Lybia

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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.

Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, twice actually

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

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....

[mosholu]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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.”

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.

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....

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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...I wish we were beyond your intellectual dishonesty...the self-ordained intellectuals here can barely spell, while at the same time lecturing on things like ignorance and intelligence




no, he speaks generally with regard to presidential power and engagment of the military and then specifically with regard to Iranian nuclear facilities, what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours

??? preventative war with Iran -spence

Iran doesn't pose a "serious threat to us"...what ever happened to those talks???

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen." Obama(sounds like Obama thought this one was going to be a fast break and a slam dunk)

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours

The situation in Iran is a hypothetical. While Iranian nukes shift the balance of power, the odds that they would be employed against Iran's neighbors or given to terrorists is probably quite remote.

The situation in Libya is real. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was occurring. The situation was deteriorating and heading towards a likely genocide. The destabilizing impact of this would most certainly harm US interests, especially those of our Arab allies.

What's remarkable is how the Administration united Western and Middle Eastern interests under International Law. I'm not sure this has ever been done before and could set a very positive precedent.

Useless random quote snipped.

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...

Full Text...

(Boston Globe) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an 'Imminent' threat?)

(Candidate Obama) 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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. 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.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity.

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by 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.
-spence

Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.

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

GENBERAL COMMENT BY OBAMA: 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 goes on to give a SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION “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

Just another example of him saying one thing and doing another………..

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence