Forums

Username:  

Password:  

       
Login Help

  LATEST POSTS  
 
America's Army Launc..
Learning BASICS of A..
can u give us hints ..
AA3 New Patch Releas..
Better Realism Alter..

Keywords:
 

More search options

  HOT TOPICS  
 
2nd Video Challenge
AA3 Mentor FAQ
Remember when...
Come Back Stories..
» See more topics
  

    « Previous Page        Page 4 of 4     
  Page Jump     

 International Military Action in Libya 
 

Rombus

Recruit
Posts: 0
Joined: 25 Mar 2009

      Posted: 30 Mar 2011 15:52 Profile Bermuda


If you want me to read your posts I'm going to have to insist on punctuation.

_____________________
Embedded Image

viking_from_norway

Staff Sergeant
Posts: 617
Joined: 27 May 2009

      Posted: 30 Mar 2011 15:53 Profile Norway


Rombus wrote:

Unicorn01 wrote:

"So where Bush went to Congress for approval to conduct war, Obama did not. Obama also seems to be reporting to the UN and NATO over the American people.



Haha this is a ridiculous statement. The United States owns NATO lock stock and barrel and the UN is basically an American debating club the government occasionally uses to give a veneer of legitimacy to its various imperialist expeditions overseas.



sadly this is true, but UN doesn't always go hand in hand with US tough.

Rombus wrote:

If you want me to read your posts I'm going to have to insist on punctuation.



Haha that reminds me of when i was a kid, I.... Embarassed
You should fix that block of text Kratos.

_____________________
Accolo usque ab beo
I say Yal Yal

Apple2005

Private First Class
Posts: 161
Joined: 08 May 2005

      Posted: 01 Apr 2011 06:58 Profile


ROUGHRIDER13 wrote:

I don't have much to say on the topic, so I mostly want the community to express their opinions. I'm just wondering the extent of US and other country's military involvement in Libya. It also surprises me that France, of all countries, is the leading force in Libya. I doubt that politicians really care about Libyan civilians, and they just want to be first in line for oil contracts.



Oh dear more France bashing. Let me put t in black and white for you. During the Iraq war france could of easily got involved if it wanted to. But it didn't. And why do you think that is?

I'll give you a tip, it has nothing to do with being scared etc depsite what ridiculous statements of that nature you have heard on fox news.

The truth is France was already making lots of money off Saddam. Why would france go to war with him when the outcome is they no longer get to do business with Iraq because US and UK companies have moved in? France would of been insane or massochistic to have gotten involved.

As for Libya France has big interests in libya and other coutnries near by so it is entirely logical they want to get involved. Similarly Britian has BP driling there and all the UK populations state pensions are invested in BP.

Its hardly rocket science. If you genuinely believe we go to war because 'they hate our freedom' or because 'we are saving people' then you need a brain transplant.

Motives are OBVIOUS.

_____________________
Embedded Image

wrath_of_grunge

Private First Class
Posts: 169
Joined: 27 Dec 2002

      Posted: 01 Apr 2011 14:16 Profile


wow apple. i think you completely missed the fact that roughrider was pretty much saying the same thing you just said.


thank you captain obvious. please don't waste your astounding powers of deduction on such lowly creatures as us forum dwellers.

GO FORTH UNTO THE WORLD, SO THAT YOU MIGHT SAVE IT WITH YOUR KEEN INTELLIGENCE AND AMAZING POWERS OF OBSERVATION.

_____________________
Embedded Image

viking_from_norway

Staff Sergeant
Posts: 617
Joined: 27 May 2009

      Posted: 01 Apr 2011 16:44 Profile Norway


Apple2005 wrote:

ROUGHRIDER13 wrote:

I don't have much to say on the topic, so I mostly want the community to express their opinions. I'm just wondering the extent of US and other country's military involvement in Libya. It also surprises me that France, of all countries, is the leading force in Libya. I doubt that politicians really care about Libyan civilians, and they just want to be first in line for oil contracts.



Oh dear more France bashing. Let me put t in black and white for you. During the Iraq war france could of easily got involved if it wanted to. But it didn't. And why do you think that is?

I'll give you a tip, it has nothing to do with being scared etc depsite what ridiculous statements of that nature you have heard on fox news.

The truth is France was already making lots of money off Saddam. Why would france go to war with him when the outcome is they no longer get to do business with Iraq because US and UK companies have moved in? France would of been insane or massochistic to have gotten involved.

As for Libya France has big interests in libya and other coutnries near by so it is entirely logical they want to get involved. Similarly Britian has BP driling there and all the UK populations state pensions are invested in BP.

Its hardly rocket science. If you genuinely believe we go to war because 'they hate our freedom' or because 'we are saving people' then you need a brain transplant.

Motives are OBVIOUS.



OMHFGBBQ IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!!!!!

greeneyes

Sergeant
Posts: 339
Joined: 04 Jan 2011

      Posted: 01 Apr 2011 18:47 Profile Satellite Provider


Mr. Gaddafi is still in power, why that not surprise me?
Libyan people support him?
were not used enough mortars?
this war will divide Libya in the two territories?
one rich with oil, another poor with potatoes?
what's going on?

_____________________

Embedded Image

Lich[001]

Sergeant
Posts: 421
Joined: 17 Feb 2004

      Posted: 01 Apr 2011 21:59 Profile


Unicorn01 wrote:

"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..." Senator Barack H. Obama, December 20, 2007.

Vice President Joe Biden's words referring to proposed actions of then-President George W. Bush: "The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war... Unless we are attacked or he has proof that we are about to be attacked... If he does, I would move to impeach him..."

By the way, to those that don't know, Obama studied the Constitution in law school.

So where Bush went to Congress for approval to conduct war, Obama did not. Obama also seems to be reporting to the UN and NATO over the American people.



You do realize that Congress has already approved the use of force by the President of the United States in the furtherance of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the fulfillment of our NATO Treaties, right?

Obama did study Constitutional Law. Clearly you haven't. This approval has already been given by Congress, and if Congress doesn't like it they should revoke the laws signed by previous congresses that allow for the US support of UN Resolutions.

darksmaster923

Staff Sergeant
Posts: 648
Joined: 10 May 2008

      Posted: 01 Apr 2011 22:17 Profile Sierra Leone


=NOLB=Kratos wrote:

Rombus,

i dont like that remark to be honest im american that dosent mean i agree with everything and you just pretty much single out every american in the us, to be honest its not or fight and we should keep or nose to us for a change we dont need to baby sit ever country hand and foot and they need to start helping them, but also if a country leader is killing innocent people why shouldnt we step in it isnt right to kill innocent people just becuase your big and powerful showing you are fearless leader is so far fetch in the midwest its getting kinda old why dont you actually do good is a leader over there and stop trying to be hitler which didnt last long in power to himself in WW2 now did he and hint we didnt kill him but after that he didnt live long enough, and for the record US i dont belive US owns Nato, hinch why we turn it over to Nato Nato is a mix of Military combine into one which can be your country our country etc so yea for the fact that you look like you single out americans by your statments dosent seem like your to happy with americans for trying to keep peace between one another i agree we shouldnt but then again were keeping your alot of countries from being invading by tirants like this



We sure as hell didn't intervene cause we wanted to help the people out.

_____________________
Up the Irons
Embedded Image

ROUGHRIDER13

Recruit
Posts: 14
Joined: 21 Dec 2010

      Posted: 02 Apr 2011 08:25 Profile United States


=NOLB=Kratos wrote:

Rombus,

i dont like that remark to be honest im american that dosent mean i agree with everything and you just pretty much single out every american in the us, to be honest its not or fight and we should keep or nose to us for a change we dont need to baby sit ever country hand and foot and they need to start helping them, but also if a country leader is killing innocent people why shouldnt we step in it isnt right to kill innocent people just becuase your big and powerful showing you are fearless leader is so far fetch in the midwest its getting kinda old why dont you actually do good is a leader over there and stop trying to be hitler which didnt last long in power to himself in WW2 now did he and hint we didnt kill him but after that he didnt live long enough, and for the record US i dont belive US owns Nato, hinch why we turn it over to Nato Nato is a mix of Military combine into one which can be your country our country etc so yea for the fact that you look like you single out americans by your statments dosent seem like your to happy with americans for trying to keep peace between one another i agree we shouldnt but then again were keeping your alot of countries from being invading by tirants like this



Nice wall of txt lol... True, that's how it should work in a perfect world, but I don't think many world leaders care about civilians dying in another country. Think about China? They murdered TONS of citizens and nothing ever happened.

_____________________
Retreat? Retreat Hell, I just got here

ROUGHRIDER13

Recruit
Posts: 14
Joined: 21 Dec 2010

      Posted: 02 Apr 2011 08:35 Profile United States


Lich[001] wrote:

Unicorn01 wrote:

"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..." Senator Barack H. Obama, December 20, 2007.

Vice President Joe Biden's words referring to proposed actions of then-President George W. Bush: "The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war... Unless we are attacked or he has proof that we are about to be attacked... If he does, I would move to impeach him..."

By the way, to those that don't know, Obama studied the Constitution in law school.

So where Bush went to Congress for approval to conduct war, Obama did not. Obama also seems to be reporting to the UN and NATO over the American people.



You do realize that Congress has already approved the use of force by the President of the United States in the furtherance of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the fulfillment of our NATO Treaties, right?

Obama did study Constitutional Law. Clearly you haven't. This approval has already been given by Congress, and if Congress doesn't like it they should revoke the laws signed by previous congresses that allow for the US support of UN Resolutions.



Actually, in the Korean War the president did not get military authorization from Congress. Since I'm on the topic, didn't that same president say the Korean War would be a 'limited' war? That's what Obama said too...

Lich[001]

Sergeant
Posts: 421
Joined: 17 Feb 2004

      Posted: 02 Apr 2011 13:07 Profile


ROUGHRIDER13 wrote:

Actually, in the Korean War the president did not get military authorization from Congress. Since I'm on the topic, didn't that same president say the Korean War would be a 'limited' war? That's what Obama said too...



The Korean War was a UN Action - the US fulfilled it's obligations to the UN as per our position on the Security Council, as has been approved by Congress.

If you don't like us fulfilling our obligations to the UN, write your Congressperson and ask them to pull us out of the UN.

Lich[001]

Sergeant
Posts: 421
Joined: 17 Feb 2004

      Posted: 02 Apr 2011 13:07 Profile


DoublePost

aMMo.@c

Private First Class
Posts: 130
Joined: 29 Aug 2007

      Posted: 02 Apr 2011 13:29 Profile United States


The US is not obligated to follow the UN. Nor does any treaty come before the US Constitution or Laws of the United States.

Lich[001]

Sergeant
Posts: 421
Joined: 17 Feb 2004

      Posted: 02 Apr 2011 17:37 Profile


aMMo.@c wrote:

The US is not obligated to follow the UN. Nor does any treaty come before the US Constitution or Laws of the United States.



From here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...0-.html

Quote:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.



Bolded mine. Essentially, the POTUS does not need to seek Congressional approval for military action if that action is committed under Chapter VII Article 42 of the United Nation's Charter (specifically the enumeration of the Security Council's powers). Do note that the above quote is not a treaty, but US Law.

For those who are interested,

Article 42
Quote:

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.



This was actually used to justify the Korean War, which is also why the POTUS did not need Congressional Approval as per the law cited above.

aMMo.@c

Private First Class
Posts: 130
Joined: 29 Aug 2007

      Posted: 02 Apr 2011 19:43 Profile United States


War Powers Resolution

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...33.html


 International Military Action in Libya 
 

    « Previous Page        Page 4 of 4     
  Page Jump     

  

Jump to: