Is this equiv ant to GW's invasion Of Iraq?
President Obama Bombs Libya. Where Is The Outrage?
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
3rd Bush Term!MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...
Just two liberals?
source: Salon
Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"
Both say President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by giving green light to intervention in Libya
Outspoken critics on the left are raising hell over the Obama administration's authorization of military force in Libya, calling it "unconstitutional." Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader recently rattled off a list of U.S. military and intelligence directives -- apparently including action in Libya -- that he views as egregious violations of international law and grounds for impeachment:
Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich made a similar statement today. In particular, Kucinich castigated Obama for pursuing military intervention in Libya without congressional authorization:
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> function salonRegisterSTAction(sharelet) { var widget = new Widget('stats_email', 'stats_email', '/widget/service.html?widget=stats_email&url=/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment'); var manager = new WidgetManager(widget); manager.getData(salonSTCallback); return true; } function salonSTCallback() { }</SCRIPT>
source: Salon
Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"
Both say President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by giving green light to intervention in Libya
Outspoken critics on the left are raising hell over the Obama administration's authorization of military force in Libya, calling it "unconstitutional." Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader recently rattled off a list of U.S. military and intelligence directives -- apparently including action in Libya -- that he views as egregious violations of international law and grounds for impeachment:
Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.
<EMBED style="VISIBILITY: visible" height=360 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=440 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/axCLQQzMtsw?fs=1&hl=en_US allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich made a similar statement today. In particular, Kucinich castigated Obama for pursuing military intervention in Libya without congressional authorization:
President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said. It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action ... is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone.
Kucinich's and Nader's arguments against the constitutionality of Obama's authorization of force are based on an interpretation of the War Power Act. Passed by Congress in 1973 -- after a decade-long quagmire in Vietnam -- the legislation requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. military attack where national security is not at stake. President Obama submitted such a letter to House Speaker John Boehner today. Beyond that, the Act mandates that the commander in chief seek congressional approval after 60 days of military action.
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> function salonRegisterSTAction(sharelet) { var widget = new Widget('stats_email', 'stats_email', '/widget/service.html?widget=stats_email&url=/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment'); var manager = new WidgetManager(widget); manager.getData(salonSTCallback); return true; } function salonSTCallback() { }</SCRIPT>
Four years ago, the Junior Senator from Illinois had this to say about the use of military force:
source : Boston Globe
Barack Obama's Q&A
– +
<!-- end tools -->
<!-- End utility --><!-- End headTools --><!-- End articleHeader -->1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
2. 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?)
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.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
Disagree strongly.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.
Some further points:
The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University
Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)
Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.
<!--google_ad_section_end-->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--var singlepage = 'http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA?page=full';var reprintsURL = 'http://license.icopyright.net/3.7540?icx_id=';var pfURL = 'http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA?mode=PF';var cciID = '';var desk = '';--></SCRIPT>
source : Boston Globe
Barack Obama's Q&A
– +
<!-- end tools -->
<!-- End utility --><!-- End headTools --><!-- End articleHeader -->1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
2. 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?)
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.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
Disagree strongly.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.
Some further points:
The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University
Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)
Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.
<!--google_ad_section_end-->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--var singlepage = 'http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA?page=full';var reprintsURL = 'http://license.icopyright.net/3.7540?icx_id=';var pfURL = 'http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA?mode=PF';var cciID = '';var desk = '';--></SCRIPT>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TR254RmiD1w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Cruise, can you, post a link, for the ordered bombing strikes !?
I would like to see this link too!! Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, I do believe we've been there fighting Al-Qaeda for close to ten years. And the bombing of Somalia????, Yemen??? When did this happen???
Please give us a link to your allegations!
Seriously, everything is going haywire but Obama can't order bombings without cause, so...
Special ops now, that is possible...
Special ops now, that is possible...
Seriously, everything is going haywire but Obama can't order bombings without cause, so...
Special ops now, that is possible...
Anything can made justified (or made an excuse for).
Obama ordered US air strikes on Yemen
Obama set to escalate secret war in Yemen
Pentagon says it will bomb in Somalia to wipe out resistance
Drone attacks under Obama
(this is just a sample of the evil that is Obama)
Just admit it, Obama is a worthless piece of garbage who hates anyone who isn't white... like every United States President.
That is the leader you choose to follow... right over the cliff.
His crimes against humanity can now be your crimes against humanity.
Obama set to escalate secret war in Yemen
Pentagon says it will bomb in Somalia to wipe out resistance
Drone attacks under Obama
(this is just a sample of the evil that is Obama)
Just admit it, Obama is a worthless piece of garbage who hates anyone who isn't white... like every United States President.
That is the leader you choose to follow... right over the cliff.
His crimes against humanity can now be your crimes against humanity.
The boy mayor has not, and may never, grow up. Assuming the President is in error here, this is just NOT the way to go about it. Why not just get a private audience with the President to let him know your thoughts and displeasure? Its just counter-productive to have elements under the so-called "Big Tent" (a lot of different elements make up the Dummocrats majority, you know) going rogue. Going rogue or, better still, engaging in a pissin contest against your own, only results in pissy-wet pant legs and your opponents looking at you
knowing that you're all wet and, worse: you're now weaker because of it all. 
Each of you links reads as if it was written in the National Enquirer and is very pro Arab . These are country who harbors and support Al-Qaeda, who has already declare a "holy war" against the US and I do believe that Al-Qaeda has kill many African-Americans with their campaign of terror attacks against America!
Sources unreliable
This read like a Russian, China or even a Cuban Propaganda news similar to what they use in the middle east Dictator control countries nowadays.
Wow I thought I was a little on the left but this is very far left!!!
22 March 2011
Recent Days »
Other Languages »
US, Europe intensify Libya onslaught
By Tom Eley, 22 March 2011
The US, France and the UK stepped up their bombardment of Libya, including a missile strike on a Gaddafi residential compound.
Canada joins imperialist assault on Libya
By Keith Jones, 22 March 2011
Canada’s entire political establishment, including the trade union-sponsored New Democratic Party, has rallied round the Conservative government’s decision to order the Canadian Armed Forces to wage war on Libya, alongside US, French, and British forces.
Marxist??, Communist?? More Propaganda news from a failed Government system that constantly lied, mislead, and control how people lived, eat, sleep, and spoke!!!
I think you also failed to point that these attacks has been on going since 9-11 not since Obama took office!!!
The boy mayor has not, and may never, grow up. Assuming the President is in error here, this is just NOT the way to go about it. Why not just get a private audience with the President to let him know your thoughts and displeasure? Its just counter-productive to have elements under the so-called "Big Tent" (a lot of different elements make up the Dummocrats majority, you know) going rogue. Going rogue or, better still, engaging in a pissin contest against your own, only results in pissy-wet pant legs and your opponents looking at you
This, is what I have been trying to expose. How the so called 'center' (a term you self describe) of the political thought has shift to the right over the last 30 years or so. Why you would diminish this legitimate criticism as coming from "The boy mayor." You wish to keep the alleged, Democratic Parties "dirty laundry" away from public scrutiny, at the same time refuse to acknowledging that the Obama administration's view of the professional left (their public description) as meant to be a slur is, made public for the fodder of media.
Are you sure you understand of the term "Big Tent?
Still trying? If you haven't done it, maybe there's a fallacy in your major premise?
Hommie, I make no bones that I'm a centrist. You've never really asked me what that means, though I've noticed over time you've slung a view barbs, presumably in an attempt to get me to discuss it. I'll be real simple for you, I don't believe in the shit of either of the extremes, right or left. In fact, I think they're both bankrupt of ideas, reality and a few other things I could mention, but what the hell, you should get the picture.
So, unless you belong to one of those extremes, whats your beef ??? If there is a real point here, please get straight to it.
I don't think that I diminished anything. I said and I meant if the lil twerp had issues, at this particular point, he should have gone inside first to register his complaints/concerns. I never said that he should never have complained or that his complaints were or were not legitimate. Parse. Dammit. Parse.
From my ole Navy days: Now here this! - Fuck the democratic party and the donkey the sombitches rode-in on! I don't give a shit about a political party. Not got damn one!
I'm note sure I quite understand this sentence; but I'll give it a try.
I wouldn't ever presume to know what is "meant" insofar as whats going on in the mind of another. We all may have our hunches, but knowing is something different. Nevertheless, I'm not familiar with the President's use of the term "Professional Left", hence, I have no opinion on what he means or has meant by using the term.
Please enlighten me; what does "Professional Left" mean ??? AND, while you're at it, please tell me how he has used that term as a "slur" -- and -- how was it put on there for public consumption as fodder for the media. I'm not denying it, I just don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe not. To me it means the diversity of groups, opinions, people, etc., all under the rubric of the party. Is that different from your use of the term ???
QueEx
Why didn't you get into the real meat of what I said above:
"Assuming the President is in error here, this is just NOT the way to go about it. Why not just get a private audience with the President to let him know your thoughts and displeasure? Its just counter-productive to have elements under the so-called "Big Tent" (a lot of different elements make up the Dummocrats majority, you know) going rogue. Going rogue or, better still, engaging in a pissin contest against your own, only results in pissy-wet pant legs and your opponents looking at you
? ? ?
QueEx
Isn't it incumbent for the President to first consult with the Congress before an armed commitmentat a specified time? Isn't this what candidate Obama said during the campaign? Oh, that was just political rhetoric!
BTW, According to CBS news, Obama has informed congress within 48 hours as per the War Powers Act.
You simply changed the issue; and ignored what I said. Why didn't the twerp seek a private meeting before throwing acid in public ? ? ? Was it because Dennis the Menace is more interested in pushing self ??? I'll bet gold that sombitch has some kind of fundraiser going on.
QueEx
QueEx
You make a lot of assumptions. How do you know he didn't? He's safe. he doesn't have to rely on campaign rhetoric to raise campaign funds.
\
Well, since you've stooped to 2nd grade:
How the fuck do you know that he did ???
You're showing feelings here.
QueEx
In defense of Cruise
It's been widely known and reported that we've been using drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as a way to strike without using ground troops.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/18/world/main5997532.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33007460/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125206000
Now the stuff about the "evils of Obama" and how he hates Brown people... not worth a reply.
As for the idea that this is "Bush's 3rd term" or this resembles our invasion of Iraq...
C'mon son.
Normally I have a more intelligent argument but I'm a little tired from beating this rock on the main board.
It's been widely known and reported that we've been using drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as a way to strike without using ground troops.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/18/world/main5997532.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33007460/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125206000
Now the stuff about the "evils of Obama" and how he hates Brown people... not worth a reply.
As for the idea that this is "Bush's 3rd term" or this resembles our invasion of Iraq...
C'mon son.
Normally I have a more intelligent argument but I'm a little tired from beating this rock on the main board.
Gotcha, when you said Obama has now, it sounded as if, it were present tense...
Is technological weaponry being exploited!?
Drones are effective, considering the loss of American life, once embedded; IEDs. The countries you name, use human shields as modern warfare, then blame the U.S. for casualties, surrender to the super power...
As far as a leader, Obama is the President of the country, the Commander in Chief, who do you suggest Americans follow...?
African Union Demands 'Immediate' Halt To Libya Attacks
NOUAKCHOTT (AFP) – The African Union's panel on Libya Sunday called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks after the United States, France and Britain launched military action against Moamer Kadhafi's forces.
After a more than four-hour meeting in the Mauritanian capital, the body also asked Libyan authorities to ensure "humanitarian aid to those in need," as well as the "protection of foreigners, including African expatriates living in Libya."
It underscored the need for "necessary political reforms to eliminate the causes of the present crisis" but at the same time called for "restraint" from the international community to avoid "serious humanitarian consequences."
NOUAKCHOTT (AFP) – The African Union's panel on Libya Sunday called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks after the United States, France and Britain launched military action against Moamer Kadhafi's forces.
After a more than four-hour meeting in the Mauritanian capital, the body also asked Libyan authorities to ensure "humanitarian aid to those in need," as well as the "protection of foreigners, including African expatriates living in Libya."
It underscored the need for "necessary political reforms to eliminate the causes of the present crisis" but at the same time called for "restraint" from the international community to avoid "serious humanitarian consequences."
Rwandan President Kagame
endorses Libya bombings
March 23, 2011
Rwandan President Paul Kagame on Monday (March 21) endorsed the ongoing UN-authorised bombing raids on Libya, arguing the situation in the North African country had degenerated "beyond" what African Union could handle.
In a brief interview with our reporter in London, shortly after he delivered a keynote address at The Times CEO Summit Africa, Mr Kagame said Rwanda supports the no-fly zone that the UN Security Council imposed on Libya last week.
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"Rwanda's position is Africa Union's position. Africa Union position was that there was need to understand what was going on in Libya and based on that, then action taken be supported," he said. "But what was happening on the ground was beyond what was Africa's position."</span>
President Kagame added: <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"That is how the UN Security Council, including African countries that sit on it</span>, decided." Ten of the 15 members of the Security Council, including South Africa, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">voted in favour of the resolution</span> co-sponsored by the UK, France and Qatar while five nations, among them veto-power wielding China and Russia, abstained. The Arab League to which Libya belongs made the first calls for a no-fly zone after it emerged Col. Muammar Gaddafi's forces were bombing civilians indiscriminately.
FULL ARTICLE
I know this is no laughing matter (considering what's going on in Libya and the ramifications it could have), but I can't help but relish the smug satisfaction of "I told you so" when dealing with people I know (mainly the "liberal" and "progressive" neighbors) who acted like Obama was the "Second Coming". It is only now, that they bother to try and think a bit outside of the "left/right" box (now if they could only shut up about my guns).
I'd say so. Both have ulterior motives and neither benefit the US in any way. Just like Iraq, if you follow the money and "motive" trail, it will eventually take you to Tel Aviv (where one of the main beneficiaries of both wars are located). A cursory glance of Israel's behavior (and the supremacist ideology of Zionism) since its declaration as a state in 1948 tells you who's really behind the conflict in that part of the world.
what about the muthafuckas who said President Obama was weak and and wouldnt be tough when it came dealing with these boogeyman terrorist...
its funny how those naysayers vanished....... and are riding a different bandwagon now..
too bad yall playing checkers.... Obama isnt..... do I agree with bombing hell no because too many innocents suffer, but do I understand capitalism and the addictive need it has for war... hell yeah..
I am not childlike in thought to actually think Obama is pulling the war strings here.. I am just not that childlike in thought.
if you dont know by know the world is ran by banksters then you will forever be playing checkers, for many here are still playing tic fuckin tac fuckin toe....
Obama has wife and children, he aint trying to go out like JFK....
he is doing the best he can with what the fuck he got..
I could could care less about the naysayers who doubted Obama's willingness to do whatever his handlers tell him. They're idiots just like his slavish fanboys. Two sides of the same shit encrusted coin. His actions in Libya are NO surprise to me. His actions are only a surprise to his fanboys (dupes) and possibly the Republicans (also dupes). Call me cynical and jaded.
You say the world is run by "Banksters"? Gee, YA THINK? Tell me something else I've probably said a gazillion times and have known for nearly 2 decades. How can Obama "play chess" when he's one of the pieces just like Dubya before him? The "Banksters" (like the Zionist Rothschilds. The modern state of Israel as we know it, wouldn't exist without them.) are the ones playing chess. I'd like to say the Democrats, Republicans and their supporters are the ones playing checkers, but they're too stupid to understand the rules anyway. They're too fixated on the carrot being dangled for them. As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Those dupes fall for the same Okey Doke ever 4 years.
"He's doing the best he can?". The dude is doing what he's been put in office to do. He was groomed for that office, so he already knew what was up. His roots are in Chicago politics which is synonymous with "dirty".
Personally, you couldn't pay me enough money in the world to hold any high political office. There's more integrity and higher moral ground involved with being a mob boss, drug kingpin or prison gang shot caller.
Similar threads
