How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Feelings
 Obama   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Alwye   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Obama (Superman)

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


25 posted 03-22-2011 09:27 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

"Obama penned a letter to Congress on Monday, explaining he had the authority to launch the strikes under his constitutional role as commander in chief. That came after members of Congress in both parties, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), complained that the president had not adequately explained the U.S. mission to Congress and the public.

"The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya," Obama wrote. "United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.""
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/151167-top-dem-rejects-calls-for-obama-impeachment-over-libya

So that's ok then!
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


26 posted 03-22-2011 09:30 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

"Everybody has a list.  Why is your list better? Puh-leez, Louise!"

Yes, but not everyone has a list which is passed by an uncontested vote at the UN, Bob.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


27 posted 03-22-2011 09:57 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

The truth is, we can all argue ad infinitum about the wrongness or rightness of this policy or that course of action, and of whether this politician or that senator has a valid criticism.  In fact, we do not have access to the information necessary to make an informed judgement.  

At the end of the day though, what really matters surely is whether we believe that our leader(s) are honest and principled.  If we do, then we have to try and have faith in the decisions they make, even if we do not fully understand them, or even agree with them.  If we don't believe that about them, then we ain't going to like anything they do, and we'll go around digging until we find stuff to denegrate them.

I happen to think that, in contrast to Clinton who was driven by his private parts and the morals of an ferret, and Bush who was driven by "God" (unfortunately the God of War), Obama is an intelligent, rational being, with as few partisan agendas as you can reasonably expect in a leader appointed by a democratic system.

I believe!
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


28 posted 03-22-2011 12:01 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Denise

I didn't suggest that Islamism (Islamist) is a religion.  The religion is Islam.  "Islamism" is a word used (and abused, especially by those outside Islam) to denote that Islam should be used to guide, not just religious life, but all aspects of life, political and social too.  

There is nothing inherently wrong with this.  After all plenty of other religions encourage their followers to apply the tenets of the religion in all aspects of their lives.  

As with all movements based on religion there are elements within the movement which vary from mild and tolerant right through to extreme and violent.  Few westerners (few rational people in fact)  can agree with or condone the extreme elements in the Muslim world.  But then neither would they agree with the extremes of Catholicism and Protestantism exhibited in N.Ireland and Glasgow.  

None of the people who employ the means that you abhor, whether they be catholics, protestants, jews or muslims are worthy of being given a title which includes the name of their religion - they are simply extremists, always with an agenda that does not mirror the true tenets of the religion they supposedly espouse.

To label all Islamists as bad is as ridiculous and damaging to relations as to label all Evangelists (Christian variety) bad.  It's unhelpful, simplistic and doesn't recognise that great majority of people in these movements who do not have global domination at the heart of their agenda.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


29 posted 03-22-2011 12:15 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

What makes it right is the fact that Libya, its civilians, and its freedomfighters were being destroyed by a massmurdering leader and government who promises no mercy.  We are there to help save lives and help them fight for freedom.   Fighting against murder and oppression, to save lives, and help win freedom, more than justifies going to Libya.  Nothing can make going there in the cause of those things wrong.  Inevitably there will be losses, as there are in any war, but if we cherish the freedom we have from being terrorized by someone like Qadhafi we ought to respect and support trying to help acheive it for those in Libya, so they as well can have at least have the ability and right to stand up for rights and freedoms without being murdered.  I believe we should fight unambiguously on the side of the civilians and freedomfighters, until they can make Qadhafi surrender.  His regime no longer deserves any place in Libya or anywhere on earth, not as long as there are still human rights and morals among people.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-23-2011 07:34 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


30 posted 03-22-2011 12:49 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     While I believe that Essorant is correct, I also believe that no American President has the power to declare war and open hostilities on his or her own.  While the President may command the troops, the President may not declare war; that power is reserved for the Congress.  The congress, for the past week has occupied itself debating whether or not to spend five million dollars to fund National Public Radio, a very important topic indeed, but quite possibly a dodge to avoid discussion of involvement in Libya, which Great Britain managed to debate and resolve rapidly.

     Newt Gingrich did not find it necessary to criticize them for not getting involved enough and for acting in far too restrained a fashion.  Nor did our local Right Wing folk find it necessary to criticize them for getting over-involved.  I believe that we are the poorer for not yet having had that congressional debate, and I suspect it will be unlikely that we will have it.  The Democratic Congressman from Cleveland, whom I tend generally to support, suggests that The President's actions are impeachable, and Mr. Kucinich may be correct, though I hate to think so.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


31 posted 03-22-2011 02:54 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
What makes it right is the fact that Libya, its civilians, and its freedomfighters were being destroyed by a massmurdering leader and government who promises no mercy.


One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Exactly how many unarmed Libyan civilians did the Libyan government forces kill while combating the armed rebels Ess? The UN supposedly launched their attacks because unarmed civilians were being killed, right? Surely there's some evidence of such a large scale slaughter, I haven't seen any, but I'm presuming the evidence exists.

.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


32 posted 03-22-2011 03:57 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

To be fair Uncas,oppressive and murdering regimes do have a pretty impressive record of covering up the inconvenient evidence of mass slaughter.  

It has to be, er, extrapolated!  Yet I suppose that one would have to admit that sometimes the extrapolation goes a bit awry - as in Bush and Blair extrapolating WMD.

What to do, what to do ...

By the way, this:

"I almost forgot.

To give a  bit of perspective regarding the safety record of nuclear plants and the comparison of the number of nuclear accidents per nuclear plant. If you applied that same ratio to commercial airline flights, you'd expect 1072 crashes per day.

Does that sound safe?"

was brilliant.  I would have said so in the right place at the right time, but regrettably my posting rights dans le Allée have been, suspended, removed, cancelled - I am not sure which, as I wasn't informed.  I'm not sure why I was banished either - possibly because I was rude to Denise or Mike, or, dare I say it, Karen?  Anyway c'est la vie.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


33 posted 03-22-2011 04:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Rob, calling an Islamist an Islamist would be like calling an Evangelist an Evangelist, not bad.

The commander in chief only has the power to act without the prior approval of Congress when American lives are imminently in danger or when Americans have been killed, as when Reagan bombed Quadhafi after he bombed a nightclub in Germany that killed U.S. service personnel. That wasn't the case here, and pointing to Lockerbie from 20+ years ago, as I have heard from some talking heads, doesn't cut it for this current involvement.

Sending a letter informing Congress of his actions, after the fact, isn't sufficient to comply with the Constitutional requirement.

Bob, I wouldn't stress over his being impeached over it. There aren't enough people in Congress with the spine to stand up to him about anything, let alone facilitate impeachment. They have only themselves to blame that Obama has made them irrelevant.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


34 posted 03-22-2011 05:56 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
The commander in chief only has the power to act without the prior approval of Congress when American lives are imminently in danger or when Americans have been killed


Actually, that's not quite correct.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the President the power to send US forces into action without prior approval of Congress.

quote:
Sending a letter informing Congress of his actions, after the fact, isn't sufficient to comply with the Constitutional requirement.


Unfortunately that isn't true either.

The War Powers Resolution states that the President must "notify Congress" within 48 hours of committing US forces. The method of notification isn't specified.

quote:
I wouldn't stress over his being impeached over it.


I wouldn't either, the War Powers Resolution doesn't contain any method or means of redress for a President that fails to notify Congress.

If it wasn't for the War Powers Resolution, which ironically was implemented to curtail Presidents from undertaking military actions, Obama wouldn't, in my opinion, have a constitutional leg to stand on.

Another example of badly framed legislation - no wonder Nixon vetoed it.



moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


35 posted 03-22-2011 06:22 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Well then thank God for the War Powers Resolution - I mean, decision by committee is sooooo tedious.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 03-22-2011 07:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"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 if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. "

Which one of those two conditions were met?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


37 posted 03-22-2011 07:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ess, in your post 29, change the name of the country and leader and you have justified Iraq.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


38 posted 03-22-2011 07:44 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I just think that if we're going to drop bombs on a country to displace their leadership we oughtta at least know how to spell the guy's name. (What's up with that? He's been a pain in the arse for how many decades, now?)



Kaddhaffi, Gadaffi, Gadhafi, Kadhafi...)

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


39 posted 03-22-2011 07:49 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Richard Engels reported that about one out of five of the folks in the anti-kadafi camp that he spoke with the other day were convinced that Kadafi was a Jew, and that was their reason for picking up a gun.  People have all sorts of crazy politics everywhere.  Is that notably more crazy than some of the views in this country or in Turkey or in Germany or in France?

     Certainly these folks think of themselves as Freedom fighters, but I'd ask you to consider that almost everybody in any sort of revolutionary movement thinks the same thing of themselves, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, no matter what ideology the espouse.  At one point, Kadafi thought of himself that way, and for all I know, he may still.

     There may be, theoretically, people who fight fiercely for things they believe in their hearts are wrong, but on the whole, I suspect they tend to surrender as soon as they can.  Not believing in your cause tends to take the heart out of you, doesn't it?

    
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


40 posted 03-22-2011 07:50 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Oh, and Mike? I suspected Michael Moore was working for Libyan Television--yesterday morning they'd televised Ghadafi waving a rifle in victory--while riding a horse.

?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


41 posted 03-22-2011 11:17 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

That's how I understand the War Resolutions Act, too, Michael. Since we weren't under attack or serious threat then prior approval from Congress in needed, and that the 48 hours notification to Congress comes in to play when military action is committed to by the President when there is a current attack or serious threat. And absent subsequent Congressional approval of the President's actions or an official declaration of war, the President is required to remove any forces within 60 days, (with an additional 30 day withdrawal period granted to facilitate the withdrawal process). But absent a current attack or imminent threat, prior Congressional approval is required.    

Karen, we could just call him the Madman of Libya!  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


42 posted 03-22-2011 11:54 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It looks like the alliance is falling apart:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 03-23-2011 03:25 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nice pic of Obama and the wife. Cheers...
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


44 posted 03-23-2011 05:19 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Good point Karen. Just to "clarify", lol.

From Wiki:

"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME magazine, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera.[204] The Associated Press, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News use "Moammar Gadhafi". The Library of Congress uses "Qaddafi, Muammar" as the primary name. The Edinburgh Middle East Report uses "Mu'ammar Qaddafi" and the U.S. Department of State uses "Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi", although the White House chooses to use "Muammar el-Qaddafi".[205] The Xinhua News Agency uses "Muammar Khaddafi" in its English reports.[206] The New York Times uses "Muammar el-Qaddafi". The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times of Tribune Company use "Moammar Kadafi".[207][208]

In 1986, Gaddafi reportedly responded to a Minnesota school's letter in English using the spelling "Moammar El-Gadhafi".[209] The title of the homepage of algathafi.org reads "Welcome to the official site of Muammar Al Gathafi"
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


45 posted 03-23-2011 05:27 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Denise

I can't believe you just did that?  A link from the Daily Mail!  Are you serious?  You should know that the Mail is the rag of choice of the blue rinse middle class right wing lady of a certain age who makes apple pies and holds coffee mornings.  Politics and facts do not feature.  You are reading the respectable face of ignorance ... it's just not you!   

Actually though, I'm fairly hard pressed to think of any UK newspaper I would take seriously .

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


46 posted 03-23-2011 02:58 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
That's how I understand the War Resolutions Act, too, Michael.


I believe that the War Powers Resolution doesn't restrict the President to only committing armed forces in situations where the US is under attack:

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress  before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the  circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in  hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

From the text of the resolution - emphasis added.

.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


47 posted 03-23-2011 04:09 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

... and after all (as Mike is so determined to expose "double standards" ) let's face it, if Bush had bothered to "consult" anyone we'd never have got Saddam hanged.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


48 posted 03-23-2011 05:20 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What in Section 3 leads you to believe that it is referring to instances other than a current attack or an imminent threat to American lives, Uncas?


Bush obtained Congressional approval prior to Afghanastan and Iraq, Rob.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 03-23-2011 06:06 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     President Bush did not obtain a declaration of war, Denise.  He lied and arm-twisted to obtain what he did.  He divided the country in the process and ruined its international standing.  

     In doing so, it seems he followed a bipartisan tradition going back to the end of World War Two, the last war that I know of that we entered into with a formal declaration of war.

     Given the fact that there may not be the chance for a formal declaration of war following a nuclear exchange, none of the conflicts we have involved ourselves in since that time have actually been nuclear.  In the case of 9/11/01, the declaration of war was against a target that was likely initially ill chosen, since they offered to turn over Osama Bin Ladin over for trial to a neutral third party.

     We rejected that offer.

     Then we proceeded to invade a country which had nothing at all to do with 9/11, and which we knew at that time had nothing at all to do with 9/11.

     Muscling permission to do that out of congress seems to me to be an attempt to avoid thousands of murder charges more than anything else.  President Obama, in refusing to order an investigation into that piece of behavior, seems to me to have earned himself a role as unindicted co-conspirator as much as anything else, Denise.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Feelings >> Obama   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors