary disruption.

What it really means, is that mercantile interests just want to grab, own and control the resource for their own profits. To dominate markets with the aid of the state.
In this case the military.

There is always a mercantile interest behind most wars. This is mercantilism. This is part of Hamilton's curse.

RNR
03-23-2011, 10:06 AM
Yeah but what does this mean exactly? Because it really shouldn't be a reason for military action or war or whatever you want to call it.

The oil will flow no matter who wins though—sooner or later. Either side needs customers.
A full out war would be much more of a problem for oil flowing. In fact, Gaddafi could sabotage it for revenge.
If any sabotage happened it would invite other suppliers to pump more and there'd be a temporary disruption.

What it really means, is that mercantile interests just want to grab, own and control the resource for their own profits. To dominate markets with the aid of the state.
In this case the military.

There is always a mercantile interest behind most wars. This is mercantilism. This is part of Hamilton's curse.

He was kind in saying "may be" Oil is the only reason we keep stepping in the pile of shit also known as the Middle East. Like it or not, think it is justified or not… IT is the reason why we are there. Fighting to maintain our position at the oil tit~

orange
03-23-2011, 11:13 AM
Who's "he"?


Judge Nappy. Did you even listen to your own clip? It's in the first few seconds. (The Fourteenth Amendment unconstitutional claim was a previous thread, of course).

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 11:46 AM
Judge Nappy. Did you even listen to your own clip? It's in the first few seconds. (The Fourteenth Amendment unconstitutional claim was a previous thread, of course).

I think you probably heard that wrong. ( but I will go back and check it) In the meantime, I know he doesn't believe that from other arguments I've heard him make on the 14th. His position is more nuanced on that. Your progressive mind probably is not able to process what he meant by that. HOWEVER, I did not put that up for that reason and I noted the time as to the argument I was using it for. Pay attention.

orange
03-23-2011, 11:57 AM
I think you probably heard that wrong.

"... ensnarled in two illegal wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan ..."

Seconds 11-15

Memo to self: Pay attention.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 11:59 AM
Okay I went back and looked at the clip but I also noticed I missed your second to last post. So I thought you were referring to Judge Napolitano on the 14th in the clip which was not there.

You apparently don't know the Judge's stand on the 14th. How can someone say a legit amendment is unConstitutional? Please post a quote of his saying that. You can't. I know for a fact that he just uses it in more narrow manner and that manner not narrow enough for me even. I've read one of his books on the Constitution.

On another board, I as well as another posted my disagreement with the Judge his use of the "incorporation doctrine" being used to emcompass the BoRs when someone posted a YouTube of him using it. So you are inaccurate in claiming the Judge's position on the 14th being unConstitutional because I've seen him relying on it. Napolitano is fairly libertarain...and there are libertarian centralizers that do support the 14th by using the incorporation doctrine with it.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 12:01 PM
"... ensnarled in two illegal wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan ..."

Seconds 11-15

See above.

Yes they are illegal wars to me, the Judge, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan etc. and you can use the search as to why I say that. It was already debated thoroughly and repeatedly in the past here.
You'll, also see your own Progressive brethen, like banyon saying congress didn't declare war for Iraq several years ago as I recall. In fact, as I recall, he even posted the Congressional resolution to show that it was to back up UN resolutions mostly and never even used the word "war."

Again, I didn't put that You Tube up for those wars but for this one because Obama didn't consider the Congress at all. Stay on topic instead of deflecting.
You're intention here is soley to discredit the source—Judge Napolitano, a Constitutonalist attorney in order to avoid Obama's not consulting Congress—AT ALL!
( even if Bush felt going to Congress wasn't necessary.) I have no intention of repeating a past debate that was repeated endlessly previously here. Use the search.

orange
03-23-2011, 12:18 PM
Again, I didn't put that You Tube up for those wars but for this one because Obama didn't consider the Congress at all. Stay on topic instead of deflecting.

On topic: The authority you're relying on is a quack lawyer and his opinion of what is illegal is meaningless.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 12:19 PM
In Obama's own words:
"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."

So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 – the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

This is Obama's war.



What caused Obama's about-face from the Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone on Libya was an unwise act of war?

According to The New York Times, National Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N. envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.

They did not want to be seen as standing by when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.

While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome. No question who wears the pants here.


Pat Buchanan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan155.html)

More: Aiding Al Qaeda
The Arab League and African Union are denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For eastern Libya provided more than its fair share of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.

Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S. intervention to prevent "unspeakable atrocities," security police of Yemen's President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran, would U.S. protests have been so muted?

In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.

This crackdown on Bahrain's Shia has been denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world, ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.

Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and in Iraq after the Americans ousted the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.

They are a majority in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.

Riyadh must have regarded the threat to Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.

Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans – a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America.

England almost did get involved in our Civil War because as a mercantilist empire they needed the south's cotton for their manufacturing plants for textiles which they then exported to the world. The EP prevented that involvement. So instead they turned to Egyptian cotton.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 12:20 PM
On topic: The authority you're relying on is a quack lawyer and his opinion of what is illegal is meaningless.

That's called ad hominem and is merely your opinion. You're just like HonestChief fan today. The judge is respected by many people who simply disagree with you. Even Obama agreed with him when it was Bush.
This is just another sign, you can't refute the points being made on this and have lost the argument. Thank you for demonstrating that. :thumb:

orange
03-23-2011, 12:29 PM
Yes they are illegal wars to me, the Judge, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan etc.

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex...Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.

We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.

Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?87649-Why-did-Ron-Paul-vote-for-the-authority-to-go-into-Afghanistan/page2http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 12:35 PM
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex...Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.

We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.

Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?87649-Why-did-Ron-Paul-vote-for-the-authority-to-go-into-Afghanistan/page2http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

This was already discussed, parsed and debated too. May I ask what part stopping something over commencing* something you do not understand? ( see above discussions) You don't do nuance do you. Or you're simply not processing differences, similarities and differences for when a president can do this. Paul supported capturing binLaden and breaking up the camps and then getting out —at least at that time for that purpose. That is a military action short of war. Later he didn't because of what it turned into—nation building in Afghanistan and permanent occupation and war. You need to get up-to-date quotes to show his full position. Aren't one of the ones here calling out the right for omitting things? I think so.

Oh and touché: Biden calls for impeachment of Bush for the same thing.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_dRFJ6CF2Mw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Bush commenced a war on Iraq. He did not in Afghanistan....we were never at war with that country. We were breaking up terrorist camps to stifle AQ and capture BinLaden.

Jaric
03-23-2011, 12:36 PM
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex...Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.

We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.

Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?87649-Why-did-Ron-Paul-vote-for-the-authority-to-go-into-Afghanistan/page2http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

DOWN GOES FRAZIER!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_raPv56SWVPc/THcgFk8bhQI/AAAAAAAAAbA/2V8JV5vNb4E/s1600/frazier.jpg

orange
03-23-2011, 12:40 PM
Oh and touché

Let's see if I've got this right:

Biden called Bush's war in Iraq illegal because Bush lied to lead us into it.
Paul now calls Bush's war in Afghanistan illegal.

ergo Bush lied to get us into Afghanistan.

You're a "truther," too? ROFL

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 12:43 PM
Let's see if I've got this right:

Biden called Bush's war in Iraq illegal because Bush lied to lead us into it.
Paul now calls Bush's war in Afghanistan illegal.

ergo Bush lied to get us into Afghanistan.

Biden is talking about Iraq here?

Let me know when your hearing and reading have been restored.
These are my requirements for continuing this argument.

You're a "truther," too? ROFL
No I am not and have stated so many times. You're really getting desperate now aren't you when you can't make an argument, have lost, or the facts aren't on your side. No wonder the nervous laughter.

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2011, 12:47 PM
This administration is a friggin' joke. :facepalm:

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 12:49 PM
This administration is a friggin' joke. :facepalm:

This administration has FLIP-FLOPPed!

orange
03-23-2011, 12:50 PM
Biden is talking about Iraq here?

Let me know when your hearing and reading have been restored.


I didn't listen at all. I just assumed it had something to do with what we were already talking about - Libya or America's "two illegal wars." Not some out-of-the-blue hypothetical. My mistake for thinking you would stay on topic after chastising me to stay on topic.

p.s. Did Bush lie to get us into Afghanistan? Is that now Ron Paul's claim - or does he still think his "AYE" vote was for a legal war?

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2011, 12:54 PM
http://i931.photobucket.com/albums/ad158/FrankRob/LONER.jpg

go bowe
03-23-2011, 12:56 PM
honey, you are such a loon...

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 01:10 PM
I didn't listen at all. I just assumed it had something to do with what we were already talking about - Libya or America's "two illegal wars." Not some out-of-the-blue hypothetical. My mistake for thinking you would stay on topic after chastising me to stay on topic.

p.s. Did Bush lie to get us into Afghanistan? Is that now Ron Paul's claim - or does he still think his "AYE" vote was for a legal war?

You also didn't read the title which is right at the top of the video screen.

Paul's original vote on Afghanistan is irrelevant to Libya, as it is on Iraq. ( not to mention your use of some strawmen )

Let me know when you get some reading glasses, or better ones and a hearing aid.

orange
03-23-2011, 01:17 PM
You also didn't read the title which is right at the top of the video screen.

I read THIS:

Bush commenced a war on Iraq. He did not in Afghanistan....we were never at war with that country. We were breaking up terrorist camps to stifle AQ and capture BinLaden.

... and ASSUMED the clip had something to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Mea culpa.

...

Now tell me where you got the idea that Ron Paul - who specifically stated his support of the Resolution to "declare war" on the terrorists:

"To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex..."

- thinks the war in Afghanistan against the terrorists is illegal.

Yes they are illegal wars to me, the Judge, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan etc.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 01:20 PM
I read THIS:



... and ASSUMED the clip had something to do with Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now tell me where you got the idea that Ron Paul - who specifically stated his support of the Resolution to "declare war" on the terrorists - thinks the war in Afghanistan against the terrorists is illegal.

He doesn't as far as I know. He is against war on Afghanistan (and on the Taliban) which is what it turned into. Get it now?
I mean I know you can't process information that is outside the box of the prevailing two alternatives, but you fail to see what his position really is.
Instead you take a square peg and try to fit it into a round hole.

I might add that I think this shows, he is willing to use the military to defend America contrary to what some Republicans claim or think. He just targets the right enemy and doesn't buy into the mission creep.

orange
03-23-2011, 01:24 PM
He doesn't as far as I know.

So THIS:

Yes they are illegal wars to me, the Judge, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan etc.

is wrong?

That leads us back to:

On topic: The authority you're relying on is a quack lawyer and his opinion of what is illegal is meaningless.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 01:26 PM
So THIS:



is wrong?

No they're not. You still have the operation ( I'll use this word here for now) in Afghanistan as the same thing Paul originally supported which was an entirely different target.
Like I said you are not differentiating. See my last post, donger.
You simply do not copy. You're arguing now for the sake of argument alone.

orange
03-23-2011, 01:28 PM
You still have the operation ( I'll use this word here for now) in Afghanistan as the same thing Paul originally supported.

WAR is the word. WAR is the word Paul originally supported - his OWN word.

And does he now claim it is illegal, yes or no? NOT does he support it anymore - DOES HE CLAIM IT IS ILLEGAL LIKE JUDGE NAPPY DOES?

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 01:37 PM
WAR is the word. WAR is the word Paul originally supported - his OWN word.

And does he now claim it is illegal, yes or no? NOT does he support it anymore - DOES HE CLAIM IT IS ILLEGAL LIKE JUDGE NAPPY DOES?

War against "WHO" though?

I've commented on this numerous times here as to who we should be a war with. Use the search.

And the Iraq Resolution transferred congressional authority over to the president to decide when to use force. That's the key problem with it. They don't get to change the Constitution simply like that.

crazycoffey
03-23-2011, 01:45 PM
I'm so happy to come to a DC thread and not read Bukuhnt rhetoric circle speak.

On topic and out. It's official, Obama is the worst president of all time. I am really not looking forward to a trip to Libya, but if it plays in the cards; it plays in the cards...

orange
03-23-2011, 01:49 PM
War against "WHO" though?

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.



Now, is it LEGAL or ILLEGAL?
Now, according to Ron Paul, is it LEGAL or ILLEGAL?

p.s.

And the Iraq Resolution transferred congressional authority over to the president to decide when to use force.

No, sorry. "he determines" That's the one Paul voted for.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 01:49 PM
I'm so happy to come to a DC thread and not read Bukuhnt rhetoric circle speak.
I'm sorry someone as ignorant and hostile as you cannot keep up with an academic debate.
BTW if you noticed, orange that keeps challenging this going round and round at this point today because he has points I made confused.

orange
03-23-2011, 01:54 PM
orange that keeps challenging this going round and round at this point today because he has points I made confused.

Let's clear up the confusion.

Now, is it (war in Afghanistan) LEGAL or ILLEGAL?
Now, according to Ron Paul, is it (war in Afghanistan) LEGAL or ILLEGAL?

patteeu
03-23-2011, 01:56 PM
I get the impression that she doesn't want to be pinned down to a clear position.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 02:02 PM
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.



Now, is it LEGAL or ILLEGAL?
Now, according to Ron Paul, is it LEGAL or ILLEGAL?

As in a "legal" war or an "authorization to use force" against those responsible for 9/11?

There's no confusion for me. You have the confusion. This was a defensive act to stop attacks. Iraq, Libya are wars of choice "commenced" by the US. Those are wars on nation states not responsible for 9/11.
So this is irrelevant to Libya.

AlQaeda is stateless. The Taliban was not responsible for 9/11. They did not sponsor BinLaden, BinLaden sponsored them.That does not mean the Taliban collaborated on 9/11 let alone knew what he was up to. They even offered to turn him over to Bush if Bush could prove they did it....which was easy enough. George Bush wasn't interested in getting BinLaden, hence the mission creep. Furthermore, BinLaden/AQ aren't in Afghanistan anymore either.

Paul was for the use of force to break up the terrorist camps there and capturing binLaden but not for a long term occupation, war or nation building. So Paul is now on record for ending that as it is no longer what it was claimed to be doing. That is why it is not valid or legal to him as it is not the right target anymore. I have told you this several times by now.

Jaric
03-23-2011, 02:02 PM
I get the impression that she doesn't want to be pinned down to a clear position.

Nonsense. You're just not smart enough to understand her position.

Or something like that.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 02:09 PM
Nonsense. You're just not smart enough to understand her position.

Or something like that.

I've already argued with him at length on this years ago as well as Taco, Logical, Adept and others.
The position is clear. What Paul voted on was different than the Iraq resolution which literally transferred authority to decide. That nuance is lost on progressives like pat and you lack the education to discern it yourself.

Jaric
03-23-2011, 02:11 PM
I've already argued with him at length on this years ago as well as Taco, Logical, Adept and others.
The position is clear. What Paul voted on was different than the Iraq resolution which literally transferred authority to decide. That nuance is lost on progressives like pat and you lack the education to discern it yourself.

Like I said Pat, we're just too stupid to understand her.

:rolleyes:

RNR
03-23-2011, 02:11 PM
DOWN GOES FRAZIER!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_raPv56SWVPc/THcgFk8bhQI/AAAAAAAAAbA/2V8JV5vNb4E/s1600/frazier.jpg

Ouch~

orange
03-23-2011, 02:25 PM
...he also says the Constitution is CLEAR on "WHO" gets to declare ( commence ) on going to war.

Judge Nappy has even less relevance than Ron Paul, if that's possible.

This doesn't refute anything. Shame on you.


He claims the war in Afghanistan is "illegal."
...
Shame on you for putting any stock in that fraud.

You're intention here is soley to discredit the source—Judge Napolitano, a Constitutonalist attorney in order to avoid Obama's not consulting Congress

On topic: The authority you're relying on is a quack lawyer and his opinion of what is illegal is meaningless.


So this is irrelevant to Libya.




AAAhhhhhhhh!

DOWN GOES FRAZIER!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_raPv56SWVPc/THcgFk8bhQI/AAAAAAAAAbA/2V8JV5vNb4E/s1600/frazier.jpg

Indeed!

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 02:32 PM
Since you like to rely on authorities....part of this argument is what I am saying. It's the link to the Federalist Society regarding war. Now don't lump me into the UN support camp which you're liable to do. It's just the part of this I agree with regarding Iraq which commenced a non-defensive war of choice whereas breaking up terrorist camps in Afghanistan and going after AQ/BL were defensive. Even under someone who supports the UN transferring such powers to an American president, Iraq required a declare. I don't support the UN working around this. That being said, it is an appeal to authority using a non-Paul or Napolitano source.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

See the following sections:

•The Constitutional Allocation of Powers Related to the Use of Military Force
The debate over the constitutional separation of powers concerning the use of armed force abroad during the past three decades has been remarkably unimpressive on both sides.

•International Peacekeeping and the Power to "Declare War"
When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President .

• Korean War
Regarding Truman's actions.

•The Power to Declare War
Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution grants to Congress the power "to declare War." As Hamilton noted in 1793, this was an "exception" to the general grant of "executive power" to the President, and thus was intended to be narrowly construed.

One of the common errors in discussing the scope of this exception to the President's general "executive Power"-a power reinforced by the specific recognition in article II, section 2, that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" -has been to focus on the meaning of the term "War" under the Constitution. Congress is not granted the power of "War," but rather the more limited power "to declare War," which was a term of art from the Law of Nations with a clearly understood meaning in 1787. [ I wouldn't say the power to declare is a limited power though. It's quite a lot of power. They just cannot execute a war. That is the president's job. The Framers felt it unwieldy to leave this to a group but worked under an individual.]

The Framers were remarkably well-read men. The publicists with whom they were familiar in this area-writers like Grotius, Vattel, and Burlamaqui-all argued that a formal declaration of war was unnecessary for defensive hostilities. [ There's more to this too. As we declared war on Japan which was defensive. So I say he goes too far with this point. ]

It was only when nations were at peace and one wished to initiate an offensive (or what we would today call an aggressive) war that it was necessary to declare war. And this distinction between the President's right to use force defensively, but requiring legislative sanction to initiate an offensive war, was evident in the debate at the Philadelphia Convention over Madison's motion to give Congress not the power "to make War," but the more narrow power "to declare War." [18] In 1928 [19] and again in 1945 [20] , the world community by treaty outlawed the aggressive use of force among nations, and in the process made the declaration of war clause a constitutional anachronism. It is no coincidence that no sovereign state has clearly issued a declaration of war in more than half a century. [ This is what I was referring to earlier as to why we no longer declare war. It is due to our membership in the UN as it is for other nations who no longer declare war.]

•The War Powers Resolution and the War Against Terrorism
He calls for a repeal of the Sept 14 resolution. ( Note: I don't necessarily agree with his reasons for this...or this section. He is a UN supporter for police actions essentially where I am not.)

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 02:33 PM
AAAhhhhhhhh!
Indeed!

Ah no. You only changed my argument around to suit your position on Libya. Most of which was irrelevant.
That and you're relying on two-valued logic—again. ( like pat and jaric)

orange
03-23-2011, 02:42 PM
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp


You seem to have missed this section:

International Peacekeeping and the Power to "Declare War"

When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President [22]. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war." [23] During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes [24]. your link (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp)

p.s. Thanks for that link, by the way. Excellent find. I imagine it will be showing up in other threads in the coming days.

Jaric
03-23-2011, 02:47 PM
Ah no. You only changed my argument around to suit your position on Libya. Most of which was irrelevant.
That and you're relying on two-valued logic—again. ( like pat and jaric)

Maybe if you'd speak more monosyllabically, we'd be able to understand you.

Morons that we are.

:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 02:54 PM
You seem to have missed this section:

International Peacekeeping and the Power to "Declare War"

When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President [22]. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war." [23] During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes [24]. your link (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp)

No I didn't omit anything since I put the link there on purpose. I just was trying keep the post as short as a I could by highlighting parts.

It doesn't contradict anything I said since I said I don't agree with the UN working around our Constitution like this. So again, you have left out earlier points I made in this thread to create another strawman. Remember, I said it was being in the UN that comprised our Constitution. To those that disagree, who you cite, they're the Internationalists responsible for eroding our Constitution.

I put that link up to show you that even this writer considers commencing a war of choice that was not defensive or a response to aggression on America to require a declare.

Seems to me you like elevating the UN's end run around our Constitution and hold it in higher esteem than they US Constitution. I am an American Constitutionalist. I am not a progressive internationalist.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 02:55 PM
Maybe if you'd speak more monosyllabically, we'd be able to understand you.

Morons that we are.

:rolleyes:

Flying monkeys that make little or no contribution to the argument is more like it. Or prefer peanut gallery shots.
This is a nuanced debate that you're trying to make monosyllabic. Some power goes to the president for force other power does not.
Where, when and how that falls is being argued. How our treaty with the UN complicates adds another dimension.
Someone using a Ron Paul argument, which he changed later, is being argued as to its suitability.

Jaric
03-23-2011, 03:00 PM
Flying monkeys that make little or no contribution to the argument is more like it. This is a nuanced debate that you're trying to make monosyllabic. It is not. Some power goes to the president for force other power does not.

Well I could just copy/paste whatever Lew Rockwell says, but I wouldn't feel comfortable stealing your thunder like that.

Btw, good to see you still haven't figured out what a strawman argument is.

orange
03-23-2011, 03:02 PM
. Remember, I said it was being in the UN that comprised our Constitution. To those that disagree, who you cite, they're the Internationalists responsible for eroding our Constitution.


And you might remember, I suggested Paul et al could write a new Amendment to "take back" whatever he thinks Congress has lost.

.
I put that link up to show you that even this writer considers commencing a war of choice that was not defensive or a response to aggression on America to require a declare.


No he doesn't. He clearly doesn't. There are MULTIPLE instances where he makes it clear, but I like this one in particular - it's your signature topic:

When President Reagan sent the Marines to Lebanon as part of an international peacekeeping force alongside British, French, and Italian forces, the decision was not even arguably an infringement upon the power of Congress "to declare War." We were not going to "War," we were sending a contingent of U.S. forces at the request of all of the warring factions in Lebanon to stand between them so they could meet in confidence and try to negotiate a peaceful end to their conflict. Every country in the region originally endorsed the deployment, and no one in Congress spoke against it on the merits.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 03:02 PM
Well I could just copy/paste whatever Lew Rockwell says, but I wouldn't feel comfortable stealing your thunder like that.

Btw, good to see you still haven't figured out what a strawman argument is.


I see you have nothing again except to argue the poster. Typical jaric.
BTW when I use LR, I have already agreed with the stand in it. And Paul's speeches are there. Orange is using Paul remember?
I do not agree with LR on everything but they are one place that is a central source for limited govt and the Constitution regarding war.
I used the Fed Society and other documents including the actual Constitution earlier. Pay attention.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 03:08 PM
And you might remember, I suggested Paul et al could write a new Amendment to "take back" whatever he thinks Congress has lost.
I responded by saying why that was unecessary. What is necessary is to follow what's already written there.
I would say a better move is to get out of the UN. Not just for how it complicates this issue but because it has FAILED to live up to it's purpose as there has been more war since it's been established. 144 and counting. Add in Libya and it's 145 or there abouts. It is undergoing severe mission creep as well. It was founded by socialists and is a haven for spies.

Is this going to be another rinse and repeat orange?



No he doesn't. He clearly doesn't. There are MULTIPLE instances where he makes it clear, but I like this one in particular - it's your signature topic:

When President Reagan sent the Marines to Lebanon as part of an international peacekeeping force alongside British, French, and Italian forces, the decision was not even arguably an infringement upon the power of Congress "to declare War." We were not going to "War," we were sending a contingent of U.S. forces at the request of all of the warring factions in Lebanon to stand between them so they could meet in confidence and try to negotiate a peaceful end to their conflict. Every country in the region originally endorsed the deployment, and no one in Congress spoke against it on the merits.

I agree that was a peace keeping mission under the UN. Another reason to get out of the UN. You're not following again.

Your problem here on this?

I think this debate has ended mainly from a lack of communication. You seem to change a point being made into something not intended. Even if you hadn't it's long passed trying to get you to see how irrelevant using Paul on Afghanistan is for Libya.

orange
03-23-2011, 03:14 PM
I responded by saying why that was unecessary. What is necessary is to follow what's already written there.


You seem to imagine that everyone - Congress, Presidents, Courts - are all suddenly going to back off of 220 years of precedent, numerous treaties, and dozens of military actions and elevate the view of the .3%ers (that point is intentional). How is this revelation going to come about?

http://curativeenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Epiphany.jpg

Jaric
03-23-2011, 03:16 PM
I see you have nothing again except to argue the poster. Typical jaric.ORLY?

Flying monkeys that make little or no contribution to the argument is more like it.

He doesn't as far as I know. He is against war on Afghanistan (and on the Taliban) which is what it turned into. Get it now?
I mean I know you can't process information that is outside the box of the prevailing two alternatives, but you fail to see what his position really is.
Instead you take a square peg and try to fit it into a round hole.

I might add that I think this shows, he is willing to use the military to defend America contrary to what some Republicans claim or think. He just targets the right enemy and doesn't buy into the mission creep.

I'm sorry someone as ignorant and hostile as you cannot keep up with an academic debate.
BTW if you noticed, orange that keeps challenging this going round and round at this point today because he has points I made confused.

I've already argued with him at length on this years ago as well as Taco, Logical, Adept and others.
The position is clear. What Paul voted on was different than the Iraq resolution which literally transferred authority to decide. That nuance is lost on progressives like pat and you lack the education to discern it yourself.
I'm sorry, you were saying something about "arguing the poster?"

Hypocrite.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 03:19 PM
You seem to imagine that everyone - Congress, Presidents, Courts - are all suddenly going to back off of 220 years of precedent, numerous treaties, and dozens of military actions and elevate the view of the .3%ers (that point is intentional). How is this revelation going to come about?



That's not my stand, it's your opinion which is coloring it that way. Particularly the 220 years part since we've only been in the UN since what...1945? Yeah....funny how that is exactly date coincident with
America no longer declaring war, huh?

No Jefferson and the Barbary pirates doesn't apply. You can use the search on that one too. Congress passed acts Jefferson used and he was in constant touch with them.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 03:20 PM
ORLY?
I'm sorry, you were saying something about "arguing the poster?"

Hypocrite.

Bhwaaaaaa....projecting. That was in response to you starting it. :LOL: You can start it but can't take it as usual.

Jaric
03-23-2011, 03:26 PM
That was in response to you starting it. :LOL: You can start it but can't take it.
Child please. I wasn't even responding to you, I was responding to Orange. I didn't even start talking to you until you decided to insult me.

Which is fine, I hold your opinion of me in about the same regard I do the ants outside my driveway, so rest assured my feelings are not hurt that a LewBot thinks I'm stupid. Far from it actually.

However, if you're going to make hypocritical accusations, I will point it out.

orange
03-23-2011, 03:26 PM
That's not my stand, it's your opinion.

I think you must be standing on your head. My opinion is that the President does NOT need a Declaration of War to commit troops pursuant to treaties and other obligations. And it is a fact, not opinion, that NO President has been impeached for doing so; and it is my belief (but a strong one) that NO military commitment by any President has been ruled unconstitutional.

More from your link (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp):

Yet another clear observation that can be made about the War Powers Resolution is that several of its key provisions are flagrantly unconstitutional. The Constitution gives to Congress the power "to declare War," which was intended to be a veto or check against an adventurist President who might seek to take the nation from peace to war over some political or economic grievance or from a desire for personal fame and conquest. As an exception to the President's general grant of the new nation's "executive Power," the congressional check was to be construed narrowly. The Framers well understood the concept of "force short of war," and throughout our history presidents have deployed U.S. armed forces into harms way to protect American citizens and their property, to enforce treaty obligations and rights, and to deter misconduct by other countries. Even if one concludes that Congress still has a check on large-scale, prolonged commitments of U.S. armed forces into hostilities, it does not follow that the power to declare war permits Congress to usurp the Commander-in-Chief power concerning military deployments that do not even arguably constitute the initiation of "war."

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 03:28 PM
I think you must be standing on your head. My opinion is that the President does NOT need a Declaration of War to commit troops pursuant to treaties and other obligations. And it is a fact, not opinion, that NO President has been impeached for doing so; and it is my belief (but a strong one) that NO military commitment by any President has been ruled unconstitutional.
You left out that I don't support the UN treaty precisely because of how it erodes our Constitution.

I think any treaty that does this should be voided on this basis. Hence, my call for getting out of the UN for one main reason.

I know you don't agree with this but do you get what my position is now? Just a little bit? Or is another communication breakdown occurring? I think it's the latter again. I think you like doing this intentionally because if you did admit you understood what my position actually is there would be no need to talk about it this long. You'd come to a point to agree to disagree. Either that or you want to be close.

I mean I don't even disagree with the part you just quoted. I have repeatedly said where and when a president can act on this.

Anyhow I have to go eat.

orange
03-23-2011, 03:32 PM
Congress passed acts Jefferson used and he was in constant touch with them.

Obama has been in constant touch with Congress about Libya, as well - just look for my posts from Friday.

Congress hasn't passed an Act, though. Because it's not needed. It's SO unnecessary that they went off on their pre-scheduled recess.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 03:34 PM
Obama has been in constant touch with Congress about Libya, as well - just look for my posts from Friday.
Not in the way I am arguing for.

Congress hasn't passed an Act, though.
Precisely.

Because it's not needed. It's SO unnecessary that they went off on their pre-scheduled recess.

This is where we disagree. Libya is no threat to us or any nation currently.

Are you still trying to get close to me...or closer than you have?


I'm hungry.

orange
03-23-2011, 03:35 PM
I think any treaty that does this should be voided on this basis. Hence, my call for getting out of the UN for one main reason.

What do you think will happen first - a War Power Amendment or the U.S. getting out of the U.N.? Your experience with homeopathic medicine should come in handy, here.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 03:37 PM
What do you think will happen first - a War Power Amendment or the U.S. getting out of the U.N.? Your experience with homeopathic medicine should come in handy, here.

I don't expect any thing to happen the way I would like. That you even think I do is funny. I simply have my position and the integrity to hold to it. I'm not afraid to be different and am not a crowd follower.
Or shall I say herd? This is a political forum....you know a place to discuss ideas.
You're problem?

orange
03-23-2011, 03:41 PM
I don't expect any thing to happen the way I would like. That you even think I do is funny. I simply have my position and the integrity to hold to it.

So Obama's actions in Libya are not illegal. You just would like them to be.

Glad we cleared that up. Go eat.

http://www.caoazul.com/loja/images/feed%20your%20brain.gif

patteeu
03-23-2011, 04:09 PM
Flying monkeys that make little or no contribution to the argument is more like it. Or prefer peanut gallery shots.
This is a nuanced debate that you're trying to make monosyllabic. Some power goes to the president for force other power does not.
Where, when and how that falls is being argued. How our treaty with the UN complicates adds another dimension.
Someone using a Ron Paul argument, which he changed later, is being argued as to its suitability.

If you ever need to refresh yourself on my argument, you can check my archive. :Poke:

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 04:11 PM
So Obama's actions in Libya are not illegal. You just would like them to be.
No it is illegal under our Constitution. That post was in response to you question about things to change in relation to the UN or an Amendment. I see your changing the argument again....even your own. Tell me what do people call making turning your own previous question into a strawman argument?

Glad we cleared that up.

You didn't. You just deflected was all—as usual.