RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why?

RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:14:21 AM)
You've made a couple rather significant errors in your argument. quote: NATO's authority to act is only when a NATO member or ally is being attacked. That's it. That isn't quite right. If you read the NATO Charter, you'll see that it in no way limits anything, all it says about a member being attacked is that all members will consider themselves to have been attacked if any of them are. Article 7 specifically states that the NATO Charter in no way limits the obligations of the member states as members of the UN. quote: That action certainly didn't comply with any US authority, any NATO authority, or any UN authorization. Again, not quite right. As I have pointed out NATO has the authority to do whatever it pleases as long as it has done its best to "settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." And the United nations did authorize the action, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of any means short of physically occupying Libya. So, the action was withing US authority (under the UN Treaty - US law), NATO authority (NATO Charter doesn't limit NATO defensive measures and authorizes actions under UN authority), and was authorized by the UN (SCR 1973). So your whole point is in fact incorrect and like I said back in post # 5 quote: has no relevance or basis in fact, its just the result of being misguided and ill-informed. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:28:10 AM)
quote: Really? Why then, does Section 7 give Congress the exclusive power to declare war, and limit the President's role as CIC to times when they are called into actual service? It doesn't. Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. Section 9 gives the President the power to command the army and navy, and the militia when it is called into actual service. Meaning that the States retain full control of their own militia until it is called on for service to the US as opposed to the service of the individual State. Since the militia weren't used in Libya, the "called into actual service" part isn't relevant.

tweakabelle -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 2:09:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 [image]http://www.bartcop.com/gop-libya-math.jpg[/image] The numbers are off.....it was 45 hundred Americans lost. It must be added that the Republican "success" in Iraq effectively handed the country to Iran. Many of us were puzzled that the US would go to such lengths, trouble and cost to deliver a prize gift to the US's most implacable enemy in the region. No doubt the ageing and unpopular mullahs and ayatollahs are still thanking Allah that their enemies are still capable of designing such disastrous short sighted policies. The war mongers plans are far more likely to produce an outcome precisely the opposite to that intended. This salient lesson needs to be borne is mind as Israeli manoeuvres to involve the US in yet another military adventure in the Middle East seem closer to success than at any point in the 16 years of Israel's claims that Iranian WMDs are 'just around the corner'. The last. thing the region needs in another war. An Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians would do far more to eliminate any long term threats to the Isreali State and world peace than any more cowboy foreign policies.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 7:06:00 AM)
You're right, Lorebook, it is Section 8, but please explain how my missing the section number in my pocket copy of the Constitution changes who is given the authority to declare war?

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 8:13:42 AM)
Well, you see, since war wasn't declared, it doesn't really matter who has the authority to declare war. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:10:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It must be added that the Republican "success" in Iraq effectively handed the country to Iran. Many of us were puzzled that the US would go to such lengths, trouble and cost to deliver a prize gift to the US's most implacable enemy in the region. No doubt the ageing and unpopular mullahs and ayatollahs are still thanking Allah that their enemies are still capable of designing such disastrous short sighted policies. What is in all actuality the worst part of all the shit going on in the Middle East is that the US is intimately involved in all of it. We (the US) created the Taliban. We armed and trained bin Laden (who was leading the rebels and Taliban against the then Afghan government and Russian forces). We got rid of the Shah of Iran and installed their current form of government. We were the ones that got Saddam into power, armed him against the Iranians, and have now taken him out. Intimate involvement in all of that. quote: The war mongers plans are far more likely to produce an outcome precisely the opposite to that intended. This salient lesson needs to be borne is mind as Israeli manoeuvres to involve the US in yet another military adventure in the Middle East seem closer to success than at any point in the 16 years of Israel's claims that Iranian WMDs are 'just around the corner'. And here is the great disconnect. In other forums, I'm always being told that I don't understand history, or that history is repeating itself because we haven't learned anything. How is it that my learned, progressive, liberal friends have no issue with what Obama is doing or has done? Boggles my mind that, to them, it's history repeating when Bush did it, but not when Obama is doing. quote: The last. thing the region needs in another war. An Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians would do far more to eliminate any long term threats to the Isreali State and world peace than any more cowboy foreign policies. I will stand behind Israel's continuing to be a sovereign nation. I will support US military action against those who initiate attacks against Israel. I support, just as much, the US allowing Israel to suffer the consequences of any actions it initiates. Thus, if Israel bombs the batshit out of Iran, I see the US role in that as allowing Israel to enjoy the fruits of it's actions so long as Israel is not destroyed. Basically, the US needs to be the referee stepping in to prevent complete death of Israel. If another country initiates an attack on Israel, I support a swift defense of Israel and a rapid end to the fighting.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The last. thing the region needs in another war. An Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians would do far more to eliminate any long term threats to the Isreali State and world peace than any more cowboy foreign policies. Forgot to add: I simply don't understand why a peace accord hasn't been signed yet. It seems like something happens - and it isn't from just one side on this - right at the last second to derail an agreement. I simply don't understand.

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:26:58 AM)
Well....imagine some people came and threw you off your own land and bull-dozed your house. Then as things got worse between you and the occupiers....blood was shed,many times over....so after years of this and everyone saying to make peace,you notice the occupiers granting new building permits and building concrete homes on YOUR land..... Which to any reasonable personn signals you`re not going to leave the occupied land and intend on keeping it,by hook or by crook. That`s one of the main reasons why a peace agreement hasn`t been reached.Greed,land and water stolen and no end in sight.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:47:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook You've made a couple rather significant errors in your argument. quote: NATO's authority to act is only when a NATO member or ally is being attacked. That's it. That isn't quite right. If you read the NATO Charter, you'll see that it in no way limits anything, all it says about a member being attacked is that all members will consider themselves to have been attacked if any of them are. Article 7 specifically states that the NATO Charter in no way limits the obligations of the member states as members of the UN. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm quote: Article 1 The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. ... Article 3 The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. ... Article 7 This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. According to the charter, NATO can only authorize military action itself when a member is under attack or in danger of being attacked. The charter, you are correct, also states that NATO can act on the authorization of the UN without the members being necessarily being in danger. quote: quote: That action certainly didn't comply with any US authority, any NATO authority, or any UN authorization. Again, not quite right. As I have pointed out NATO has the authority to do whatever it pleases as long as it has done its best to "settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." And the United nations did authorize the action, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of any means short of physically occupying Libya. So, the action was withing US authority (under the UN Treaty - US law), NATO authority (NATO Charter doesn't limit NATO defensive measures and authorizes actions under UN authority), and was authorized by the UN (SCR 1973). So your whole point is in fact incorrect and like I said back in post # 5 quote: has no relevance or basis in fact, its just the result of being misguided and ill-informed. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself. My whole point is not invalid because your interpretation of SCR 1973 is off-base. The UNSC authorized any force necessary short of occupation for a handful of goals. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm These goals are: Protection of Civilians No-Fly Zone Enforcement of Arms Embargo Ban on Flights In or Through Libyan Air Space (there are a few specifics detailing and modifying this) Asset Freeze Thus, when the NATO started bombing tanks that were not actively fighting, it was not truly in accordance with the UN resolution. The asset freeze was really a non-military action. The No-Fly Zone was completed within hours of the onset of actions. Enforcement of the Arms embargo would not include attacking military installations and command structures. The only way that it can be construed that the UN Resolution was supported by the continued actions of NATO is in Protection of Civilians. What is one to do when the "civilians" are rebels against the sovereign government? Are they not "enemy combatants?" Are they still "civilians" needing to be defended? The world didn't have a huge problem with Khaddafi's attacks on protesters and armed rebels until he started slaughtering them with their air forces. But, to essentially go into a country and ground their air forces, and then, act as the rebel air force, is wrong. It wasn't supported by any UN Resolution. It isn't within NATO's purview. It doesn't align with the US Constitution or the War Powers Resolution. It doesn't even align with 107-40 as Libya was not considered to have taken action to support the 9/11 attacks on the US, nor were they harboring terrorists suspected in having a part in the 9/11 attacks on the US. I do not agree that we had authorization to do go into Libya beyond a no-fly zone and to prevent the slaughter of Libyan civilians. Add into that, that NATO or UN treaties/charters notwithstanding, the US has to act within accordance of the US Constitution and War Powers Resolution first and foremost. When a UN resolution and/or NATO activity does not align with our Constitution, War Powers Resolution or current Federal law, it is superceded by same.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:59:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Well....imagine some people came and threw you off your own land and bull-dozed your house. Then as things got worse between you and the occupiers....blood was shed,many times over....so after years of this and everyone saying to make peace,you notice the occupiers granting new building permits and building concrete homes on YOUR land..... Which to any reasonable personn signals you`re not going to leave the occupied land and intend on keeping it,by hook or by crook. That`s one of the main reasons why a peace agreement hasn`t been reached.Greed,land and water stolen and no end in sight. Owner59, I can see that you are pro-Palestinian with that answer. Once the 1967 borders were set, that should have been the end of it. Peace deals are in the process of being brokered, and rockets get fired into Israel and Israel retaliates. Tensions ease and again the peace deals are close to being finalized, and Israel allows for expansion into territory it was about to sign off on. The Palestinians, Hamas and the Israelis are all at fault in this. Hamas is the only one that has been consistent, but their consistency is the eradication of Israel, so....

outhere69 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 11:49:53 AM)
FR: Congress did not declare war against Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia. Korea and Desert Storm were carried out under UN mandate. The last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941. Seems like plenty of precedent for not having a declaration of war while the fighting's going on.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 12:00:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 FR: Congress did not declare war against Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia. Korea and Desert Storm were carried out under UN mandate. The last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941. Seems like plenty of precedent for not having a declaration of war while the fighting's going on. I won't look all of those up but I'm pretty certain that the president(s) sought and recieved congressional approval under the War Powers Act. This, of course, was the case with Vietnam, Somalia, Serbia, and Bosnia, at least. In the case of Grenada, it might not have been necessary, considering the whole operation lasted about two weeks? The president does have some emergency powers for deploying the military but, if it is to be a protracted engagement, approval of the congress must be sought (and secured). Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 12:05:25 PM)
Well, no not really. You see, the war powers act was in response to Tricky Dicky starting the secret war in and on Laos. Goldwater for one thought it unconstitutional and tried to repeal it till he died.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 12:13:34 PM)
quote: According to the charter, NATO can only authorize military action itself when a member is under attack or in danger of being attacked. Where? Which article limits NATO's ability to authorize or engage in military action? You quoted 3 articles. Article 1 says they have to try find a peaceful resolution first if possible. Nothing about what they can or can't do after that has been tried. Article 3 says that they'll consult with each other when one member feels they have been threatened. Nothing about what they can or can't do in the way of military action. And Article 7 says that the members' rights obligations as UN members isn't altered by being NATO members. Nothing about what they can or can't do in the way of military action. So which of the Articles you quoted backs up your claim? Your premise is invalid, because you are claiming the entire Libyan action is unconstitutional, and it clearly wasn't. The question of whether or not any individual act or bombing was justified within the scope of the UN resolution isn't relevant to that question. The action in Libya was 100% legal and constitutional.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 12:23:11 PM)
So, President Kennedy had no congressional approval for the 16,000 troops that he deployed to Vietnam? Did he pay, feed , cloth, arm, and supply them out of his daddy murderer's bank account? Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 12:33:11 PM)
Of course, as did Eisenhower. But they did it exactly the same way that Obama is doing Uganda, send in advisors. Remember it is: Marry for money and work out the lovin' later. Not the other way round.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 12:36:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Since there is no such statute, not that one would even be definitely Constitutional, there is no limit on the President's use of the military unless Congress chooses to not fund those actions. Really? Why then, does Section 7 give Congress the exclusive power to declare war, and limit the President's role as CIC to times when they are called into actual service? Sure Congress can declare war but clearly the founders believed every use of military action was not war, see Whiskey Rebellion and the Pirates of Tripoli. No Section 7 gives any powers related to the military. Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to declare war and pay for the military. Article 2 Section 2 makes the President the Commander in Chief of all federal armed forces and of state militias when those are called into federal service, i.e. when the President calls up the NG.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 12:41:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I won't look all of those up but I'm pretty certain that the president(s) sought and recieved congressional approval under the War Powers Act. This, of course, was the case with Vietnam, Somalia, Serbia, and Bosnia, at least. The War Powers act was passed in 1973 in response to the end of Vietnam. So clearly the President didn't follow it in 1965.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:04:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I won't look all of those up but I'm pretty certain that the president(s) sought and recieved congressional approval under the War Powers Act. This, of course, was the case with Vietnam, Somalia, Serbia, and Bosnia, at least. The War Powers act was passed in 1973 in response to the end of Vietnam. So clearly the President didn't follow it in 1965. Yes. I know that. Did the presidents seek and get congressional approval or did they start their own dictatorship? Whether the WPA was in effect or not, if the president initiated a military action that wound up being protracted, congressional approval would have to be given, even in a passive way, by congress passing bills to allocate funds for such an action. If I walk up to you and say: "I'd like to send my son to an ivy league school" and you hand me a check for $20,000 are you saying you disapprove of my son going to that school? Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:07:24 PM)
And nothing has changed in that since the war powers act. There is no case of protracted whatever that didnt get approval. So you are telling us what we already said the war powers act was and doing it repeatedly. I miss the point, if any.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875