Reply With Quote
why did you edit that , wc?
did you see the hammer comin down?
That was a small operation, and close to home. We also had direct interests there, like the Panama Canal.
why did you edit that , wc?
did you see the hammer comin down?
Or in Libya, for that matter?
Maybe you guys should note how different Panama was to Libya:
linkSeptember 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]
Didn't see a congressional authorization in that timeline.
Thanks again. You make this easy.
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?
What was different?
The mission was to remove a dictator in power by invading a sovereign country. The mission was accomplished.
Just when it seems WildCobra can't be any dumber...
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 cons utional 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.
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).
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.
So...
Multiple wrongs make a right.
You do that very often.
Where is the congressional authority for our actions in Libya?
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.
ElNono...
Can you tell me who said this:
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.
Where is the congressional condemnation for our actions in Lybia?
No, I'm actually trying to stay on topic: There's no new line drawn here.
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.
What interest the US had in Kosovo? Haiti? Iraq? Even Panama, seeing that they didn't start any hostilities against the US.
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?
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...
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:
Here are a few items in the process: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 s ed 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.
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 do ent, 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 do ent, 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.
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.
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.
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 Cons ution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
What does it matter? The mission is to remove Gadhafi, plain and simple, for violating UN resolutions against his government.
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 do ents.
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.
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
