USMB Poll: Are you for or agaainst the Libya assault?

[Avatar4321]

As of right now, I have to say I'm against it. I've stated my reasons elsewhere.

I was just curious how we poll.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I haven't formed a strong opinion on it yet.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I have lost my taste for fighting wars when we wont fight to win.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW I apologize for misspelling. Typed it up too fast.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Opinion will likely shift in the coming weeks. The Arab League just announced they are withdrawing their support for this Intervention. They were told it was going to be a "No Fly Zone" but it has become clear that they're bombing hundreds of ground targets. Apparently they're a bit peeved over this. This looks nothing like a "No Fly Zone." They're bombing anything that moves. It's very disturbing.

 

[VaYank5150]

We are broke. We cannot afford to get involved in any more civil wars in foreign countries.

 

[Avatar4321]

Opinion will likely shift in the coming weeks. The Arab League just announced they are withdrawing their support for this Intervention. They were told it was going to be a "No Fly Zone" but it has become clear that they're bombing hundreds of ground targets. Apparently they're a bit peeved over this. This looks nothing like a "No Fly Zone." They're bombing anything that moves. It's very disturbing.

Are they? That doesn't surprise me. I didnt think they'd actually give the support they promised anyway. Part of me was thinking they just wanted us in another conflict.

 

[AquaAthena]

After much thought on this, I have to say I am against. Our pacifist-in-chief is an inept follower and can't be trusted with making the hard decisions. We either go in to win, or we stay home. I hope the future proves me wrong and Qaddafi is taken out. Meanwhile may the Obama's continue to enjoy their vacation while the level of anxiety at home increases. May his arrogance bury him in the end.

 

[Sallow]

I am for getting rid of that Libyan shitstain Qaddafi, who had a hand in murdering well over 200 innocent Americans.

And helping the Libyans determine their own destiny and getting rid of a 42 year old regime.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

After much thought on this, I have to say I am against. Our pacifist-in-chief is an inept follower and can't be trusted with making the hard decisions. We either go in to win, or we stay home. I hope the future proves me wrong and Qaddafi is taken out. Meanwhile may the Obama's continue to enjoy their vacation while the level of anxiety at home increases. May his arrogance bury him in the end.

Its going to bury US first.
He didn't get US into the place we are alone, but he isnt doing anything to fix it .

 

[theHawk]

As of right now, I have to say I'm against it. I've stated my reasons elsewhere.

I was just curious how we poll.

I'm always for bombing Muslims in the Middle East. They are all at war with us.

Can't say I agree with the way it is being done with Obama trying to hand off command to another country already, nor his illegal actions in circumventing the Constitution in using military action.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think we should continue until the Libyan air defenses have been destroyed then get out. Let NATO handle the complicated shit.
We've already slapped around Ghadhfi enough.
I certainly believe ground troops would be a mistake. We're already spread thin.

 

[westwall]

Against, as I have been against all of our wars for the last 50 years.

 

[AquaAthena]

As of right now, I have to say I'm against it. I've stated my reasons elsewhere.

I was just curious how we poll.

I'm always for bombing Muslims in the Middle East. They are all at war with us.

Can't say I agree with the way it is being done with Obama trying to hand off command to another country already, nor his illegal actions in circumventing the Constitution in using military action.

He seems to feel entitled to rule by decree.

 

[dilloduck]

As of right now, I have to say I'm against it. I've stated my reasons elsewhere.

I was just curious how we poll.

I'm always for bombing Muslims in the Middle East. They are all at war with us.

Can't say I agree with the way it is being done with Obama trying to hand off command to another country already, nor his illegal actions in circumventing the Constitution in using military action.

if he stays in South America no one will remember what happened.

 

[theHawk]

Opinion will likely shift in the coming weeks. The Arab League just announced they are withdrawing their support for this Intervention. They were told it was going to be a "No Fly Zone" but it has become clear that they're bombing hundreds of ground targets. Apparently they're a bit peeved over this. This looks nothing like a "No Fly Zone." They're bombing anything that moves. It's very disturbing.

Correct, its much more than a "no-fly zone", and needs to be in order to prevent his forces from moving in and killing his opposition.

What's idiotic about the whole thing is our Commander-in-Chief won't do what is really necessary to end this quickly - kill Qaddafi. Its like he wants this war to drag on.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

One thing I want to address is this idea of Constitutionality. Obama's NOT overstepping his constitutional powers with regards to Libya. The constitution says only congress has the right to DECLARE war. The last time we declared war was WW2. Legally speaking Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf War, etc. were all NOT declared wars by congress.

If you call Obama out for violating the constitution by conducting Libya-you have to call out Bush (both), Truman, etc. for doing the exact same thing.

BTW-I don't support what he's doing in Libya-I don't think it's any of our business. Just saying some people don't really understand what's in our constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

Both Iraq and Afghanistan were authorized wars by Congress.

Congress was not consulted on this, though I believe there is a time period to consult them with.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

One thing I want to address is this idea of Constitutionality. Obama's NOT overstepping his constitutional powers with regards to Libya. The constitution says only congress has the right to DECLARE war. The last time we declared war was WW2. Legally speaking Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf War, etc. were all NOT declared wars by congress.

If you call Obama out for violating the constitution by conducting Libya-you have to call out Bush (both), Truman, etc. for doing the exact same thing.

BTW-I don't support what he's doing in Libya-I don't think it's any of our business. Just saying some people don't really understand what's in our constitution.

Overall, you're correct.

Obama has 60 days, according to the War Powers Resolution, to get Congressional approval, and 30 days more to withdraw if not approved. According to the War Powers Resolution, Congress does not have to actually "declare war", they can just cede that power to the President, shielding themselves from political liability by passing the buck to the Commander-in-Chief.

The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is highly questionable, but it's never been challenged (and probably never wil), so we'll never know.

 

[jgarden]

Conservatives are all over the map concerning gow to react to the Lybian crisis!

Yesterday on FOXNEWS they were criticizing Obama for waiting to form a coalition and that now it may be "too little too late." They were also critical of allowing other nations to assume leadership roles in this kind of military operation and that if Ghadaffi isn't taken out immediately, it will reflect badly on US prestige.

Here we have another group who figures that because the Bush Administration "screwed" things up in Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody else, particulatily a Democratic president, could possibly do any better.

The problem is that the Bush Administration was so inept in Iraq/Afghanistan that American citizens have lost all confidence in their government's ability to conduct even limited military campaigns - even when a true humanitarian crisis arises!