Mar 27, 2011 -- 3:19PM, Ur2 wrote:

Has no one noticed? Our Nobel Peace Prize winning Prez has us involved in a civil war in Lybia. Lybia has neither threatened us nor invaded us, yet we are spending hundreds of millions a day rocketing & bombing Lybian National Forces and killing multitudes of civilians as well.

Now we have Three Wars to die for and spend money on that we don't have.

Furthermore, many are saying that it's un-Constitutional.

Thanx,

Ur2 

Has anyone noticed the Anti-Obama-ites keep changing their mind?   They were  yelling do something, do something.   An when he does something they yell wrong , wrong!

The Commander in Chief deployed US forces in an UN Security council  action.  We are member of UN  and NATO by treaty and the  constitution  article  VI  says “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”  Therefore that  action is constitutional

Foda says--

"Has anyone noticed the Anti-Obama-ites keep changing their mind?   They were  yelling do something, do something.   An when he does something they yell wrong , wrong!"

Yerp-that's why I say that the ANTI-Obama Rs here have only ONE attitude--

"Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't."

I guess we will see what Obama says tonight. He is playing a dangerous game, as the pro Gadafi forces are pointing out that we quickly went from protecting citizens from massacre, to helping the rebels win a civil war.

While I don't support the mission of freeing Libya, presidents of both parties have basically used the power of Commander in Chief to have the military do whatever the hell the pres wants.  But with his actions, if things go bad (which includes this thing somehow going on for a year and becoming a election issue) he has no cover. From a purely political standpoint, this action has no value for Obama and lots of downside.

I am still wondering why we took action against Qaddafi.

Just speaking from some frame of consistency ( I realize that is an oxymoron with obama). 

What is missing here is the other side of the "no fly zone."  Do we want to topple dictators so islamic extremists (realizing the Left doesnt think they exist) can take over a country (consider bin laden.  After we helped him against the Russians, he obviously had a change of heart toward us pre 911).

If ever there is a true state, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has never been more profound than while dealing with the mideast.

Right now, no one wants to be incharge of the after war.  And this will be a mess.

obama tends to lead from behind always.

According to Richard Engel, Khadhafy may well be history one way or the other by the end of the week, and what has happened will probably be all but forgotten by November, 2012.  But I think two things are clear, and one is that Obama and the coalition acted on the threat by Khadhafy himself that there would be a slaughter of those who opposed him, plus the fact that if he had not taken action there would be all sorts of accusations about Obama being ineffectual, which was already happening before he took action (a reminder of what some on the right were saying on some previous threads just a few weeks ago). 

And, on top of that, how many Republicans have we seen completely flip-flopping by saying we should go in and then reversing themselves after we went in?  Apparently they must have forgotten that in today's day and age it's really quite easy to demonstrate inconsistancies and out-right lies, including actual recordings.  Therefore, the game that many of the Republicans have played could very well backfire, especially if the public comes to agree that we did the right thing by going in with the coalition. 

BTW, just a comment on the cost.  According to the DoD estimate, our action will cost us about $1 billion overall, but let's assume that this figure is low, which it probably will be, and the actual cost comes out to $2 billion.  Well, $2 billion is what we spend per week in Afghanistan alone, and then if we add what we're still spending in Iraq...