Say this for those Kenyans - they’re organized. Otherwise they could never travel through time and pull off several wars at once.
Maybe political commentary is to much for some posters to handle? 
No. I read it as treaties established before 1973, but now I believe you’re reading is correct. (ie, all that language I left out translates to “activities” before 1973).
If that’s right, then I’m still perplexed. Let’s see if we can work through this…
How does it jive with WPR sec 8 (d)(1) re: pre-1973 treaties. Let’s use your NATO example. It’s a (pre-1973) treaty that says if a member state is attacked, then all members can/must respond. Does the President need to wait for statutory approval from Congress now (after 1973)? I’m guessing by your comments that you think not. But why? Shouldn’t the WPR, as a later in time statute, override since the President is limited to the three scenarios in Sec 2(c). The same example can be applied to the UN treaty. Isn’t the President obligated to execute valid US law/treaties, and Libya resolution 1973 is a valid UN resolution? Doesn’t the WPR recognize/acquiesce this in (d)(1)? Or more bluntly, why NATO treaty, and not the UN treaty?
Good question. Are we supporting the insurgency, protecting the population in general from pro-Gadhafi forces, or just keeping the NFZ clear? Or maybe…its the OIL!
And who exactly are these insurgents? Are they a majority or minority? Did the US side with them because Gadhafi is darker of two evils?
However, its hard to find any news reports about civilian casualties from the US missles/bombing runs in Lybia. Weird huh?
I’m assume you mean verbally. And yes, this had already occurred.
All War Powers discussions aside, and considering his early wavering on the matter, I think obama’s decision to get involved was purely political.
That money was spent on smokes and golf balls months ago.
I disagree. His entire working career consists of being a community organizer, guest lecturer, and brief term as a senator. None of these jobs come with any real responsibility or prepared him for a world stage. He’s never been held to account for anything and it shows. He’s not leading, he’s following.
He’s an ideologue without the skill-sets necessary to pull it off.
Gee. And here I thought that this was a multinational effort mandated by the UN Security Council. I had no idea it was Obama acting alone. What a scoundrel.
There are no UN troops involved. It’s basically a NATO operation without any leadership.
I agree, but if we get out before the civil war goes full scale we can declare victory. But you’re right about what will happen, and that will be a new humanitarian crisis to deal with.
The extra strategy has been clarified with mud.
At least Al Qaida approves of the conflict.
Regarding this last point, I’m still waiting for a reason explaining why he got it.
As for the fact that we don’t know what kind of regime will replace Kadhafi :
-
It can hardly be worst
-
At the least, the population is likely to be favorably disposed towards countries that helped them at their insistent request
-
Hi, Kadhafi !
Actually, that’s the only point mentioned by the OP that annoys me, because I like Bolivia and Evo Morales. 
:rolleyes: I daresay Obama can do anything FDR could do (and play basketball, too).
:eek: Anything, man, anything! (The Colombian powder, it is good and full-bodied, but it just does not have that je ne sais quoi. As for the Peruvian, less said the better.)
Take that back!! Don’t mess with my country’s powder!!!
win
That’s what they said about the Shah of iran.. 4 millionn deaths later, we had Ahmadhdinajad.
Isn’t that the exact opposite of this situation, ralph124c? In Iran, the U.S. helped overthrow a democratically elected prime minister to bring back the Shah, who was not popular with the people (or the future revolutionaries) but was supposed to be more amenable to U.S. interests. Ghadafi has been the dictator of Libya for 40 years and the U.S. and its allies are supporting a revolution against him.
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.
Well, please, someone tell me just what result would qualify as ending well.
If we had any positive experience in military actions against societies that were not actually attacing our people, and our nation (as opposed to our politics, or our economic interests) I would be willing to entertain the possibility that this might not end badly. My fear is, like Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it isn’t going to end at all.
Tris
All’s well that ends well. Or is it: All’s well that ends…?