Ten Congressmen Sue President Obama Over Libya Mission, War Powers Act

[shai]

If I'm not mistaken the role of the US military in Vietnam was to act in an advisory capacity up until around the time Johnson took office. I doubt Libya will get to that point, or at least I hope it won't.

[angelofdeath]

i love it. 'we are not at war.' bombing, killing and maiming is 'not at war?'

the 'anti war' constituency on the board is now officially a bunch of war mongering empire builders since the 'peace prize' winner is at the helm.

 

and even more LOLZ is how instead of talking about the issue at hand... the unconstitutional, unnecessary, immoral war in libya, everyone wants to talk about bush and iraq. sorry fella's, we've done that for 8 years and i was right there with ya. the hypocrisy is blinding. bush = patriot act, MCA06, wars, crushing of civil liberties, secret prisons/gitmo = bad. obama = patriot act extension, more wars, crushing of civil liberties at home, secret prisons/gitmo = good. what am i missing here?

 

and to fail to see the big picture? cmon. yall are smarter than that. to actually think for one second that war is not bipartisan? cmon. truman, democrat started first undeclared 'police action' precedent. vietnam was a democrat war, johnson/kennedy. nixon extended it. gulf war 1 was a republican police action. clinton's bombings, destruction of civil liberties, warrantless wiretapping, etc, democrat. bush's police state and wars... republican. can you not get this through your heads?

 

take off the partisan blinders for a second here guys... its very enlightening.

[lord_casek]

1st Cav and III Corp are going to deploy soon. We'll see if people still claim it's not a war.

[CILONE/SK]

Where does it say that we are sending a Corps HQs and a whole Heavy Division to Libya?

 

I know some of you guys would love to say that this is a war, but Libya is currently, nothing of the sort. Some bombing in conjunction with NATO does not equal the U.S. being at war. When we start sending troops to occupy areas, then I might get on board with calling this a war, but until then, this is very minor, being made as something major, by people who do not want any military action and other people who would complain about anything Obama does, no matter what that is.

And Angel, as far as this being "unconstitutional, unnecessary, immoral war in libya". I can agree with it being unnecessary and probably immoral (since most military actions usually are), but I do think it is not unconstitutional and falls well within the presidents rights to support NATO.

[angelofdeath]

And Angel, as far as this being "unconstitutional, unnecessary, immoral war in libya". I can agree with it being unnecessary and probably immoral (since most military actions usually are), but I do think it is not unconstitutional and falls well within the presidents rights to support NATO.

 

the "war powers act" is essentially unconstitutional. only congress can declare war. the president can only deploy the use of force during "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces"

 

libya did not pose a threat, did not attack us and did not want war with us. attacking libya is no different than attacking iraq. do you also believe that if NATO decided to mass execute 500 million people somewhere that posed no threat to anyone, that the US has a duty to be a part of this?

 

the constitution is the supreme law of the land and no national power/organization has sovereignty over it.

im glad that kucinich is part of this. he may be a domestic socialist, but he is a true defender of liberty when it comes to foreign affairs. im sure you cheered when he brought impeachment articles against bush... wont be long and he'll be doing with obombya. and you'll have a hissy fit.

 

but i'll give it to ya... i love hearing a lefty bush hater defending peace prize holding obombya while he drops bombs killing children every day to the tune of billions of dollars.

[CILONE/SK]

Angel, we are supporting a treaty organization that we have belonged to since 1949 (I think that was the year). Libya is totally different then Iraq and your situation you presented with 500 million people is an un-real exaggeration to make your point.

 

You are right that only congress can declare war, but that does not hold water with this, because we are not at war and are only supporting a treaty that we are in.

 

Also this is not attacking Libya, this is enforcing a no-fly zone which was set up to protect civilians from being massacred during a half-ass civil war.

 

We are not at war with Libya, no matter how you spin it.

[angelofdeath]

haha....

what is your definition of war? is bombing not a 'war like act?'

do you also contend we are not at war in pakistan? yemen?

any act of aggression against someone is war.

 

belonging to a treaty organization does not mean that we get to throw our own law out.

the president does not have the authority to deploy US troops or use US military power unless the US is attacked. and this is only for an immediate threat when he doesnt have time to go to war. if we belong to a treaty org that says we need to ban free speech, are we obliged to follow this or do we follow the constitution?

 

one of the main reasons cited for going to iraq in OIF was the 'no fly zone' enforcement. something we should of never been involved with to begin with.

 

seems rather odd, we went to war, killing countless innocent civilians in order to save innocent civilians. just like iraq. had to go save them from mass murdering saddam.

 

i dont get it. you said its immoral and unnecessary, but now you are 'carrying mr obama's water.'

 

nothing like the pro war/anti civil liberties liberals, when a liberal is office.

[CILONE/SK]

I am not supporting us bombing anything or going anywhere, but I also do not think this is a war either. There is a difference.

 

I try to be realistic. I do not think that we should ever really go to war, but I do not think that is realistic, no matter how much I do not like it. Sometimes it is something bad that needs to happen.

 

I can see how easily this can turn into a war an I do not support it, but I do not think we are at war with them right now. I also do not think the president is going to send anything more then what is already there before the next election, unless of course we are attacked or something else big happens. After the election is a whole other story.

 

BTW, my view points do not change because of who is elected.

 

You should read this, it is a long read, but explains the war powers act and the constitution. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

[angelofdeath]

"BTW, my view points do not change because of who is elected. "

 

thats good, because you sure had me fooled into thinking you are holding a double standard. denouncing bush, but are fine and dandy with an obamunist doing the same thing bush did.

[CILONE/SK]

I am not ok with what we are doing in Libya and actually am against it, but I do think it is constitutional and is also not able to be called a war.

 

For the most part, i am against almost all conflicts.

[angelofdeath]

you shouldnt be defending it on constitutional grounds either. its blatantly unconstitutional. so when you are against something, its best to smash it from every single angle. moral/ethical, constitutional, practical, etc.

 

congress can declare war, and the president can use force when the US is attacked. its VERY simple. all these other arguments are meaningless and are in fact 'extra' constitutional powers, not powers defined, enumerated and limited by the constitution of the US. and i cannot figure out how someone how is 'against all conflicts' can NOT call this libyan action 'a war.'

 

im interested to know exactly what would be considered a war, and exactly when the president is over stepping his powers. because it seems rather silly and hypocritical of you to be jumping on bush's iraq policy, when obama is simply doing the same thing to libya.

boots ARE on the ground, just not an all out invasion force. SF's are on the ground. in fact i know some personally who is indeed in country as we speak

[CILONE/SK]

Even though i might agree with alot of the Libertarian (I am assuming you are one) view points, their way of making everything black and white is what I find very simplistic and is not the intent of our founding fathers. This is why me and you will probably disagree more then we agree. I actaully might agree in principal with you on numerous subjects, but the all or nothing attitude of your view points is what I do not agree with. The truth between our positions is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Libya is totally different then any of the wars the US has taken part in, but is similar in other actions we have taken part in that are not considered war. Some SF troops on the ground do not make a war, if that was the case, we would be at war with over half the world right now. A single bullet does not make a war, neither does a bombing that supports a treaty that we are in.

 

I do not think Libya is unconstitutional, in fact I think the war powers act is unconstitutional with how it limits executive powers granted to the president by our founding fathers. I think that it just has not been challenged yet to the supreme court to decide on it.

[angelofdeath]

Even though i might agree with alot of the Libertarian (I am assuming you are one) view points, their way of making everything black and white is what I find very simplistic and is not the intent of our founding fathers. This is why me and you will probably disagree more then we agree. I actaully might agree in principal with you on numerous subjects, but the all or nothing attitude of your view points is what I do not agree with. The truth between our positions is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Libya is totally different then any of the wars the US has taken part in, but is similar in other actions we have taken part in that are not considered war. Some SF troops on the ground do not make a war, if that was the case, we would be at war with over half the world right now. A single bullet does not make a war, neither does a bombing that supports a treaty that we are in.

 

I do not think Libya is unconstitutional, in fact I think the war powers act is unconstitutional with how it limits executive powers granted to the president by our founding fathers. I think that it just has not been challenged yet ton the supreme court to decide oit.

 

i think you are trying to make a mountain out of mole hill.

some things ARE cut and dry. for instance... murder. if someone murders someone who committed no aggression, they are guilt of murder and should be dealt with accordingly. i see no need to try to come up with 1000 reasons why a murder is NOT a murder.

 

the issue of war is very cut and dry and was made so by the founding fathers. the congressional war powers clause was SPECIFICALLY installed in there to make it so the executive could not wage war the way kings did.

 

it seems you are trying to make the case that massive destruction of life liberty and property in a country that never attacked us, never wanted war with us nor posed any threat to us, and that this is all justified because of some 'treaty' we should of never been engaged in the first place. and you are trying to justify it by saying its 'not a war.' you are literally pulling a bush/cheney. just like how bush and cheney argued that waterboarding and other torture, specifically forbidden by the US constitution, was 1. not torture because they called it 'enhanced interrogation' 2. didnt matter either way, because they did this torture outside of CONUS.

so you are essentially arguing that even though it looks like a war, people are being killed, bombs are being dropped, that smells like a war.... but its not a war its merely some sort of quasi police action because the US happens to be involved in NATO.

 

its interesting you come to the conclusion the war powers act is 'unconstitutional' because it limits the presidents authority...

so you are in favor of never ending executive actions like bush's without congressional approval? believe it or not, the president cannot declare war and can only deploy troops for immediate threats and self defense if he doesnt have time to go to congress. he does not have the authority to bomb other countries, without congressional approval. the only power he has is to repel imminent danger and invasion. since he does not have this power to use force in non self defense situations in the first place, you cannot cite being in nato as a source of this power. the power of the president comes from the constitution. he cannot constitutionally exercise powers he does not have. so in essence the war powers act doesnt limit anything that isnt already laid out.

 

no, one bullet doesnt make a war nor does foreign military presence. but actively engaging in hostilities against someone DOES. you make it sound like, the US is doing NOTHING in libya. they are KILLING PEOPLE. THEY ARE DESTROYING INFRASTRUCTURE, MILITARY TARGETS, ETC.

i'd also argue foreign military bases are a source of resentment among foreigners and causes them to view the US as an imperial power.

[CILONE/SK]

Your whole post just shows what I said, you think everything is black and white.

 

I do not agree and find your position to be overly simplistic. The war powers act is unconstitutional by denying constitutional powers granted to the executive branch. The path of your position will lead to isolationism and will do more harm to this country by denying the need to deal with the rest of the world. If the president has to run to congress for every single thing, it will gridlock our country on numerous levels. That is why there are three equal branches of government.

 

If I thought this would change either if our positions I would continue this, but I do not and I am agreeing to disagree.

[angelofdeath]

is switzerland 'isolated' from the world or do they trade and have friendships with nations?

what restrictions does the war powers act place on the president that the constitution doesnt already?

 

the funny part is the left was all about limiting executive authority to constitutional levels under bush. in fact i found my self literally cheering when teddy bear kennedy was laying this all down on CSPAN one time. now it seems like the people who were against it then, are for it now.

 

yes, there are 3 equal branches of government. congress declares the war and funds it, the president commands the army and has the ability to deploy the army and navy if we are attacked. whats wrong with this?? how can we justify offensively attacking nations that havent attacked us? why dont we just start calling the DoD the department of OFFENSE?

 

i cannot comprehend how you are trying to make this flimsy arguments about this conflict/action/war being constitutionally sound but opposing it on moral grounds and saying its unnecessary. you have the perfect constitutional case to oppose this war as well, but you refuse to see it. is it because obama is doing it and he is your guy? or are you afraid, as a progressive as citing to much 'original intent?' im really at a loss on this one.

[CILONE/SK]

Your at a loss because you are stuck in "black ad white" mode and are not able to get past that. Also, you make assumptions about peoples point of views and when they do not fit, you do not seem to be able to accept that. You seem to be stuck on me backing up the president on his action in libya, but I am not. I am against it, but I do think he is well within his powers to take that action to back up an organization we have a treaty with. I am not a all or nothing guy. Just because I do not agree with conflict, that does not lock me into saying that all conflict is not needed in every situations. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I do not think it is needed in libya, but I do think it is allowed.

 

Switzerland is a country that has very limited role in guiding the world, which is totally different then the US being a world power and the responsibilities inherent in that role. So, in a way, Switzerland is isolated. The US does not have that option currently.

[CILONE/SK]

I am going to bed now, have to get up early. New day tomorrow, new topic to debate.

[Decyferon]

It comes down to AODs view that the US should not be playing any part in world affairs, the army should just be defending the US borders and America can only use force when it is being attacked.

 

This view point is so ridiculously narrowminded because we live in a global economy.

 

So in theory IF America decided to withdraw all troops back to the US, now government decides that they don't like the amount of freedom that people in America have so they start cracking down on things like in Libya, Syria etc so the governemnt uses force against it's own, the people can't do anything about it because the government is far more powerful and is basically crushing its citzenship, illegal killings illegal human rights violations, then should the world just stand by and do nothign to help?

 

Nato has stepped into Libya for numerous reasons espesially the way the people in power are crushing the people who are trying to make their lives better. We live in a world where everryone plays a part, the US is not at war with Libya it is that simple, it is a NATO operation that America has a responsibility to support.

 

And Switzerland is some tiny little country that hass no bearing on world politics so can hardly be compared to America, it is always this way silly comparisons that are not equal.

 

While I do agree with a lot of things in theory of the libertarian viewpoint I disagree in practise because it doesn't take in any considering factors, the world is not black and white, it is many shades of grey and very rarely do we see the black and white.

[angelofdeath]

Your at a loss because you are stuck in "black ad white" mode and are not able to get past that. Also, you make assumptions about peoples point of views and when they do not fit, you do not seem to be able to accept that. You seem to be stuck on me backing up the president on his action in libya, but I am not. I am against it, but I do think he is well within his powers to take that action to back up an organization we have a treaty with. I am not a all or nothing guy. Just because I do not agree with conflict, that does not lock me into saying that all conflict is not needed in every situations. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I do not think it is needed in libya, but I do think it is allowed.

 

Switzerland is a country that has very limited role in guiding the world, which is totally different then the US being a world power and the responsibilities inherent in that role. So, in a way, Switzerland is isolated. The US does not have that option currently.

 

 

i dont think anyone is saying that all conflicts are not needed. all im saying is that acts of aggression are not needed. the golden rule is what should govern world affairs. violence is only justified in self defense. this seems to be the general rule most people live by every day, but for some reason they cant imagine applying this to government. could you imagine the outrage if NATO/UN or the like decided to impose a no fly zone over the south east US or mountain west? and then they smashed the hell out of these areas, destroyed infrastructure and killed the presidents family, like they did in libya. would you still consider this not an act of war and aggression? but its no different than what is going on in libya.

 

im trying to figure out why you keep coming to this conclusion that using aggressive force against someone who posed no threat, did not attack us and didnt want war with us, is 'allowed.' let me try to come at this from a different angle.

do you cling to this notion that it is allowed by some progressive living constitutional view point because you think the US military should intervene in places like darfur? if this is the case, i wish you would of just said it.

 

if you consider being neutral in world conflicts 'isolated' then i guess we are thinking of different connotations for this 'isolationist' term. personally i dont have a problem at all with the US not being the worlds police man/ruler. it is the job of empires to do this, not republics. ironic that the US defense system under the constitution was essentially based directly on the cantonal swiss militia system. the swiss are essentially just as 'free' as americans, but arabs are not flying planes into their buildings. the US tends to create more problems than it 'solves' by having over 700 military bases around the world. i'd argue the US military could play a defensive role in keeping shipping channels open, etc if need be, but certainly stationing troops around the world is not right. imagine if china, russia, UK, north korea and iran decided they were 'world powers' and exercised their 'responsibility' to intervene in the affairs of the US. suppose those countries had military bases on american soil or directly outside of it ready to act aggressively at a moments notice. what would your reaction as well as the rest of the countries reaction be to this? yet, it is fine and dandy for the US to do this.

 

if we had an aliens view from outerspace and looked down to the world and tried to determine who the empire/aggressor nations were, you'd point directly to the US. you'd see US military installations around the world, combat troops in atleast 3 countries actively engaged in war, and a government that essentially bullies the entire world.

[Decyferon]

But where does self defense come into it when a nations people cannot defend themselves against a tyrannical government? What is supposed to happen then?

 

This isn't just the US it is the worlds powers deciding what to do in a situation like this and as a world power America has a responsibility to becaome involved.

 

Your analogy always makes out that Libya has done no wrong when it has been killing it's own citizens who want a change of a tyrannical regime.

[CILONE/SK]

Decyferon, that is why Libertarians will never understand world politics. They want to isolate themselves too much.

 

They have great ideas, but because of reality, they will only stay ideas.

 

I agree with almost everything Angel has to say, but I know that when it comes down to it, implementing those ideas will cause the US to fail. Angel just does not understand the responsibilities that being a world power entails.

[angelofdeath]

 

This view point is so ridiculously narrowminded because we live in a global economy.

 

So in theory IF America decided to withdraw all troops back to the US, now government decides that they don't like the amount of freedom that people in America have so they start cracking down on things like in Libya, Syria etc so the governemnt uses force against it's own, the people can't do anything about it because the government is far more powerful and is basically crushing its citzenship, illegal killings illegal human rights violations, then should the world just stand by and do nothign to help?

 

when you trade with your employer, your labor services, do you need a police force to make this guy accept your services? when you go to the grocery store, do you need a military siege to ensure you get your groceries? no, you trade for them in a free and open market. to say that if we stopped bombing countries around the world, stopped invading countries around the world, stopped providing security for nations we signed a treaty with after WW2, and put troops into a defensive capacity instead of offensive, that this would end trade, is absolutely silly. we used to be at war with vietnam, but now we trade with them. we are still protecting the korean border after 50 years.

 

in fact it is the exact opposite. we would probably be engaged in MORE trade... in fact it is trade restrictions that often lead to war. where goods cant go, tanks will is the old saying.

 

as for you scenario of US troops being used on americans. i think it is more likely than not at some point. and this is the danger we face by having the largest government in the history of the world. which is why i argue for limiting the power of this state as much as possible. if the US government decided to quell every civil liberty abuse around the world, we would be in every country. hell, we'd have to roll into london to get rid of the camera's and the police state. what ever happened to leaving people alone?

 

the problem with intervening in places like libya is that it changes what the oppressed people actually want. a revolution needs to come from the people, not from an outside influence. imagine if the american people were actively engaged in overthrowing their tyrannical state in DC. and then russia decides to aid the rebels. do you think that the russians would NOT have a say in the new power that takes the place of the old 'constitutional' defacto US government? another thing that tends to happen is when you intervene in a country, you tend to create a situation where the people are more outraged by the foreign intervention than by their own governments action. in fact this was a plan abraham lincoln had for the war between the states. he thought if he could provoke a foreign invasion/attack that it would push the country back together again to fight the common enemy.

 

the even more insane part about all these dictators and the US supposedly overthrowing them for the liberty of the people, is that usually the US played a roll propping them up in the first place. giving them power. its no different than how the US government propped up and subsidized banks, which resulted in banks that were so large, they damaged the entire financial system when/if they collapse. but no one likes to talk about this. saddam was our buddy. osama was our buddy. mubarak was our buddy. gadalfi was our buddy. we support dictators all around the world, a'stan, the saudi's, etc. and for every intervention, it distorts world affairs

 

We live in a world where everryone plays a part, the US is not at war with Libya it is that simple, it is a NATO operation that America has a responsibility to support.

 

a'stan is a nato operation, but who has the most troops there? if iraq were a NATO operation, would we then be required to support this? if NATO decides to bomb a country for whatever reason, are we required to participate? the US shouldnt be in NATO. it surrenders our sovereignty. its disingenuous to say its 'only a nato action' when in fact the entire might and biggest player in NATO is the US government. not only that, but the president is required by the constitution to come to congress to get approval.

 

And Switzerland is some tiny little country that hass no bearing on world politics so can hardly be compared to America, it is always this way silly comparisons that are not equal.

 

which is exactly why i am bringing into question the role of government. a republic is supposed to be like switzerland, it is not supposed to be like the US empire. the US should also not have a bearing on 'world politics.'

[CILONE/SK]

the US should also not have a bearing on 'world politics.'

 

This is where me and you disagree and I think is the point that we will never agree.

 

Even though I see where you are coming from and agree with most of it, I think our versions of an "end state" for America is totally different.

[Decyferon]

but my question was if the people of a country are trying to have revolution but the government in power is using their military might to crush them what then?

 

I agree a revolution should come from within but what when that fails do we just sit by and say oh well they tried and allow the abuses to continue? These people are fighting for democracy and freedom, not some secular religious regime or anything like that, they want the same freedom as you or I.

 

As for the analogy of having to walk into every country for civil liberties violations, these are hardly violations, I couldnt give a shit about CCTV I wouldnt expect help from another country to help get rid of them, but if I wanted democracy and was having the full force of an army turned on me and bombing homes and civilians then yes I would expect the world to stand up.

 

As I said before it isn't black and white you have to look further into it than that.

[angelofdeath]

But where does self defense come into it when a nations people cannot defend themselves against a tyrannical government? What is supposed to happen then?

 

Your analogy always makes out that Libya has done no wrong when it has been killing it's own citizens who want a change of a tyrannical regime.

 

the question then would be where do you draw the line and who decides?

one persons tyranny is another persons every day life.

 

if we are to go after every government who has tyrannized its own citizens, the first place the US military should be deployed to is DC. once they clean up that mess, then they should march on every state capitol. after that is cleaned up, we can talk about the rest of the world.

 

a true revolution must come from the people themselves. all thats going to happen in libya is gadalfi, the US govts old buddy, will be killed, and the US will install another dictator that is friendly to them. the curfews and tyranny will still exist. it is everyones right to decide their own destiny. arabs dont know what democracy is. thinking military force can change this is nothing but wishful thinking. but the double standard is glaring. i remember yo being against iraq. GWB brought democracy to iraq, a place where he should be never intervened. so how is iraq any different than libya in your view? if its all about democracy, we are talking about never ending global war. which country should we bomb next?

and who really cares about democracy?

its just tyranny by the many instead of the few. it may be a degree better than a dictator, but the end result is still the same. oppression.

[angelofdeath]

I agree with almost everything Angel has to say, but I know that when it comes down to it, implementing those ideas will cause the US to fail. Angel just does not understand the responsibilities that being a world power entails.

 

i fully understand what being a world power entails. i just dont believe we should be the worlds police man and that we should be the worlds super power

 

the US in danger largely because of its aggressive foreign policy. changing this will make us more safe.

 

as for causing the US to fail... the government is doing a great job at that already. hopefully they'll collapse their own system because of their excesses soon, so us peons can get on with our lives and not have to deal with them anymore.

[Decyferon]

the question then would be where do you draw the line and who decides?

one persons tyranny is another persons every day life.

 

if we are to go after every government who has tyrannized its own citizens, the first place the US military should be deployed to is DC. once they clean up that mess, then they should march on every state capitol. after that is cleaned up, we can talk about the rest of the world.

 

a true revolution must come from the people themselves. all thats going to happen in libya is gadalfi, the US govts old buddy, will be killed, and the US will install another dictator that is friendly to them. the curfews and tyranny will still exist. it is everyones right to decide their own destiny. arabs dont know what democracy is. thinking military force can change this is nothing but wishful thinking. but the double standard is glaring. i remember yo being against iraq. GWB brought democracy to iraq, a place where he should be never intervened. so how is iraq any different than libya in your view? if its all about democracy, we are talking about never ending global war. which country should we bomb next?

and who really cares about democracy?

its just tyranny by the many instead of the few. it may be a degree better than a dictator, but the end result is still the same. oppression.

 

show me where the US is bombing it's own citizens and killing civilians who want a change to the current government? They aren't it isn't a case of people in Libya having a few less freedoms, it is about the government turning the FULL might of themilitary on them, hardly similar to anything the US government is doing.

 

by violating my freedom by having CCTV is by no means anywhere close to the same thing going on in Libya, as I said before it isnt black and white, you have to get out of thatmind set.

 

I personally dont agree with the Libya approach, I havent said that I did at any point, I am just raising glaring things that stand out to me. But what is different to Iraq is that we haveb't been lied to to justify a war, things have been fairly clear and out in the open on this one. So again not the same situation.

[angelofdeath]

show me where the US is bombing it's own citizens and killing civilians who want a change to the current government? They aren't it isn't a case of people in Libya having a few less freedoms, it is about the government turning the FULL might of themilitary on them, hardly similar to anything the US government is doing.

 

by violating my freedom by having CCTV is by no means anywhere close to the same thing going on in Libya, as I said before it isnt black and white, you have to get out of thatmind set.

 

I personally dont agree with the Libya approach, I havent said that I did at any point, I am just raising glaring things that stand out to me. But what is different to Iraq is that we haveb't been lied to to justify a war, things have been fairly clear and out in the open on this one. So again not the same situation.

 

the US has a prison population that is 4 times the peak prison population of the soviet gulags. the US government jails and maims people every day who want freedom, liberty, or what have you. try smoking a joint in front of a police officer. you hear about the marine combat veteran who was killed by pima county arizona swat serving a no knock search warrant? and they found not a trace of any drugs in his house? the killings and democide are just 'more legal.' and the brainwashed population has this theory that everything is ok, if the government does it through semi legal channels.

 

like i said, its a question of where you draw the line. and everyone is going to have a different opinion on that. but what you have to realize is that if we go after every single petty dictator, the world will be in constant warfare, it will further bankrupt our governments and lead to the deaths of thousands and millions of innocents.

 

im sure the lies about libya will come out soon enough.

taking away the lies issues, the situation is exactly the same. deposing a dictator.

its silly to say its ok and lawful in one instance, but not in another.

[Decyferon]

The American prison system is more down to stupid drug laws, again not the same thing as Libya.

 

While I disaree with drug laws they are the law and I can see why those laws are inplace. It is completely irrelavant comparing people being killed by their own military to people in America breaking existing drug law. The 2 are not the same.

 

You are trying to compare local isues such as drug laws with a wider issue of the world we live in and countries responsibilities to the people in the world. It is like comparing Apples with Beef.

[angelofdeath]

democide is democide.

we are just talking about degree...which is the issue any two people will never agree with.

 

does the waco massacre, people essentially killed by their own military equate?

 

no country has any more responsibility to anyone else anymore than you have a responsibility to me.

you are perfectly within your rights to stroke off a check to mr obama to pay for the libyan intervention, but the US tax payers just cant afford billions of dollars to depose one dictator they used to prop up, to install another one