I think there are some very good points being raised that are being deflected as mere Obama criticisms. Bry - you've been very critical, and rightfully so, on past military actions. Lets look at some facts here
- we just attacked a soverign country that did not provoke us at all
- we have no plan
- no stated goal (save lives and oh by the way, we want Ghaddafi out)
- whats Libya going to look like after this? Will we need to spend $$$$$ to aid them in developing, will we be monitoring elections?

and remember this FACT
GWB went on tv and gave Saddam 48 hrs to leave office and safe passage or we would attack. Obama did no such thing, we went in firing. Who should get the peace prize?

Dont deflect, this is serious stuff and the criticisms are valid.

This isn't about Newt Gingrich or Mother's Day.........

Obama is a hypocrite (although the question specifically says Iran, Obama’s answer covers all military action except self defense.) Glad all the media networks bring this stuff up.

(Boston Globe) Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

(Obama) A: 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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2...ar_+_Peace.htm

ready the planes....

CNN) -- Germany and the United Kingdom are pulling nonessential embassy staff out of Yemen, they said Thursday, with the British citing "the rapid deterioration in the security situation."

Both nations are keeping small core staffs in place in Sanaa, they said.

Yemen, a key U.S. ally and a central battleground against al Qaeda, has been wracked by protests since the beginning of the year. Support for President Ali Abdullah Saleh appears to be slipping away.

To date, the air attacks on Libyan targets have been predominantly American. In a 24-hour period as of late Wednesday, 175 sorties were flown, 113 by the United States, U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Gerald P. Hueber told reporters from the U.S. command ship in the Mediterranean Sea.

His portrayal suggested a long slog might lie ahead.

"We have no indication that Gadhafi's forces are adhering to United Nations Resolution 1973," which authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone and demanded that government forces pull back from population centers, said Hueber, chief of staff for U.S. operations. "Our intelligence today is there's no indication that Gadhafi's forces are pulling back."

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates no doubt reflected the views of many military commanders when he warned weeks ago that establishing a no-fly zone was a big, complicated operation tantamount to an act of war — and one with questionable viability.

I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

I'm of the mindset that don't need to be there. Period. Q/G/Khadaffi is a pretty evil dictator, but there are alot of those. where do we draw the line? is this oil driven? human rights? flexing abit for some of the other countries? I don't know.

As long as it stays at this level, I can live with it (i.e. we are truly just helping to level the playing field) but I don't want to see troops on the ground there, any more than I want to see them in Afgan or Iraq. Provided, we actually do hand control to the UK or France, both of them have a longer history in that part of the world, let them deal with it.

Oh, and Spence isn't 'wrong' this was not a declared war, so technically it isn't a war. but we're dropping missles, so lets call it 'war-like?'

I think the last declared war was WWII, no?
Gates said it was "tantamount to war"
I have no clue what "tantamount" means but I bet its more like war than not....:jump1:

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;846825]I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

yes, Obama and Biden, perhaps they can impeach each other :uhuh:

Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence

Did you read the whole thing? Question was on Iran, Obama answered for ALL military actions.

Read the whole thing Spence and try to answer with an intellectual post, not a one sentence comment that doesn't have any worth.

Yes, twice actually :hihi:

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence

The only one flipping around here is Obama.....and your expectations for Obama

Problem solved

YouTube - President Barack Obama locked out of White House

Read it again then. Obama says “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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

I’m not Taking it out of context at all.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....

I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.

Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?

Our illegal immigrant kenyan muslim president is trying to wreck the country. He's not stupid, he's on a mission. For Allah, to destroy the west.

This might be the most ignorant post ever made on these forums.

Recently watched Happy Gilmore and this seems rather applicable:
Mr. [Branford], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever [read]. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone [on this forum] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The scary thing, is that over 'there' BJ is one of the 'moderate' ones....
Of course he is trying to wreck America, just like Bush tried to do w/ Iraq so he and his buddies could make more oil money.... :smash: (obvious sarcasm)


And Buckman, I'm not flipping on or regretting my vote (yet). One way I like to think about it (and remember in '04 when my choice was Bush or Kerry I would have prefered McCain to both) How would, say McCain(/Pin), have handled this differently?
McCain: Obama waited too long in Libya – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Sounds like he would have done the same thing (No-fly zone) but two weeks earlier w/o UN support. Because two weeks earlier would have magically reach a good outcome, that now can't happen because we waited a fortnight? Give me a break. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by the right for the rest of his time as preseident, be it 2 or 6 years. He could probably give the OK to the shot that kills Bin Laden (assuming he is alive and they find him) and Newt et al., would critisize him for the placement of the bullet..

If it wasn't for an ignorant public (supporting both parties), we might actually get competent people into office. And people yell at me for thinking *fewer* people should be allowed to vote.

'Nuff Said

I would say it's more like there are few honest,competent people to
run for office.
Give credit and don't under estimate the average American citizen for having common sense and knowing right from wrong.

God help us if we ever got to the point that only the avante gard ivy league
grads were allowed to vote. They've done enough damage to our American
way of life.

and the ones that are around really don't want to have to put up with the BS and smearing of ones reputation that always accompanies a campaign....for any office

I think the average American citizen has enough common sense to know right from wrong, but I also think the average American citizen doesn’t take the time to read up and educate themselves on elections and what the people running really stand for. I think a lot of average American citizens do not vote based truly off of the issues. I don’t think they take the time to form an opinion on their own. I personally know too many intelligent (above average) people that have voted for someone based off of looks, background, religion, college or business they attended, gender, race, etc, etc). I have good friends who are in a Union who have said, “Personally I’d rather vote for this person but I’m voting for that person because of my Union. People don’t think about things themselves these days, it seems they vote more off of influences (friends, family, media, Hollywood, self interest groups, corporations, etc.) This goes for everyone across all parties.

Just my take on it……..

Started typing then looked up and saw your post... pretty much my point exactly. Ignorance isn't directly correlated to intelligence. There's a joke in my office - "The more letters after their last name and more advanced degrees they have, the dumber they actually are."

PRBuzz isn't going to like to hear this.......

Think of it in basketball terms. It's like a fast break. Two weeks is huge. It's not magic although some believed in magic last election.

I think there have been studies that indicate the protection technology, body armour etc... has had a lot to do with the decrease in battlefield deaths.

A good read on the topic on the over reliance on military strength as a universal problem solver is Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism."

-spence

The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.

War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...

-spence

If you miss the opportunity for a fast break you run a different play.

It's still the same points for the possession.

-spence

Good players don't miss the opportunity for the fast break!