Did Obama seek an...

[LnGrrrR]

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.

Which one of us here argued that the War in Iraq wasn't justified legally by an AUMF? I'm guessing it's the minority. You're arguing a strawman.

No ? You just discovering this?

You were the one acting like it was an outrage he didn't have an AUMF. I explained he didn't need one yet. *shrug*

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.

That's beneath even you, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Which one of us here argued that the War in Iraq wasn't justified legally by an AUMF? I'm guessing it's the minority. You're arguing a strawman.

You were the one acting like it was an outrage he didn't have an AUMF. I explained he didn't need one yet. *shrug*

No, I'm the one pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the left that will give Obama a pass for doing exactly the things over which he criticized his predecessor mercilessly for two years, while campaigning, and -- in doing so -- didn't even bother to seek the authorizations the Bush administration spent a year garnering.

I support the Libya action. I'm not outraged at the lack of an AUMF; in fact, I think he should have started bombing 10 days ago when it became apparent the Libyan madman was going to annihilate the popular uprising.

That's beneath even you, Yoni.

Save your sanctimony.

[ChumpDumper]

Again yoni, tell us when the US ground forces are invading and occupying Libya.

You said it's exactly the same.

[ElNono]

There was originally a 49 country coalition involved in the invasion of Iraq.

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[ChumpDumper]

You remembered Poland.

[Yonivore]

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

You're only counting boots on the ground. If that's you're measure, there's a zero country coalition in Libya.

[Yonivore]

In a question about bombing Iran, which I also support, Candidate Barack Obama had this to say.

The President does not have power under the Cons ution 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 cons utional 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.

Call it the Obama-Kucinich Doctrine. I'm betting Obama differs with Kucinich on what should happen to a President that violates this tenet.

[ElNono]

You're only counting boots on the ground. If that's you're measure, there's a zero country coalition in Libya.

No, I'm not. That WAS the original coalition that went to war unilaterally.
There's no comparison between 2003 Iraq and Lybia, as there's no invasion in Lybia (at the moment anyways), only the installation of a no-fly zone.

[Yonivore]

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

My wiki can beat up your wiki.

Multi-National Force – Iraq

[Yonivore]

No, I'm not. That WAS the original coalition that went to war unilaterally.

There's no comparison between 2003 Iraq and Lybia, as there's no invasion in Lybia (at the moment anyways), only the installation of a no-fly zone.

Military force is military force.

[ElNono]

My wiki can beat up your wiki.

Multi-National Force – Iraq

No, it can't. You said 49 nations were part of the coalition in the invasion of Iraq. They weren't. Only 4 were part of the coalition during the invasion.

Others joined in and left post-facto.

[Yonivore]

No, I'm not. That WAS the original coalition that went to war unilaterally.

There's no comparison between 2003 Iraq and Lybia, as there's no invasion in Lybia (at the moment anyways), only the installation of a no-fly zone.

Military force is military force. One could argue a well-placed special operations detail could produce better results than 115 Tomahawks.

I'm not going to argue with how the military implements the President's objective -- no matter how vague it may be at present.

I know the President has said no ground troops but, now that you've swatted the hornet's nest; what does he do if, by chance, the Libyan dictator is able to project force beyond his border and attack -- via terrorist (with which he is know to have a real cozy relationship) -- a U. S. interest somewhere in the world?

Do we invade then?

[ChumpDumper]

You're only counting boots on the ground. If that's you're measure, there's a zero country coalition in Libya.

Thanks for kicking your own ass by showing it's not the same thing.

[ElNono]

Military force is military force.

No, it's not. Tell me how many ground troops the US has deployed in Lybia.

[ChumpDumper]

Military force is military force. One could argue a well-placed special operations detail could produce better results than 115 Tomahawks.

I'm not going to argue with how the military implements the President's objective -- no matter how vague it may be at present.

I know the President has said no ground troops but, now that you've swatted the hornet's nest; what does he do if, by chance, the Libyan dictator is able to project force beyond his border and attack -- via terrorist (with which he is know to have a real cozy relationship) -- a U. S. interest somewhere in the world?

Do we invade then?

Do we invade because you have a hunch that might happen?

[ElNono]

Thanks for kicking your own ass by showing it's not the same thing.

[Yonivore]

No, it can't. You said 49 nations were part of the coalition in the invasion of Iraq. They weren't. Only 4 were part of the coalition during the invasion.

Others joined in and left post-facto.

I'm not going to side-track the debate, have your way...it doesn't even matter to the current conversation.

[ElNono]

Do we invade because you have a hunch that might happen?

[Yonivore]

No, it's not. Tell me how many ground troops the US has deployed in Lybia.

Tomahawks are military force. And, truth be told, there are some brave soldiers on the ground in Libya...I'd almost guarantee it.

[ElNono]

I'm not going to side-track the debate, have your way...it doesn't even matter to the current conversation.

What debate?

[ElNono]

Tomahawks are military force. And, truth be told, there are some brave soldiers on the ground in Libya...I'd almost guarantee it.

Not an invasion though

[LnGrrrR]

No, I'm the one pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the left that will give Obama a pass for doing exactly the things over which he criticized his predecessor mercilessly for two years, while campaigning, and -- in doing so -- didn't even bother to seek the authorizations the Bush administration spent a year garnering.

Except there are tons of Democrats that are outraged about it, effectively undercutting your argument.

As well, what "authorizations" do you think the Left expects him to seek out? NATO authorizations? It's pretty obvious that NATO is behind this.

I support the Libya action. I'm not outraged at the lack of an AUMF; in fact, I think he should have started bombing 10 days ago when it became apparent the Libyan madman was going to annihilate the popular uprising.

Your support shows through strongly.

Save your sanctimony.

The moment you stop hand-wringing, I will.

[LnGrrrR]

In a question about bombing Iran, which I also support, Candidate Barack Obama had this to say.


Call it the Obama-Kucinich Doctrine. I'm betting Obama differs with Kucinich on what should happen to a President that violates this tenet.

What's that? Obama isn't interested in defending civil liberties and stopping overreaching executive power? I am SHOCKED.

Next you'll be telling me that the sun is coming up tomorrow.

[RandomGuy]

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The United States assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq's aggression, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself

Yoni could be referring to this dimly-remembered event as well.

You know, when the Republican president decided to forgo unilateralism and forge an international consensus.

Yoni would have been all for that, if he had been out of grade school by then.

Because, you know, it's always the right thing when a Republican does it.

[vy65]

Call it the Obama-Kucinich Doctrine. I'm betting Obama differs with Kucinich on what should happen to a President that violates this tenet.

What about our obligations as a member of the general assembly in carrying out a mandate from the UN?