60 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

I thought we pulled out of Afghanistan and then went back?

I wouldn't criticize it, except for we had no reason to get involved. They aren't our responsibility. Also, in addition to doing our own stuff and supplying our own equipment for Libya, we also were supplying aid to the civilians. There were A LOT of tomahawk missiles in the airstrike on Libya, and those aren't cheap. Fox reported the cost at ~600,000, but the more liberal news stations reported them at over a million apiece. We were already in debt when these things started happening. All this didn't help. Is it being relatively cheaper an adequate justification for doing it over and over?

He kept talking about bringing troops home, but really they're all just being relocated. And wasn't doing air strikes on Libya technically something he should have had permission for? If I remember right, he never got it, which set a precedent for future presidents to start 'skirmishes' without Congress or anyone else involved. Those can escalate into full-blown wars at any time. Sure, he's picked countries that aren't exactly going to come at us, but who's to stop someone in the future from doing it now that now they know they can do little war actions without permission.

Edit: That was already answered.

George Bush increased troop numbers before he left office and that plan continued after Obama was elected because the surge policy required it but in the last year they started the process for (I think) over 30,000 troops to start to withdraw from Afghanistan so the numbers are definitely going down now.

As for Libya, while not the official responsibility of America (or NATO) they clearly felt that they had a moral responsibility to protect millions of innocent civilians from being murdered solely for wanting democracy in their country. In total America probably invested less than half of the total spent on Libya despite having a military budget many times that of the rest of the NATO countries combined so it was negligible really compared with the amount of lives saved. I guess opinion on that would depend on your individual opinion on the worth of a human life regardless of their nationality.

In terms of permission, they had a UN resolution to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians from attacks by the Libyan government.

[NapisaurusRex]

In terms of permission, they had a UN resolution to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians from attacks by the Libyan government.

I didn't realize the UN trumped Congress. Knowledge is power, I guess.

[Waser Lave]

I didn't realize the UN trumped Congress. Knowledge is power, I guess.

The actions in Libya didn't need approval from the American Congress because of the limited scale of American involvement and because America passed control of the operations to NATO within 60 days. There are also questions over whether that relevant law is even constitutional but that's a different subject altogether.

[iargue]

George Bush increased troop numbers before he left office and that plan continued after Obama was elected because the surge policy required it but in the last year they started the process for (I think) over 30,000 troops to start to withdraw from Afghanistan so the numbers are definitely going down now.

As for Libya, while not the official responsibility of America (or NATO) they clearly felt that they had a moral responsibility to protect millions of innocent civilians from being murdered solely for wanting democracy in their country. In total America probably invested less than half of the total spent on Libya despite having a military budget many times that of the rest of the NATO countries combined so it was negligible really compared with the amount of lives saved. I guess opinion on that would depend on your individual opinion on the worth of a human life regardless of their nationality.

In terms of permission, they had a UN resolution to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians from attacks by the Libyan government.

You realize there were mass killings in Iraq right? And we had a UN resolution to stop them from creating/using weapons of mass destruction?

I guess the only difference is that we stayed in iraq too long and now everyone wants to be against it.


And Obama specifically increased the number of troops.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...anistan001.html

[NapisaurusRex]

The actions in Libya didn't need approval from the American Congress because of the limited scale of American involvement and because America passed control of the operations to NATO within 60 days. There are also questions over whether that relevant law is even constitutional but that's a different subject altogether.

Yeah, OK. That makes sense. I forgot that it was pretty much already done like that with Somalia in 1992.

[Waser Lave]

You realize there were mass killings in Iraq right? And we had a UN resolution to stop them from creating/using weapons of mass destruction?

I guess the only difference is that we stayed in iraq too long and now everyone wants to be against it.


And Obama specifically increased the number of troops.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...anistan001.html

I didn't say anything about Iraq, nor have I said anything to criticise the invasion of Iraq.

I also already clearly said that troop numbers increased after Obama was elected so I'm not sure why you're repeating that.

[iargue]

I didn't say anything about Iraq, nor have I said anything to criticise the invasion of Iraq.

I also already clearly said that troop numbers increased after Obama was elected so I'm not sure why you're repeating that.

George Bush increased troop numbers before he left office and that plan continued after Obama was elected because the surge policy required it

You are implying that Obama didn't have a choice and HAD to add more troops. He did this on his own free will, or as free as it gets. There was no law or policy in place. He sent the troops there with the promise of removing them in 18 months (Which he didn't )

Edited by iargue, 21 April 2012 - 07:40 AM.

[Waser Lave]

George Bush increased troop numbers before he left office and that plan continued after Obama was elected because the surge policy required it

You are implying that Obama didn't have a choice and HAD to add more troops. He did this on his own free will, or as free as it gets. There was no law or policy in place. He sent the troops there with the promise of removing them in 18 months (Which he didn't )

Obama supported the surge policy and that surge policy required an increase in troop numbers. I'm not sure how that suggests that I was implying that he didn't have a choice, if I had intended to say that I would have just said it, lol.

[Sweeney]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan001.html

What would a Canadian source know about America?
Sheesh, you're really reaching, now.

[Hydrogen]

What would a Canadian source know about America?
Sheesh, you're really reaching, now.

They don't have a PhD in the subject either so I can't trust them.

[redlion]

It's difficult to pin the blame on Obama alone, since he inherited a huge economic mess from the last administration. The House of Representatives, from what I understand, is also majority Republican at the moment, so it's not even just the Democrats running the show.

The GOP controls the House, and they filibuster anything in the Senate. Apparently it now takes 60 votes to pass something in the Senate when constitutional law says a simple majority is enough to pass legislation. Fucking stupid. Our system is broken. Yet the president (who doesn't control legislative policy) is blamed for inaction. What a farce.

The actions in Libya didn't need approval from the American Congress because of the limited scale of American involvement and because America passed control of the operations to NATO within 60 days. There are also questions over whether that relevant law is even constitutional but that's a different subject altogether.

Every president in the history of the relevant law (both parties) has voiced the opinion that it is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law limiting executive powers as set out in the constitution. The President is the commander in chief. Using troops is a military fashion is a part of that power. Declaring war is necessary only in situations of "total war" such as the war against nazi germany, when the laws of war were followed. The germans were great at killing Jews, but they wouldn't TOUCH Allied POWs.

Libyans and fanatics in Yemen and afghanistan/pakistan (porous border, same tribes) do not wear a flag on their uniforms or observe the laws of war. They don't even HAVE uniforms.

BTW in case you can't tell from my conflicted tone, I'm agreeing with you.

You realize there were mass killings in Iraq right? And we had a UN resolution to stop them from creating/using weapons of mass destruction?

I guess the only difference is that we stayed in iraq too long and now everyone wants to be against it.

...There were mass killings in Iraq in the 80s and early 90s. That would be AFTER we sold sadam tons of military materiel made right here in the US of A. There were no mass killings in the early 2000s. There were no weapons of mass destruction. I thought this was common knowledge. Apparently not.

To recap:
- Invading Iraq was a politically motivated war. Bush Jr. didn't like Sadam after Sadam attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. He even said as much in a publicly televised interview. The reasons given at the outset were falsifiable and turned out to be false.
- Invading Afghanistan served two purposes. First it displaced a failed state government that was abusing and suppressing it's own people, and second it took out a state sponsor of terrorism.

We've invaded other failed states before: Somalia comes to mind, also Yugoslavia could be in the same boat. "Failed states" is also how we classify N. Korea, and it's why our media keeps such a close eye on them.

Oh, and BTW a veto doesn't work if Congress has a 2/3 majority to overrule.