Posted on 03/28/2011 11:49:31 AM PDT by logician2u
Please. Reagan's bombing of Libya was a penalty for that and W saw to it reparations were paid for those actions as a condition of normalizing relations. You don't strike back, exact a penalty, settle the case and come back and say, "just kidding," in international affairs. That behavior ejects all manner of diplomatic credibility from the United States.
Rebels in a civil war. They knew what they were taking on.
"Humanitarian crisis?" Was Gaddafi shipping train cars of persons to concentration camps? No. Was Gaddafi using chemical weapons to kill thousands? No.
What about Darfur? Iran? Syria? China?
Open deliberation or any formal pronouncement to Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi would only have provided more time and opportunity to reposition personnel and tactical resources, such as artillery and anti-aircraft weapons.
How is it not his right to defend against insurrection? Obama had time for "open deliberation" at the UN but not the Congress of which you are a part? How is that acceptable to you?
Now, due in large part to the advantage of superior air power, a line has been drawn between the rebels and Gadhafi’s troops, while civilian populations are under far less threat of attack than before.
Interference in a civil war. These "rebels" include al queda and sympathizers who fought YOU and other Americans on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The War Powers Resolution provides the president with the authority to conduct limited operations absent a declaration of war or use of force resolution from Congress.
Again, Duncan: he had time for the UN but not the Congress of which you are a part?
How stupid do you your constituents are?
Depending on the duration of the military activity, there is also the likelihood that Congress will consider some type of measure pertaining to the operation.
Congress should not wait. It should assert constitutional authority. If you want to support and fund this new war, do it. If you believe in Obama's mission put it in writing.
The longer you allow yourselves to be sidelined, the more constitutional authority you concede to foreign powers, the UN and an imperial presidency.
This costly mission is unspecific, not a vital American interest, with an ill-defined goal, shows signs of mission creep and has real questions about who these rebels are we've been dragged into supporting are.
This is an unjustified neocon interventionist adventure about European oil, not humanitarian concerns. The chaos created by this administration demands accountability. It's time for Congress to step up and do the job they swore an oath to do.
There is so much in Hunter's op-ed that won't stand up to the harsh light of reality it's a waste of my time and yours to do a point-by-point rebuttal.
However, I see that newzjunkey made a good start in his post above, to which I would add (based on what I heard 0bama say last evening) Hunter is totally off-base in his thinking that the massive aerial attack on Libya begun on the night of March 19 was some kind of a surprise.
Of course Gadhafi had been warned ahead of time, and the whole world had to have been aware that the UN Security Council had "authorized" establishment of a "no-fly zone" which to the layman means little but to a Marine veteran of two wars means, just as SecDef Gates had said a week before, you first take out the target country's air defenses.
An act of war? Yes, I think that qualifies. Rep. Hunter must think otherwise.
If you still think Hunter and 0bama are right, you would not want to read the comments that follow his op-ed on the San Diego Union-Tribune's web site. They're more vicious than anything posted here.
I'm waiting on a reply from newzjunkey.
We are just being good sports. What fun is there in beating the crap out of a bunch of weaklings? We need to give our enemies a fighting chance to kill us hence Hillary is over in London promising to arm the “rebels”.
Your points are well taken but will be lost on the American people who not only do not understand the Constitution but do not CARE. Only a few of us whackjobs even have a clue.
Another huge problem unaddressed by the Treason Media is how is this legal even under the NATO charter? Since no NATO member was attacked by Daffy what gives the organization the authority to do anything against him? NATO forces are in Afghanistan because the US was attacked. It is illegal from a national and international perspective. Obama is now a WAR CRIMINAL.
The United States is filled with AINOs. Americans In Name Only who only ask “what can my country do for ME?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.