Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

[TheOracle]

The Marines are an amphibious force. That means they "fight our country's battles in the air, on land, and sea."

Marines deploy on Navy ships but they usually TCB from the ships to amphibious craft, their aircraft, small boats, or on foot. They consider the ships to be a means to the end, not the end itself.

Yes...Beowulf said those Marines were in Libya.

I took it to mean that the Marines who recently deployed to the Med (not unusual) were now in Libya. So that's why I said "I thought they were on ships" ? as in, there's nothing abnormal about it and as far as I've heard, there's been no ground troops in Libya (except for that pilot rescue).

 

[Jiro]

The Marines are an amphibious force. That means they "fight our country's battles in the air, on land, and sea."

Marines deploy on Navy ships but they usually TCB from the ships to amphibious craft, their aircraft, small boats, or on foot. They consider the ships to be a means to the end, not the end itself.

Reba - correct me if I'm wrong but Marines is actually a very unique force because it's the only branch that the President can use at his own discretion anywhere (to a certain degree) without going thru legal proceeding to use the military force.

 

[Beowulf]

Reba - correct me if I'm wrong but Marines is actually a very unique force because it's the only branch that the President can use at his own discretion anywhere (to a certain degree) without going thru legal proceeding to use the military force.

Nope. None of them.
Not even the Green Berets.

 

[Jiro]

Nope. None of them.

 

[TheOracle]

that's correct. Because of 9/11, Congress passed additional clause to War Power Act - specifically relating to 9/11... which is what you just said (bold print)


How could Obama get in trouble, you asked? Simple... Political Quibbling between 2 parties :roll:

but yes - the President can choose whatever he wants. After all... he's the President and the Commander-in-Chief.


no. War Power Act is actually quote broad and kinda vague. It's notoriously difficult to "settle" this over courts.


yep. Bush Administration was notorious for that but I blame Dick Cheney for that. I like Bush but Cheney & his staff pretty much tarnished Bush and everybody else. He's truly a very evil, unethical, immoral person...

funny thing is... during election, Obama preached about transparency. and now... Obama is following same pattern as Bush Administration... he's exercising his Executive privilege to keep more stuff classified. hence my commonly-used phrase... "Don't be naive"

1. I don't think that Executive Privilege covers unilateral military operations.
   
2. I also don't think it's wise to let the President "pick and choose" which U.N. resolutions he wants to support. (Especially if we had a president who decided to, oh, I donno, send ground troops to Jerusalem or something.)
   
3. As far as no-fly zones go...we were in Iraq for what? two decades? Didn't we have Congressional approval?
   
4. Commander-in-Chief privileges? But we're not at war and this is not an emergency.

 

[Jiro]

Marines on ground in Libya :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [vs-1]

perhaps I should clarify my statement.

There is no American troops directly engaging in direct armed conflict with Libyan soldiers. we're just firing missiles and enforcing no-fly zone.

 

[TheOracle]

Now, the President can enforce treaties...but do you really consider the U.N. itself a treaty? There are ongoing resolutions passed in the U.N. that sometimes do and do not have the support of the U.S.

Arguably, each new resolution is an addition to a previous "treaty", so in order for the U.S. to act on the U.N.'s behalf, it would still require the approval of Congress.

DAMN IT. I hate it when Kucinich makes sense.

 

[Steinhauer]

HUFFPOST HILL - Obama: We're Promoting Democracy In Libya

Mixed signals? From Iran to Libya, will Obama ride this democracy train of protests? - CSMonitor.com

Independent Women's Forum - I Hope Colonel Gaddafi Is As Confused As I Am...

Gaddafi must go: Obama : World News Australia on SBS


White House aims to 'install' democracy in Libya | Hayley Peterson | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner


So...this is our policy...just not our goal right now. Hmm. Seems like our current goal supports our policy!


(Like it did in Iraq...didn't work.)

Don't forget ... war isn't war when using the military to enforce UN policy (um ... yeah). :roll:

Instead of calling it the VietNam war, its really politically correct to call it the Viet Nam police action

 

[TheOracle]

perhaps I should clarify my statement.

There is no American troops directly engaging in direct armed conflict with Libyan soldiers. we're just firing missiles and enforcing no-fly zone.

But there's a potential for American casualties.

Like I said, it's very possible that it will escalate because of the position he's put us in...I donno...Obama is already trying to fund the rebels with Qadaffi's war chest....like I said before...my concern is who the F is going to run Libya next. Al-Queda?

 

[Reba]

Reba - correct me if I'm wrong but Marines is actually a very unique force because it's the only branch that the President can use at his own discretion anywhere (to a certain degree) without going thru legal proceeding to use the military force.

The President can send any military force, not just Marines, under the powers and restrictions that are currently being debated.

The Marines are not a private Presidential force. They are part of the Navy Department, and follow that chain of command.

 

[Jiro]

The President can send any military force, not just Marines, under the powers and restrictions that are currently being debated.

The Marines are not a private Presidential force. They are part of the Navy Department, and follow that chain of command.

for clarification.

 

[Steinhauer]

But there's a potential for American casualties.

Like I said, it's very possible that it will escalate because of the position he's put us in...I donno...Obama is already trying to fund the rebels with Qadaffi's war chest....like I said before...my concern is who the F is going to run Libya next. Al-Queda?

Yes, someone worse than Qaddafi no doubt.

No one has asked why Qaddafi is being removed ... is he being removed because the people of Libya can't stand that he denounced terrorism and has been a "good boy" to the US?

 

[TheOracle]

Don't forget ... war isn't war when using the military to enforce UN policy (um ... yeah). :roll:

Instead of calling it the VietNam war, its really politically correct to call it the Viet Nam police action

Declaring war is basically a formal speech at this point. Use of military force should require Congressional action unless it is an emergency or imminent threat. So many presidents have boo hooed the War Powers Act as unconstitutional and then later invoked it. :roll:

 

[Reba]

Our Marines go wherever Israel tells them to.

Israel has its own special forces that are quite capable of handling matters. They don't need to use our Marines.

 

[Jiro]

I don't think that Executive Privilege covers unilateral military operations.

that's up to him.

I also don't think it's wise to let the President "pick and choose" which U.N. resolutions he wants to support. (Especially if we had a president who decided to, oh, I donno, send ground troops to Jerusalem or something.)

oh no no - I meant the President can choose any conflict.

As far as no-fly zones go...we were in Iraq for what? two decades? Didn't we have Congressional approval?

other ADer showed a link earlier in other thread that we had Congressional approval but I know Congress was forced to vote it in or they'll risk being painted as unpatriotic people. sssshhhh

Commander-in-Chief privileges?

EXECUTIVE privilege.

But we're not at war and this is not an emergency.

no. doesn't matter. look at Somalia.

 

[Steinhauer]

Weren't we the ones claiming the Soviets were attacking innocent civilians in Afghanistan and justified our actions as protecting the people (Taliban) of Afghanistan?

How did that turn out?

Oh, I almost forgot ... Rambo was an Afghan freedom fighter (taliban) in Rambo III.

My how times do change.

 

[TheOracle]

Jiro, you said:

but yes - the President can choose whatever he wants. After all... he's the President and the Commander-in-Chief.

I said that doesn't mean he can pick and choose which U.N. resolutions he wants to support with military force.

 

[TheOracle]

As far as I know, Executive Privileges have nothing to do with declaring unilateral military action against another country.

 

[TheOracle]

Weren't we the ones claiming the Soviets were attacking innocent civilians in Afghanistan and justified our actions as protecting the people (Taliban) of Afghanistan?

How did that turn out?

Oh, I almost forgot ... Rambo was an Afghan freedom fighter (taliban) in Rambo III.

My how times do change.

I'm not comfortable with those rebels taking over if Qadaffi leaves. They're hardly freedom-loving democracy fighters. They're Islamist militants. <head/smack>

I can't believe we're on the same side.

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, you said:

I said that doesn't mean he can pick and choose which U.N. resolutions he wants to support with military force.

ah - then yes it's up to him. He can either provide resource or not.