Obama's speech on the Libyan conflict vs. the facts

Wrong, this action has not been sanctioned by congress. So your point is mute. Read it again.

the wpr is entirely about doing things without first getting congresses approval. it's an outline of what is and is not allowed. Also don't try and use my own line against me. I'm fond of it.

the wpr is entirely about doing things without first getting congresses approval. it's an outline of what is and is not allowed. Also don't try and use my own line against me. I'm fond of it.

Once again, you are wrong. The WPR is about joint efforts between congress and the president. I say again, read it again.

Nevermind. I'm not wasting my opinion on someone who is so convinced that he's right when he can't even get proper dates right.

I fail to understand what you are talking about on this. What "dates" did I get wrong?

Once again, you are wrong. The WPR is about joint efforts between congress and the president. I say again, read it again.

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

This is means it is to prevent one (the president) from engaging the US armed forces in hostilities without the consultation and/or consent of the other (congress) where possible. Again, this is just in the statement of purpose. If you had seriously read just the first real sentence of the WPR with any sort of comprehension you'd realize it's made to address and prevent one branch from initiating or engaging in acts of or war or hostilities without the other (more explicitly, since congress drafted it, stopping the president from doing so without congress). It also outlines essentially what the president (the commander in chief) can and cannot do without congressional approval without violating this bill. and surprise surprise, the big thing is introduce the armed forces into hostilities or a situation where hostilities are likely.

You're parading around acting like either the document does something different from this, which it really doesn't. Or that the president actually violated these terms, and while there is more of an argument there, you really aren't touching on that.

I fail to understand what you are talking about on this. What "dates" did I get wrong?

Take the time to read the posts and you'll understand, if not, well I'm tired of baby feeding you, as I'm surprised octopusprime isn't.

Take the time to read the posts and you'll understand, if not, well I'm tired of baby feeding you, as I'm surprised octopusprime isn't.

i have an superiority complex. or i'm bored. or both.

or that as a former law student i'm curious as to what the possible ramifications for this could be. Is it likely that obama will be impeached if the republicans can get a confident majority during his presidency is there ground enough for such action? etc. etc. there is plenty of room here for me to flex my mental muscles even if i'm not convincing the person i'm talking to of anything.

realistically it's a combination of all the above.

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

This is exactly what I have been getting at, it is a joint document, to ensure the constitution is not violated by the president. What perplexes me is that in earlier posts you were spouting off that our military action is not engaging in hostilities. For a former law student, you should know that the meaning of even a single word is very important in a legal document such as this. In this case, part of that definition fully applies as an act of war is engaging in hostilities. For that part you have to understand the definition of an act of war. That is something I clearly defined in an earlier post and in this case it does apply. That is the part I was trying to convey.

I too am curious as to what congress is actually going to do about it though. I somehow doubt they will do anything based on current actions. It doesnt seem that any of them have a big enough back bone to bring up impeachment. This part just makes me even more mad at my government.

But his words are so powerful, they can change many things. Speeches are powerful and that's why they're made, from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr.

Don't you just love the way he speaks? He's so secure and certain of what he says, that man has a way with words.

I don't really want to do this, but speeches are dangerous. Some of the greatest free leaders gave very nice speeches, but on the other side of the token, some of the greatest dictators were great speech makers. I don't want to say Obama is a dictator at all, because he isn't, I just want to say speech can be dangerous.

If you didnt notice during his speach he stammered almost every time he turned away from the telepromter. I will give he credit, he can read a teleprompter like no one else can but take that from him and he has got nothing.

Don't attack someone over this. Even if this was true, it doesn't invalidate his opinion. It doesn't make your opinion anymore valid because you can attack someone. I agree with you in that Obama shouldn't be taking action in Libya, but you're doing this all wrong. :/

Don't attack someone over this. Even if this was true, it doesn't invalidate his opinion. It doesn't make your opinion anymore valid because you can attack someone. I agree with you in that Obama shouldn't be taking action in Libya, but you're doing this all wrong. :/

I was simply trying to show that he is not such a great person when it comes to making speeches. If he had to do it on the fly like many of the other greats in speech, he could not hold a candle to them. Just as a side note, I thought the exact same thing you said about the dictator speeches. At any rate, I would not lump him into the great status for speeches. His words are powerful because he knows how to put emphasis on certain words to detract from other words used in his speech. As it is he is highly predictable and I can already see his re-election campaign slogan, "Yes, we can do it again". Just saying.

Well this threads instigations and/or assumptions are clearly proven wrong today when the USA gave the responsibility to the UN and said pineapple it. Were not going to war with Libya and played a support role. The end.

Well this threads instigations and/or assumptions are clearly proven wrong today when the USA gave the responsibility to the UN and said pineapple it. Were not going to war with Libya and played a support role. The end.

Not entirely the end. The U.S. Navy will remain in position to fire missles if the need arises. So a partial pullout as the Senate debates the constitutionality of Obama's actions in this matter.

Not entirely the end. The U.S. Navy will remain in position to fire missles if the need arises. So a partial pullout as the Senate debates the constitutionality of Obama's actions in this matter.

the us navy is ALWAYS in a position to get missiles ANYWHERE.

the us navy is ALWAYS in a position to get missiles ANYWHERE.

Wow, I guess you really know nothing about the range of a tomahawk. I guess I should be more precise with my statement. The Navy ship that are currently being used to deliver tomahawk missles into Libya are not going into stand down mode and will remain at their current positions in order to continue missle strikes as needed.

Wow, I guess you really know nothing about the range of a tomahawk. I guess I should be more precise with my statement. The Navy ship that are currently being used to deliver tomahawk missles into Libya are not going into stand down mode and will remain at their current positions in order to continue missle strikes as needed.

ICBM + global naval presence < tomahawk?

Lol, k. Just because it's the missile that has been used in libya thus far does not make it the only missile in existence. Also i like how we are acting like a 553 ish mile range is something to consider small or even really a handicap in having global presence.

P.S. Submarines can and do carry ICBMs. The us navy is in fact, ALWAYS in a position to get missiles ANYWHERE. If i had said BGM-109s you might have a leg to stand on. As is I think you're reflexively disagreeing with whatever i say out of wounded sense of pride.

P.S. Submarines can and do carry ICBMs. The us navy is in fact, ALWAYS in a position to get missiles ANYWHERE. If i had said BGM-109s you might have a leg to stand on. As is I think you're reflexively disagreeing with whatever i say out of wounded sense of pride.

LMAO. Are you really thinking that we are going to use an ICBM? If you are then you are incorrect. Yes I do know what the range of a tomahawk is, thank you. ICBM's aside, the navy is not in position to strike anywhere, anytime. The navy has to plan for an event and move ships in order to get into position. Just like they did in the mediterranean in order to strike Libya. I am not reflexively disagreeing with you, rather pointing out the misconceptions in your comments. For the record and for those who might not know, a BGM-109 is a tomahawk missile and even more to the point, you did get the range wrong. The missile has a range of 600 nautical miles or 690 miles for those who need the conversion.

LMAO. Are you really thinking that we are going to use an ICBM? If you are then you are incorrect. Yes I do know what the range of a tomahawk is, thank you. ICBM's aside, the navy is not in position to strike anywhere, anytime. The navy has to plan for an event and move ships in order to get into position. Just like they did in the mediterranean in order to strike Libya. I am not reflexively disagreeing with you, rather pointing out the misconceptions in your comments. For the record and for those who might not know, a BGM-109 is a tomahawk missile and even more to the point, you did get the range wrong. The missile has a range of 600 nautical miles or 690 miles for those who need the conversion.

I would ask for sauce but the thread is uselessly derailed at this point. I got what i wanted and now the topic is no longer to my interests.

Before all else, I must say I agree with candidate Obama's 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." -Sen. Barack Obama, December 20, 2007
Which is a complete contradiction with his actions (well, what isnt? He even won an award for transparency... behind closed doors...).

Well this threads instigations and/or assumptions are clearly proven wrong today when the USA gave the responsibility to the UN and said pineapple it. Were not going to war with Libya and played a support role. The end.

No, they gave responsibility to NATO (Obama's Own Words)
[video=youtube;ojUm_RwmKmU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojUm_RwmKmU[/video]
And who is in and is the main military force in NATO? It may sound like it makes a difference, but it doesnt make a difference at all. Looks like "responsibility" is still on us.

The no fly zone was requested by the United Nations and was not called upon by Obama directly. He's still just supporting a worldwide call for help. This is not an act of war as we've declared war on nobody. This is an act of support.

If it was world wide, then why are we ignoring the injustices in Saudi Arabia and other countries? Why only put so much attention Libya?
Second, answering a call for help is all fine and dandy, but should we be answering a call from Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda supporters?

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...links.html

Should we really be supporting those that support the murders that killed 3000 Americans on 9/11? As I recall, it is treason to provide aid and comfort to the enemies of America.

Then to finish for now, I will allow a Former CIA Analyst to break down the war for you.
[video=youtube;dDVt_hSo_EU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded
[/video]