Obama’s hidden agenda for the Libyan war

[.Morticia.]

I know that.

[sandinista]

I know you do.

[.Morticia.]

love you comrade

[Santa_Claus]

Has America ever declared War on a country before attacking it?

[Seth]

I think he's got emergency powers and something like 60 days to either go to Congress or withdraw US troops. Something like that. I'd look it up, but I'm not going to.

Here's the wikipedia entry:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Note that the resolution requires that there be a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

There was no such justification for Obama's military adventurism, therefore he violated the Constitution by levying war without Congressional authorization.

[Seth]

I suppose we should also dig up Ronnie and ask him some questions about some stuff that happened a few countries to the south of here while he was in office.

Go right ahead, but impeach Obama first.

What a biased outlook. We've been having unapproved military action for decades and you and the rest of the far right are suddenly pissed about it because it is Obama.

Give me a fucking break.

Who's "suddenly pissed?" I object to ALL violations of the Constitution, no matter who commits them. As for Bush the Younger and Iraq, he asked for and received Congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq, and those who voted for it, including Hillary Clinton had access to the same information Bush did. So did Tony Blair and all the other national leaders who agreed that it was necessary.

One must remember that technically we were at war with Iraq as a result of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait a decade earlier. The cessation of hostilities (our participation in which were also congressionally approved) was a CEASE FIRE or truce, not a peace accord. That cease fire was dependent upon Saddam's promise to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, which he failed utterly to abide by. He played a shell-game with the inspectors for a dozen years and defied 14 UN resolutions, and shipped all his WMD's out of Iraq into Syria, where they presumably remain, in a series of truck convoys and airlifts purported to be "humanitarian aid" for an earthquake, but which, according to one of his top military officers who was in charge of the flights, was actually 747 loads of Sarin-filled artillery shells and other WMD's and production equipment.

So, the second invasion of Iraq was authorized both by the first Gulf War, which was never actually over, and by Bush's obtaining congressional approval. Whether in hindsight that approval was appropriate is also entirely beside the point. It's not an "illegal war" if Congress votes to authorize it. It may (and I reiterate may...because it's far from certain) be that the basis for the arguments used to persuade Congress were inaccurate, but they were, so far as any credible examination shows, the best available intelligence at the time, which was convincing enough for Congress to approve the war. Please note that according to our laws, Congress has PLENARY power to declare war. No justification AT ALL is required by the Constitution, and Congress could declare war on the UK tomorrow if it wanted to do so, and that decision would be entirely legal and constitutionally sound. Whether it would be morally justifiable is an entirely different question, but it would be a "legal" declaration of war nonetheless.

The violations of Article II, Section 8 are hardly limited to Obama, and many "conflicts" and "police actions" we've engaged in have been in direct violation of that provision. But that's beside the point. That was then, this is now. Obama committed an impeachable offense, and should be impeached for it.

[Seth]

Has America ever declared War on a country before attacking it?

Japan and Germany, circa 1941.

[sandinista]

Has America ever declared War on a country before attacking it?

Japan and Germany, circa 1941.

and not since.

[Seth]

Has America ever declared War on a country before attacking it?

Japan and Germany, circa 1941.

and not since.

Well, that depends on what the technical definition of "declare war" is. Does it mean Congress authorizing military action, or does it mean a formal notification to the enemy that war has been declared? That's more than a little unclear in the law. The Constitution only requires that Congress make such a declaration, it does not specify the form or process for doing so, nor does it require service of the declaration upon a representative of the other nation.

Therefore, while I'm unsure about the technical aspects of a number of other conflicts, the 2nd invasion of Iraq was explicitly authorized ("declared") by Congress.

What's important is that THIS invasion of a sovereign nation and the commission of warlike acts by the President was entirely UN-authorized by Congress, and therefore is in direct violation of the Constitution.

[beige]

Because his goal is not to liberate Libya, it’s to test the resolve of the the Congress and the People to see if we have abandoned our fundamental principles and the rule of law. What Obama is hoping is that the Congress has finally become impotent and irrelevant and will not dare to oppose him or repudiate his high crimes, and he believes that the time is right to advance his “fundamental transformation” of the United States into a vassal state of One World Government under the aegis of the United Nations and World Socialism.

And who says the President isn't also impotent and irrelevant?

[sandinista]

love you comrade

[MrJonno]

Strange that I always thought the only legal war was in self defence or authorised by the United Nations, no individual country gets to decide if a war is legal or not

[Hermit]

he believes that the time is right to advance his “fundamental transformation” of the United States into a vassal state of One World Government under the aegis of the United Nations and World Socialism.

Don't worry about Obama. The Thetans will most likely foil his evil plan. If not, the morphing reptiles among us certainly will.

[Seth]

Strange that I always thought the only legal war was in self defence or authorised by the United Nations, no individual country gets to decide if a war is legal or not

That's because you're a delusional dupe of George Soros and the New World Order.

[MrJonno]

That's because you're a delusional dupe of George Soros and the New World Order

Nah just not into the cult of individual or that any country is independent of the rest of the world