If China, Russia, France and England got the UN's approval to launch cruise missiles

[Dr.Drock]

can't ignore the situation....

IF our gvt turned tyrannical and was killing uscitizens by using the military against us....

I WOULD PRAY AND HOPE the UN would come to our rescue!

You're implying that all acts of war are bad.

An act of war can be for good reasons, so would this be an act of war?

i honestly don't know....

i have swayed on this more than a Palm tree in a cat 5 hurricane....i'm not the right person for you to ask.....

Fair enough.

I always respect an I don't know answer, much better than people spouting and taking a concrete stance when they aren't sure.

 

[Care4all]

is Libya fighting back? are they going after the un/other countries enforcing the no fly zone? that could be the determining factor? OR MAYBE NOT? I still don't know, just trying to think outloud....

 

[Charles_Main]

at the US, would you consider this an act of war?

Ignore whatever potential pretense they used to excuse or rationalize it, would these countries agreeing to and executing the act of launching cruise missiles all over the US would you say it's an act of war?

Of course it would be an act of war, and yes what we are doing currently in Libya is an act of war as well. Hell to get technical simply sending an un armed UAV over another nation is an act of war. This entire debate is silly.

 

[High_Gravity]

at the US, would you consider this an act of war?

Ignore whatever potential pretense they used to excuse or rationalize it, would these countries agreeing to and executing the act of launching cruise missiles all over the US would you say it's an act of war?

Of course it would be an act of war, and yes what we are doing currently in Libya is an act of war as well. Hell to get technical simply sending an un armed UAV over another nation is an act of war. This entire debate is silly.

I don't know alot of people were saying what we are doing in Libya is not war, simply protecting the Libyan people and enforcing a no fly zone.

 

[High_Gravity]

is Libya fight back? are they going after the un/other countries enforcing the no fly zone? that could be the determining factor? OR MAYBE NOT? I still don't know, just trying to think outloud....

Ghaddafi has his hands full trying to retake his own country, attacking others would be damn stupid right now.

 

[sinister59]

I never seen so many neo-cons and repigs infavor of helping Ghaddfi . amazing

 

[Care4all]

what i do stand by....War Act or not....

is that i would feel much more at ease if the war act was abolished and we go back to 2/3's of both houses of congress, voting YEA to send our troops to war or in harms way...as per our constitution.

 

[Liability]

If the Nazi regime was a creature of our present day, and if Nazi fucking Germany was killing Jews and Russians and Gypsies and all the rest of us inferior types, and assuming we knew it was going on, I presume it would be considered a justifiable action by us to take them on, militarily.

Let's put a fine point on it. It would be "justified" in almost every real sense of that term.

Now, would it be something other than "war" if it were completely justified? Or would it still be "war?" In fact, isn't that a pretty good example of a justified or "just war?"

The point is: not all war is "bad" even if it's always deadly and tragic. And even so, war is still war.

That takes me to Libya. Maybe it is "justified" to prevent Mohammar Kaddafy-fuck from killing his own people to "take him on militarily." Maybe. But even if it is "justified," is it our place to be the policeman of the world?

And even if we have some undefined right to act like the world's good cop, isn't that the kind of thing the Constitution says should be authorized by Congress? Should this President -- or ANY President -- have a right to engage in ENTERING a war -- one which has not first been directed against us by the opponent -- without getting PRIOR Congressional authority?

 

[sinister59]

what i do stand by....War Act or not....

is that i would feel much more at ease if the war act was abolished and we go back to 2/3's of both houses of congress, voting YEA to send our troops to war or in harms way...as per our constitution.

what war act ?

nothing is declared , not like Grenada or Reagan shooting at GHaddany

 

[Dr.Drock]

I never seen so many neo-cons and repigs infavor of helping Ghaddfi . amazing

I'm so glad you joined the board, it was starting to lose the comic relief aspect.

 

[High_Gravity]

If the Nazi regime was a creature of our present day, and if Nazi fucking Germany was killing Jews and Russians and Gypsies and all the rest of us inferior types, and assuming we knew it was going on, I presume it would be considered a justifiable action by us to take them on, militarily.

Let's put a fine point on it. It would be "justified" in almost every real sense of that term.

Now, would it be something other than "war" if it were completely justified? Or would it still be "war?" In fact, isn't that a pretty good example of a justified or "just war?"

The point is: not all war is "bad" even if it's always deadly and tragic. And even so, war is still war.

That takes me to Libya. Maybe it is "justified" to prevent Mohammar Kaddafy-fuck from killing his own people to "take him on militarily." Maybe. But even if it is "justified," is it our place to be the policeman of the world?
And even if we have some undefined right to act like the world's good cop, isn't that the kind of thing the Constitution says should be authorized by Congress? Should this President -- or ANY President -- have a right to engage in ENTERING a war -- one which has not first been directed against us by the opponent -- without getting PRIOR Congressional authority?

Thats the thing though, if we are in this to do the right thing when are we sending our cruise missiles and fighter jets to Iran, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea and Zimbabwe?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its easy to say the situation in Libya is not a war when...

... you're a partisan bigot.

 

[sinister59]

you see "if the nazis " are you 12 ?

 

[Care4all]

what i do stand by....War Act or not....

is that i would feel much more at ease if the war act was abolished and we go back to 2/3's of both houses of congress, voting YEA to send our troops to war or in harms way...as per our constitution.

what war act ?

nothing is declared , not like Grenada or Reagan shooting at GHaddany

the president has 60-90 days to declare such, per the war powers act, is my understanding.... and i think this gives too much leeway...

 

[M14 Shooter]

what i do stand by....War Act or not....

is that i would feel much more at ease if the war act was abolished and we go back to 2/3's of both houses of congress, voting YEA to send our troops to war or in harms way...as per our constitution.

what war act ?

"Act of war", not "war act".

It's impossible to argue that bombinng civilian/military targets within the territory of a soverign state is not an act of war against that state.

 

[Anachronism]

I would bet that we already have that or something similar or it could be arranged very easily.

I'm sure it could be. However, we need to pull ourselves back inside our own borders before anything like that can truly be placed in the world context. Without an Isolationist and Nationalistic foreign policy in place, it's nothing more than hypocricy of the highest order.

 

[Charles_Main]

what i do stand by....War Act or not....

is that i would feel much more at ease if the war act was abolished and we go back to 2/3's of both houses of congress, voting YEA to send our troops to war or in harms way...as per our constitution.

what war act ?

nothing is declared , not like Grenada or Reagan shooting at GHaddany

the president has 60-90 days to declare such, per the war powers act, is my understanding.... and i think this gives too much leeway...

I actually agree, 60 to 90 days is to long. But the president does need some leeway. In modern world of today, expecting the President to go to congress, and then allow them to have an open debate, before any military action is ludicrous. What about time sensitive actions? What about actions where we do not want the entire world know were thinking about doing it, before we do. This is not the 18th century anymore. the US can not afford the luxury of having the full congress debate military actions before hand.

 

[Charles_Main]

I would bet that we already have that or something similar or it could be arranged very easily.

I'm sure it could be. However, we need to pull ourselves back inside our own borders before anything like that can truly be placed in the world context. Without an Isolationist and Nationalistic foreign policy in place, it's nothing more than hypocricy of the highest order.

Yep, Isolationism worked out so great in the past. Just hide your head in the sand until problems become so serious. It takes a world war to fix them.

 

[CountofTuscany]

at the US, would you consider this an act of war?

Ignore whatever potential pretense they used to excuse or rationalize it, would these countries agreeing to and executing the act of launching cruise missiles all over the US would you say it's an act of war?

Absolutely

 

[M14 Shooter]

what war act ?

nothing is declared , not like Grenada or Reagan shooting at GHaddany

the president has 60-90 days to declare such, per the war powers act, is my understanding.... and i think this gives too much leeway...

I actually agree, 60 to 90 days is to long. But the president does need some leeway. In modern world of today, expecting the President to go to congress, and then allow them to have an open debate, before any military action is ludicrous. What about time sensitive actions? What about actions where we do not want the entire world know were thinking about doing it, before we do. This is not the 18th century anymore. the US can not afford the luxury of having the full congress debate military actions before hand.

I fully agree, and have argued this point long and hard.

HOWEVER.... The Obama disagrees completely.