Mayor Snorkum
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 317
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You are right in that Congress has the sole power to declare war. But let's see what the Constitution says regarding the President's power over the military.
So while Congress has the sole power to declare war, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military. This is the case whether Congress declares war or not. So as Commander-in-Chief, the President can deploy troops whether Congress declares war or not.
Our involvement is a bad idea for many conflicts. Let's go down the list
1. THE REALPOLITIK ARGUMENT - Is it really such a no-brainer that the successor government will be better than Gaddafi's? Perhaps it only looks like that because the opposition is relatively amorphous at this point, unlike in Egypt. You can assign whatever motives you want to the opposition, but nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan convinces me that the US has a good grasp of nations' internal politics before intervening.
2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?
3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?
4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.
5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.
The President can deploy troops for 60 days without congressional approval, it's only after those 60 days that he needs to get approval.
What's the point of that comment?
The US is bankrupt and cant even win the first war she entered. Give it up boys.
Originally Posted by Psycholclown
A near perfect post. Saved me the trouble of typing it all out myself.
Gee. you haven't defined the emergent crisis threatening the immediate security of the United States in your argument.
You think maybe that the US military is a toy the president can use at whim, and the requirement that the Congress declare war nothing but a formality?
As I said, you people are singing a predictably different tune when it's your foolish candidate in the White House than when the Republicans held that office.
And you have not one shred of shame when it's pointed out.
Since there is no talk of putting boots on the ground, it appears we're just bombing for the sake of bombing. I don't see any way of changing the situation without forcibly removing the current dictator and replacing him with a puppet. I do not support such a proposition and I don't support the current bombing campaigns.
There's really no good answer to the situation in Libya, but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary.
What are your thoughts?
Since there is no talk of putting boots on the ground, it appears we're just bombing for the sake of bombing. I don't see any way of changing the situation without forcibly removing the current dictator and replacing him with a puppet. I do not support such a proposition and I don't support the current bombing campaigns.
There's really no good answer to the situation in Libya, but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary.
What are your thoughts?
I think our president has gone crazy. Absolutely Looney-Tunes.
A no-fly zone, in my mind, is, "Libya!! If you put military planes in the air, we are going to shoot them down." It does not mean bombing Daffy's compound, bombing military installations or anything else. We are waaaay off the mark here.
Please, spare us the "I had no idea what I was supporting" routine. Was it really so difficult to foresee that the no-fly zone would quickly evolve into something more, especially when many of us were warning about that very problem? Every no-fly zone in the history of warfare has involved bombing military installations to neutralize anti-aircraft machinery. Otherwise the planes that patrol the no-fly zone would be sitting ducks for Gaddafi to shoot down.
Yes, it's "absolutely looney-tunes" to be involved. And I guess that makes you Bugs Bunny.
Since there is no talk of putting boots on the ground, it appears we're just bombing for the sake of bombing. I don't see any way of changing the situation without forcibly removing the current dictator and replacing him with a puppet. I do not support such a proposition and I don't support the current bombing campaigns.
There's really no good answer to the situation in Libya, but I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the Libyan people to determine their own future, by any means necessary.
What are your thoughts?
You'll have to call me naive' then, because I absolutely did not foresee what's happening. I do understand what you're saying about sitting ducks, but I have to wonder if that's really the case. Would our planes be sitting ducks?
Bugs Bunny, huh? Well, I've certainly been called worse! *Smiling*
Our involvement is a bad idea for many conflicts. Let's go down the list
1. THE REALPOLITIK ARGUMENT - Is it really such a no-brainer that the successor government will be better than Gaddafi's? Perhaps it only looks like that because the opposition is relatively amorphous at this point, unlike in Egypt. You can assign whatever motives you want to the opposition, but nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan convinces me that the US has a good grasp of nations' internal politics before intervening.
2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?
3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?
4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.
5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.
There are no guarantees, but it would likely be better, and almost certainly no worse. Sometimes it is worth taking a chance for improvement.
Redress said:Sure? Of course not. Will it likely suppress actions against rebels? Very likely yes.
Redress said:It's possible that the goals are being formulated and part of the reason for taking action when we did was to ensure we had time to make a decision.
Redress said:You are assuming that this is all that will be done. With rebels on the ground already in the country, the likelihood of air strikes to support them is high.
Redress said:Any increased stability in the middle east is likely very valuable as well.
Redress said:Questions are good, but simply asking questions and deciding that since there are questions we should not act is a quick way to reach paralysis.
I think our president has gone crazy. Absolutely Looney-Tunes.
A no-fly zone, in my mind, is, "Libya!! If you put military planes in the air, we are going to shoot them down." It does not mean bombing Daffy's compound, bombing military installations or anything else. We are waaaay off the mark here. If Obama puts troops into Libya, he is a one-term president for sure. And possibily a candidate for impeachment unless he gets Congressional approval. Even I will march in the streets if we put our guys on the ground. I think he's gone insane.
Bugs Bunny, huh? Well, I've certainly been called worse! *Smiling*
Libya is far from the Middle East. And if "stability" is our concern, then why are we supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi's government? If we demand Gaddafi's ouster and he won't go peacefully, then by definition we are ENCOURAGING a civil war, rather than preventing one.
The US is bankrupt and cant even win the first war she entered. Give it up boys.
How do you figure? It borders Egypt and many consider North Africa to be politically and culturally linked to the Middle East... something that is obvious given recent events...
Why don't Americans obey the Constitution and declare war through Congress approval before they trow tomahawks in other peoples land? Oh, wait, it not a war, just a "protect the good people from their evil dictator" operation.
What has happened to the world?
There are varying defintions of what geographic region the ME consists of, but ludahai is correct in saying that generally it is not wrong to consider Libya to be part of the Middle East due to the cultural linkages. On the other hand it shouldn't be forgotten that Libya also possesses many linkages with the rest of Africa including Sub-Saharan Africa.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?