When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission (Associated Press)By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times2:39 p.m., Friday, June 3, 2011
Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.
In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document's grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.
The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.........................>>>>........................>>>>.......................http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/
The Republicans have NO CANDIDATE to run against Obama. Most Republicans still opt "OTHER" in polls of their choice in 2012. Unless some 'viable candidate' actually steps into the ring soon... Obama will win by default.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The Republicans have NO CANDIDATE to run against Obama. Most Republicans still opt "OTHER" in polls of their choice in 2012. Unless some 'viable candidate' actually steps into the ring soon... Obama will win by default.
What does that have to do with Obama's war on Libya Box, looks like you are trying to draw attention away from another Obama FCK UP.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
What does that have to do with Obama's war on Libya Box, looks like you are trying to draw attention away from another Obama FCK UP.
It has NOTHING to do with the NATO war in Libya. Neither does posts # 54MT, 59Boomer, 60,61 Bumblethru, that I responded to in my post.
I don't consider the NATO mission in Libya an Obama FCK UP.
And if I wanted to "BLAME BUSH"... (LMAO) history has recorded 8 years of daily Bush FCK UP'S... I don't need to invent any.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
AP – In this photo made available by French Army Saturday June 4, 2011, combat helicopters are prepared on … – Sun Jun 5, 3:00 am ET SINGAPORE – Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says NATO is "one step" from sending troops into Libya in a bid to help rebels remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.........................>>>>.......................>>>>........................................http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_re_us/libya_russia
I don't consider the NATO mission in Libya an Obama FCK UP.
Obama unilaterally bombs Libya with 112 tomahawk cruise missiles THEN decides to hand it over to NATO commanders, so NOW it makes it a NATO mission. That's how it works for libs, they attach NATO to their wars after the fact, then and all of a sudden, it's not their war. It's as if Obama was dragged into this "humanitarian mission"(I laugh every time I type that), because of our NATO obligation to the NATO charter, which is to seek out and get involved in a foreign countries civil war. Oh yeah, that's right, NATO charter only obligate that you defend a NATO member if ATTACKED. But hey, who care, Obama needs to distance himself from Libya, so he can fool the left wing anti war faction of the Democrat Party that he's not a war monger.
C'mon Box, nobody really believes this is a NATO mission. And even if it is, it's not a just NATO mission. NO MEMBER OF NATO WAS ATTACKED BY LIBYA!!!!
Quoted Text
04 Apr. 1949 The North Atlantic Treaty Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949
Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
TRIPOLI (Reuters) – British and French attack helicopters struck inside Libya for the first time overnight on Saturday, hitting targets in the oil port of Brega as NATO forces stepped up their air war against Muammar Gaddafi. (Yahoo News)
If it's Obama's war, why send in British or French helicopters??? Did the French Steal "Obama's war"? Are the British pushing the USA out of Libya??? Duhhhh! A NATO mission will customarily use many NATO countries to defend or attack according to their capabilities and specialties.
The real issue here has nothing to do with Libya... Right Wingers who were embarrassed to death by the Bush Military Fiasco in Iraq, are now trying to draw a similarity in any possible way to Obama. To make matters worse, Obama accomplished a task that GWB gave up on... Killing Osama Bin Laden. (how embarrassing for GWB supporters) George Worst Bush is the Worst President in US history... that is a fact. Obama may end up being a good, a mediocre, or a poor US President... but GWB is the WORST!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
TRIPOLI (Reuters) – British and French attack helicopters struck inside Libya for the first time overnight on Saturday, hitting targets in the oil port of Brega as NATO forces stepped up their air war against Muammar Gaddafi. (Yahoo News)
If it's Obama's war, why send in British or French helicopters??? Did the French Steal "Obama's war"? Are the British pushing the USA out of Libya??? Duhhhh! A NATO mission will customarily use many NATO countries to defend or attack according to their capabilities and specialties.
The real issue here has nothing to do with Libya... Right Wingers who were embarrassed to death by the Bush Military Fiasco in Iraq, are now trying to draw a similarity in any possible way to Obama. To make matters worse, Obama accomplished a task that GWB gave up on... Killing Osama Bin Laden. (how embarrassing for GWB supporters) George Worst Bush is the Worst President in US history... that is a fact. Obama may end up being a good, a mediocre, or a poor US President... but GWB is the WORST!
So let me get this straight??? When the US/British/Australia commit combat forces in Iraq, it's BUSH'S WAR. BUT...When the French fly a few helicopter mission after America dropped 112 cruise missiles, and a number of air sorties, it's NATO, or a multinational coalition. Got-it...Just wanna make sure I understand how the word game works.
So this is how it works when attempting to rewrite history:
U.S. led coalition in Iraq = BUSH'S ILLEGAL WAR. U.S. led coalition in Libya = NATO/"Humanitarian Mission"
Somebody needs to tell the Russians. Just recently they publicly warned the U.S. and Europeans not to intervene in Syria. Don't the Russians understand it's NATO, NOT the U.S. or Obama that chose to intervene in Libya? Box, you better go talk to the Russians and explain that America has NO INVOLVEMENT in Libya. We were forced by the NATO/UN charter, America is bound by international law to protect European oil interests.
Thanks for the clarification Box, bombing Libya isn't of Obama's choice, Obama's just FOLLOWING, it's all part of our NATO agreement.
The real issue here has nothing to do with Libya... Right Wingers who were embarrassed to death by the Bush Military Fiasco in Iraq, are now trying to draw a similarity in any possible way to Obama. To make matters worse, Obama accomplished a task that GWB gave up on... Killing Osama Bin Laden. (how embarrassing for GWB supporters) George Worst Bush is the Worst President in US history... that is a fact. Obama may end up being a good, a mediocre, or a poor US President... but GWB is the WORST!
How did we get back on Bin Laden? No, the topic of the tread is "Obama's Illegal War". Not a GWB supporter. Great for Obama, he killed public enemy number 1. Tel me, why isn't the war declared over and troops coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and all of our resources pulled out of Libya? The troops should be coming home and there should be parades in the streets. C'mon Box, why hasn't Obama declared victory yet?
So let me get this straight??? When the US/British/Australia commit combat forces in Iraq, it's BUSH'S WAR. BUT...When the French fly a few helicopter mission after America dropped 112 cruise missiles, and a number of air sorties, it's NATO, or a multinational coalition. Got-it...Just wanna make sure I understand how the word game works.
So this is how it works when attempting to rewrite history:
U.S. led coalition in Iraq = BUSH'S ILLEGAL WAR. U.S. led coalition in Libya = NATO/"Humanitarian Mission"
Cicero is so cute when he gets on a "rant roll"! But he can't keep his rant straight with the facts. We all know that GWB raised a "COALITION" of forces to "INVADE" Iraq... Remember Cicero? He attempted to pull together a "COALITION" like his dad did in the first gulf war, but it failed and ended up being named the "COALITION OF THE COERCED". Britain joined the USA... the rest of his "Coalition" was bought of forced.
The Bush INVASION was an attempt to take over Iraq, get rid of it's government, and impose a new Bush Government on the Iraqi people, then grab the Iraqi oil. The Bush invasion was successful (The worlds only superpower against a 5th rate military). Bush eventually got rid of Saddam. The bogus elections were as successful as bogus elections usually are... a puppet govt was elected. The country went into civil war that still exists today. Bush lost the oil, no WMD's, no AlQaeda connection, no mobile chemical factories, no nuttin. vs Libya... a NATO mission with the USA a major contributor.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Libya... a NATO mission with the USA a major contributor.
U.N. Resolution 1973(Libya "no fly zone") - UN Security Council Vote - 10 YES and 5 ABSTAIN(Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation)
U.N. Resolution 1441
offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1] Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
U.N. Security Council Vote on Resolution 1441 - Unanimous - ALL 15 YES.
So now you can begin to see the world through Box's propagandized eyes.
- Bush goes to security council and makes his case for a final resolution on Iraqi disarmament obligations. Iraq has been in violation of Resolution 687 which was a breech of ceasefire. The Security Council unanimously(that means all 15) vote in support of 1441(FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS). In 1991, Bush the senior only received support of 12 security council member with 2 NO(Cuba,Yemen) and 1 ABSTAIN(China) on resolution 678. So to Box's allegation that Bush Senior had a greater coalition, he didn't, it was unanimous for GWB on resolution 1441. Oh yeah...And he made his case to congress for which 82 Democrats Congressmen and women voted yes for use of forces, along with 29 Democrat Senators. Have they had that vote on Libya yet?
- Obama on the other hand sends a diplomat to the U.N. Security Council to institute a "No Fly Zone" in Libya for humanitarian concerns. The Security Council votes, with an outcome of 10 YES and 5 ABSTAINING. Of the FIVE that abstained, two are permanent members of the Security Council(China, Russia) NOT UNANIMOUS SUPPORT. And how about the authorization from congress? Obama hasn't bothered to even consult with congress.
Let's not let historical facts get in the way of Box's revision of history. Do I fully agree with the Iraq War - NO. Do I fully agree with the war in Libya - NO. But lets not make up coalitions and support, and call one war, and the other not, and however else you twist reality to paint a rosy picture of BHO. He doesn't have a coalition, actually the Russians have been pretty vocal about U.S. intervention in the region. And I would call Germany, Brazil, India, China, Russia major players in geopolitics. These countries deciding to sit on the sidelines on this is pretty substantial.
U.N. Resolution 1973(Libya "no fly zone") - UN Security Council Vote - 10 YES and 5 ABSTAIN(Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation)
U.N. Resolution 1441
offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1] Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
U.N. Security Council Vote on Resolution 1441 - Unanimous - ALL 15 YES.
So now you can begin to see the world through Box's propagandized eyes.
- Bush goes to security council and makes his case for a final resolution on Iraqi disarmament obligations. Iraq has been in violation of Resolution 687 which was a breech of ceasefire. The Security Council unanimously(that means all 15) vote in support of 1441(FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS). In 1991, Bush the senior only received support of 12 security council member with 2 NO(Cuba,Yemen) and 1 ABSTAIN(China) on resolution 678. So to Box's allegation that Bush Senior had a greater coalition, he didn't, it was unanimous for GWB on resolution 1441. Oh yeah...And he made his case to congress for which 82 Democrats Congressmen and women voted yes for use of forces, along with 29 Democrat Senators. Have they had that vote on Libya yet?
- Obama on the other hand sends a diplomat to the U.N. Security Council to institute a "No Fly Zone" in Libya for humanitarian concerns. The Security Council votes, with an outcome of 10 YES and 5 ABSTAINING. Of the FIVE that abstained, two are permanent members of the Security Council(China, Russia) NOT UNANIMOUS SUPPORT. And how about the authorization from congress? Obama hasn't bothered to even consult with congress.
Let's not let historical facts get in the way of Box's revision of history. Do I fully agree with the Iraq War - NO. Do I fully agree with the war in Libya - NO. But lets not make up coalitions and support, and call one war, and the other not, and however else you twist reality to paint a rosy picture of BHO. He doesn't have a coalition, actually the Russians have been pretty vocal about U.S. intervention in the region. And I would call Germany, Brazil, India, China, Russia major players in geopolitics. These countries deciding to sit on the sidelines on this is pretty substantial.
Blah Blah Blah... yadda yadda yadda.
I'm surprise that Cicero actually posted this resolution... I just love the part about Saddam not complying with the resolutions to disarm.... LMAO!
SADDAM MUST DISARM... ALL THOSE WMD'S GOTTA GO, OR WE'LL INVADE!!! WMD'S? As it turns out... Saddam was the one TELLING THE TRUTH... GEORGIE WORST BUSH WAS THE ONE WHO LIED!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
But he can't keep his rant straight with the facts.
