Did Obama seek an...

[ploto]

War Powers Resolution of 1973

Requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action

Forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks for doing the research ploto

[ElNono]

wgaf if he had authorization for an invasion from the un? the point is, he had authorization from CONGRESS. u know, congress, the only orginization that has anything to do with what the US military does. the un, unfortunately for you, does not have anything to do with military action taken by the u.s.. i know the concept of that might be hard for you to grasp.

Obviously, Bush Jr did give a about the UN, otherwise he wouldn't have sent Powell to do said dog and pony show. World relations and foreign policy might be a hard concept for you to grasp, but keep trying.

[ferg]

not discussing world relations here bud. i was pointing out the fact that weather or not we had "authorization" from the un to use force on iraq is a moot point as the OP asked if obama had asked for permission from congress to use military force. YOU, kind sir, quickly tried to deflect away from what obama has done. which is something i see happening often on this board or really any other board that talks about politics with obama supporters. "obama did this today and didnt follow protocol" "but, but, george bush did this". this might be a hard concept to grasp for you but i think you can do it!

[ElNono]

not discussing world relations here bud. i was pointing out the fact that weather or not we had "authorization" from the un to use force on iraq is a moot point as the OP asked if obama had asked for permission from congress to use military force. YOU, kind sir, quickly tried to deflect away from what obama has done.

Go look up what I was replying to. I was merely answering a claim about UN resolutions during the Bush Jr era. Heck, I didn't even bring THAT topic around. You're just barking to the wrong tree.

which is something i see happening often on this board or really any other board that talks about politics with obama supporters. "obama did this today and didnt follow protocol" "but, but, george bush did this". this might be a hard concept to grasp for you but i think you can do it!

I disagree with the vast majority of actions by this administration, due to the fact they're a continuation of the previous one. Not sure how that makes me an "Obama supporter".

ploto already addressed the OP. Do you have anything to add to that?

[boutons_deux]

No matter what Barry HUSSEIN or Dems do, WC, Yoni, etc, will be against it, even flipping their positions to remain in disloyal opposition.

[ChumpDumper]

If the US was committing ground troops and billions of dollars in a full scale invasion of Libya, then that idiot yoni might have a point. As it is, the US isn't even flying the combat missions.

[ferg]

Go look up what I was replying to. I was merely answering a claim about UN resolutions during the Bush Jr era. Heck, I didn't even bring THAT topic around. You're just barking to the wrong tree.

Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion... you seem to forget Collin Powell's bull show on the UN seeking for such authorization prior to the war, which was voted down.

Obviously Yoni having selective memory is nothing new...

your right, u didnt bring it up. HOWEVER, you did in fact say he did not have an authorization from the un prior to the "war". i countered with, the president does not need to seek authorization for the un prior to starting a war with another country. would it be a good idea? sure it would. is it necessary? nope, sure isnt. the only thing that is necessary is the getting the "go-ahead" from congress. that is all. i firmly believe the un should be disbanded in this day and age anyway. it had its place in the cold war but in this day and age with no real defined threat, its really an outdated organization. i digress

I disagree with the vast majority of actions by this administration, due to the fact they're a continuation of the previous one. Not sure how that makes me an "Obama supporter".

sorry man , didnt mean to peg you as an obama supporter but that is a tactic i have seen more often then not amongst obama supporter, so if ur not, my bad.

ploto already addressed the OP. Do you have anything to add to that?

and no i do not have anything add to what ploto mentioned becuase that is in fact a power the president has which i have no problem the president uitilizing. again its not up to the un as to weather or not we use force it is up to congress. so, with that being said, if clinton went to the un and asked to use force with the un's backing and was voted against it but congress voted to go ahead and use force against them would that be ok?

[ElNono]

your right, u didnt bring it up. HOWEVER, you did in fact say he did not have an authorization from the un prior to the "war". i countered with, the president does not need to seek authorization for the un prior to starting a war with another country. would it be a good idea? sure it would. is it necessary? nope, sure isnt. the only thing that is necessary is the getting the "go-ahead" from congress. that is all. i firmly believe the un should be disbanded in this day and age anyway. it had its place in the cold war but in this day and age with no real defined threat, its really an outdated organization. i digress

You're arguing a point I never made. I never said Bush Jr wasn't authorized by Congress to go at it alone, or that he started the was in any clandestine way.
What you think about the UN is your opinion.
I do think finding consensus with your allies helps towards building a strong relationship and is a good foreign policy tactic... the UN is the place to do that. Obviously Bush Jr understood that, even though he half-assed it, IMO.

sorry man , didnt mean to peg you as an obama supporter but that is a tactic i have seen more often then not amongst obama supporter, so if ur not, my bad.

I don't like Obama any more than I like Bush Jr.

and no i do not have anything add to what ploto mentioned becuase that is in fact a power the president has which i have no problem the president uitilizing. again its not up to the un as to weather or not we use force it is up to congress. so, with that being said, if clinton went to the un and asked to use force with the un's backing and was voted against it but congress voted to go ahead and use force against them would that be ok?

Congress doesn't mandate the use of force, it merely enables it. So if Congress authorizes and the UN doesn't, you could push the diplomatic aspect more until the UN reverses it's decision.
The UN hasn't been particularly reluctant to allow the use of force when it undoubtedly is needed, and this mission is a reflection of that, along with missions that predate it (Bush Sr incursion in Iraq comes to mind).
I think you want to have a delicate balance between diplomacy and force, because ultimately that's beneficial to the US.

[ferg]

You're arguing a point I never made.

read what you said here and what it implicates.

Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion... you seem to forget Collin Powell's bull show on the UN seeking for such authorization prior to the war, which was voted down.

YOUR post, made by YOU, IMPLICATES he had to seek authorization from the UN to go into iraq! im not sure how you can say differently.

I never said Bush Jr wasn't authorized by Congress to go at it alone, or that he started the was in any clandestine way.

you are right u didnt and niether do i.

What you think about the UN is your opinion.

thanks i appreciate you lettin my have my opinion

I do think finding consensus with your allies helps towards building a strong relationship and is a good foreign policy tactic... the UN is the place to do that. Obviously Bush Jr understood that, even though he half-assed it, IMO.

agree to a point. the un doesnt really do a whole lot more than provide a meeting place for countries. co-ordinating something could be done via diplomacy, between a couple of countries. the un is not the end all be all when it comes to action by a country to protect whatever interests it has in other countries.

Congress doesn't mandate the use of force, it merely enables it.

i never said it did. they authorize the president to give orders to our military commanders, being a military man this is very well understood by me.

So if Congress authorizes and the UN doesn't, you could push the diplomatic aspect more until the UN reverses it's decision.

dubya did try that route, in your opinon in a half assed effort, and it was shot down so we went at it alone with a few allies.

[Cry Havoc]

Amazing how ploto throws down a little factual information in this thread and suddenly Yoni and company are nowhere to be found.

[boutons_deux]

If the US was committing ground troops and billions of dollars in a full scale invasion of Libya, then that idiot yoni might have a point. As it is, the US isn't even flying the combat missions.

We know that US ground forces be wrong, because BK is for it, and he's always wrong.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/2...e+Raw+Story%29

[ChumpDumper]

President Clinton ruled out ground forces in Kosovo. And finally, the threat of ground forces caused Miloševic to capitulate and we ended up sending in peacekeeping forces and we eventually got rid of Miloševic.

So they don't actually have to send in ground troops. Ok, Billy.

[ElNono]

read what you said here and what it implicates.

YOUR post, made by YOU, IMPLICATES he had to seek authorization from the UN to go into iraq! im not sure how you can say differently.

I can see how you would interpret that if you took it out of the context of what was being adressed. Bush Jr sought authorization from the UN security council and was voted down. There's no if or buts about it. Claiming he had a plethora of UN resolutions backing up the invasion is disingenuous at best, flat out lie at worst.
Now, the fact that he could go at it unilaterally is something I didn't touch at all in that post. I thought the post was pretty clear as far as what it was addressing, but I guess not.

agree to a point. the un doesnt really do a whole lot more than provide a meeting place for countries. co-ordinating something could be done via diplomacy, between a couple of countries. the un is not the end all be all when it comes to action by a country to protect whatever interests it has in other countries.

Never claimed otherwise.

dubya did try that route, in your opinon in a half assed effort, and it was shot down so we went at it alone with a few allies.

When you base your argument on lies, then go at it alone and confirm that you were indeed full of (I'm obviously talking about WMD, which was Powell's main topic in the UN), then you're half-assing it and giving the US a bad name, IMO.

[lazerelmo]

Meh. Let the Europeans do the heavy lifting, as they seem to be doing.

What heavy lifting are you talking about? The only thing coalition forces are doing is flying their jets over a no fly zone that we established. All of those tomahawks were fired from US ships and subs. The stealth bombers flew out of Missouri. I've only read one report of French planes engaging ground targets.

[ferg]

I can see how you would interpret that if you took it out of the context of what was being adressed.

or maybe its a ty argument that has no basis in the OP? the op was did obama ask for authorization from congress to use force against libyan military targets? answer: no he didnt, why because he didnt neccessarily have to as pointed out by ploto.

Bush Jr sought authorization from the UN security council and was voted down. There's no if or buts about it. Claiming he had a plethora of UN resolutions backing up the invasion is disingenuous at best, flat out lie at worst.
Now, the fact that he could go at it unilaterally is something I didn't touch at all in that post. I thought the post was pretty clear as far as what it was addressing, but I guess not.

actually he did have a plethora of resolutions that were repeatedly violated since the first gulf war! its amazing how people forget that!

When you base your argument on lies, then go at it alone and confirm that you were indeed full of (I'm obviously talking about WMD, which was Powell's main topic in the UN), then you're half-assing it and giving the US a bad name, IMO.

also, how can it be a falt out lie if the information you have at the time is deemed correct and from a creditable source? perhaps the admin went to the security council with intel that was never correct in the first place. IF that was in fact the case we would have no way of knowing because saddam routinely kicked out the weapons inspectors and wouldnt allow access to certain places, which was *gasp* a violation of some of the resolutions!

also, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._found_in.html
pretty interesting article right here which talks about none other than wikileaks!! kinda s on your theory of lies doesnt it?

[ElNono]

or maybe its a ty argument that has no basis in the OP? the op was did obama ask for authorization from congress to use force against libyan military targets? answer: no he didnt, why because he didnt neccessarily have to as pointed out by ploto.

I wasn't responding to the OP, thus your point is moot.

actually he did have a plethora of resolutions that were repeatedly violated since the first gulf war! its amazing how people forget that!

I didn't forget. However, the resolution enabling use of force was voted down.

also, how can it be a falt out lie if the information you have at the time is deemed correct and from a creditable source? perhaps the admin went to the security council with intel that was never correct in the first place. IF that was in fact the case we would have no way of knowing because saddam routinely kicked out the weapons inspectors and wouldnt allow access to certain places, which was *gasp* a violation of some of the resolutions!

It's a lie when, after the fact, the 'mobile WMD lab trucks' are nowhere to be found. The credibility of the source is debatable at best. The findings speak for themselves. They went in on a hunch, and it didn't pan out, damaging the US credibility in the process.

also, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._found_in.html
pretty interesting article right here which talks about none other than wikileaks!! kinda s on your theory of lies doesnt it?

No, actually those articles reaffirm the previous administration was full of . Finding that 10 rounds of artillery tested positive for mus is hardly the smoking gun they were looking for. Iraq having some chemical weapons was not new, seeing they've used some in the past. Accusing them to have a large scale secret WMD program in place, then not finding any such thing is very different. Where are the mobile labs Powell identified during the UN presentation? There were no such things. Obviously, admitting they were hotdog stands was probably more damaging, so they did do well to stay silent and then move the goalposts to the 'liberation' angle.

Don't get me wrong, I would be as pissed with Obama or Clinton should they pull the same kind of . I've always been high on what Bush Sr did in the Iraq/Kuwait campaign. Same with Clinton in Yugoslavia.
I already stated I have no problem with this no-fly zone installation in Lybia.

[Spurminator]

...Authorization for Use of Military Force from the U.S. Congress?

God, you liberal Obama sychophants must really be spittle-flecked over our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President engaging our military in a third war -- and the first without Congress' approval.

Just sayin'

Sounds to me like a lot of anti-war activists don't support this move. I'm not sure where you're finding the hypocrisy. Link?

Just sayin'.

[Marcus Bryant]

Afghanistan - obvious target after 9/11. Would have been difficult for any administration to not engage in military action with the Taliban. We knew going in that it would be a morass, given the lessons of previous military invasions.

Iraq - Hussein had been on the US radar for quite a while as a potential recipient of "regime change." Still, the administration then determined the action before deciding if it was a good idea. Far too many individuals in the administration in positions of influence were wedded to the idea of democratizing the Middle East through force. Also, Saddam tried to whack the president's Poppy.

Libya - current US commitment is light enough to allow an obviously reluctant president to bail before getting bogged down there. Even less clear potential threat to the US than Iraq ever was. IMO, the administration is looking for quick success in eliminating Gaddafi or they will pull back and let it die down, given that we're roughly a year and a half out from a presidential election.

[Yonivore]

Your typical Obama supporter, today.

[Yonivore]

Amazing how ploto throws down a little factual information in this thread and suddenly Yoni and company are nowhere to be found.

Sorry, some people worship and work around here. What'd piece of brilliance did ploto lay down?

the War Powers Act of 1973. The one that was around when y'all were whining about President Bush who, by the way, fulfilled that very obligation -- every 90 days -- after invading Iraq; on top of actually having Congressional approval to use military force and 17 UNSC resolutions calling for member countries to do whatever was necessary.

My favorite post in this thread?

You know, it is lawful to send military to perform certain functions without it officially requiring authorization.

No ? You just discovering this?

Not sure if this is one of those cases, tbh. I think that if this becomes worse, and we get more involved, he should look for a justification.

Yeah, justification should never be a predicate to putting our military into harms way.

But, in fairness to LnGrrrR, I have no doubt this President will do just that.

By the way, Obama has gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good. I doubt justifying his actions in Libya are at the top of his priority list.

[Yonivore]

President Obama has officially fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize laureates, combined.

Heck of a job, Barry.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, then he'll be like the one before him. And before him.

[Yonivore]

Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion...

I don't think the AUMF in Iraq prohibited an invasion. And, in the proceeding 9 years, since its passage, Congress has done nothing to restrict, repeal, or otherwise abandon the AUMF in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nothing, that is, except for Congressional Democrats ing for a decade.

[Yonivore]

Well, then he'll be like the one before him. And before him.

Not really.