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

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by berkeley

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.

I like that the Repubs aren't united on this. Glad to see many disagreeing with party poster boys like Hannity. That's a good sign.

I think you are right about Rush. He cites reasons more specific for not intervening, which include suspicions concerning who the rebels are supported by, who they are exactly, etc. We may be helping a tyrant far worse than Gaddafi.

[Aquila]

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?

What I find interesting is that many of these nations are described as those nations under the authority of the Antichrist in the last days...

o Egypt, which he will attack and subdue (Dan 11:42).
o Meschek and Tubal (most likely parts of Turkey, parts of Southern Russia, parts of Iran),
o Magog (a region convering parts of either Syria and/or former Soviet Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Turkey, Iran, Dagestan),
o Persia (Modern Iran)
o Cush (African Cush covers parts of Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia. Asian Cush covers Arabia through Euphrates),
o Put (Libya),
o Gomer (Cappadocia, Turkey),
o Togarmah (southeastern part of Turkey near Syria)
o Babylon (Modern Iraq. The Euphrates River in Iraq is also mentioned together with the two Beasts in Rev 16:12-13),

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Snippets from the video clip above:

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

Would this statement be considered part of a straw man argument?

He did not declare war.

The President has the authority to send America's military places, without Congress' permission, for short periods of time.


This question implies a huge exaggeration of reality.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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

Would this statement be considered part of a straw man argument?

He did not declare war.

The President has the authority to send America's military places, without Congress' permission, for short periods of time.


This question implies a huge exaggeration of reality.

Where do you find those powers in the Constitution?

If 100k worth of artillery being dropped onto a sovereign nation is not "waging war" then neither was Pearl Harbor.

The question is not a straw man at all -- how one answers that question determines, and likely follows, their view of intervention. Take note, because I will guess this to be a Presidential Election topic as well.

(And waging war without a declaration of war is exactly the issue - a DOW comes with Congressional approval)

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Socialite

What agreement are you referring to?

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

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya ...
The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians. The Council had adopted an earlier resolution ... Libya: United Nations Security Council proposed ...

www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
Libya UN Resolution 1973

This agreement was adopted by the UN.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I like that the Repubs aren't united on this. Glad to see many disagreeing with party poster boys like Hannity. That's a good sign.

I think you are right about Rush. He cites reasons more specific for not intervening, which include suspicions concerning who the rebels are supported by, who they are exactly, etc. We may be helping a tyrant far worse than Gaddafi.

I don't know exactly what is going on. Why are we there? Can you summarize for me. Thanks.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya ...
The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians. The Council had adopted an earlier resolution ... Libya: United Nations Security Council proposed ...

www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
Libya UN Resolution 1973

This agreement was adopted by the UN.

This was much more than a so-called "No Fly Zone"...

Even then, is that how our military should be deployed? And without our consent?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by berkeley

I don't know exactly what is going on. Why are we there? Can you summarize for me. Thanks.

Are you being serious or a trying to be a joker with me. Can't tell.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Socialite

This was much more than a so-called "No Fly Zone"...

Even then, is that how our military should be deployed? And without our consent?

The resolution includes the phrase "by any means necessary" which would also insenuate more than a no fly zone.

There is something about it not being full scale war that the President has the ability to enact a small Military action. Its just another one of the loopholes!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

There is something about it not being full scale war that the President has the ability to enact a small Military action. Its just another one of the loopholes!

I'd like to know where that is (the loophole) and what exactly constitutes a war, act of war, etc?

Either way, I definitely don't support them being involved in this tar baby. Nation-building, humanitarians w/guns and policing the world seem to not fit the scope of our Constitution, nor my opinion of the proper role of government in this situation.

"any means necessary?" are you referring to UN Resolution? The UN's papers specify they are not to intermingle in an internal/civil war. That's what this is.