"Odyssey Dawn" has started at Libya

War that isnt a war. The only reason you can get away with this excuse is the simply fact that the Supreme Court never tried these illegal actions.
However, it wont change the fact that the War Powers Acts are unconstitutional. All the Acts do is declare the Executive Branch has more powers than defined/declared by the constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, that is illegal.

@above: Yes we must be the policemen of the world... We must invade other countries, overthrow their governments, have "democratic" elections in those countries, and always make sure we recount and redo the elections until a man that we want rules as a new dictator in said country.

And why hasnt anyone mentioned that we are still in the Iraq war, and Afganistan War? How are we going to afford a 3rd war?

I hate to be the Devil's Advocate, but here's the reality of the modern presidencies in the United States:

Today's presidency has expanded powers. If anything, there's a great reason why the flexibility of the Constitution is a benefit for future generations (instead of the "strict interpretation" as you're advocating right now). In fact, in today's situations, "strict interpretation of the Constitution" will not live so long; the nation will need to fulfill its expected duties one way or the other.

Plus, quite a few prominent congressmen and senators have said they will support this action as long it does not involve American troops on the ground. In simple terms: they do support it. Some do agree with Obama's cautious approach to the situation, though notable Republicans like Senator John McCain have said that they advocate "immediate action". Yes, the War Powers Act is taken into consideration, and legislators do hold the power to invoke it in case things go the other way.

tl;dr:

Expected: Go through the proper legislative process needed to declare the war, abide by the War Power Acts (1973). "Strict interpretation" of the Constitution is a most.
Reality: Today's situations are rapidly changing; we get our information almost instantaneously and things needed to be acted upon as soon as possible. There's no f'ucking time to sit around and go through the proper process needed to "declare a war"

And you're also forgetting the fact that in today's modern warfare age, there's no such thing as a "proper war". Conflicts rapidly occur, change, and ends as fast as it starts. There's no time to go formally declare war. You go in when you need to as long its justified (exception is Iraq War). End of story.

The reality is that this that US involvment is illegal.

Today's presidency has expanded powers. If anything, there's a great reason why the flexibility of the Constitution is a benefit for future generations (instead of the "strict interpretation" as you're advocating right now). In fact, in today's situations, "strict interpretation of the Constitution" will not live so long; the nation will need to fulfill its expected duties one way or the other.

The Flexibility of the constitution is through the ability to Amend it. Not by ignoring it.
And how is our "expected duty" attacking a country that did not even provoke us?

Plus, quite a few prominent congressmen and senators have said they will support this action as long it does not involve American troops on the ground. In simple terms: they do support it. Some do agree with Obama's cautious approach to the situation, though notable Republicans like Senator John McCain have said that they advocate "immediate action". Yes, the War Powers Act is taken into consideration, and legislators do hold the power to invoke it in case things go the other way.

Did they vote on it? No they did not. A congressman's opinion means nothing unless they Vote. Also, I'd like a source to verify that a simple majority supports attacking Libya - even though that doesnt matter unless the simply majority in congress votes for war.

Expected: Go through the proper legislative process needed to declare the war, abide by the War Power Acts (1973). "Strict interpretation" of the Constitution is a most.
Reality: Today's situations are rapidly changing; we get our information almost instantaneously and things needed to be acted upon as soon as possible. There's no f'ucking time to sit around and go through the proper process needed to "declare a war"

How is there "no fucking time?" Its not like we where attacked where you would have that excuse. In reality, our government has been taking actions against Libya for at least a month. That is plenty of time to have congress sit down and discuss this issue and vote on it.
Then realistically if we are attacked, war does not need to be declared on the opposing country to defend ourselves. It is also in the constitution that the federal government is required to protect our States from foreign invaders.

Realistically, the constitution is there to prevent us from going into wars we should not, and at the same time it allows the government protect the states.

And you're also forgetting the fact that in today's modern warfare age, there's no such thing as a "proper war". Conflicts rapidly occur, change, and ends as fast as it starts. There's no time to go formally declare war. You go in when you need to as long its justified (exception is Iraq War). End of story.

If we arent declaring war, then we have no right or business to be killing people in other countries, and as I explained, there is time to declare war and a war, by law, is not justified without congressional approval.
Its also funny that you say Iraq is an exception. It wasnt justified at all and the Bush Administration was so eager to get into war that they fabricated lies about WMD's, connections to terrorists, and even used flimsy and unverified information from "curve ball."

Well this is expected / 10.

I have seen many references to all of the UN security council members having voted for going into action against Libya. This is in fact false. Several nations abstained from the vote as a form of protest to the vote itself. Those nations do not believe that anyone has the right to go in and interfere in an "internal" matter. The nations that abstained are: Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany. So even the EU backing isnt in total support as both Russia and Germany are also in the EU.

I have seen many references to all of the UN security council members having voted for going into action against Libya. This is in fact false. Several nations abstained from the vote as a form of protest to the vote itself. Those nations do not believe that anyone has the right to go in and interfere in an "internal" matter. The nations that abstained are: Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany. So even the EU backing isnt in total support as both Russia and Germany are also in the EU.

Member states of the European Union: Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · Cyprus · Czech Republic · Denmark · Estonia · Finland · France · Germany · Greece · Hungary · Ireland · Italy · Latvia · Lithuania · Luxembourg · Malta · Netherlands · Poland · Portugal · Romania · Slovakia · Slovenia · Spain · Sweden · United Kingdom

@ underlined: If you're going to say that, at least don't embarrass yourself deeply if you're not going to get your facts straight.

Abstaining from a vote doesn't mean that they're protesting against it, it means that they don't want to mess around with something that might end up turning against them. Voting against it is protesting against it.

@ underlined: If you're going to say that, at least don't embarrass yourself deeply if you're not going to get your facts straight.

Considering the fact that the topic sentence's subject of his paragraph was the UN, he probably just had a typo.

And Abstain may not necessary mean the person/group is against a motion. However, it definitely means that they show no support for the motion. This does mean that there is not "total support" from the UN.

Edit: For those that care, the UN is hypocritically killing libyan citizens - you know, the people we are going there to "free."
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/...DF20110320
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internation...556012.ece

Wow both articles are no longer available, probably removed when someone noticed dumb journalists copying gaddhafi's propaganda.

No, he just did something dumb, I don't know what, probably self-copying.

Edit: For those that care, the UN is hypocritically killing libyan citizens - you know, the people we are going there to "free."
48 civilians are already dead. 150 Wounded.
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaN...72J0DF20110320
http://www.thehindu.com/news/interna...cle1556012.ece

Man, I can't believe you're believing in the propoganda that madman is spewing out. Great to know where you get your sources from.

Man, I can't believe you're believing in the propoganda that madman is spewing out. Great to know where you get your sources from.

One source was Russian. In other words a neutral 3rd party confirmed the Libyan source.


http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/...DF20110320

MOSCOW, March 20 (Reuters) - Russia called on Britain, France and the United States on Sunday to stop air strikes against what it said were non-military targets in Libya, saying the attacks had caused civilian casualties.

"In that respect we call on countries involved to stop the non-selective use of force," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.

Lukashevich said 48 civilians were reported to have been killed and 150 wounded in the air strikes, figures that matched those given early on Sunday by Libyan state TV. He said strikes had destroyed a medical facility, roads and bridges.

The Western countries say they hit only military targets, including air defences and tanks that were threatening the eastern city of Benghazi.

"We believe a mandate given by the U.N. Security Council resolution -- a controversial move in itself -- should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions which only see measures necessary to protect civilian population," Lukashevich said. Russia abstained during a U.N. Security Council vote which authorised a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians against leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces. (Writing by Gleb Bryanski)

This is turning into a bad game of Risk. Spread your troops too thin and you'll eventually get wiped off the board. Seriously.....how many friggen places are our troops spread out to now? This is screaming, "BAD IDEA", to me.

[video=youtube;HrWJpPjro-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrWJpPjro-A&feature=player_embedded#at=286[/video]
This is from before the UN No-Fly Zone.

And once again, it looks exactly like the Iraq war. We were told lies to get into Iraq. Same for this war.
[video=youtube;Qq9aRezajls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq9aRezajls&feature=related[/video]

We are repeating the same mistake we made when we entered the Iraq war. What got us into the Iraq War was the Bush Administration's lies, that the media pushed onto us. There were, of course, the weapon inspectors that found no evidence, but we ignored them for Bush's war. Bush did say "You are either with us or with the Terrorists" and since Bush was still well liked back then, no one wanted to be with the Terrorists.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

@ underlined: If you're going to say that, at least don't embarrass yourself deeply if you're not going to get your facts straight.

My statement was not as far off as you think. While yes not a full fledged member, Russia does have a partnership and co-operation agreement with the EU. That agreement gives Russia a voice within the EU on all matters pertaining to climate change, drug and human trafficking, organised crime, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, the Middle East Peace Process and Iran. As this is considered a Middle East issue, I think they had some say. It might do you some good to look up more information before making rediculous statements. As I have stated many times before, I do look up information from more than one source. Dont believe wikipedia entirely, because anyone can edit information on that site, Maybe you could do what I do and thats go to the source directly. The EU has a web site.

Considering the fact that the topic sentence's subject of his paragraph was the UN, he probably just had a typo.

And Abstain may not necessary mean the person/group is against a motion. However, it definitely means that they show no support for the motion. This does mean that there is not "total support" from the UN.

Edit: For those that care, the UN is hypocritically killing libyan citizens - you know, the people we are going there to "free."
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/...DF20110320
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internation...556012.ece

Hope you know how many more civilians were killed by the dictator.

[video=youtube;HrWJpPjro-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrWJpPjro-A&feature=player_embedded#at=286[/video]
This is from before the UN No-Fly Zone.

And once again, it looks exactly like the Iraq war. We were told lies to get into Iraq. Same for this war.
[video=youtube;Qq9aRezajls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq9aRezajls&feature=related[/video]

We are repeating the same mistake we made when we entered the Iraq war. What got us into the Iraq War was the Bush Administration's lies, that the media pushed onto us. There were, of course, the weapon inspectors that found no evidence, but we ignored them for Bush's war. Bush did say "You are either with us or with the Terrorists" and since Bush was still well liked back then, no one wanted to be with the Terrorists.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

That is, if that source is accurate. Because we don't know if it's accurate or not. I'd like to place my faith in BBC, though. They've criticized their own government plenty of times.

And Bush was an idiot. I have a strange feeling that he thinks Al Queda and Iraq are synomonys. Also, keep in mind that the US is not solo in this. The UN is behind this. This way if we establish a goddamm government there no one can claim "THAT GOVERNMENT IS IN THE US' POCKET!"

My statement was not as far off as you think. While yes not a full fledged member, Russia does have a partnership and co-operation agreement with the EU. That agreement gives Russia a voice within the EU on all matters pertaining to climate change, drug and human trafficking, organised crime, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, the Middle East Peace Process and Iran. As this is considered a Middle East issue, I think they had some say. It might do you some good to look up more information before making rediculous statements. As I have stated many times before, I do look up information from more than one source. Dont believe wikipedia entirely, because anyone can edit information on that site, Maybe you could do what I do and thats go to the source directly. The EU has a web site.

Why the hell are you accusing Will of using Wikipedia, and claiming he doesn't use sources properly? Jesus Christ. He was right about Russia not being in the EU and he didn't even need a source for that. Just admit your mistake and move on.

And really I don't care that much if all of the Security Council didn't vote yes. They actually voted yes on something for once instead of some permanent seat country (usually China) saying no. It's still a 2/3 vote.

Why the hell are you accusing Will of using Wikipedia, and claiming he doesn't use sources properly? Jesus Christ. He was right about Russia not being in the EU and he didn't even need a source for that. Just admit your mistake and move on.

And really I don't care that much if all of the Security Council didn't vote yes. They actually voted yes on something for once instead of some permanent seat country (usually China) saying no. It's still a 2/3 vote.

First of all, if you read the post I replied to, then you would have noticed the link to wikipedia. My source comes directly from the EU. As I stated, Russia is not a full member but does has say in what goes on in Libya's part of the world where the EU is concerned. Perhaps, you missed that part. My first comment was simply missworded in regards to Russia, that was the comment that Will replied to. While I am happy that you dont care, thats perfectly fine, its your opinion. However, that said, your opinion is based on what you hear. Thats the way it is for most people. For my part, I dont buy in to simply what I hear, I investigate. When I find things that dont make sense, I like to try and make sense of them. Sooner or later I will find the truth and when I do, I can take pride in the fact that I figured it out. If that is too much to ask the rest of the people to do then so be it. Just dont whine later when you find out you were wrong.

When the US went into Iraq, most of the people were all for it. With 9/11 still fresh in everyones mind, it seemed to be the right thing to do. I myself found that I was angry about something that I didnt have enough information on. As the years went by, I started to look at the facts and found a great deal of discrepancy. So now, as I am older and wiser, I dont just leap before I look. One day I hope you will learn that too.

Hope you know how many more civilians were killed by the dictator.


That is, if that source is accurate. Because we don't know if it's accurate or not. I'd like to place my faith in BBC, though. They've criticized their own government plenty of times.

Does being a lesser evil justify evil? No it does not.
You'll also have to prove that this dictator has been killing his civilians. As stated by the Russian Military, they have evidence that many of the events claimed by our media never happened.

First of all, if you read the post I replied to, then you would have noticed the link to wikipedia. My source comes directly from the EU. As I stated, Russia is not a full member but does has say in what goes on in Libya's part of the world where the EU is concerned. Perhaps, you missed that part. My first comment was simply missworded in regards to Russia, that was the comment that Will replied to. While I am happy that you dont care, thats perfectly fine, its your opinion. However, that said, your opinion is based on what you hear. Thats the way it is for most people. For my part, I dont buy in to simply what I hear, I investigate. When I find things that dont make sense, I like to try and make sense of them. Sooner or later I will find the truth and when I do, I can take pride in the fact that I figured it out. If that is too much to ask the rest of the people to do then so be it. Just dont whine later when you find out you were wrong.

When the US went into Iraq, most of the people were all for it. With 9/11 still fresh in everyones mind, it seemed to be the right thing to do. I myself found that I was angry about something that I didnt have enough information on. As the years went by, I started to look at the facts and found a great deal of discrepancy. So now, as I am older and wiser, I dont just leap before I look. One day I hope you will learn that too.

pomegranate. I missed the thing he cited. Doesn't matter much anyways because Wikipedia was right in this instance anyways. And when I said "I don't care," I don't mean I don't care about Wikipedia being used. I meant I didn't care all of the Security Council didn't vote yes. This is much as you can expect from the UN nowadays.

Anyways about 9/11 I was with the masses (I was like...what....8? 9?) but as soon as the soldier death toll exceeded the 9/11 death toll, I converted to pull out. It's not worth it. Especially since it's the wrong target from the start.

Does being a lesser evil justify evil? No it does not.
You'll also have to prove that this dictator has been killing his civilians. As stated by the Russian Military, they have evidence that many of the events claimed by our media never happened.

Doing a lesser evil does not justify a evil, unless doing a lesser evil prevents the greater evil from ever happening again. That's my view on life.

And screw the Russian military there's footage of Libyans actively protesting their dictator of course something must be going wrong.

Doing a lesser evil does not justify a evil, unless doing a lesser evil prevents the greater evil from ever happening again. That's my view on life.

And screw the Russian military there's footage of Libyans actively protesting their dictator of course something must be going wrong.

Even if there are peaceful options that would result in no civilian deaths? If we are just going to be hypocrital with our "humanitarian" efforts, then I think we should not bother at all.
I'd also like to know exactly how many people have died from this dictator. I'm skeptical since we once again have conflicting information and evidence that some of the attrocities of Gaddafi never happened.

And RT has footage of people supporting him. I wonder what the real opinion is in Libya.

I find this to be quite interesting. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/2...ya-command

It appears that now that they have started to take action, no one wants to lead the charge. Its starting to look more and more like the U.S. is in this for much more than what was said. I just wonder now how long before we send ground forces into action. I cant imagine it being much longer.

Anyone want to play Risk?