U.S. Navy fires missiles at Libyan air defenses, Obama to speak shortly

[flying]

In the video, Congressman Paul argues that:

1. The action is an act of War.

2. The no-fly zone is unconstitutional because Congress has not authorized it, a point Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar agrees with.

3. President Obama has illegally seceded U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

4. The United States cannot afford the financial burden of more military action in the Middle East.

Date: 03/14/2011

Libya Is Not the American People’s Fight

by Ron Paul

Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-aircraft systems. The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so.

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.

Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.

Edited March 20, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

In the video, Congressman Paul argues that:

1. The action is an act of War.

2. The no-fly zone is unconstitutional because Congress has not authorized it, a point Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar agrees with.

3. President Obama has illegally seceded U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

4. The United States cannot afford the financial burden of more military action in the Middle East.

I agree with point one and point four (not so sure about the others). I do not think that the US should have become involved in this. However, the President has made the decision and we are in it now and Gaddaffi is a complete scumbag.

It is time to support the troops if your country is involved and whine and moan like crazy if you support loony dictators that kill their own people.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

I agree with point one and point four (not so sure about the others). I do not think that the US should have become involved in this. However, the President has made the decision and we are in it now and Gaddaffi is a complete scumbag.

It is time to support the troops if your country is involved and whine and moan like crazy if you support loony dictators that kill their own people.

I also agree with 1 & 4

But if I agree with #1 it goes without saying I agree with #2

If it is an act of War (#1) & the congress has not authorized it then it is in fact unconstitutional.

As for #3 I think it is a bit overstated & do not believe anyone can secede U.S. sovereignty except the people themselves. Everyone knows that would never happen & Americans would never lay down.

While I do in fact support our troops I would ask that they support the oath they took when they enlisted.

That oath is to uphold the Constitution

If there comes a time when the President is acting on his own outside that Constitution which he also took an oath to uphold....Well I guess choices have to be made.....

Edited March 20, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I also agree with 1 & 4

But if I agree with #1 it goes without saying I agree with #2

If it is an act of War (#1) & the congress has not authorized it then it is in fact unconstitutional.

There seems to be a lot of ways to get around this - and sometimes for good reason - which is why I'm not so sure about number two.

[zydeco]

In the video, Congressman Paul argues that:

1. The action is an act of War.

2. The no-fly zone is unconstitutional because Congress has not authorized it, a point Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar agrees with.

3. President Obama has illegally seceded U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

4. The United States cannot afford the financial burden of more military action in the Middle East.

I agree with point one and point four (not so sure about the others). I do not think that the US should have become involved in this. However, the President has made the decision and we are in it now and Gaddaffi is a complete scumbag.

It is time to support the troops if your country is involved and whine and moan like crazy if you support loony dictators that kill their own people.

Yes, we are only following orders. Jawohl!

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, we are only following orders. Jawohl!

Allahu Akbar would be more appropriate in your case.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Crushdepth]

The Europeans are going to give Gadaffi a hiding with or without US involvement. I don't see how the constitutionality argument is relevant - there has been no declaration of war, the US has just agreed to help enforce a UN resolution they voted for (the no fly zone).

Admittedly there appear to be a few extra dents in the airfield this morning that weren't mentioned in the original plan, and Gadaffi's office appears to have suffered what Qantas might call an uncontained engine failure, but you know...

[flying]

I also agree with 1 & 4

But if I agree with #1 it goes without saying I agree with #2

If it is an act of War (#1) & the congress has not authorized it then it is in fact unconstitutional.

There seems to be a lot of ways to get around this - and sometimes for good reason - which is why I'm not so sure about number two.

Sadly true there are many ways around it these days. Declaring a State of Emergency being just one used side step of the constitution.

[bangkokrick]

The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the coalition bombardment.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

Sounds like the coalition is losing favour with the Arab league. Maybe they should have let them sort it out in the first place. This is a no win situation for the UN.

BBC

[luckizuchinni]

I agree with point one and point four (not so sure about the others). I do not think that the US should have become involved in this. However, the President has made the decision and we are in it now and Gaddaffi is a complete scumbag.

It is time to support the troops if your country is involved and whine and moan like crazy if you support loony dictators that kill their own people.

I also agree with 1 & 4

But if I agree with #1 it goes without saying I agree with #2

If it is an act of War (#1) & the congress has not authorized it then it is in fact unconstitutional.

As for #3 I think it is a bit overstated & do not believe anyone can secede U.S. sovereignty except the people themselves. Everyone knows that would never happen & Americans would never lay down.

While I do in fact support our troops I would ask that they support the oath they took when they enlisted.

That oath is to uphold the Constitution

If there comes a time when the President is acting on his own outside that Constitution which he also took an oath to uphold....Well I guess choices have to be made.....

I think this is a stupid intervention by the US, and I wonder how much of it is to shore up the US calls for assistance in other areas.

However, all this talk about Obama exceeding his authority or it being unconstitutional is pretty silly. There is nothing illegal going on.

If you feel strongly against this, then contact your congressman and don't vote for the politicians who supported this.

As far as the troops, it is dangerous ground for people to tell them to determine when the President is going outside the Constitution so they know when to obey and when not to obey. Let the legal beagles make that determination, not some 18-year-old private who barely graduated high-school.

[Naam]

yesterday i heard Admiral Mike Mullen on TV proudly claim that out of 110 launched Tomahawk missiles at least 20 hit military targets. that makes me wonder what targets the other 90 Tomahawks hit. Qadhafi's vegetable garden?

[Estrada]

$112 MILLION WASTED OVERNIGHT

when the dust settles and the new muslim regime backed by Al Qaeda is in control, these insurgents will spit on their new found friendship with the western allies, as the infidels they see us as

this is a major blunder by all the parties involved, they should have left it well alone and let this civil war work itself out.........

I worked in Libya for 6 years for Gaddafi and his regime on his personal pet project the Great Mad Man Made River. Be sure that the people behind the uprising are definitely not Al Qaeda or Muslim Fanatics. The only Libyans that appear to be anything like Al Qaeda are the ones shown waving green flags and shouting long live Gaddafi in Green Square. Remember that Saif-Islam recently let alot of Al Queda detainees out of prison, who swore allegience to him and are probably fighting for him not for the other side.

I can tell you from personal experience, that Gaddafi rules by fear, everyone is scared of him, I kept a low profile. 10 Bulgarian nurses were sentenced to death by firing squad although we all knew they were innocent of all charges. Another friend, Max Goldi, who was Country Director of ABB was jailed just for being Swiss, in retalliation for the arrest of Hannibal Gaddafi in a Swiss hotel when he had beaten up his servants. Subsequent to that Gaddafi suggested to teh UN that Switzerland be broken up and divided between Italy, France and Germany.

Originally, two sons, Saadi and Saif-Islam had the idea to introduce Democracy, to promote Tourism and to turn Libya into another Dubai withh Zwara being modelled on Monte Carlo with Casinos, hotels and a harbour for luxury yachts. To do this they persuaded Gaddafi to retire but instead he agreed to step down as leader if he was given the position of President of the United States of Africa, and they proceeded to pay a number of the Africa States considerebale sums to support this. The idea was that he would step down in September 2009, the 50th anniversary of the revolution. In the end the African states did not all support this and so Gaddafi refused to step down and relinguish power.

Two of my Libyan bosses, who had been working with these two sons to replace the old regime and establish a Democratic state, fell foul of Gaddafi and fled to Egypt in 2009, to join the opposition. Many of the younger generation have studied and travelled abroad and are into pop music, parties, and many other western persuits, which are not allowed in Libya, although Gaddafi and his sons hold rave parties even with Beyonce paying $2 Million to perform, whilst 26% of the youth have no job. Tourism is continually held back by the old Regime although Libya has the most stunning Roman and Greek buildings still standing including a whole city at Leptcis Magna. The people of Zwara, Al Zawiyah are Berber and are related to the Tunisians and the Lebanese, being decendents of the ancient Phoenicians.

Alot of them studied in the UK, Germany and the USA, and since 2006 when Gaddafi allowed them to have internet, have been communicating with the the outside World, and they realise that they are amongst the poorest people in the world despite Libya having earnt US$32.4Billion last year in oil money. That is US$5million per Libyan. This is what has caused them to seek to remove Gaddafi and seek a Western style democracy. Remember that Bengahzi was part of Cyrenia in the Ancient Greek Empire and the Greeks invented Democracy. These guys are definitely not Al Qaeda.

You had me right with you there until the part about wealth distribution. With a population of 6.5 million people, $32 billion comes to just under $5,000 per person, not $5 million

Sorry, I am showing my age: In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000).

British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.

So US$32Billion is US$32,000million. Having said that, Libya has a very large population under the age of 15 (33%) and retirees over 65 (4.4%. A considerable number between 16 and 24 years of age are University Students. The male working population is only around 1.5 Million which would make the figure US$21,000+ per bread winner/ year. Considering that the average working Libyan male is earning $240/month, you can see why the Libyans feel that they are not getting their fair share of the Oil revenue.

[Estrada]

Estrada, thank you for a very enlightening post. Whenever I saw rebels talking on the newscasts none of them seemed to be uneducated goat herders. If this is a good representation of the freedom fighters, then Libya has a chance for better future.

Thank you. The rebels are led by the well educated Libyans, mostly the younger generation. The literacy rate in Libya is 88%. The uneducated goat herders are mostly all illegal immigrants working for a few crumbs a day, the Libyans are predominately wheelers and dealers, trading runs in their blood after all they are the decendants of the Phoenicians. Some go back further than that as 10,000 years ago the Stone Ware People who were from Islands to the North of Scotland moved to what is now Libya when the climate changed. The decendants can still be seen now making stoneware in Gharyian which is a mountaineous area south of Tripoli.

After the revolution and the Country opens up fully to Tourism, I highly recommend that you visit to see all the ancient buildings that are still standing. Libya has the most well preserved Roman Architecture outside of Rome.

[Naam]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

or just by simply shouting out loud "zu Befehl mein Führer! you haff made a dezishun. zat's vhy vee are in now und support ze kampain against der untermenschen skumbags."

[WarpSpeed]

Their non vote was a vote.. Just as mine was when Obama was elected, and Bush and Clinton, etc..

Any one who hasn't been hiding under a rock and just surfaced like a cockroach to bash the U.S. would know that you need to abolish their tracking and defensive capabilities first to safely implement (relatively speaking) a no fly zone and this entire action was headed by the British and the French (amazingly) and not the U.S. who actually expressed misgivings but of course it's the U.S. instigating once again just out of being good allies...

People always use to comment on how ineffective and impotent the UN was as it never acted but merely threatened and now that they are actually enforcing their resolutions it's still not satisfactory to the bleeding hearts who are usually of a certain ilk and nationality I might add..

Since you quoted me in your reply I can only assume your reply is directed at me.

As such I will point out that I live in the US, vote & pay taxes. (ie: do not live under a rock )

That a US citizen who votes & pays taxes I am not under any obligation to agree with foreign policy.

In fact as a US citizen that is our right to voice our dissatisfaction with it as 63% of Americans do.

As for your remark about military policy & the need to destroy others air defense to enforce a rule BEFORE any infractions of that rule...

Again while that may be military policy it does not mean Americans need to agree with it.

It is not unlike saying.....The rule of Murder says you cannot murder

So we will now destroy your property/ability to defend yourself and or life in order to safely police you so that you do not commit murder

As to your comment....

still not satisfactory to the bleeding hearts who are usually of a certain ilk and nationality I might add..

Again it assumes that Americans did in fact call for resolution...Did we? Polls show otherwise

The most striking early-survey finding: A whopping three-quarters of Americans--74 percent--said the United States should "leave it to others" to attempt to resolve the situation in Libya, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week.

Similarly, a Pew Research Center poll conducted last week found that 65 percent of respondents think the United States doesn't have the responsibility to do something about the fighting in Libya, compared with 27 percent who responded that it does.

More worrying for the U.S. administration: More than three-quarters of respondents in the Pew poll (77 percent) said they oppose the United States bombing Libyan air defenses.

Certain ilk & nationality?? Lets leave your racial preferences out of it. As America is a melting pot of nationalities it is your comment that speaks volumes of anti-Americanisms

Applies to most of your disconnected post but additionally where is there a racial preference displayed?? Don't play that silly, childish card it only distracts from the real debate, maybe that's your tactic though.. Besides I said "nationality" not race "nationality" is a conglomeration of many races..

The leaders you voted into office are there to do as they see fit to run both OUR country and participate in foreign policy as they've done. They aren't going to put their decisions to public referendum every time they need to make one just so you can bicker childishly and whine about the need for the medicine because it has a nasty taste you don't like...

The time to decide whether or not you trusted those leaders to do that on YOUR behalf was before you voted for them and if you did that and voted in this POTUS then you now have to take your nasty tasting medicine like an adult and not whine about it until the next election when you can make another change. I didn't/don't trust the candidates and haven't since Reagan so I have not voted out of protest but was as vocal as I could be about the choices available for which I turned out to be spot on in my perception..

I'm anti American eh?? You haven't been paying attention then as I am a vocal and staunch American and I'm ashamed of the direction we've gone over the last couple of years giving everything back after doing so much to build ourselves back up to the power we used to be..

As an American I also have every right you display to display my frustration and disappointment in our government as you do though it may not jive with your views..

IMO this is one of the few proper decisions our current POTUS has made since being in office and he has my support though he is virtually tracing the steps he so vehemently said he would not do in his campaign for the office.. He has now gotten past the naivety he displayed at that point and finally realized the office comes with hard choices and responsibilities..

Edited March 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[flying]

However, all this talk about Obama exceeding his authority or it being unconstitutional is pretty silly. There is nothing illegal going on.

If you feel strongly against this, then contact your congressman and don't vote for the politicians who supported this.

Well yes of course & I as well as many others have done just that.

With polls showing 74% of the American voting public oppose this action. I am pretty sure the phones & emails are busy at work.

But also as I & others have already stated there are ways around constitutionality.

One such way is to operate the country under a declared State Of Emergency

In 2009 that is exactly what President Obama did.

On September 10th, 2009 President Obama re-instituted the national State of Emergency first declared by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 by placing the following language in the Federal Register.

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

So as you suggest yes there are those of us US citizens who will write/call & complain/demand that our constitution be followed.

Yet I just want to point out as others have said that loop holes do exist.

At the end of the day I believe the majority of Americans are not for the erosion of the Constitution as set forth by our forefathers.

They know as I do that once it starts that it is in fact a slippery slope that follows.

Edited March 21, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

or just by simply shouting out loud "zu Befehl mein Führer! you haff made a dezishun. zat's vhy vee are in now und support ze kampain against der untermenschen skumbags."

I don't really think you have to worry about supporting YOUR troops abroad...unless they invade Poland or France again.

[beechguy]

yesterday i heard Admiral Mike Mullen on TV proudly claim that out of 110 launched Tomahawk missiles at least 20 hit military targets. that makes me wonder what targets the other 90 Tomahawks hit. Qadhafi's vegetable garden?

I'm sure they fired more than one missle at some targets, and makes sense considering the number of buildings on some of the bases.

[Hawaiian]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

Weren't the original cruise missiles the V2 which were used to terrorize the people of London?

[transam]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

Weren't the original cruise missiles the V2 which were used to terrorize the people of London?

V1, V2 was a rocket.

[Hawaiian]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

Weren't the original cruise missiles the V2 which were used to terrorize the people of London?

V1, V2 was a rocket.

Thank you for the correction. I think they were called buzz bombs by the Brits.

[bangkokeddy]

Yes, we are only following orders. Jawohl!

Allahu Akbar would be more appropriate in your case.

If you hate Muslims, just say it.

[WarpSpeed]

Yes, we are only following orders. Jawohl!

Allahu Akbar would be more appropriate in your case.

If you hate Muslims, just say it.

He didn't say it probably because that's not what his posts implies, but of course I'm giving you the credit for not being that obtuse and guessing you knew that already didn't you??

[bangkokeddy]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

or just by simply shouting out loud "zu Befehl mein Führer! you haff made a dezishun. zat's vhy vee are in now und support ze kampain against der untermenschen skumbags."

Thumbs up to the germans who said that they stay out of this. They learned from history, others repeating it.

Edited March 21, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[WarpSpeed]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

or just by simply shouting out loud "zu Befehl mein Führer! you haff made a dezishun. zat's vhy vee are in now und support ze kampain against der untermenschen skumbags."

Thumbs up to the germans who said that they stay out of this. They learned from history, others repeating it.

Yes good to be able to count on your allies in a time of real humanitarian need..

[chuckd]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

or just by simply shouting out loud "zu Befehl mein Führer! you haff made a dezishun. zat's vhy vee are in now und support ze kampain against der untermenschen skumbags."

Thumbs up to the germans who said that they stay out of this. They learned from history, others repeating it.

Are you certain you are sticking up the correct finger?

[bangkokeddy]

Yes, we are only following orders. Jawohl!

Allahu Akbar would be more appropriate in your case.

If you hate Muslims, just say it.

He didn't say it probably because that's not what his posts implies, but of course I'm giving you the credit for not being that obtuse and guessing you knew that already didn't you??

So what implies his post?

[bangkokeddy]

how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians?

or just by simply shouting out loud "zu Befehl mein Führer! you haff made a dezishun. zat's vhy vee are in now und support ze kampain against der untermenschen skumbags."

Thumbs up to the germans who said that they stay out of this. They learned from history, others repeating it.

Are you certain you are sticking up the correct finger?

Yes, I am certain that i understand Naam correctly.

[Steely Dan]

So what implies his post?

Perhaps that you jump to take the side of anyone if they are opposing the west or Israel regardless of whether or not they are terrorists, antisemites or mass murderers. :jap:

[bangkokeddy]

So what implies his post?

Perhaps that you jump to take the side of anyone if they are opposing the west or Israel regardless of whether or not they are terrorists, antisemites or mass murderers. :jap:

What?

What has all this to do with the prayer phrase Allahu Akbar ?

And what have Israel to do with the West? You mean the USA veto and Israel? In Europe they are pretty much pro Palestine and skeptical of Netanyahus will for peace. Thats a global opinion. But don't have much to do with the topic here.

Why must the pro-zionist always drag Israel into every discussion?