What makes Libya different?

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

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

I'd just be happy to hear Obama explain why he dropped the Darfur rhetoric.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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

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.