What makes Libya different?

@Taskr36 (13923)
United States
March 28, 2011 4:30pm CST
I've been asking this in various places and supporters of our new war in Libya can't seem to manage an answer. Hopefully someone here can. If you support Obama's illegal war in Libya, WHY? Why is this one ok? Why does Libya deserve the hundreds of missiles being fired at them by the US? How are they different than Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, or nay other country that murders anti-government protesters? Why hasn't Obama fired missiles into these countries and, if he did, would all you supporters of the war in Libya support those actions?
1 person likes this
17 responses
@anniepa (27557)
• United States
28 Mar 11
I'm not going to waste either of our time arguing that what's happening in Libya is neither or a war, at least not at this point, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure if I support it or not, to be honest. I mean I sincerely that it when people are attacked by their own governments but I know we can't "fix" everything. I heard someone say the other day that it's right to do WHAT we can do WHERE we can do it; in other words, NATO is bombing Libya because they CAN. I've already stated that IF this turns into another long drawn-out war I'll be the first to denounce it and I won't defend the decisions made by the President or anyone else responsible for that happening. Right now I'm hoping against hope that doesn't happen. Annie
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
29 Mar 11
This is what it's all about. This is why they decided to bomb Lybia and leave the other criminal nations who are oppressing their people alone. It is intended to set a precedent. Look world, we did it to Lybia, now watch us do it to Israel. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/27/european-left-applying-libya-precedent-to-israel-calling-for-military-action/
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
30 Mar 11
That quote you mention, 'right to do what we can- where we can', do you not see that mind set is going to directly lead to intervening in Israel? Most of the liberals believe differently than you, that Israel is at fault in the Palestinian problem. Or do you believe they are? You never said, only that Israel is our ally.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27557)
• United States
31 Mar 11
Deb, you know I like you a lot and respect your opinion but I simply don't agree here. I think Israel s our strong ally but that they're not perfect anymore than we or any other nation is. However, it's easy for me to sit here and pass judgment on someone else when I'm not there! I think there are innocent people on both sides and in every other nation whether the nation is our friend or our enemy. People are people and some are good and some are bad no matter where they're from or what their culture is. I've come to the conclusion we're not going to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians no matter who is in power. Annie
1 person likes this
@cynthiann (18609)
• Jamaica
28 Mar 11
Is it Mr. Obama or the United Nations that voted to go? Can you help me on this? I honestly feel that they should be left to sort it out themselves. The other Arab nations should assist them not the west. Regretfully, the West jumps in t help thinking that they would accept out way of life or what we think is democratic. But they don't accept what the democracy of the Western world as it is alien to them. History has proven that the Arab nations have these revolutions. I do not feel that we should intervene. I know that this sounds hard and awful but it is how I feel. I am open to discussion. The more that I think of this then the more I believe it is the United Nations who voted to go in not just President Obama
2 people like this
@cynthiann (18609)
• Jamaica
29 Mar 11
Thank you Debra.I am going to read the link. I did read what Hamas did t Israel. I need to read more. Hamas is the opposition that bombs Israel whereas Fatah is the Palestinian government. and I believe that member of Hamas are from Syria? apologies my ignorance is on display. I live in the Caribbean and believe me, we have our own problems that at present seem insurmountable I really appreciate your response.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Mar 11
See this topic is part of the problem with America not part of the solution. It is clear this post was by someone either in Gaddafi's support group or someone who is an extreme Republican which mind you being in or part of a political party is just the same as being in a Union which they so loathe, hypocrisy at its best I guess. Anyway I digress how about listing the reasons you feel the effort is "illegal"? You will not be able to do that which explains the lack of facts pointing to it. I can explain right in 3 different ways. 1. The United States signed the Charter Treaty with the UN. In order to have done that Congress must have approved it. For those Constitutionalists out there might I suggest reading Article VI, Clause Two. Wait never mind I will post it here. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The UN Charter was signed into law June 26, 1945. What the above means is that if the US signs a treaty with Mongolia saying that every American is required to hand deliver $5.00 a month to a Mongolian then guess what it is the Law of the Land & no court can intercede. This is why it is important to have the right people sign the right Treaties but we didn't on either side back in the 90's & we see where that led us. Where were you then? Now? Whole other argument. 2. The President is Commander in Chief of all armed forces. 3. The War Powers Act passed by Congress after the Vietnam War allows any President 90 days before a mandate for Congressional consultation on military action. Now if the above still wasn't enough for you then remember the Gaddafi sponsored terrorist attack against Pan AM 103!! I think that is enough reason why it is legal.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
29 Mar 11
So everyone who disagrees with Obama's illegal war is a supporter of Gaddafi? Why not just say we're all a bunch of Hitlers? Let me clear this up for you. I do not support Gaddafi. I am not a Republican. You then go on to assume I won't be able to tell you the reasons this war is illegal. You are wrong and I can explain that for you quite easily. 1. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly states: "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal," There is nothing in there that allows the UN to take that power from Congress. 2. Then you pulled the Commander in Chief bit. That's rather typical. Let's look at that. Article 2 Section 2 states: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" Since Article 1 Section 8 has already made it clear that CONGRESS has the power to call them into service for war, that criteria must be fulfilled for him to act as Commander in Chief in a war capacity. 3. The War Powers Resolution... Ah how easily people ignore the entire bill except the part that 90 days crap. Read the whole thing and you'll see that you're ignoring the very first page. TITLE 50 CHAPTER 33 § 1541 (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Since there is no declaration of war, no specific statutory authorization, and, as we all know, no attack on the US by Libya, he hasn't even fulfilled the most basic criteria to get to where he'd have 60, yes that's SIXTY, not NINETY days to get a vote for congressional authorization for military action or a declaration of war. That's why you need to read the whole resolution, not just listen to some left wing fatmouth who misrepresents one line on page 4 of the War Powers Resolution to justify an illegal attack on another country that has done nothing to us. 4. Just to move beyond the clearly written laws I should also remind you that both our president AND vice president have stated in the past that this action is unconstitutional. "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~ Obama 2007 “…the president has no Constituti­onal authority to take this nation to war…unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him.” ~ Joe Biden 2007
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
29 Mar 11
yeah joe!! but wait, we want to impeach YOU TOO!
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Mar 11
Way to go, Taskr36!
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
29 Mar 11
It is a precedent setting for later. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/27/european-left-applying-libya-precedent-to-israel-calling-for-military-action/
1 person likes this
• Egypt
29 Mar 11
do I support Obama's war in Libya? First: it is not Obama's only, France and Britain were very approving for this war. Also the Arab league and the Security council approved the decision. Second: Do I approve the war? 1- As an Arab; Yes, because this protects my brothers in Libya from genocide. 2- As a human; yes, for the same reason. 3- As a westerner, I think I would say yes, because in case the war never ended, this will mean cease of production of two million barrels of oil daily, besides all the immigrants which will find their way to europe. And in case Ghaddafi could regain power, This means that all western countries have to put their hands in his blood dripping hand to ensure their interests being kept well, which I think Obama and all the others thought it would not be historically and morally acceptable for them. Why is this one ok? Because this is the only one where the ruler really used tanks and air fighters against civilians, and under the full open eye of the world, and not more than 2 or 3 hundred kilos from Europe borders. This put Europe in a very pressing situation to respond. Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Iran: Syria: did it in the 1982 but it happened fast and it didn't get enough media coverage at that time beside there were not enough foreign media at that time or ever in Syria. this is a footage to bring what happened at that time to the minds, but not really recordings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KBlXthNRNQ but Syria hasn't done it these days yet. Yemen: still only the security forces being used against the people, plus the army has joined the revolt Sudan: America did intervene by punishments and political pressure, also because of the gap between the fighting sides is not huge. Iran: Also the army was not used, only the security forces. Please tell me if I did not deliver my point well.
@ParaTed2k (22971)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Mar 11
I'd just be happy to hear Obama explain why he dropped the Darfur rhetoric.
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
29 Mar 11
Because technically there is peace. Nevermind Muslims are still killing Christians in the south and kidnapping their children to raise them as good Muslims.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
12 Apr 11
One by one the various Arab countries are rebelling. It looks on paper like a good thing. The news portrays it like they all want democracy. If you look deeper, you will see that the "rebels" that start the uprisings in each country are not even Citizens of the country. They are "Puppets" of Iran and Hezbollah and the Islamic Brotherhood. They do not actually take control immediately, they let the military take control until they can set up elections. Within a year, the candidates put forward will be from Hezbollah the Islamic Brotherhood and then the whole Arab World will be controlled by Shariah Law and Islam. Why does Hussein Obama want this? Why is he supporting the rebels in Libya when he knows where they are from? Why has he supported the other uprisings? And you bet he will support the next ones. These are the important questions People. He is not going for the oil....He is making sure that Israel and the US DOES NOT GET THE OIL!!!!! And he is setting Israel up for annihilation!!!! We should not allow Hussein Obama to get involved in these uprisings...He is an evil man. He is destroying our country inside and out. He has destroyed our good name. We have no friends, no allies. If we have an earthquake like Japan...no one will come to our aid because we have no friends thanks to Hussein Obama. I do not care what you say about past presidents...at least they did not insult every single one of our allies, and then kiss the butt of our enemies who then laughed at us, and sat back and figured out how to screw us. Wake up.
• United States
29 Mar 11
Ok I tried to outline this thing for you & QB it a little & yet you ignore the facts. Lets face the facts here a little shall we? You are only against this because your party, you know the union to which you belong, is against it as a political standpoint. That is what it boils down to. I failed to see you reply to the Pan Am 103 aspect of the situation at all. Should we call off the war against Bin Laden? Gaddafi killed over a hundred Americans with that terrorist attack so according to you so long as enough time has passed we should not persecute enemies of the state since it fits into a political agenda? Not to mention the crimes against humanity that Gaddafi has committed. All of the above not withstanding along with the factual information contained in my original reply describing Treaties, Charters, & The Constitution lets look at The War Powers Act. Section 5 (b) last line will grant the President an additional 30 days. All he has to do is submit he is taking those days in writing to Congress. It is up to him to determine whether or not saftey would be a concern in the removal of those Armed Forces. Now moving on, if you would so oblige us here would you care to list specifically section 8 (b) of The War Powers Act for all to read here & then 8 (d)(1) please? It really goes to prove my point of my previous post. Once the UN Resolution passed it gave The President all of the legal authority he needed to take action as he saw fit to do so, specifically because of the UN Treaty & Charter that Congress oked back in 1945. You tried to list Article 1 Section 8 as a basis of argument however I must note that Congress has not declared war in any conflict since WWII. Congress could have declared war in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf I, Somalia, Bosnia, Gulf II, & a host of others but did they? Answer: No. If you go back far enough & learn about the history of the Country you will see that some of the Constitutions earlier drafts included Congress's authority to "make" war but that was changed on August 17th, 1787 to simply "declare". The President holds the power to "make" "wage" or "engage" war. To support that point in the frame work of the Constitution it limited the governors of states by prohibiting them from "making" war without legislative approval however they did not do that in the case of the President. Furthermore, The Justice Department itself concluded (2001) when asked by the President to do so, that the President is the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad. It also concluded after reviewing all laws on the books & meeting with Congressional members that Congress itself recognizes the President's inherit powers & broad Constitutional power to use military force. It also sites the WPR specifically along with the Joint Resolution passed in 2001 as Congress's acknowledgment of such. So as you can see you do not have a pot to .. Well you know "**** in", nor a reasonable argument to back your "illegal" rhetoric. All you want to do is spew some regurgitation associated with a political party view because that is where you got the bright idea from to begin with. As you can see the idea was not so bright! The JR or Joint Resolution (09/14/2001) alone would have give President Obama the authority by itself to conduct such operations because it states "The President has Constitutional Power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations." There is not a retro clause in effect here. It does not state that from now on. So allow me to once again mention that out of 259 people on Pan Am 103, 189 were American. There is absolutely no doubt by anyone that Gaddafi sponsored the attack. I am left to wonder why any American would claim the President is doing something illegal & see the killer of Americans & countless others remain in power? At the very least we are finally getting retribution against the perpetrator of said attack specifically! Instead you turn against your President & your country men & women over nothing more than just politics. Many adjectives come to mind for people like you with that mentality but based on just discretion alone I will save those for some other forum.
• Malaysia
30 Mar 11
Well said Taskr36!
• United States
30 Mar 11
Man you are the epitome as to why Congress includes least sophisticated clauses into laws. I couldn't even make it past your first paragraph because again it is a redundant. I gave you what the FACTS are. That is it. GO read the laws & not misinterpret them based on your agenda. If you do, if you can, then you will see exactly what the point of my response was & then you would stop posting gibberish. Since you refuse to do so I can easily ascertain that you are nothing more than a simple addlepate, not worth the time & a terrible American.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
31 Mar 11
"not worth the time & a terrible American" Yes, because supporting the Constitution and opposing violations of it make me a terrible American. Seriously dude, the whole "unAmerican" bit was old when we went to war with Iraq and it's pathetic that you're bringing it up now that we're at war with Libya. Of course in your little tirades you still failed to address the question I asked, even after I reiterated it for you.
@danny72 (21)
• Malaysia
29 Mar 11
In my personal opinion it's fairly simple.... It's not about "What makes Libya different" but better yet, it's about "What does Libya has in common?". When I say common I was referring to the other 2 battlefield that the US are involved in at the moment. Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is "Oil". Everyone knows oil is the main reason that the US got involved in Iraq. Iraqs' WMD possessions as proclaim by George Bush was clearly a myth. It's just the justification used by the presidency then to invade Iraq. The same goes for Afghanistan, perhaps some might argue that "there is no oil of significant value there". But bear in mind that major oil pipe lines runs through Afghanistan. US oil company UNOCAL CORP. had been negotiating with the Talibans since 1995 to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian Sea. So you see, it was never about Weapons of Mass Destruction or Dictatorship or Murders of anti-government prostestors... It is totally about the "Black Gold". If the US are so concern about world peace, what about the Palestinian plight when their homes were ran over by the Israelis? What about the suffering of the Africans in Ethiopia? And the Rwanda genocide in 1994 where about 800,000 people are estimated to have been killed? If anyone studied geography and geology well, you can tell that there is very little or no oil can be found in these countries. Well, this is just my two cents.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
29 Mar 11
It can't simply be oil. Iran and Saudi Arabia both have far more oil than Libya and their governments are more than happy to kill protesters. Obama barely wagged a finger at Iran as they murdered people in the streets.
1 person likes this
• Malaysia
29 Mar 11
Unfortunately that's the cruel hard fact my friend... None of the US presidency has ever dared touch Iran for the same reason they had never dared to get entangled with North Korea. Chances are these two countries actually do have WMDs in their possession in contrast to what George Bush claim that Iraq owns. As for Saudi Arabia, well that's a whole new discussion if you ever want to get into. Suffice to say that Saudis' Royalties owns significant amount of businesses in the US and their contribution to the US (in financial terms) is second to no one (this is done mainly through their businesses in the US). Among other things, one need to consider the fact that Mecca, which is located in Saudi Arabia is considered as the holiest place for the Muslims. Nobody in their right mind would want to stir up a hornets nest. Because if they do, the US will undoubtedly has to go at it alone. This is one fight that (I believe) even the British would not be able to back America up. Why? Simply because all other nations in the world have some sort of dealings with other Muslims nation at a global level. Imagine this, assuming the US goes into war with Saudi Arabia. The rest of the Muslim nation will retaliate. For argument sake lets assume the French supports America as it did with Libya. Do you think Egypt (another muslim nation) will allow any French or US ships to pass through it's Suez Canal? So these non-combatant ships would have to go through the long way to get to their destination. Hence, all cargo onboard that vessel will cost double by the time it reaches its port of call. Likewise with the Straits of Malacca. It's one of the busiest sea route in the world and on it's left and right are Malaysia and Indonesia. Both of which are Muslim nations. For certain they will enforce a blockade of the straits agaisnt any ships supporting the US. Again, it is not economically feasible to go to war with Saudi Arabia. Its got nothing to do with military might. There is no doubt that the US possesses a heck of military assets but it alone cannot wage war with half the world.
@elvieb02 (696)
• Philippines
29 Mar 11
I agree with you @danny72 the iraq war was all because of oil, the afghanistan is all because of the pipeline. afghan people were at peace when taliban ruled them, and remember, taliban was trained by western soldiers, taliban was the reason why russia left afghanistan. so when afghanistan was under taliban, and taliban won't give in to their demands, they declare war. killing innocent people in afghanistan for what? for the pipeline. now, here comes Libya. What happened to Libya should be a civil war, but these western countries find a reason to destroy Libya, for what? for oil!
@aeiou78 (3455)
• Malaysia
29 Mar 11
Bullets went through and killed so many children and civilians without any defend. Missiles or bombs from fighter jets were doing the same. In this world, no one can stand such cruelty in Libya.
• Malaysia
29 Mar 11
What happened in Libya doesn't even qualify to be called cruel. To know what cruel really means, look just a little bit further. Look at the atrocities being done on the Palestinian.
• Malaysia
30 Mar 11
You see... In the United Nation there are several Nuclear powered countries that has the ability to veto any decision made by the council members. One of those nation is the USA. We have seen in several occassion when the UN decides on something which is beneficial to the Palestinian people and somewhat sidelined the Israelis, US of A will veto that decision. So, there is nothing that anyone can do.
• Guadeloupe
29 Mar 11
I suppose since u don't have any soldiers on Libyan soil a pedant could argue that u aren't at war IN Libya. But yes, this "war" has been carefully chosen and other options carefully avoided. Funny too that Qaddafi is the most anti Al-Qaeda of the Arab states!
• United States
29 Mar 11
There have been marines on the ground in Libya for quite a while now. The president lied about that.
• Malaysia
29 Mar 11
There are few things you need to consider when it comes to war. First and foremost you need good intel on your enemy. So, rest assured that the CIA field agents are definitely on Libyan soil. This agents needs supports (financially and logistically) So, again, rest assured that certain branches of the Marines is also on Libyan soil. If anything goes wrong, these men would need an immediate exfil. That means the Army is also either on Libyan soil or very close by.
@KenWest1 (29)
• United States
3 Apr 11
It would be beneficial to the rest of the world if we pulled out of the middle east and Africa. Sooner or later, every country in the area would be involved. If they are busy killing each other, they wont have the time or recources to bother the countries interested in peace, progress, and prosperity. The muslim world has been oppressing it's people and SEEKING war for centuries. That is why most of them still have a 15th century standard of living. We dont need the middle east, its twisted morality, shariah law, their hate, or their dreams of world domination. We have our own oil. Let them fight each other.
@JenInTN (27545)
• United States
30 Mar 11
I don't support wars but I do support protecting people. The thing is that the government there are killing people. Their people. There has been genocide going on over there based on culture differences and the fact is that it's not a very even fight. When people are in their homes with their families and their own government attacks and kills them..what is to be done? Should we turn out heads and let such atrocities take place? Militias are hired by their governmnet to carry out the genocide. I don't want to be murdered because of my religious stand point or my government support status so how can I not say...stop the madness. Are bombs the answer? No..but they were using bombs on their people. I would want a country to help my people if we were such victems.
• United States
30 Mar 11
I can only wonder what Barack Obama and his supporters would be saying if George W.Bush was bombing Libya.Obama seems to want Gaddafi to go away.I'm not clear where Obama wants Gaddafi to go.Seems to me beings Gaddafi is a known war criminal the best thing to do with him is take his breath away so he can never again murder innocent people in cold blood.
@Netsbridge (3241)
• United States
29 Mar 11
Libya has top grade oil and US covets it! Colonel Gaddafi is an African leader who has never bowed to or kissed the behinds of our imperialists and Gaddafi has always called the shots on his national affairs; thus we have to seize Libya's civil unrest (instead of minding ours) to oust such a die-hard African nationalist! Why are we not in Yemen and Bahrain? Why were we not in Tunisia where this wave of freedom began? Why do we not recognize the democratic elected Hamas government of Palestine? Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Sudan and Syria have nothing we desperately want! Except for Iran, the leaders of all the mentioned nations are not strong-willed as Gaddaffi! Of great interest in this matter: I do not think that most are yet thinking about who would succeed or what may happened after Gaddafi (of his own free will - my recommendation) resigns .
• Philippines
29 Mar 11
War are made because it's a necessity but not Libya.It was a UN sponsored bombardment and the U.S got nothing to do of leading it.But if it is justifiable? the situation in there is undeniably chaotic and disturbing. it's not an illegal war it is a sunctioned war maybe since it is a coalition bombing for every purpose of it, and whose to blame? the ones who do not want governance to flow like water giving everyone the chance to govern their own country and security.It's not good to compare governments of different sublevels or form we can only assert the situation if it is rational for such action. The other countries you have mentioned will come that way if they differ themselves to the madate of their own people.I hate to be poetic in some part though all can beans have their expiration date we can not eat something that's already beyond the norm of human consumption or enjoyment for that part.
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
28 Mar 11
Good questions. And why is it okay for Obama to go to war without the approval of Congress, when many of those same people in Congress said that if Bush did that he'd be impeached. Biden said that in a 2007 video. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979167262