Will we always pick the rebels or can we sometimes pick the current governments?

We pick the current governments if they're buying supplies from our defense contractors. See: Bahrain, Yemen.

What makes anyone believe that they will have freedom, or that the next regime will allow citizens to be free?

 

Or that the side we're fighting for doesn't commit atrocities on the opposition once they have control.

I didnt miss anything, it was a horrible argument and I wanted to show you that I could make an equally horrible argument about spending using pick and choose numbers.

 

What makes anyone believe that they will have freedom, or that the next regime will allow citizens to be free?

 

Because that is what they said they will do. Now, I do not know what will happen. There is always the chance that whoever comes next could be worse. But Ill take saving people today, over maybe killing people in the future any day of the week.

 

Gaddafi was going to massacre people (imo), that needed to be stopped.

 

Will we always pick the rebels or can we sometimes pick the current governments?

 

In Vietnam we took the side of the current govt.

 

And as Balta mentioned arguably we are taking the side on most Saudi things (Bahrain).

 

But I hope that we change, I hope that we take the side of Yemen and Bahrain if those people are seeking freedom and equality. Freedom shouldnt be only for the rich and powerful to enjoy.

 

Unfortunately we are limited in what we can do. But just because we cant save everyone, doesnt mean we should save no one.

I didnt miss anything, it was a horrible argument and I wanted to show you that I could make an equally horrible argument about spending using pick and choose numbers.

 

 

 

Because that is what they said they will do. Now, I do not know what will happen. There is always the chance that whoever comes next could be worse. But Ill take saving people today, over maybe killing people in the future any day of the week.

 

Gaddafi was going to massacre people (imo), that needed to be stopped.

 

 

 

In Vietnam we took the side of the current govt.

 

And as Balta mentioned arguably we are taking the side on most Saudi things (Bahrain).

 

But I hope that we change, I hope that we take the side of Yemen and Bahrain if those people are seeking freedom and equality. Freedom shouldnt be only for the rich and powerful to enjoy.

 

Unfortunately we are limited in what we can do. But just because we cant save everyone, doesnt mean we should save no one.

 

Columbia and Mexico would also be two places we backed governments.

 

"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." -- Sen. Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007

It must get tiring going out of your way to try and discredit Obama by not putting his quotes in context. The statement you quoted is first of all parsed and second of all taken out of context. The context of the question was:

 

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

 

So lets see how many differences we can point out in 1 second:

 

1) This isnt Iran

 

2) This is UN action

 

3) This does not involve suspected nuclear strikes

 

4) This involved a potential civilian massacre that could have occurred before Congress could have voted

 

5) This is UN mandated action

 

6) The question does not ask "If the UN authorizes force, does the President have to seek congressional approval before using force under UN guidelines?"

 

So since the question was in no way shape or form related to question 6, its kind of silly to hold Obama to a quote that is clearly a distinguishable situation.

 

And Im not a huge Obama fan (you can find numerous things where I disagree with him) but at least when I disagree with him, I give him the courtesy of using his actual standpoint, not creating an absurd standpoint and then attacking him for the absurd standpoint that I created.

Edited March 21, 201115 yr by Soxbadger

That was clearly a War Powers act question. Doesn't matter if it's Iran, doesn't matter if the U.N. approves, that is a War Powers Act question, and he answered it.

Hmm, it is possible that, even if you're not taking it out of context, Obama's views have conveniently changed.

 

Anyway just about every conflict since 1945 says his views on the War Powers was incorrect.

Oh okay, so whenever some one is asked a very specific question, it actually should be interpreted as broadly as possibly, completely ignoring the specifics of the question.

 

At least I finally understand that it just doesnt matter what has been said, or what the actual truth is, all that matters is how you perceive it.

 

Just so you know, currently Obama is within the rules

 

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_29

 

Kosovo. The issue of Presidential authority to deploy forces in the absence of congressional authorization, under the War Powers Resolution, or otherwise, became an issue of renewed controversy in late March 1999 when President Clinton ordered U.S. military forces to participate in a NATO-led military operation in Kosovo. This action was the focus of a major policy debate over the purpose and scope of U.S. military involvement in Kosovo. The President's action to commit forces to the NATO Kosovo operation also led to a suit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia by Members of Congress seeking a judicial finding that the President was violating the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by using military forces in Yugoslavia in the absence of authorization from the Congress.

 

Im sure as you are aware, Clinton's actions were not found unconstitutional.

 

So you are comparing apples and oranges.

I'm pretty comfortable in stating that no Presidential military action will ever be ruled as unconstitutional.

haha probably

Im sure as you are aware, Clinton's actions were not found unconstitutional.

Now wait a second, that's complete B.S. Clinton's actions were not found unconstitutional...but they were also NOT found to be constitutional. The legal challenge that was launched was found not to have standing because Congress had not explicitly voted to end the military campaign, it had only failed to vote to authorize it. As far as I know the only case where Congress explicitly voted to end a military campaign was Somalia...and at the time of the vote, the U.S. forces had already been withdrawn so no court case was ever made of it.

 

To this day, the Court has never once litigated the War Powers act to determine its constitutionality or the appropriate interpretation of it.

The appropriate interpretation is whatever the C-i-C decides it is.

The appropriate interpretation is whatever the C-i-C decides it is.

And when Barack Obama campaigned against Bush's excessive, poorly planned military operations, he felt it politically convenient to use a War Powers Act interpretation against those efforts. When I'm opposed to an Obama military operation, I feel it appropriate to use the exact same standard.

And when Barack Obama campaigned against Bush's excessive, poorly planned military operations, he felt it politically convenient to use a War Powers Act interpretation against those efforts. When I'm opposed to an Obama military operation, I feel it appropriate to use the exact same standard.

 

Obama is a hypocrite. Welcome to 2009.

FWIW I agree that your interpretation is the one that should be followed.

 

But I'm not shocked that a politician would be hypocritical and do the same thing* he argued against when his political opponent was doing it.

 

*to clarify, this is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan

but they were also NOT found to be constitutional.

 

This is actually untrue. In the absence of a ruling to the contrary, any action taken by the President, Congress, etc would be Constitutional until proven otherwise. For example, mandatory insurance law was passed, it was immediately constitutional, until a judge ruled otherwise. There is no debate on this, the Supreme Court does not make rulings to confirm Constitutionality, if something is absolutely constitutional they will not even take the case.

 

And when Barack Obama campaigned against Bush's excessive, poorly planned military operations, he felt it politically convenient to use a War Powers Act interpretation against those efforts. When I'm opposed to an Obama military operation, I feel it appropriate to use the exact same standard.

 

I dont think the war in Iraq is at all comparable to Libya. The war in Iraq was entirely fabricated on the idea of WMD and the threat Iraq posed to the US. That was untrue.

 

Obama's interpretation of War Powers, Iraq and Libya are not at all contradictory.

 

Iraq, based on untrue threat towards US, no UN backing.

 

Libya, based on potential humanitarian crisis, UN backing.

 

Its like comparing isolationism in World War I and World War II and arguing that if you were against fighting in World War I you had to be against it in World War II. Its just absurd.

I signed up for auto alerts on safety levels for tourists in Morocco from the US Govt, and got one a few days ago saying that there would be protests in almost all major cities during the time I will be there. Im sure hoping it stays civil and the situation doesn't explode while Im there. The email did advise that it is fine for tourists to still go there, but to avoid the protests, because even though they are planned to be civil that violence could always breakout.

 

Morocco is awesome... well, for the history and beauty anyway. Was there for almost a month a while back.

Obama is a hypocrite. Welcome to 2009.

 

 

LMAO.

 

It only took 6.5 years to figure out (try 2004).

For some lighter news: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/liv...-libya-march-22

 

12:49am

 

Fox News reports that Gaddafi's regime has used journalists as human shields. The US broadcaster said an attack on Gaddafi's compound on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby.

 

"British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya's Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields"

 

 

2:33am

 

CNN correspondent Nic Robertson dismisses a report by Fox News that journalists in Libya were used by Gaddafi's forces as human shields. He says the allegation is "outrageous and it's absolutely hypocritical".

 

"When you come to somewhere like Libya, you expect lies and deceit from the dictatorship here. You don't expect it from the other journalists."

 

 

Im not even sure what to make of this, sounds like Fox news is helping Obama by trying to make Gaddafi sound worse.

Hey Balta, the Republicans agree with you about Obama's actions being unconstitutional!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/2...al-obama-warned

I really hope that a President, any President, has more information available than a candidate. I also believe that until you actually are in the room, having to make a decision like this, that you really don't know with 90% certainty how you will react. There is nothing in life that really compares to this and I have prayed for every President that he can live with his decisions.

Morocco is awesome... well, for the history and beauty anyway. Was there for almost a month a while back.

Did you by chance go to Marrakech?

I will have to say Dennis Kucinich is the most consistent politician I have ever seen.

I will have to say Dennis Kucinich is the most consistent politician I have ever seen.

He actually has principles and hasn't been bought out by special interests like 98% of the rest of Washington.