Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Please Kill Gaddafi and end this..


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
59 replies to this topic

#46 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,101
  • Reputation: 1,519
HUDDLER

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:41 PM

Yeah, yeah, I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

I guess since the French helped us 200 years ago then every time their is an upheaval against a gov't us American's are obligated to intervene. Or that makes us hypocritical or something.


Since we don't actually intervene everytime there is an upheaval, I am not sure what your point is. In fact, I doubt we intervene in a very small percentage of the "upheavals" throughout the world. We do pick and choose where we involve ourselves. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong, but more often than not, they get it right.

#47 GritsRgreat

GritsRgreat

    Banned

  • Joined: 19-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,101
  • Reputation: 2
Banned

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:01 PM

Since we don't actually intervene everytime there is an upheaval, I am not sure what your point is. In fact, I doubt we intervene in a very small percentage of the "upheavals" throughout the world. We do pick and choose where we involve ourselves. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong, but more often than not, they get it right.


We intervene when its good for us. The French intervened because it was good for them, a weakened British empire.

#48 theedaddy

theedaddy

    living in the present

  • Joined: 16-February 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,210
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:04 PM

hes on a list.

#49 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 29-September 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,100
  • Reputation: 15
HUDDLER

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:40 AM

Since we don't actually intervene everytime there is an upheaval, I am not sure what your point is. In fact, I doubt we intervene in a very small percentage of the "upheavals" throughout the world. We do pick and choose where we involve ourselves. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong, but more often than not, they get it right.


Please, please, please, please tell me what our "leaders" have gotten right concerning wars in the last 40 years.

#50 Carolina Mike II

Carolina Mike II

    Was Just Carolina Mike!

  • Joined: 05-January 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 784
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:59 AM

We can't END this to quickly!! The longer this takes a select few can make more money! We all know gas prices HAVE to be at $5.00 (or higher) this summer. Because the big three NEWS channels said so!!! They don't report the news they make NEWS happen now!!!!!!! F-Them so called NEWS channels!!!

#51 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • Joined: 20-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,051
  • Reputation: 1,484
HUDDLER

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:44 AM

Since we don't actually intervene everytime there is an upheaval, I am not sure what your point is. In fact, I doubt we intervene in a very small percentage of the "upheavals" throughout the world. We do pick and choose where we involve ourselves. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong, but more often than not, they get it right.


I didn't say we intervened every time. I'm saying if you use the French helping America as a reason for why we should intervene then we'd be in the "right" to intervene every time.

Point is the fact that the French intervened with us 200 years ago should play little to no role in how we make decisions in 2011. It should not justify our actions in 2011.

Edited by Cat, 22 March 2011 - 06:56 AM.


#52 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:39 AM

How is military action in Libya even constitutional? Because it's UN backed we don't have to have a congressional vote?


3 reasons

1) Obama only has to alert congress within 48 hours, which he did with a formal letter. He then has 2 months before he would technically need approval.

2) #1 doesn't matter because many different parties have interpreted the law and constitution to give the president the authority to use military force to protect "american interests."

as then-Attorney General Robert Jackson explained more than sixty years ago, the President’s authority as Commander in Chief “has long been recognized as extending to the dispatch of armed forces outside of the United States . . . for the purpose of protecting . . . American interests.


3) simple precedent. From wiki:

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.


Nobody wanted to impeach Clinton when he attacked former Yugoslavia. (or did they?)

I'm amazed that some congressmen are suggesting that this is an impeachable offense when this is completely false.

#53 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,101
  • Reputation: 1,519
HUDDLER

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:20 PM

I didn't say we intervened every time. I'm saying if you use the French helping America as a reason for why we should intervene then we'd be in the "right" to intervene every time.

Point is the fact that the French intervened with us 200 years ago should play little to no role in how we make decisions in 2011. It should not justify our actions in 2011.


I never implied that it should. I just pointed out that we owe our existence to a nation that decided to intervene in the affairs of another, albeit for their own gain. Each time we use our military, the decision should be made based primarily on the circumstances of each individual situation. The past is valuable from a lessons learned standpoint. Saying we should never get involved is just as ridiculous as saying we should get involved in every situation. We are a citizen of the world, and we cannot completely isolate ourselves from world events. We do have to pick and choose were we get involved though.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 22 March 2011 - 04:34 PM.


#54 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,101
  • Reputation: 1,519
HUDDLER

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:30 PM

Please, please, please, please tell me what our "leaders" have gotten right concerning wars in the last 40 years.


Do you mean actual wars, or events in which the US military was utilized? Those are not necessarily the same thing. And in many cases the decision to use the military was correct, even if the use wasn't handled well. And why stop at 40 years?

We really have only fought three wars in the last 40 years. Two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Got the first Iraq war right, got the second one wrong, although it might work out ok in the long run. Afghanistan, we had no choice to go in. Hard to see how it will work out in the long run, but the decision to go in was definitely the right one.

As far as using the US military when not involved in a war, there are several successful or correct decisions. Grenada and the Reagan attacks on Libya come to mind. Bush sr going into Somalia to protect UN workers from attacks was the right move, even if it eventually went south. Recently the US Navy anti pirate patrols off of Somalia, and using the US Navy to escort tankers in the 80's as they moved thru the straits of Hormuz. And I am sure I am forgetting some smaller scale successful operations.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 22 March 2011 - 08:00 PM.


#55 GritsRgreat

GritsRgreat

    Banned

  • Joined: 19-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,101
  • Reputation: 2
Banned

Posted 22 March 2011 - 07:40 PM

^^^ Panama

#56 SgtJoo

SgtJoo

    Reppin that Bull City

  • Joined: 11-January 09
  • posts: 4,203
  • Reputation: 1,965
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:17 PM

Not sure which Libya thread to drop this bomb in (herp derp war jokes) but I'll leave it here.

http://calgary.ctv.c...hub=CalgaryHome

PS: Go Canada.

#57 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,101
  • Reputation: 1,519
HUDDLER

Posted 23 March 2011 - 07:11 AM

Not sure which Libya thread to drop this bomb in (herp derp war jokes) but I'll leave it here.

http://calgary.ctv.c...hub=CalgaryHome

PS: Go Canada.


Earlier Tuesday, MacKay acknowledged the parameters of the mission in Libya -- and Canada's role in it -- are flexible and could change as the situation develops


Which means that they could go after Libyan ground forces if the situation calls for it.

#58 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • Joined: 20-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,051
  • Reputation: 1,484
HUDDLER

Posted 23 March 2011 - 07:13 AM

I never implied that it should. I just pointed out that we owe our existence to a nation that decided to intervene in the affairs of another, albeit for their own gain. Each time we use our military, the decision should be made based primarily on the circumstances of each individual situation. The past is valuable from a lessons learned standpoint. Saying we should never get involved is just as ridiculous as saying we should get involved in every situation. We are a citizen of the world, and we cannot completely isolate ourselves from world events. We do have to pick and choose were we get involved though.


I didn't say we should never get involved. Just that your reasoning is flawed.

#59 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,101
  • Reputation: 1,519
HUDDLER

Posted 23 March 2011 - 08:19 AM

I didn't say we should never get involved. Just that your reasoning is flawed.


Where is the flaw?

And under what circumstances should we get involved?

#60 SgtJoo

SgtJoo

    Reppin that Bull City

  • Joined: 11-January 09
  • posts: 4,203
  • Reputation: 1,965
SUPPORTER

Posted 23 March 2011 - 01:49 PM

Mohamed, a spokesman for the rebels in Misrata, said: "Misrata was in a desperate state... we almost lost all hope, but the strikes came at a good time with good intensity and frequency.

"They even managed to take out some convoys inside the city which was very impressive.

"The strikes made such a difference - Gaddafi's forces are scared of them. I want to express our gratitude and appreciation for these actions - we will never, ever forget."


From the BBC

Also this is relevant to the whole raging angriness towards Obama/foreign policy/Libya.

Critics from both the left and the right have called U.S. policy on Libya inconsistent and hypocritical, albeit for different reasons. Such criticisms are also popular abroad (just google Libya and "inconsistent" or "hypocritical" to get a sense). These critiques are obviously correct but they do not necessarily invalidate the policy. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that every reasonable humanitarian intervention policy (and most other human rights policy) is inconsistent...

... The broader point is important though: we must come to terms with a modicum of inconsistency while not losing sight that there are more general principles at stake. Striking the right balance is extremely difficult but criticizing a humanitarian intervention policy simply because it is inconsistent is a truism and thus not very helpful.

-The Monkey Cage


And this is good reading:

http://www.lawyersgu...-but-irrelevant

Edited by SgtJ00, 23 March 2011 - 03:01 PM.