As far as I know, under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President has the power to deploy US Forces for up to 60 days without authorization from Congress. I don't know exactly how UN military expeditions work when it comes to calling on member nations to contribute troops.
That being said, we just need to stay out of it, it's none of our business. I don't care what the U.N. or European allies have to say. It's time for this country to just mind its own business.
I don't want this thread to get hijacked by a constitutional debate (sort of burying the lead), but you would need an amendment to transfer the power to declare war, not just a law. I guess the question is whether there's some way to attack another nation in a military-on-military engagement that isn't war.
All of this never would have happened if Doc hadn't sold them a shoddy case of used machine ball parts
Think of it like legislating from the bench. Technically the courts weren't given givent the powers to legislate, but without it things like the desegregation of schools would have taken much much longer. For instance in cases where the War Powers Resolution of 1973 were used like in Bosnia and Kosovo, we were able to take care of the situations quickly and effectively instead of waiting for the Gov't Bureaucracy to dot every "i" and cross every "t", which could have worsened the situations.
Gadhafi told the U.S. if we had protesters, what our reaction would be. I can see Texas seceding from the union in the next 50 years. Our reaction would more than likely be millitary.
Except the Libyan rebels are begging for UN intervention, and have been since the conflict started. Gaddafi has been the one to continuously escalate the conflict; he knows he cannot back down or he loses control over his underlings.
That's exactly what the US is doing, minding its own business. It's looking out after it's own best interests, which is to get the Libyan oil flowing again. I see nothing wrong with that. I also find it amazing the number of US citizens that don't get that. Why do you think the US isn't involved with other "civil uprisings"?
From what I've seen, U.S. involvement is more a show of solidarity than anything. Britain and France led the charge for military action, and to my knowledge, a large number of aircraft over Libya are British and French. We've mostly launched Tomahawks at military targets from the safety of our ships, and even that probably won't last more than a couple days. I'm just as wary of presidential promises as the next man, but the White House has actually toed the line in this instance. They stated there would be no unilateral military action by the U.S., and there hasn't been. They've said we won't put boots on the ground, and I believe that's true. Obama isn't stupid enough to open a third ground war months before an election year begins. As long as we don't lose American lives in the course of our operations in Libya, American voters will be satisfied, and he'll have lost nothing except a few million dollars worth of cruise missiles. No one cares about hypocrisy.
My buddy emailed this video to me: Its from his movie The Great Dictator. The context of the speech is workers rights and Chaplin was a member of a few communist front groups, and I believe this is what eventually got him exiled from the US. Taken out of context, I guess it could be applied to the Middle East. But Ill let you guys decide.
I was surprised by this list. You Canadians got us by the balls it seems. Libya only provides the U.S. with 1-3% of its oil Here is my source for this info. And I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong about the motivation for the attacks, I was just shocked by this list and thought I'd share. Top ten countries that the U.S. imports from: 1. Canada 2. Mexico 3. Saudi Arabia 4. Venezuela 5. Nigeria 6. Angola 7. Iraq 8. Algeria 9. United Kingdom 10. Brazil Edit: Apparently I took to long to research my info and I was beaten to the punch. Didn't see the above post.
I don't think it's about direct percentages of oil delivered. Libya, as I understand it, has some of the purest crude oil around, and it is really easy and cheap to refine. They have one of the few oil fields that aren't showing any signs of declining, unlike a lot of others. About 5 years ago, a whole bunch of US oil companies started to set up shop in Libya after they sold off some of the rights to their oil. So I see a few things coming to play here: -- Gadaffi blowing the fuck out of his citizens as a bat-shit crazy dictator, goes without saying. -- The disruption of UK oil supply -- The same disruption of current US oil supply. -- The potential issues with future oil field development by US interests. -- The general unrest that this whole thing is causing to oil-producing nations in the area. Even though Libya only supplies a few percentages of oil to the US, look at the price instability it's caused. Sure, I would imagine that some of it is the big oil companies fucking us over, but a lot of it is a genuine result of the Libyan state of affairs. The sooner this shit gets sorted out, the better off a whole bunch of us will be. And don't forget what happened with Kuwait, and all the damage to their refineries. If there was a lesson to be learned from that, I'd say it would be to hit them way sooner, and way fucking harder, to prevent similar actions. But I'm just speculating.
I really love the face of the girl at the bottom of the picture. Just an absolute perfect moment frozen in time. She totally has that "I don't give a fuck what you say, I'm really happy to be gay" look on her face and it's just awesome. I've been laughing for like 10 straight minutes about this. But yeah, just to stay on topic. Blow their shit up, and stuff...
I had read similar articles relating that Libya only accounts for about 5% of US oil imports, but for European nations, that number is much higher, hence the activation of military on the parts of France, Italy, etc. Remember when Reagan sent in jet fighters to Tripoli and France wouldn't even let us fly over their airspace (and the "errant missile" that hit the French embassy? Oops.)? Europe's stake in securing Libyan oil is much greater than that of the US, so much so that even France grew a pair and is taking a much more assertive posture (with their Mirage jets, so named because you never see them--and not due to stealth technology!). I think Obama is content to lend US support from a comfortable distance with the Tomahawks, but I don't see US ground troops hitting the shores of Tripoli any time soon. 2012 is a presidential election year--he'll let Europe take the point on this one. CNN reported last night that Qatar and UAE were two Arab nations that would also play a role in the international coalition, but when and to what extent remains to be see.
From what I've heard from international friends, France's taking the lead on this could be an attempt to distract from Sarkozy's unpopularity at home. I have no idea if that's true, just relaying info. I agree with Beefy Phil: the White House has really tried to walk the fence here, and they seem to be doing it well. Committing ground troops is political suicide and everyone knows it. Launching missiles, however... avoids the problems of insurgency that we faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. And if we establish air superiority, we can bomb the shit out of Gaddafi's forces without having to deploy troops. We're not trying to conquer the country, we're just trying to soften it up for the rebels. If we put boots on the ground, there is a high chance it's going to be seen as more American imperialism. I think Obama's cognizant of that.
Ever been to a Northrop Grumman facility? Boeing? Lockeed? Raytheon? They're fucking compounds. Entire communities are based off their ability to provide good paying jobs. 80% of my tri-county area is sustained by going to war, and that's not even counting are fucking service industry. Oil prices are just a piece of the pie that influence one aspect of standard of living; real jobs fuel so much more than oil ever could. When I was studying abroad, gas was 3lbs a fucking liter...10 years ago. Shopping, dining, vacationing? America wants to be in a long war. Get it? I find it amazing that people don't get that.
Perhaps if we focused more on space exploration, we could put those facilities to more constructive ends and the need to be in constant war wouldn't be so great. Then maybe we could cooperate with other nations instead of compete with them. I guess, like Billy Mumfry, I'm just a cockeyed optimist.