Pot smoking hippie liberals really love war after all!

[redrumloa]

Where’s anti-war gang on Obama’s Libya war?

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/mar/2 ... libya-war/

The very simple answer is that the anti-war crowd is not anti-war at all. If they were, there would be protest marches and anti-war speeches on the steps of the Capitol right now. But there are not, because it is not war that they oppose, it is Republicans. They do not oppose war on humanitarian grounds but use it as a political weapon. They march not so much to stop war, but to stop the election of Republicans and especially conservative Republicans. If not, then please tell me where Sheehan’s supposedly anti-war gang of pacifist appeasers is now that Democrat Obama has attacked Libya?

 

[Robert]

Yet you are completely against this, despite being four-square behind invading Iraq, whilst simultaneously lambasting others for a lack of consistency.


You don't see the irony do you?


Moving onto your point - most people I know who were against invading Iraq - including all of those on here - appear to be watching the Libyan situation with a great deal of skepticism.

That is, being pretty consistent.

Unlike yourself. ;-)

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

That is simply6 not true. The anti-war crowd IS criticizing this mission and you've been pointed to the critics before. Yes, some of the young liberal crowd that Obama hooked into is buying the feel good "protecting the protesters" bull crap just as a lot of conservatives bought into "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people" bull crap.

It's bull crap both ways and the people who saw it before still see it now. Look at Kucinich and Paul for two people from two different parties who have the same position on the Libyan offensive as they had on Iraq - just for e.g.

The article you pointed to asks where is Cindy Sheehan? Well, she's denouncing the Libyan action.

She doesn't mince any words on her blog.

The real question is why are her views no longer reported?

 

[redrumloa]

Yet you are completely against this, despite being four-square behind invading Iraq, whilst simultaneously lambasting others for a lack of consistency.

You seem to forget the whole Iraq invading Kuwait thing. How convenient! Throw out the whole WMD debacle and Saddam was still in violation of UN sanctions and the cease-fire agreement.

With Libya you have none of this, just Obama bombing at will with no kind of objective, plan or end game and no approval from congress.

Moving onto your point - most people I know who were against invading Iraq - including all of those on here - appear to be watching the Libyan situation with a great deal of skepticism.

Last time I checked your name is not Cindy Sheehan and you were not part of the VERY heavily televised war protests. I also have no clue if you fancy yourself a "pot smoking hippie" or not. Are there hippies in Glasgow? :wink:

 

[redrumloa]

The article you pointed to asks where is Cindy Sheehan? Well, she's denouncing the Libyan action.

She doesn't mince any words on her blog.

The real question is why are her views no longer reported?

Interesting, especially her blog. Cindy's usefulness by the left is over so they have cast her aside. When she was protesting and camping outside Bush's house, the liberal media had 24/7 coverage. Now she is (somewhat) protesting Obama and there is not a peep.

At least she is consistant, despite still being a moron.

 

[faethor]

Yet you are completely against this, despite being four-square behind invading Iraq, whilst simultaneously lambasting others for a lack of consistency.

I can't count the number of times the Republicans told us that you must unquestionably support our president at war. I agree it appears to be based on only the Republican president.

As for Libya anti-war protests I can't talk about everywhere in the US. But here in Minneapolis a protest ralley was held on March 21st. A day earlier an event was held in Chicago. Just for fun I looked up 'Florida Libya Protests' and it appears in Naples one was held on 3/25. IMO it's the press failing to cover such events. .

You seem to forget the whole Iraq invading Kuwait thing. How convenient! Throw out the whole WMD debacle and Saddam was still in violation of UN sanctions and the cease-fire agreement.

Reasons to go should be honest. Clearly Bush sold Congress and the American people a bill of goods. Too bad the press beat the war drums. It's be nice if we had a press that provided some modicum of civility.

With Libya you have none of this, just Obama bombing at will with no kind of objective, plan or end game and no approval from congress.

One of the highest expenses paid by the US government has been undeclared wars such as this. History frequently establishes legality. There's been many such events undertaken by the Commander in Chief with no regard to Congress in US history. How is this different then say the 1983 invasion of Grenada? Or perhaps the 1989 invasion of Panama?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Interesting, especially her blog. Cindy's usefulness by the left is over so they have cast her aside. When she was protesting and camping outside Bush's house, the liberal media had 24/7 coverage. Now she is (somewhat) protesting Obama and there is not a peep.

At least she is consistant, despite still being a moron.

So she still holds the same position but you dismiss her as a moron anyway. That's part of why no-one takes her protests seriously any more. The Liberal media spent the better part of a decade painting Cindy as a whiny lefty loon that no-one should listen to and now they don't - so you blame her for not being listened to now?

The media likes the war, they don't want to alienate the Dems because they happen to be in power now and they are doing what the foreign policy elites want done.

 

[Robert]

Yet you are completely against this, despite being four-square behind invading Iraq, whilst simultaneously lambasting others for a lack of consistency.

You seem to forget the whole Iraq invading Kuwait thing. How convenient! Throw out the whole WMD debacle and Saddam was still in violation of UN sanctions and the cease-fire agreement.

With Libya you have none of this, just Obama bombing at will with no kind of objective, plan or end game and no approval from congress.

I wasn't sure if you were serious but apparently you are.

Invading Kuwait?

WMD?

The UN? Seriously?

:roflmao:

This is absurdly, hilariously ironic.

If I didn't know better I'd think it was a parody.

Do you forget what you've written in one post before you type a follow up or do you just willfully decide to display a complete disregard for logic?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

WMD?

The UN? Seriously?

:roflmao:

This is absurdly, hilariously ironic.

Don't blame him. He's American. They get different news from the rest of the world. They actually believe this stuff.

 

[redrumloa]

So she still holds the same position but you dismiss her as a moron anyway. That's part of why no-one takes her protests seriously any more. The Liberal media spent the better part of a decade painting Cindy as a whiny lefty loon that no-one should listen to and now they don't - so you blame her for not being listened to now?

The media likes the war, they don't want to alienate the Dems because they happen to be in power now and they are doing what the foreign policy elites want done.

Interesting theory, I will digest it.

 

[redrumloa]

I wasn't sure if you were serious but apparently you are.

Invading Kuwait?

WMD?

The UN? Seriously?

:roflmao:

This is absurdly, hilariously ironic.

If I didn't know better I'd think it was a parody.

Do you forget what you've written in one post before you type a follow up or do you just willfully decide to display a complete disregard for logic?

Reading comprehension much? Or have you been partaking in the green leafy stuff?

 

[redrumloa]

Don't blame him. He's American. They get different news from the rest of the world. They actually believe this stuff.

As a Canadian I assumed you spoke English as a native language. Maybe I was wrong and you speak French as a native language?

Throw out WMD

That means I am not discussing it. I does not mean I am endorsing the concept, only that I am excluding it from the conversation.

 

[Robert]

Don't blame him. He's American. They get different news from the rest of the world. They actually believe this stuff.

As a Canadian I assumed you spoke English as a native language. Maybe I was wrong and you speak French as a native language?

Throw out WMD

That means I am not discussing it. I does not mean I am endorsing the concept, only that I am excluding it from the conversation.

Yes you excluded it from the conversation by bringing it into the conversation. Well played.

Even if I accept that you're actually sincere, you're left with "violation of UN sanctions and the ceasefire agreement".

So, basically your argument boils down to this:
On the one hand: Bombing and invading Iraq was not only legitimate but you supported it because Iraq was in violation of the UN - despite the UN not endorsing an attack on Iraq.

On the other hand: Bombing Libya is illegitimate because they haven't violated a UN sanction - despite the UN endorsing bombing Libya.

This is exactly the same kind of illogical pish we read from you in the run up to Iraq.

I refuse to believe you cannot see the inconsistency.

Bottom line - if Bush was bombing Libya, you'd be right behind it.
Because it's not your team, you're crying foul.
I know it, you know it and everyone who's read a handful of your posts knows it.

It's transparent, illogical and, frankly, pathetic.

And the hilariously ironic part is that you started this thread in order to slag others for doing exactly what you're doing.

 

[redrumloa]

Bottom line - if Bush was bombing Libya, you'd be right behind it.
Because it's not your team, you're crying foul.
I know it, you know it and everyone who's read a handful of your posts knows it.

Smoke another one, Robert. You are the only one going off the deep end here with such a thought process.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Check out these pot smoking hippies.

 

[Robert]

Bottom line - if Bush was bombing Libya, you'd be right behind it.
Because it's not your team, you're crying foul.
I know it, you know it and everyone who's read a handful of your posts knows it.

Smoke another one, Robert. You are the only one going off the deep end here with such a thought process.

But I'm right. ;-)

 

[faethor]

With Libya you have none of this, just Obama bombing at will with no kind of objective, plan or end game and no approval from congress.

Seems to me Obama has a plan that the US will provide air support and not commit our troops 'no boots on the ground'. Hopefully if others in NATO do their job fairly well this event and US involvement will be short lived.

You spoke about Iraq how about invade and let the next guy clean up my mess? There's a great end game. UGH!

You still haven't answered my question of your question. What makes it necessary for US Presidents to seek Congressional approval for all cases of military action? Why was it unnecessary for Grenada, for instance?

Isn't the US part of NATO? Didn't the Congress approve us being part of NATO? As such don't we already have the approval to act as part of a NATO action? I believe Kosovo was NATO approved and that didn't go through Congress, did it? Now a couple other actions were neither NATO approved, nor UN, nor Congressional approved -- Grenada and Panama are examples here.

So what's an action that needs Congressional approval and what does not?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You still haven't answered my question of your question. What makes it necessary for US Presidents to seek Congressional approval for all cases of military action? Why was it unnecessary for Grenada, for instance?

Mostly whether an action needs congressional approval or not is dependent on whether congress thinks it does. Most congresspersons are quite happy to go along with the militarism (they tend to be the wealthy and friends of the wealthy and these militaristic policies make money). Allowing the president to make the decisions (or allowing the UN to "make the decision") means that they can say they had nothing to do with the outcome. They want the wars as much as the rest of the elite do but not having to vote for them gives them an arms length relationship and reduces the appearance of conflict of interest.

 

[redrumloa]

So what's an action that needs Congressional approval and what does not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

You are asking me to justify Grenada and Panama? Those are conflicts I have not thought about in many years and was a minor during both.

 

[faethor]

So what's an action that needs Congressional approval and what does not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

You are asking me to justify Grenada and Panama? Those are conflicts I have not thought about in many years and was a minor during both.

I think they're valid questions. They are actions also without Congressional approval.

And certainly the face of war is changing. What is an 'armed force into action abroad'? In 1973 this phrase more then likely meant boots on the soil of the foreign country. Today we could have the armed forces actions be on our soil and yet impact other nations. Hang out in a bunker and push a couple of buttons that control a remote drones.

As for authorization of Congress... Congress Authorized us to be part of NATO. Being part of NATO part of the responsibility is military actions in other Countries. Therefore Congress has already authorized these actions when approved through our treaties, aka NATO in this case.

I'd argue GWB knew this too. He couldn't get the UN to approve his action. As a second recourse he asked Congress....