Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait...

[Socialite]

North Korea next? *crickets*

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Socialite

North Korea next? *crickets*

o.O

[Socialite]

I'm not a 24/7 FOX News faithful saint, but was watching Judge Napolitano (sp?) just after I posted this thread. Trying to find video to his closing remarks -- WOW. That's all I can say. I think he hits the nail on the head. Anyone else see it? Hear it?

[Socialite]

HERE IT IS! Just after I posted this, I turn on FOX... and there he is...

[URL="http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html[/url]"]http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/fr...tch/index.html

MUST WATCH. (Listen to some of the historical precedent he provides as well)

I don't feel he was on a subjective Anti-Obama rant either. In fact, his "the Third George Bush" kills that notion. I enjoyed what he had to say.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Bowas

NO!!! STAY OUT!!!
We, as a nation have no buisness in their affairs except in some very narrow instances.
We have just invaded and attacked a soveriegn nation that was not threatening us, and WITHOUT prior consent, consultation or approval of our represtatives that we sent up to D.C. to prevent dictatorial actions, such as this.
Incredible!! Folks, this is NOT America, but an occupying power in our Government, totally contrary to what our nation is built upon.
We need to wake up, before it is too late, and it is getting close.

Wow. That is good stuff. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Socialite]

Snippets from the video clip above:

Can government wage war on behalf of Americans without their consent?

Sec Gates: "Any future Defense Secretary that would recommend an invasion in Asia, the Middle East or North Africa... ought to have his head examined."

Military operation began on Saturday. Purely a war of choice. Unconstitutional. No treaty may permit the Federal Government to act outside the confines of the Constitution, this includes the Treaty with the UN Security Council... There's no legal base, no imminent threat... humanitarian crisis? Though it is prominent in the media, is hardly a unique humanitarian crisis. Bahrain, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Ivory Coast.. citizens enduring violence and in the middle of government reforms.

North Koreans facing 60-year nightmare, seeing their country deteriorate from one Communist dictator to another Totalitarian bully. This, resulting from a1950 UN Security Council foreign intervention into what was a civil war at the time.

Even the UN has a charter that forbids them from intervening into foreign nation's internal affairs, such as civil wars.

We are now in our 5th Muslim nation: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen...

What ought to be our guide? The interest and safety of the American people?

Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same war party.... and that war party threatens our freedom...

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Irvin Baxter has checked in

So, because we are a Super Power we should entangle ourselves in foreign countries, and continue to stretch ourselves in nation building?

We should AT LEAST have an interest... is this worth risking an American life?

Legally, I'm not sure this is even legal.

In this case, at least, Obama is following the footsteps of W, with a little more cautiousness... but same result.

The coalition is following up on an agreement made by nations to protect the Libyan people. Yes even from their own government if necessary. So because we agreed to help, we are in this situation.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

The coalition is following up on an agreement made by nations to protect the Libyan people. Yes even from their own government if necessary. So because we agreed to help, we are in this situation.

What agreement are you referring to?

This war action violates every UN agreement, and US Constitutional agreement.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Should America serve a police/humanitarian role in the world?

Our policy of getting involved is rarely consistent, and our support of dictator regimes in the past is an other obvious inconsistency.

Some also argue, the more we fester and meddle, the more problems we heap back on ourselves. Others would say our non-intervention in the past could have prevented World Wars.

Many Republicans seem very big on intervention (surprisingly). Some Dems are too. Others are more cautious, either looking to addressing these situations as an international community or remaining more noninterventionist in general.

There's always a reason to get involved. When should we? When shouldn't we? How much should we? Should we really be trying to remove Gadafi? Is he a threat to the United States? Is military intervention without a threat to our own people, borders and land even Constitutional?

With the Middle East and Africa becoming increasingly unsettled, what should our role be?

I say stay out.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by ILG

I say stay out.

That idiot Sean Hannity(sp) says we should be leading this. Not exactly sure, I think Rush disagrees per the clip I caught early today.