# Obama's Libyan Adventure-Will It End Badly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628 "2011-03-22T17:40:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/61 "2011-03-24T01:54:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think that the NATO defense example jives OK because Congress has did ratify that treaty-- they had their say up front. Congress is saying, in effect, that the prez can help out Great Britain or Italy w/o Congressional approval, but not Russia, China or Khazakstan. Anything outside of NATO assistance (or other treaties they ratified) has to be approved by Congress. > [@](#): > > **War Powers Resolution** > (d) Nothing in this chapter— > (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; With the above WPR quote of (d)(1), it was Congress’s intent in the WPR to not alter existing treaties with the WPR. Both the NATO treaty and UN Charter “treaty” were properly ratified before 1973. I could understand saying both need congressional approval, or none, but not just one. I still fail to distinguish a difference of why NATO assistance jives, but not a UN resolution. For the UN Charter, Congress enacted the United Nations Participation Act. It’s 22 USC 287, but I can’t find it online to link it. Relevant section of 287 states: “…The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein…” (All UN resolutions of force are brought under Art. 42) I guess you could argue the WPR overrides that earlier statute. Not sure if that’s ever been ruled on or not, though. For the record, no President has ever asked for congressional approval before employing forces per a UN resolution (they just inform Congress they did). I still think Congress needs to pass a US resolution to end the Libyan involvement or wait 60 days and they will presumptively not endorse it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/62 "2011-03-24T02:12:48Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > That’s what they said about the Shah of iran.. 4 millionn deaths later, we had Ahmadhdinajad. In the mean time the free world invented the internet, facebook, and cell phones which is going to bring him down without a shot. Technology is changing faster than a bunch of 6th century wannabes can deal with. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/63 "2011-03-24T02:17:20Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > With the above WPR quote of (d)(1), it was Congress’s intent in the WPR to not alter existing treaties with the WPR. Both the NATO treaty and UN Charter “treaty” were properly ratified before 1973. I could understand saying both need congressional approval, or none, but not just one. I still fail to distinguish a difference of why NATO assistance jives, but not a UN resolution. > > For the UN Charter, Congress enacted the United Nations Participation Act. It’s 22 USC 287, but I can’t find it online to link it. Relevant section of 287 states: “…The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein…” > > (All UN resolutions of force are brought under Art. 42) > > I guess you could argue the WPR overrides that earlier statute. Not sure if that’s ever been ruled on or not, though. > > For the record, no President has ever asked for congressional approval before employing forces per a UN resolution (they just inform Congress they did). I still think Congress needs to pass a US resolution to end the Libyan involvement or wait 60 days and they will presumptively not endorse it. This stuff gives me a headache thinking about it. I haven’t had time to watch any of the usual talk shows (Matthews, etc.)., so I don’t know if the experts have weighed in or what they say. I only heard one so-called “expert” on NPR yesterday AM who said this action clearly violated the WPR. But I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find another “expert” who says it doesn’t, If there’s on thing we learned under Bush, it’s that a president can pretty much do whatever he wants as long as there aren’t enough Congresscritters willing to impeach his ass. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/64 "2011-03-24T02:25:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If there’s on thing we learned under Bush, it’s that a president can pretty much do whatever he wants as long as there aren’t enough Congresscritters willing to impeach his ass. [Biden wants to lead that charge \*](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA)…oh wait, that was before he became the 2nd in Command 😛 - for the convenience of those that don’t visit the pit ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/65 "2011-03-24T02:26:47Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > [Biden wants to lead that charge \*](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA)…oh wait, that was before he became the 2nd in Command 😛 It was his secret plan all along to get the #1 spot! ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/66 "2011-03-24T02:32:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I only heard one so-called “expert” on NPR yesterday AM who said this action clearly violated the WPR. But I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find another “expert” who says it doesn’t, We’d probably need another thread on the WPR. I’m trying to make it work under the WPR, but it’s highly likely the WPR is not even constitutional. It’s a pretty fascinating act. But anyways, the troops are there. > [@](#): > > If there’s on thing we learned under Bush, it’s that a president can pretty much do whatever he wants as long as there aren’t enough Congresscritters willing to impeach his ass. Agreed. Or have the balls to just not fund it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/67 "2011-03-24T02:51:57Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Take that back!! Don’t mess with my country’s powder!!! _sniff__Me desculpa, senora._\* I know Peru and Combia have very ancient and honorable traditions of cultivation, and it is deeply rooted in their cultures and orifices. - Babelfish is useful. Hey, have you ever tried this fun thing you can do with Babelfish? Translate a block of text into a foreign language and back again to English. Try translating the Gettysburg Address into German and back, and then into Japanese and Chinese . . . the results are bizarre. In fact, a whole new form of Dadaism, if you like, could be based on it. What if you tried it with text that’s already bizarre to begin with? I don’t mean _Finnegan’s Wake,_ that wouldn’t translate at all, I mean _sniff_ something like “The Raven” or maybe some Ginsberg, or maybe some cult-scriptures. Or Scripture, that’d be a trip. Do you think Babelfish will ever get to the point where you can do this and you get just the same English text back? That’s probably the point when it becomes self-aware and turns on its makers. Indeed a primitive wedding of God and technology. I think I can feel my hair growing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/68 "2011-03-24T04:00:29Z")
We _did_ warn you about the brown acid. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/69 "2011-03-24T04:38:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > But it sounds bad! 😉 > Let’s not resort to euphemisms, shall we? Ghadafi was on his way to winning the war and when that happened, a lot of people were going to be slaughtered. Doesn’t make it our job to stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/70 "2011-03-24T06:29:09Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > [Biden wants to lead that charge \*](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA)…oh wait, that was before he became the 2nd in Command 😛 > > - for the convenience of those that don’t visit the pit But he specified a country of 70 million so maybe it’s different with Libya because they only have 6 million. And he WAS very clear on what he said because… he said so. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/71 "2011-03-24T06:52:04Z")
Obama may be stupid enough to hand the Pubbies the means to cut his nuts off, but I understand that he has a passing familiarity with Constitutional law. Dabbled. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/72 "2011-03-24T06:58:57Z")
Oh, and exit strategy? If your entire military involvement is defined by firing missiles and launching airplanes, your exit strategy is: stop firing missiles and launching airplanes. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/73 "2011-03-24T07:28:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, and exit strategy? If your entire military involvement is defined by firing missiles and launching airplanes, your exit strategy is: stop firing missiles and launching airplanes. Except that’s not what the President said. His vision is: “The exit strategy will be executed this week in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment.” “We’ll still be in a support role, we’ll still be providing jamming, and intelligence and other assets that are unique to us, but this is an international effort that’s designed to accomplish the goals that were set out in the Security Council resolution,” Obama said. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/74 "2011-03-24T12:36:11Z")
Translation: “we’re going to stop firing missles and launching airlplanes.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/75 "2011-03-24T13:13:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Obama may be stupid enough to hand the Pubbies the means to cut his nuts off, but I understand that he has a passing familiarity with Constitutional law. Dabbled. He already told us this military action is not constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/76 "2011-03-24T14:29:16Z")
I think that Pubs will find that even those of their base who have been slavering to impeach Obama for somethingorother since Day One are going to have second thoughts about impeaching him for **this!** I mean, this is the kinda thing Reagan might have done if he weren’t such a pussywimp! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/77 "2011-03-24T15:23:57Z")
Impeachment over this isn’t in the cards. Not a chance. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/78 "2011-03-24T16:06:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He already told us this military action is not constitutional. I appreciate simplicity and brevity, **John** , indeed I do. But this post could have used a touch of embellishment. Perhaps a link? Yes, I think that would set it off nicely. Because, as it stands, we have a wide range of possibility. “Bwahahahaha, you fools! My actions are blatantly and purposefully unConstitutional and there’s nothing you can do about it!” “Well, if you take out your zircon-encrusted semantic parsing tweezers and give it a thorough brickering, you could squeeze out an aspect that, in a certain light and if you squint, could look unConstitutional. Sorta, kinda…” Couldn’t be that quote from way, way back when he was a Senator criticizing Bush? No, that can’t be it, you wouldn’t be trying to pull a slow one. I’m sure you know that you have to get up pretty early in the afternoon to fool me. TL:DR cite? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/79 "2011-03-24T16:42:15Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Translation: “we’re going to stop firing missles and launching airlplanes.” and provide jamming, intelligence and other resources unique to us. It will be kinetic diplomacy with a regime to be named at a later date. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/80 "2011-03-24T16:48:22Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Doesn’t make it our job to stop it. I agree, it doesn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628.md?page=5)