Is Syria next of Obama's hit list?

[Wild Cobra]

Executive Order--Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/18/executive-order-blocking-property-senior-officials-government-syria)

[ElNono]

About time... I believe Syria has been on the US hit list for a while, if you consider some cowboy threatened to act against any nation fomenting terror.

[Agloco]

Aren't they killing folks much like in Libya? Might as well set Bahrain straight too, as long as we're in the neighborhood.

[Wild Cobra]

Aren't they killing folks much like in Libya? Might as well set Bahrain straight too, as long as we're in the neighborhood.
I used a similar point in a different thread. If we are using Libya as the standard, how many more nations are on the wrong side of that line we drew?

I have never been so worried about WWIII in my life.

[ElNono]

We drew the line invading Iraq. Don't recall you being worried back then.

[Wild Cobra]

We drew the line invading Iraq. Don't recall you being worried back then.
That was a completely different line.

Sorry you fail to see the difference.

[ElNono]

That was a completely different line.

Care to explain?

[Wild Cobra]

Care to explain?
I've explained it before. No sense in doing it again if you don't understand the first time.

I suggest you review the past threads.

[ChumpDumper]

I've explained it before. No sense in doing it again if you don't understand the first time.

I suggest you review the past threads.Which one?

[Wild Cobra]

Which one?
I don't know. You're the search engine expert. How about helping out ElNono.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know. You're the search engine expert. How about helping out ElNono.How about just restating your case?

It can't be more than a few sentences.

[ChumpDumper]

Besides, we all know that any post using a quote of yours from another post is a falsehood, Newt.

[boutons_deux]

900 dead, when does it become mass enough to be mass murder?

[Wild Cobra]

How about just restating your case?

It can't be more than a few sentences.
I could, but what's the point? If the history from when Iraq invaded Kuwait, forward, is not understood, then why waste my time recapping it?

[ChumpDumper]

I could, but what's the point? If the history from when Iraq invaded Kuwait, forward, is not understood, then why waste my time recapping it?Let us understand what you consider to be the difference.

You're coming off as being afraid to engage here.

[Wild Cobra]

Let us understand what you consider to be the difference.

You're coming off as being afraid to engage here.
Why?

You dismissed it when I mentioned it before, why should I expect any better from you this time?

If you want to know, look it up.

[ChumpDumper]

Why?

You dismissed it when I mentioned it before, why should I expect any better from you this time?

If you want to know, look it up.OK, we'll just conclude that there is no difference and you are full of shit since you aren't going to bother to post a few sentences.

[clambake]

I have never been so worried about WWIII in my life.

why? you said you were at peace with death in that other thread that exposed your continual mooching off 'mericans.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, we'll just conclude that there is no difference and you are full of shit since you aren't going to bother to post a few sentences.
You know.

If ElNono asked me again to do the same, I probably would. However, I sometimes enjoy pissing of pissants like you. The extents you will go, over and over and over...

You're like a tick, that has to be burned off.

You must live a pathetic life.

[ChumpDumper]

You know.

If ElNono asked me again to do the same, I probably would. However, I sometimes enjoy pissing of pissants like you. The extents you will go, over and over and over...

You're like a tick, that has to be burned off.

You must live a pathetic life.Nah, things are pretty good for me.

I don't mind that you're afraid to tell us what you think the difference is. Seems like any such argument could be easily destroyed.

[RandomGuy]

Syria has been on the "iffy" list for a while, for various reasons.

I don't see the US doing jack shit outside of sactions there for several reasons.

I can expand on both those statements if you want.

[RandomGuy]

Aren't they killing folks much like in Libya? Might as well set Bahrain straight too, as long as we're in the neighborhood.

They are, indeed. Shit man, the Middle East was complicated enough before this.

Now... trying to keep up with this stuff is next to impossible.

I think the US has been stretched to its military limits. Until we get our asses out of Iraq, I don't see us taking anything else on.

[Wild Cobra]

why? you said you were at peace with death in that other thread that exposed your continual mooching off 'mericans.
My death. Not the death of others around me like my daughters.

I've lived a good life so far, and my soul is content .

[RandomGuy]

Why?

You dismissed it when I mentioned it before, why should I expect any better from you this time?

If you want to know, look it up.

I'm not buying it either. Either you are being lazy or evasive. My bet is the former.

It doesn't piss me off, it is just another turd in the pile of sloppy reasoning on your part. Your business as to how high that pile is.

Feel free to flesh out your position with, you know, an actual position at anytime. :lol

[clambake]

My death. Not the death of others around me like my daughters.

I've lived a good life so far, and my soul is content .

you'll be mooching off you daughters soon enough......or do they refuse to buy health insurance, too?

[RandomGuy]

That was a completely different line.

Sorry you fail to see the difference.

Invading a country with oil, versus protecting unarmed civilians.

The difference boiled down to protecting vital US interests.

I would argue that, in the long run, our values *are* our interests. Something, I think Obama seems to get.

Going after Ghadaffi has done some good for us on the Arab street, from what I have seen.

I don't think going after Al Assad militarily will help us though. Our hands are tied there.

[RandomGuy]

you'll be mooching off you daughters soon enough......or do they refuse to buy health insurance, too?

No need to be all that personal. Let the man have his say.

[clambake]

No need to be all that personal. Let the man have his say.

i did. then i had mine.

[Drachen]

To be fair, they may be different lines depending on which line you choose from the iraq invasion. If you chose the "pre-emptive strike due to WMD" line then yes it is different. However, if you chose the "liberating the people from a murderous dictator" line, then it is the same line. (you could also chose the following line "this country was heavily involved in planning 911", among others)

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not buying it either. Either you are being lazy or evasive. My bet is the former.

It doesn't piss me off, it is just another turd in the pile of sloppy reasoning on your part. Your business as to how high that pile is.

Feel free to flesh out your position with, you know, an actual position at anytime. :lol
Do you not recall the reasons why I supported the war in Iraq? Only one of several items are similar.

[ChumpDumper]

Just tell us what you think the difference is.

[Wild Cobra]

Just tell us what you think the difference is.
No.

It's too fun to watch your idiocy.

[clambake]

what happened to your "capabilities" lol

[ChumpDumper]

No.

It's too fun to watch your idiocy.Trust me, it's more fun watching your cowardice.

[Wild Cobra]

Trust me, it's more fun watching your cowardice.
If that's what you think, I don't care. I just don't feel like feeding the trolls today.

[clambake]

If that's what you think, I don't care. I just don't feel like feeding the trolls today.

you must be sick. can't wait to pay for that.

[ChumpDumper]

If that's what you think, I don't care. I just don't feel like feeding the trolls today.Eh, you're afraid. No shame in that.

Well, actually there is shame in that, but whatever. We're comfortable in the knowledge that you didn't really think this one through and couldn't give us a difference anyway.

[RandomGuy]

Do you not recall the reasons why I supported the war in Iraq? Only one of several items are similar.

While I am flattered by your faith in my memory, I must confess to not recalling.

Sorry. I am fairly sure that my participation in this board was well after the initial invasion. I discussed the run-up in other places, but did little here but bitch about the handling of the post invasion occupation.

If you are going to give up on your own thread, at least let us know in the OP. :p:

[RandomGuy]

Eh, you're afraid. No shame in that.

Well, actually there is shame in that, but whatever. We're comfortable in the knowledge that you didn't really think this one through and couldn't give us a difference anyway.

As I said, another turd in a sadly large pile.

[Wild Cobra]

While I am flattered by your faith in my memory, I must confess to not recalling.

Sorry. I am fairly sure that my participation in this board was well after the initial invasion. I discussed the run-up in other places, but did little here but bitch about the handling of the post invasion occupation.

If you are going to give up on your own thread, at least let us know in the OP. :p:
I already gave hints. Here's more. Look at the similarities and differences during the last 25 years.

How many nations have Libya and Iraq invaded?

How many times have they used chemical weapons (WMD) on their own people?

How many UN resolutions have either violated?

How certain was the worlds best intelligence agencies of either having WMD, right or wrong?

Who did our president of the time have congressional approval to fight against?

When we debated the Iraq war in the past, I mentioned the UN resolutions, the killing of his own people, the fear of WMD, and other factors. Most of which have no similarity to the situation with Libya.

Besides the leader of a sovereign nation, recognized by the world as a sovereign nation, being brutal to some of his own people, how does it compare to Saddam and Iraq?

[RandomGuy]

I already gave hints. Here's more. Look at the similarities and differences during the last 25 years.

How many nations have Libya and Iraq invaded?

How many times have they used chemical weapons (WMD) on their own people?

How many UN resolutions have either violated?

How certain was the worlds best intelligence agencies of either having WMD, right or wrong?

Who did our president of the time have congressional approval to fight against?

When we debated the Iraq war in the past, I mentioned the UN resolutions, the killing of his own people, the fear of WMD, and other factors. Most of which have no similarity to the situation with Libya.

Besides the leader of a sovereign nation, recognized by the world as a sovereign nation, being brutal to some of his own people, how does it compare to Saddam and Iraq?

Thank you.

Unfortunately, between the allergies and the anti-histimine, it is time to hit the hay. :sleep

This is a conversation worth having, so I will get back to it in the next day or two.

Between this and Syria, as mentioned in the OP, we should figure out something about the use of force.

[Wild Cobra]

There is no comparison between Libya and most other nations with bad dictators. Libya has the highest HDI (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table1_reprint.pdf) of all African nations and rates #53 world wide. Mexico rates #56, Brazil #73, China #89. ElNono's home of Argentina rates a little better at #46. I wonder how Libya's ratings will be after the ratings are compiled next time.

Saudi Arabia #55, Egypt #101, Iran #70, and Syria is #111.

#53 of 169 rated nations isn't shabby. He may be a bad dictator, but the people weren't as bad off as many other places. I find it unconscionable that our nation had a hand in this. Obama has brought shame upon us.

We have made possible a civil war. A war that would have never gone this far if we didn't take out the forces to keep the nation at peace. Obama and the UN potentially has the blood of 100's of thousands on his hands.

[ElNono]

It's not surprising you're trying to change subjects and that your memory is 'fuzzy'.The US didn't invade Iraq during Desert Storm when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That was a different campaign by Bush SR and ended in a no fly zone and UN sanctions.

The US/UK (and two other token countries) unilaterally invaded Iraq during Bush JR's administration after failing to obtain a vote to do so through the UN security council (who can forget Powell's dog and pony show) under the guise that Saddam had WMD. Once the WMD were not found, the new argument was that the US were greeted as liberators, that they wanted to install democracy there and get rid of the evil dictator that was killing his own people.

Which really is no different than all this shit. Iraq was a sovereign country at that point, and ultimately the invasion was directly attributed to remove Saddam from power.

[ElNono]

He may be a bad dictator, but the people weren't as bad off as many other places.

I gather you never lived in a dictatorship?

[ElNono]

There's no such thing as 'benevolent' dictators that kill less of their own people than other dictators...

[Wild Cobra]

There's no such thing as 'benevolent' dictators that kill less of their own people than other dictators...
So how many dictatorships are we going to take out? Afterall, there are so many worse dictators than Qaddafi.

Remember what I said about the line we drew?

[Wild Cobra]

There's no such thing as 'benevolent' dictators that kill less of their own people than other dictators...
So you are supporting us making possible, a long civil war, killing countless people?

[ElNono]

So how many dictatorships are we going to take out? Afterall, there are so many worse dictators than Qaddafi.

Your 'ranking' of dictators reeks of ignorance. But I'm not surprised you think authoritarians can have a benevolent side, especially those that kill their own people.

I'm not necessarily in support of invading sovereign nations or being the world police, but you need to stop trying to make believe this hasn't been standard foreign policy, and that somehow a new line has been drawn.

Another example would be the invasion of Panama and the removal of Noriega. That's another one just off the top of my head. I'm sure you can go back further and find more cases.

[ElNono]

So you are supporting us making possible, a long civil war, killing countless people?

What does that has to do with your 'dictator rankings'? Don't move the goalposts.

Did you have any problems with the US 'making possible, a long civil war, killing countless people' in Iraq?

[ElNono]

Where was the line when Operation Nifty Package (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nifty_Package) happened?

[Wild Cobra]

Where was the line when Operation Nifty Package (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nifty_Package) happened?
That was a small operation, and close to home. We also had direct interests there, like the Panama Canal.

[clambake]

why did you edit that shit, wc?

did you see the hammer comin down?

[Winehole23]

Did you have any problems with the US 'making possible, a long civil war, killing countless people' in Iraq?Or in Libya, for that matter?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you guys should note how different Panama was to Libya:

September 1987

Senate passes resolution urging Panama to reestablish a civilian government. Panama protests alleged U.S. violations of the Canal Treaty.

November 1987

Senate resolution cuts military and economic aid to Panama. Panamanians adopt resolution restricting U.S. military presence.

February 1988

Noriega indicted on drug-related charges. U.S. forces begin planning contingency operations in Panama (OPLAN BLUE SPOON).

March 1988

14 March: First of four deployments of U.S. forces begins providing additional security to U.S. installations.
16 March: PDF officers attempt a coup against Noriega.

April 1988

5 April: Additional U.S. forces deployed to provide security.
9 April: Joint Task Force Panama activated.

May 1989

7 May: Civilian elections are held; opposition alliance tally shows their candidate, Guillermo Endara, beating Noriega's candidate, Carlos Duque, by a 3 to 1 margin. The election is declared invalid two days later by Noriega.
11 May: President Bush orders 1,900 additional combat troops to Panama (Operation Nimrod Dancer).[55]
22 May: Convoys conducted to assert U.S. freedom of movement. Additional transport units travelled from bases in the territorial US to bases in Panama, and back, for this express purpose.

Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep 89

U.S. begins conducting joint training/freedom of movement exercises (Operation Sand Flea[55] and Operation Purple Storm[55]). Additional transport units continued from this date to travel repeatedly from bases in the territorial US to bases in Panama, and back, for this express purpose.

Oct 89

3 Oct: PDF, loyal to Noriega, defeat second coup attempt.

Dec 89

15 Dec: Noriega refers to himself as leader of Panama and declares a state of war with the U.S.
16 Dec: Marine lieutenant shot and killed by PDF. Navy lieutenant and wife detained and assaulted by PDF.
17 Dec: NCA directs execution of Operation JUST CAUSE.
18 Dec: Army lieutenant shoots PDF sergeant. Joint Task Force South (JTFSO) advance party deploys. JCS designates D-Day/H-Hour as 200100R Dec 89.
19 Dec: U.S. forces alerted, marshaled and launched.

D-Day 20 Dec 89

The United States Invasion of Panama begins. The operation was conducted as a campaign with limited military objectives. JTFSO objectives in PLAN 90-2 were to: Protect U.S. lives and key sites and facilities, capture and deliver Noriega to competent authority, neutralize PDF forces, neutralize PDF command and control, support establishment of a U.S.-recognized government in Panama, and restructure the PDF. Major operations detailed elsewhere continued to the 24 December
JCS directs execution of OPERATION PROMOTE LIBERTY

D-Day + 14, 3 Jan 90

Noriega surrenders to U.S. forces.

D-Day + 23, 12 Jan 90

Operation JUST CAUSE ends.[37]

D-Day + 4.5 years approx, September 1994

Operation PROMOTE LIBERTY ends.[37]


link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause)

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't see a congressional authorization in that timeline.

Thanks again. You make this easy.

[ElNono]

That was a small operation, and close to home. We also had direct interests there, like the Panama Canal.

People died. Small operation or not. And the line was drawn. Invaded a sovereign country to remove bad dictator.
BTW, what interests did we had in Iraq?

[ElNono]

Maybe you guys should note how different Panama was to Libya:

What was different?

The mission was to remove a dictator in power by invading a sovereign country. The mission was accomplished.

[TE]

Just when it seems WildCobra can't be any dumber...

[Wild Cobra]

Did anything like this happen over Libya:


90. [101st] S.AMDT.386 to S.1160 To express the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government should recognize Guillermo Endara as the legitimately elected President of the Republic of Panama.
Sponsor: Sen D'Amato, Alfonse [NY] (introduced 7/20/1989) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 7/20/1989 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SP 386 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

91. [101st] S.AMDT.935 to S.1711 To provide authority for the President to use the armed forces of the United States to secure the removal of General Manuel Antonio Noriega from his illegal control of the Republic of Panama.
Sponsor: Sen Helms, Jesse [NC] (introduced 10/3/1989) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 10/5/1989 Motion to table SP 935 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 74-25. Record Vote No: 228.

92. [101st] S.AMDT.954 to S.1711 To express the sense of the Congress regarding efforts to restore constitutional government to Panama.
Sponsor: Sen Nunn, Sam [GA] (introduced 10/5/1989) Cosponsors (11)
Latest Major Action: 10/5/1989 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 99-1. Record Vote No: 229.

[ElNono]

Congress refused to to give its authorization to President Bill Clinton in three separate instances — the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Haiti in 1994, the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Bosnia in 1996, and U.S. involvement in the NATO air war against the Yugoslav regime in 1999 — but he acted nonetheless.

In 1986 when President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen in which one U.S. sergeant was killed, he conferred with congressional leaders but did not seek a vote to authorize his action.

Again, read up a bit then come back and accept this isn't particularly new (even if you don't agree with it).

[ElNono]

When Rep. Tom Campbell and 30 other members of Congress filed a lawsuit against Clinton in 1999 for waging launching unauthorized military attacks against the Yugoslav government, a federal appeals court ruled the members had no standing to sue.

Members of Congress, the court wrote, don’t need to resort to suing the president because they “enjoy ample legislative power to have stopped prosecution of the ‘war’ ... Congress always retains appropriations authority and could have cut off funds for the American role in the conflict."

So too, in theory, disgruntled members of Congress could now vote to deny funding for the Libya operation.

[Wild Cobra]

Congress refused to to give its authorization to President Bill Clinton in three separate instances — the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Haiti in 1994, the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Bosnia in 1996, and U.S. involvement in the NATO air war against the Yugoslav regime in 1999 — but he acted nonetheless.

In 1986 when President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen in which one U.S. sergeant was killed, he conferred with congressional leaders but did not seek a vote to authorize his action.

Again, read up a bit then come back and accept this isn't particularly new (even if you don't agree with it).
So...

Multiple wrongs make a right.

You do that very often.

Where is the congressional authority for our actions in Libya?

[ElNono]

So...

Multiple wrongs make a right.

You do that very often.

No. Multiple wrongs make a wrong. I don't necessarily approve of the president using unilateral decisions without consulting Congress to start military operations. Even if I think the operation is warranted.

The disconnect here is you claiming Obama is 'drawing a new line'. This line has been crossed multiple times before, by both parties. The line is old and dusty at this point.

You being wrong is something that happens very often.

[Wild Cobra]

No. Multiple wrongs make a wrong. I don't necessarily approve of the president using unilateral decisions without consulting Congress to start military operations. Even if I think the operation is warranted.

The disconnect here is you claiming Obama is 'drawing a new line'. This line has been crossed multiple times before, by both parties. The line is old and dusty at this point.

You being wrong is something that happens very often.
Thing is, you are trying to change the topic anyway by bringing up these other examples.

Why should we participate in this attack against Libya, then refuse to attack leaders who are worse.

What has Libya done to us? What threat are they to us?

Those examples of the past you gave all had valid reasons of USA interest. This doesn't.

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono...

Can you tell me who said this:

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.

[ChumpDumper]

So...

Multiple wrongs make a right.

You do that very often.

Where is the congressional authority for our actions in Libya?Where is the congressional condemnation for our actions in Lybia?

[ElNono]

Thing is, you are trying to change the topic anyway by bringing up these other examples.

No, I'm actually trying to stay on topic: There's no new line drawn here.


Why should we participate in this attack against Iraq, then refuse to attack leaders who are worse.

What has Iraq done to us? What threat are they to us?

See, it works just the same.

The added bonus in the Lybia mission is that there's an actual UN resolution authorizing military force by the Security Council members.


Those examples of the past you gave all had valid reasons of USA interest. This doesn't.

What interest the US had in Kosovo? Haiti? Iraq? Even Panama, seeing that they didn't start any hostilities against the US.


ElNono...
Can you tell me who said this:

Obama. What's your point? I'm not defending the president. What are you going to tell me now? That he's the first president to lie?

[ElNono]

And BTW, Congress can underfund the Lybia mission if they're so pissed off, as stated above. Instead, I see McCain drafting legislation to authorize it.

This has been played out in the past....

lol new line...

[Wild Cobra]

Where is the congressional condemnation for our actions in Lybia?
Why would they do that? They are politicians. If they do, it will be a slow process. There are actions that have started. Since Obambam didn't ask their approval, they are safe from scrutiny when this falls apart. However, they can still embrace it if it looks politically good.

There is this though:

SRES 148 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 148

Calling on the President to submit to Congress a detailed description of United States policy objectives in Libya, both during and after Muammar Qaddafi's rule, and a plan to achieve them, and to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force against Libya.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 14, 2011

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. LEE, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. INHOFE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Calling on the President to submit to Congress a detailed description of United States policy objectives in Libya, both during and after Muammar Qaddafi's rule, and a plan to achieve them, and to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force against Libya.

Whereas, on February 15, 2011, protests against longtime Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi began in Benghazi, Libya, following the arrest of human rights advocate Fathi Tarbel;

Whereas, on March 10, 2011, rebels in Libya, armed with outdated anti-aircraft guns and facing overwhelming firepower from Qaddafi forces, were forced to retreat from strongholds in eastern Libya, while doctors in Libya reported that civilian casualties had doubled, mostly as the result of airstrikes ordered by Qaddafi;

Whereas, on March 10, 2011, France became the first country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council, organized by the Libyan rebel leadership, as the legitimate Government of Libya;

Whereas, on March 12, 2011, Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, announced, `The Arab League has officially requested the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone against any military action against the Libyan people.';

Whereas, on March 16, 2011, Muammar Qaddafi's forces neared the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, and Saif al-Islam, Qaddafi's son, vowed that `everything will be over in 48 hours';

Whereas, on March 16, 2011, following United Nations Security Council negotiations, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice announced United States support for a no-fly zone, stating, `But the U.S. view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone.';

Whereas, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council voted to approve a no-fly zone over Libya, passing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized `all necessary measures' to protect civilians;

Whereas, on March 19, 2011, President Barack Obama authorized United States military operations against Libya, and Operation Odyssey Dawn commenced;

Whereas, on March 19, 2011, the United States Armed Forces began air and sea strikes against targets along the coast of Libya against Libyan air defenses;

Whereas, on March 21, 2011, President Obama sent a letter notifying Congress that he had ordered strikes on Libya and outlining United States military actions in Libya during the preceding 48 hours;

Whereas, on March 23, 2011, Muammar Qaddafi's forces shelled the town of Misrata, held by Libyan rebels, killing dozens of civilians;

Whereas, on March 24, 2011, coalition forces hit military targets deep inside Libya, but failed to prevent Qaddafi's tanks from re-entering Misrata and besieging its main hospital;

Whereas, on March 24, 2011, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that NATO would take command of enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya and was considering taking control of the full United Nations-backed military mission;

Whereas, on March 30, 2011, forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi pressed further east with an artillery offensive, pushing Libyan rebels back more than 95 miles towards Brega;

Whereas, on March 31, 2011, United States Africa Command, which had led the initial phases of military operations against Libya under Operation Odyssey Dawn, transferred command and control of international air operations over Libya to NATO;

Whereas, as of March 31, 2011, Operation Unified Protector, under sole command of NATO, is now responsible for the arms embargo, no-fly zone, and actions to protect civilians in Libya;

Whereas, as of April 4, 2011, in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector, the United States had flown approximately 1,600 military sorties and, as of April 7, 2011, had launched 228 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles and spent approximately $632,000,000;

Whereas President Obama has repeatedly indicated that his policy on Libya is that Muammar Qaddafi should no longer serve as the leader of the Government of Libya;

Whereas, on February 26, 2011, 11 days after the protests began, President Obama discussed the situation in Libya with Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and, according to a White House statement, said, `When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now.';

Whereas, on March 3, 2011, President Obama, at a joint press conference with President of Mexico Felipe Calderon, said, `Muammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave. . . . [W]e will continue to send the clear message that it's time for Qaddafi to go.';

Whereas, on March 18, 2011, President Obama, at a joint press conference with President of Chile Sebastian Pinera, said, `I have also stated that it is U.S. policy that Qaddafi needs to go. And we got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy.';

Whereas, on March 28, 2011, President Obama, in an address to the Nation, began to draw a distinction between United States political and military objectives in Libya, saying, `There is no question that Libya--and the world--would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means.';

Whereas, on March 29, 2011, President Obama, in an interview on NBC Nightly News, continued to draw this distinction, saying, `Our primary military goal is to protect civilian populations and to set up the no-fly zone. Our primary strategic goal is for Qaddafi to step down so that the Libyan people have an opportunity to live a decent life.';

Whereas, despite President Obama's policy that Muammar Qaddafi should no longer serve as the leader of the Government of Libya, President Obama has not presented Congress with a plan to achieve that policy objective;

Whereas President Obama has not sought from Congress any type of authorization for the use of military force against Libya;

Whereas passage of a non-binding, simple resolution by the Senate is not equivalent to an authorization for the use of military force, passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and signed by the President; and

Whereas senior officials in the Obama Administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Harold Koh, the Department of State's Legal Adviser, have incorrectly pointed to the Senate passage of a non-binding resolution, Senate Resolution 85 (112th Congress), as an expression of congressional consent for the United States military intervention in Libya: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the President should submit to Congress--

(A) a detailed description of United States policy objectives in Libya, both during and after Muammar Qaddafi's rule;

(B) a detailed plan to achieve those objectives;

(C) a detailed estimate of the full cost of the United States military operations in Libya and any other actions required to implement the plan; and

(D) a detailed description of the limitations the President has placed on the nature, duration, and scope of United States military operations in Libya, as referenced in his March 21, 2011, letter to Congress; and

(2) the President should seek a congressional authorization for the use of military force against Libya.
Here are a few items in the process:


3. [112nd] H.R.1257 : Protect America from U.S. Military Expenses in Libya Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] (introduced 3/30/2011) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: House Budget; House Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 3/30/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

4. [112nd] H.R.1323 : Protect America from U.S. Military Expenses in Libya Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] (introduced 4/1/2011) Cosponsors (51)
Committees: House Budget; House Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 4/1/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

7. [112nd] H.R.1708 : To prohibit the use of funds to support Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Sponsor: Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] (introduced 5/4/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Armed Services; House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

8. [112nd] H.CON.RES.31 : Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/15/2011) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 3/15/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

9. [112nd] H.CON.RES.32 : Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should adhere to the War Powers Resolution and obtain specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in Libya.
Sponsor: Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] (introduced 3/31/2011) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

10. [112nd] H.CON.RES.51 : Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 5/23/2011) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

11. [112nd] H.RES.188 : Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the regime of Mu'ammar al-Qadhaffi.
Sponsor: Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] (introduced 3/30/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 5/13/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia .

12. [112nd] H.RES.208 : Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication of the Department of Defense, or any portion of such communication, that refers or relates to any consultation with Congress regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn or military actions in or against Libya.
Sponsor: Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] (introduced 4/7/2011) Cosponsors (14)
Committees: House Armed Services
House Reports: 112-77
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2011 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 38.

13. [112nd] H.RES.209 : Directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication of the Department of State, or any portion of such communication, that refers or relates to any consultation with Congress regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn or military actions in or against Libya.
Sponsor: Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] (introduced 4/7/2011) Cosponsors (17)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
House Reports: 112-76
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2011 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 37.

16. [112nd] S.J.RES.14 : A joint resolution declaring that the President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Resolution as it pertains to the ongoing military engagement in Libya.
Sponsor: Sen Paul, Rand [KY] (introduced 5/23/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2011 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

19. [112nd] S.RES.146 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that it is not in the vital interest of the United States to intervene militarily in Libya, calling on NATO to ensure that member states dedicate the resources necessary to ensure that objectives as outlined in the United Nations Resolutions 1970 and 1973 are accomplished, and to urge members of the Arab League who have yet to participate in operations over Libya to provide additional military and financial assistance.
Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John [NV] (introduced 4/14/2011) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 4/14/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

20. [112nd] S.RES.148 : A resolution calling on the President to submit to Congress a detailed description of United States policy objectives in Libya, both during and after Muammar Qaddafi's rule, and a plan to achieve them, and to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force against Libya.
Sponsor: Sen Cornyn, John [TX] (introduced 4/14/2011) Cosponsors (6)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 4/14/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

21. [112nd] S.RES.194 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on United States military operations in Libya.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 5/23/2011) Cosponsors (6)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

[Wild Cobra]

And BTW, Congress can underfund the Lybia mission if they're so pissed off, as stated above. Instead, I see McCain drafting legislation to authorize it.

This has been played out in the past....

lol new line...
So has Rand Paul.

Question is, are they doing it because they believe in it, or want to see who supports it? Get it on record?

I can believe McCain supporting it, but not Paul.


15. [112nd] S.J.RES.13 : A joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya and the Government and people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same.
Sponsor: Sen Paul, Rand [KY] (introduced 5/23/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2011 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

[ElNono]

So has Rand Paul.

Question is, are they doing it because they believe in it, or want to see who supports it? Get it on record?

I can believe McCain supporting it, but not Paul.

Obama opposed the Iraq invasion. Were you cheering for him then?

It's all political posturing. It was back then, it is now.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama opposed the Iraq invasion. Were you cheering for him then?

It's all political posturing. It was back then, it is now.
Again, there were valid reasons for that.

Riddle me this.

Were those "civilians" Gadhafi is accused of attacking really just protesters, or were they the rebels?

It is so easy to take cherry picked information. We had years of knowledge of Saddam's actions and once we took action against him, Gadhafi made some serious changes.

He is not a threat to us or other nations.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama opposed the Iraq invasion. Were you cheering for him then?
Of course not. He was wrong.

Do you remember the reason we stopped during Desert Storm? It was because of the agreements we made with Saddam. The agreements he continually broke.

You never answered my question. Who said this:

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.

[ElNono]

Again, there were valid reasons for that.
Riddle me this.
Were those "civilians" Gadhafi is accused of attacking really just protesters, or were they the rebels?

What does it matter? The mission is to remove Gadhafi, plain and simple, for violating UN resolutions against his government.


It is so easy to take cherry picked information. We had years of knowledge of Saddam's actions and once we took action against him, Gadhafi made some serious changes.
He is not a threat to us or other nations.

You should be the last person to point to cherry picked information. Not to mention moving goalposts. "We had years of knowledge of Saddam's actions" and invaded him under the guise of WMD that he didn't have?
Oh, wait, they're still translating the documents. :jack


Of course not. He was wrong.

Do you remember the reason we stopped during Desert Storm? It was because of the agreements we made with Saddam. The agreements he continually broke.

So did Ghadafi. He was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
The difference here is that Bush Jr acted without the UN approval, while Obama is acting within a UN resolution.


You never answered my question. Who said this:

I did answer your question. Scroll up.

You keep avoiding mine though:


What interest the US had in Kosovo? Haiti? Iraq? Even Panama, seeing that they didn't start any hostilities against the US.

[Wild Cobra]

You keep avoiding mine though:
What interest the US had in Kosovo? Haiti? Iraq? Even Panama, seeing that they didn't start any hostilities against the US.
We had interests is both Panama and Iraq.

Maybe you remember. How many tens of thousands of people did we have in Panama at the time?

Who was the legally elected head of state?

What important feature does it have that nations around the world use for trade?

[Wild Cobra]

If you want to stick with the UN resolution thing, remember, we gave Saddam repeated chances to comply. What was it, two days after resolution 1973 that we attacked?

Did the scope of resolution 1970 or 1973 have anything to do with US security like the resolutions Saddam violated did?

[Wild Cobra]

Say El...

Is your new motto:

Thanks God for UNITED ABOMINATION

[Wild Cobra]

Why are these peaceful protesters armed, and firing weapons?

sRozKE0qBAA

[ElNono]

We had interests is both Panama and Iraq.

I don't get your point. We didn't have any more 'interests' in Panama than we did in Iraq or Lybia. That's why when the dictator was overthrown, we moved on.

Did Panama or Iraq attacked the US? Yes or no question. Should be simple to answer.


Maybe you remember. How many tens of thousands of people did we have in Panama at the time?

Was any attacked? Did Panama start hostilities with the US? Again, yes or no. Fairly simple questions.


Who was the legally elected head of state?

Irrelevant. Who is the legally elected head of state in China? Is Gaddafi a legally elected head of state?


What important feature does it have that nations around the world use for trade?

Did Panama at any point attack forces controlling the Panama canal?
Yes or No. Should be very easy to answer.


If you want to stick with the UN resolution thing, remember, we gave Saddam repeated chances to comply. What was it, two days after resolution 1973 that we attacked?

Did the scope of resolution 1970 or 1973 have anything to do with US security like the resolutions Saddam violated did?

Actually, the US invaded Iraq mere days after failing to secure a UN resolution to approve the invasion. I see your selective memory is acting up again.

What in Iraq had to do with US security? :lmao
The mobile anthrax trucks that were never found? :lol

I thought we were there to 'liberate' them... that was after God talked to the prez and told him he had to do it... /facepalm


Say El...
Is your new motto:
Thanks God for UNITED ABOMINATION

I'm sure an authoritarian, stalker and racist like you know a thing or two about abominations...

[Wild Cobra]

You're losing it El.

[ElNono]

No black surgeons: check
Stalking on MySpace: check
Shooting brown people at the border: check

I'm losing it? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

No black surgeons: check
Stalking on MySpace: check
Shooting brown people at the border: check

I'm losing it? :lol
If you believe those as portrayed.

Yes.

[ElNono]

You didn't leave any room for doubt... that's why I'm hardly the only one pointing it out...

BTW, you were wrong again... I don't expect you to own up to it though...

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't leave any room for doubt... that's why I'm hardly the only one pointing it out...

BTW, you were wrong again... I don't expect you to own up to it though...
Since you are a fan of misrepresenting the truth, I will no longer waste my time with you.

Bye loser.

[ElNono]

misrepresenting the truth

:lmao

bye

[ChumpDumper]

It is so easy to take cherry picked information. We had years of knowledge of Saddam's actions and once we took action against him, Gadhafi made some serious changes.

He is not a threat to us or other nations.Turns out Saddam had also made some serious changes and was not a threat to us or other nations.

Bush invaded because he committed to invasion long before any congressional resolution.

[ChumpDumper]

Did anything like this happen over Libya:Thanks for proving there was no authorization in Panama.

[Wild Cobra]

Turns out Saddam had also made some serious changes and was not a threat to us or other nations.

Bush invaded because he committed to invasion long before any congressional resolution.
Hindsight is 20-20. He didn't allow us to verify.

We've been through all these arguments before. Have anything new?

Here's a little interview from the past:

LjNAGyMCEik

Here's one of the comments on that YouTube page which I believed from the start:

Libyan Rebels ARE NOT freedom fighters. Rebels ARE NOT fighting for Democracy, equal rights or a secular state. These Extremists are fighting to remove Gaddafi who Fought Radical Wahabbi Islam & Islamists for last 30 years. These "Rebels" want a Wahabbi Theocracy, why is USA helping them? There are over 6 Million people in Libya, only 1000 (Benghazi Wahabbi Extremists connected to Al-Qaeda & Hezbollah) are fighting Gaddafi. If 1000 KKK wanted to Kill Obama, should UN & World bomb Obama & USA ??

[ChumpDumper]

lol YouTube comments

[ChumpDumper]

Hindsight is 20-20. He didn't allow us to verify.

We've been through all these arguments before. Have anything new?Nothing new to add. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. It was a horrible, foolish decision that needlessly killed thousands of Americans.

[ChumpDumper]

And WC, tell me which president thought he was truly bound by the provisions of the War Powers Act.

Give me some names.

[clambake]

we verified....and blix was right.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing new to add. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. It was a horrible, foolish decision that needlessly killed thousands of Americans.
I will not disagree that you have a widely shared opinion on that. I disagree with that opinion however. I am trying to make the point that we had far more reasons to go into Iraq than we did to do anything against Libya.

Do you agree or disagree that there were several more stated reasons with Iraq?

As for this Panama example, how many military bases do we have in Libya? How many more did we have in Panama? How long had Qafhafi been the leader? Do you know who the elected leader was in Panama went we went in? It wasn't Noriega.

How many US citizens were in Panama when this all started? How about Libya. How many US citizens were there?

Which is part of the Americas?

Which had other direct impacts like drug trade, the Panama canal, etc. etc.

Are there significant differences in US interests of these three nations or not?

Even if you want to say Iraq had little interest for us, congress did vote to let president Bush take action.

[Wild Cobra]

And WC, tell me which president thought he was truly bound by the provisions of the War Powers Act.

Give me some names.
Sorry, I'm not doing your homework. You tell us if you wish to go that route. I will agree it is an act that has been abused.

[clambake]

you still haven't given any legitimate reasons for iraq.

[Wild Cobra]

you still haven't given any legitimate reasons for iraq.
Yes I have, in the past anyway. Not my problem that people have differing views on what is legitimate and what isn't. I'm not going to change your mind, so why should I waste my time more than I already do?

[clambake]

Yes I have, in the past anyway. Not my problem that people have differing views on what is legitimate and what isn't. I'm not going to change your mind, so why should I waste my time more than I already do?

that water must be heavy.

[ChumpDumper]

I will not disagree that you have a widely shared opinion on that. I disagree with that opinion however. I am trying to make the point that we had far more reasons to go into Iraq than we did to do anything against Libya.

Do you agree or disagree that there were several more stated reasons with Iraq?

As for this Panama example, how many military bases do we have in Libya? How many more did we have in Panama? How long had Qafhafi been the leader? Do you know who the elected leader was in Panama went we went in? It wasn't Noriega.

How many US citizens were in Panama when this all started? How about Libya. How many US citizens were there?

Which is part of the Americas?

Which had other direct impacts like drug trade, the Panama canal, etc. etc.

Are there significant differences in US interests of these three nations or not?

Even if you want to say Iraq had little interest for us, congress did vote to let president Bush take action.There was no direct threat to any US interest in Panama. There was trouble when the US military deliberately harassed the PDF and vice-versa, and that was used as a pretext for war.

It all boils down to thinking a guy is a bad guy and he should be taken out before he does something else bad. In that respect, there is no difference in any of these situations.

Sorry, I'm not doing your homework. You tell us if you wish to go that route. I will agree it is an act that has been abused.

The answer is none. I was just seeing if you were ignorant of that fact. You are.

[ChumpDumper]

And US oil companies have been working in Libya for years now -- and you say that isn't a US interest :lol

[Wild Cobra]

And US oil companies have been working in Libya for years now -- and you say that isn't a US interest :lol
Oil is a global commodity. One country doesn't matter. If we were concerned about their oil, we wouldn't have helped start this civil war.

[ChumpDumper]

Oil is a global commodity. One country doesn't matter. If we were concerned about their oil, we wouldn't have helped start this civil war.So now according to you US companies are not an US interest of the US.

:lmao

Saddam's getting oil money was used as a reason for invading Iraq.

Man, they are really fucking similar.

[Wild Cobra]

Where is the congressional condemnation for our actions in Lybia?
House rips Obama Libya policy (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5280969&postcount=1)

[ElNono]

House rips Obama Libya policy (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5280969&postcount=1)

Are they condemning the our action in Lybia or are they condemning the President for not paying them lip service?

[ChumpDumper]

House rips Obama Libya policy (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5280969&postcount=1)So Congress supports our military actions in Libya and does not condemn them.

Thanks.