You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #44: No I think the violent and dishonest overly violent intervention [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. No I think the violent and dishonest overly violent intervention
will result in more deaths, more deaths of innocents, and dmage of infrastructure if the scenaririo played out as a civil wat.

I detest Qadaffi; he was a terrorist and post 2003 a tool of the neocons.

If you do research, post 2003 Gadaffi was a full participant in the War in Terror and most of Libya's purchases of arms and oil sales were with NATO countries. Recently, Qadaffi offerered oil sales to China, India, and Brazil where NATO was not allowed to compete. These Nations plus Russia and Germany abstained from the UNSC vote. There is nuance here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Obama is NOT explaining how the actions in Libya are constitutional, he's just telling us what we FLAprogressive  Mar-28-11 06:39 PM   #0 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Mar-28-11 06:40 PM   #1 
  - I gave up watching  dipsydoodle   Mar-28-11 06:43 PM   #2 
  - Really you should. It's amazing watching someone talk about human rights  Catherina   Mar-28-11 06:51 PM   #12 
  - Peace.  dipsydoodle   Mar-28-11 06:52 PM   #13 
  - and codifying gross violations of human rights domestically.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-28-11 07:02 PM   #17 
  - All politicians are actors. Get with the program.  deaniac21   Mar-28-11 06:58 PM   #16 
     - Is there a membership fee for "the program"? A Kool-Aid party maybe?  StarburstClock   Mar-29-11 07:00 PM   #52 
  - It's been explained many times why it is Constitutional.  NYC Liberal   Mar-28-11 06:44 PM   #3 
  - And how is it constitutional?  FLAprogressive   Mar-28-11 06:46 PM   #4 
  - Here:  NYC Liberal   Mar-28-11 06:56 PM   #15 
     - The UN Charter does not require all UN members to go to war if the UNSC does something...  FLAprogressive   Mar-28-11 07:02 PM   #19 
     - And we pause for a few democratic words...  pacalo   Mar-28-11 07:22 PM   #30 
     - Absolutely wrong; that poster has been conclusively disproven on this by me  PurityOfEssence   Mar-29-11 01:01 AM   #46 
        - Same here, the poster has an agenda  StarburstClock   Mar-29-11 07:03 PM   #53 
  - Bingo! The speech was for those that don't pay rapt attention.  PufPuf23   Mar-28-11 07:05 PM   #22 
  - Good thing that's not what this was. nt  NYC Liberal   Mar-28-11 07:10 PM   #26 
     - Then what was the screed about and what is violence in Libya about?  PufPuf23   Mar-28-11 08:07 PM   #36 
        - So you deny the very real humanitarian crisis in Libya,  NYC Liberal   Mar-28-11 08:38 PM   #37 
           - No I think the violent and dishonest overly violent intervention  PufPuf23   Mar-29-11 12:14 AM   #44 
  - It is definitely not constitutional.  H2O Man   Mar-28-11 07:10 PM   #25 
  - And every time it's completely wrong; it is an unconstitutional act  PurityOfEssence   Mar-29-11 12:47 AM   #45 
  - He's explaining how me met our obligations to the treaty we have  Skidmore   Mar-28-11 06:46 PM   #5 
  - NATO treaties to do not supersede U.S. law.  FLAprogressive   Mar-28-11 06:46 PM   #6 
     - Treaties are law,...  Skidmore   Mar-28-11 06:49 PM   #10 
     - US Constitution trumps laws and treaties.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-28-11 07:04 PM   #21 
        - in 1798 we fought an undeclared naval war with france  qazplm   Mar-28-11 07:39 PM   #34 
           - Jefferson made it clear that his initial actions were limited  Warren Stupidity   Mar-29-11 06:14 AM   #49 
     - what are you talking about, ratified treaties are law  qazplm   Mar-28-11 07:35 PM   #32 
  - "We had a unique ability to stop that violence" We also had the unique ability to stop  Exilednight   Mar-28-11 06:47 PM   #7 
  - Obama's gettin' his war on, and those of us who don't like it should STFU  ixion   Mar-28-11 06:47 PM   #8 
  - Why should he? This issue was decided 40 years ago. n/t  pnwmom   Mar-28-11 06:49 PM   #9 
  - Mr. Constitution, he dead.  Karmadillo   Mar-28-11 06:50 PM   #11 
  - How and why are so many people here ignorant of the War Powers act?  killbotfactory   Mar-28-11 06:55 PM   #14 
  - The War Powers Act only covers war w/o congressional approval if the US is under attack/threat  FLAprogressive   Mar-28-11 07:04 PM   #20 
  - Apparently you were nodding off.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-28-11 07:09 PM   #23 
  - Every president since that became law has used military force without complying to that criteria  killbotfactory   Mar-28-11 07:25 PM   #31 
  - Absolutely correct.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-28-11 09:36 PM   #38 
     - Apparently, it's not perfectly clear  killbotfactory   Mar-28-11 10:18 PM   #39 
        - So again, your point in bringing it up was?  Warren Stupidity   Mar-29-11 06:06 AM   #48 
  - specific statutory authorization + ratified treaty = UN/NATO military action  joshcryer   Mar-28-11 10:23 PM   #40 
     - There is no specific 'go blow up Libya' statute.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-29-11 06:01 AM   #47 
  - Nice try  Stinky The Clown   Mar-28-11 07:10 PM   #24 
  - Why explain something that is obvious?  ReturnoftheDjedi   Mar-28-11 07:02 PM   #18 
  - Really?  Marr   Mar-28-11 07:35 PM   #33 
  - At least the exit strategy was clearly defined....  Gravel Democrat   Mar-28-11 07:11 PM   #27 
  - & no explanation of which US security interests were threatened enough to necessitate intervention  Catherina   Mar-28-11 07:17 PM   #29 
  - Where, where? I missed that part.  sad sally   Mar-28-11 07:39 PM   #35 
  - Recommended.  H2O Man   Mar-28-11 07:12 PM   #28 
  - knr nt  slipslidingaway   Mar-28-11 11:21 PM   #41 
  - We are acting on behalf of the UN, per the UN charter a treaty we signed  RB TexLa   Mar-28-11 11:33 PM   #42 
  - So all UN members are bombing Libya now? Per treaty charter?  Bluebear   Mar-29-11 12:11 AM   #43 
  - no but if they keep repeating this talking point dullards will be convinced.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-29-11 07:18 AM   #50 
  - Not all have the resources and some are not in the majority on the issue  RB TexLa   Mar-29-11 06:56 PM   #51 
     - Silly arguments about international laws and rights of civilians, DOH!  StarburstClock   Mar-29-11 07:10 PM   #55 
  - Hard to understand about what? Could you start over?  StarburstClock   Mar-29-11 07:08 PM   #54 
     - Thank you.  Bluebear   Mar-29-11 08:26 PM   #57 
  - I suppose he could explain that if something that is unconstitutional is done often enough  F Bastiat   Mar-29-11 07:52 PM   #56 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC