Libya: Obama Crafts the Anti-Bush Doctrine

[Zero Sum 305]

Who started what war? The UN declared a no-fly zone over Libya and called for a cease fire. Gaddafi agreed to a ceasefire but continued firing on the rebels. Listen to what the Joint Chief of Staffs says about the objectives, which again are fully supported by the Arab League. That's no small matter. The objective is to cripple Gaddafi's ability to carry out any more attacks on the people of Libya. There is no plan to deploy ground troops. All this is suppose to be is helping the rebels have a fighting chance against Gaddafi's arsenal.

If this goes beyond that, and is not justified then I'll be joining those who are critical of any involvement. There's a good chance that Gaddafi will remain there in Libya for awhile longer, but hopefully with the no-fly zone, and air support, the rebels will be able to reach their objectives of transforming changes to the Libyan government.

Notice the language being used by the military officials in charge of delivering this operation. Terms like 'not going beyond the terms of the resolution' are quite common. I think all this un-surprising opposition from a crowd that would likely have supported the previous administration's actions in other wars (and I bring up this for relative comparison only- disclaimer for those that can't read well enough; notice the bold reference) is posturing because they want something new to oppose the current US President.

[Zero Sum 305]

Then lets attack Syria. They are violently putting down rebellion and they have a history of state sponsored terrorism.

Syria Terrorism: State Department 2006 Report on State Sponsors -Syria

Feel free to lobby for this if you are passionate about exposing the Syrian regime for the obvious annihilation of its rebel civilians. This must be exposed. I obviously missed witnessing this when I traveled to Damascus last year.

[B_J 2,752]

Notice the language being used by the military officials in charge of delivering this operation. Terms like 'not going beyond the terms of the resolution' are quite common. I think all this un-surprising opposition from a crowd that would likely have supported the previous administration's actions in other wars (and I bring up this for relative comparison only- disclaimer for those that can't read well enough; notice the bold reference) is posturing because they want something new to oppose the current US President.

In a way, I respect people like Ron Paul and the liberal Democrats that have opposed both this action and the Iraq war. I'd rather see consistency, even in a position I disagree with, than people who change their opinion depending on which party is making the decisions.

[Zero Sum 305]

In a way, I respect people like Ron Paul and the liberal Democrats that have opposed both this action and the Iraq war. I'd rather see consistency, even in a position I disagree with, than people who change their opinion depending on which party is making the decisions.

Yep. Consistency is nice. I think that consistency in what drives us to use the military arm of our foreign policy, and for what aims, is also very important. If we stand for the defense of liberty and human rights around the world, then that's what UN-led efforts like this one is for. If we stand for the defense of industrial interests that benefit only a small fragment of the power base at home, then we know that will create different arguments for justification of war(s). I am sure we can expect to see human arguments being retrospectively applied to interest-driven conflicts as we did see with Iraq, and many will fall for them hook, line, and sinker.

[B_J 2,752]

If we stand for the defense of liberty and human rights around the world, then that's what UN-led efforts like this one is for.

But here's the really difficult question. Do we only stand for the defense of liberty and human rights around the world if the UN agrees? Or should we go it alone if the UN does nothing? And can we even afford to go it alone any more?

Ideally, I would think we should do the right thing whether the UN does anything or not. On the practical side, I'm not sure we can.

[Zero Sum 305]

But here's the really difficult question. Do we only stand for the defense of liberty and human rights around the world if the UN agrees? Or should we go it alone if the UN does nothing? And can we even afford to go it alone any more?

Ideally, I would think we should do the right thing whether the UN does anything or not. On the practical side, I'm not sure we can.

For things that are common to all nations, I'd prefer we worked as a team with others.

This is a modern world, not one where unilateralism is a mechanism for one's assertion of world power. We can lead; we don't have to bully.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's not America's problem, it's a world community problem, recognized by that community (via the U.N. and supported by the Arab League - Libya's neighbors).

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Sen. Barack Obama December 20, 2007.

By Fred Lucas

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), campaigning for president on Sept. 21, 2008, in Charlotte, NC.. (AP photo/Chuck Burton)

(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Did Clinton request a congressional vote when launching attacks in Iraq and against Bin Laden assets?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Did Clinton request a congressional vote when launching attacks in Iraq and against Bin Laden assets?

I don't know. What does that have to do with it? But one could say that attacking Bin Laden "involves stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation". Wouldn't you say?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't know. What does that have to do with it? But one could say that attacking Bin Laden "involves stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation". Wouldn't you say?

Chill lol, I'm actually in agreement with you on this. I was just curious about what previous presidents have done.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Chill lol, I'm actually in agreement with you on this. I was just curious about what previous presidents have done.

Its cool. I don't think he did ask because it was one of those, "we have a chance to get him so lets do it" moments. At the time it wasn't evident what the potential was for another attack by UBL but in hind sight it was right on the money. To bad we didn't get him. The world would be a much different place today.

As for the Obama quote, I was reading the news and saw that quote. I just had to post it.