Author Topic: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?  (Read 57546 times)

Zanza

  • Incan Torpedo Boat Commander
  • ************
  • Posts: 8465
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #315 on: June 16, 2011, 03:35:58 am »
Good because these days if the German Army discovers they have to march in the sun their government will pull them out.
As half of them are overweight and most are smokers, they drive. Marching is for third-worlders. ;)

CountDeMoney

  • Global Moderator
  • Neil
  • *****
  • Posts: 54796
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #316 on: June 16, 2011, 04:55:23 am »
I'm hesitating between the dude jumping from the WTC on sept. 11th or the one where I defecate all over your Babylon 5 discset.  :hmm:

Oooh, oooh, Babylon.  Much more visceral.

CountDeMoney

  • Global Moderator
  • Neil
  • *****
  • Posts: 54796
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #317 on: June 16, 2011, 04:57:38 am »
Proof positive that craziness is bipartisan.

Quote
Bartlett, colleagues, sue Obama over Libya
Bipartisan group is angered over U.S. military involvement


WASHINGTON ——Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers Wednesday in filing a lawsuit against President Barack Obama over U.S. involvement in Libya, alleging that the White House overstepped its constitutional authority when it launched the military effort in March.

Amid growing criticism in Congress of President Barack Obama's handling of airstrikes against Libya, a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland sued the president Wednesday, saying he overstepped his authority when he committed the U.S. military to the conflict in March.

Bartlett, Republican Rep. Ron Paul, Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich  and seven other House members say Obama has violated the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution by failing to seek congressional approval for the military involvement against the government of Moammar Gadhafi.

White House officials largely dismissed the lawsuit. But the effort underscored growing discontent among lawmakers of both parties, even as Obama has stressed that the continuing operation is being led by NATO and the U.S. military has "no boots on the ground" in Libya.

"He clearly violated the Constitution," Bartlett, a Western Maryland Republican, said after the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. "This is not the king's army. This is a terribly dangerous precedent."

The administration, in its latest attempt to frame the conflict, asserted in a report to Congress on Wednesday that it has the authority to continue action in Libya because the military is not involved in full-blown "hostilities."

The Vietnam-era war-powers resolution is interpreted as allowing a president to initiate military action but requires a military withdrawl after 90 days — including a 30-day extension — unless Congress approves of the action.

Republican leaders have said that Obama will hit that deadline Sunday.

Debate over the president's authority as commander in chief to wage war is not new. Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. President Ronald Reagan did not notify Congress of the 1983 invasion of Grenada. President Bill Clinton did not seek approval more than a decade later for deploying U.S. troops to Bosnia and Kosovo.

In a report sent to every member of Congress on Wednesday, the administration argued for the first time that the resolution does not apply in the case of Libya. After the initial strikes, the U.S. military has taken a support role in the NATO action, the White House said.

"U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors," the document read.

Still, members of both parties have grown increasingly anxious about the cost and scope of the mission. The White House report came in part as a response to a nonbinding resolution approved by the House on June 3 calling on Obama to provide a "rationale" for operation.

Maryland's two Republican House members, Bartlett and Rep. Andy Harris, supported that measure.

"For decades, the War Powers Act has been hotly debated," Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top-ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on Intelligence, said Wednesday. "I think the important thing the president needs to do is communicate with Congress. We need to be involved."

So far, the Baltimore County lawmaker said, that communication has taken place. Ruppersberger said that he and other congressional leaders attended two briefings by the president on Libya in March.

The administration estimated that the total cost of the military and humanitarian effort in Libya has run about $800 million as of this month.

Bartlett was an early supporter of a similar lawsuit filed against Clinton over U.S. involvement in Kosovo in 1999. A federal judge dismissed the suit a month later, ruling that the courts could not get involved in the issue unless Congress and the White House had reached "a constitutional impasse."

A senior White House official dismissed the most recent lawsuit Wednesday, saying past litigation suggests "the likely course of something like this where members seek to engage the federal courts in these sorts of issues."

Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University, said courts have dismissed such suits on jurisdictional grounds rather than dealing with the merits of the case.

"That's probably as it should be," he said. "The political branches have adequate tools for protecting their institutional interests."

One such tool is the power of Congress to take away the money for military actions. But Bartlett argued that stripping funding is problematic because opponents can cast that decision as an attack on military personnel.

Bartlett has stressed he does not necessarily disagree with the justification the White House has offered for U.S. involvement in Libya — the protection of civilians — but with the method of engagement.

"It's terribly difficult to separate the troops from the effort," Bartlett said.

Asked whether the lawsuit over Libya would follow the same unsuccessful path as the suit in 1999 over Kosovo, Bartlett said, "it's a new court, with new people on it."

Joining Bartlett, Kucinich and Paul are Democratic Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republican Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina, Dan Burton of Indiana, Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee and Timothy Johnson of Illinois.

The lawsuit names Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as defendants.

"We believe that the law was violated," Kucinich said in a statement. "We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies."

grumbler

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 21019
  • I'll sleep when I'm dead
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #318 on: June 16, 2011, 07:47:54 am »
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know, are we doing the "I'm posting totally unrelated pictures I think might rile up the poster I'm replying to"?
I'm not, and if you are, you are failing epic-style.

Quote
I'm hesitating between the dude jumping from the WTC on sept. 11th or the one where I defecate all over your Babylon 5 discset.  :hmm:
I can see this matters to you, so I will leave you to your pondering.  Either choice is fine with me.  :hug:
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Ed Anger

  • Neil
  • ***************
  • Posts: 38941
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #319 on: June 16, 2011, 07:54:19 am »
The inner German in me wants to see Zoup shit on a B5 box set.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

Razgovory

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • Neil
  • **************
  • Posts: 36398
  • Madman of Languish
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #320 on: June 16, 2011, 09:21:08 am »
I'm a bit bemused that Zoupa can't tell the difference between a battle the US lost and a Battle that South Vietnam lost.  Or a Battle the US lost and a terrorists attack.  Or a battle the US lost and photos of Zoupa defecating on a bunch of DVDs.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Berkut

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 19460
  • Getting ready to post on Languish
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #321 on: June 16, 2011, 10:16:53 am »
I'm a bit bemused that Zoupa can't tell the difference between a battle the US lost and a Battle that South Vietnam lost.  Or a Battle the US lost and a terrorists attack.  Or a battle the US lost and photos of Zoupa defecating on a bunch of DVDs.

I am surprised you find Zoupa in full on crazy mode bemusing.
“If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven’t been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Neil

  • Wise
  • Administrator
  • Blessed by Valmy
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • I am that I am
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #322 on: June 16, 2011, 10:36:45 am »
I'm a bit bemused that Zoupa can't tell the difference between a battle the US lost and a Battle that South Vietnam lost.  Or a Battle the US lost and a terrorists attack.  Or a battle the US lost and photos of Zoupa defecating on a bunch of DVDs.

I am surprised you find Zoupa in full on crazy mode bemusing.
He hasn't really done anything crazy.  He's just countertrolling.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Valmy

  • Neil
  • ***************
  • Posts: 50044
  • Champions du Monde
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #323 on: June 16, 2011, 11:04:22 am »
I am surprised you find Zoupa in full on crazy mode bemusing.

Bah.  He is just countering lameass trolls on him.
If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!

Valmy is practically french. :frog:

Honorary gay award from Martinus

crazy canuck

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 27206
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #324 on: June 16, 2011, 11:22:18 am »
Waiting for B5 to be available on Netflix.  No chance of Zoupa tampering with Disks that way.

Neil

  • Wise
  • Administrator
  • Blessed by Valmy
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • I am that I am
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #325 on: June 16, 2011, 11:32:13 am »
Waiting for B5 to be available on Netflix.  No chance of Zoupa tampering with Disks that way.
:lol:
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

grumbler

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 21019
  • I'll sleep when I'm dead
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #326 on: June 16, 2011, 02:14:15 pm »
I am surprised you find Zoupa in full on crazy mode bemusing.

Bah.  He is just countering lameass trolls on him.
Nah. I was countering (very effectively, I might add) lameass trolls.  Talking about defecating on DVDs is crazy-mode talk.*  Expecting someone to be bothered because one is going to defecate on some DVDs is full-crazy-mode talk.  :bowler:

Zoups is your classic "I can dish it out but cannot take it" poster.  What makes him endearing is that, when his thin skin is pierced without effort, he threatens to do things his target couldn't care less about.  Zoups in vengeance mode is like a snake in bicycling mode.


*unless German, of course.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Valmy

  • Neil
  • ***************
  • Posts: 50044
  • Champions du Monde
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #327 on: June 16, 2011, 02:20:12 pm »
Nah. I was countering (very effectively, I might add) lameass trolls.

I was mainly talking about Raz.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 02:22:07 pm by Valmy »
If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!

Valmy is practically french. :frog:

Honorary gay award from Martinus

Razgovory

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • Neil
  • **************
  • Posts: 36398
  • Madman of Languish
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #328 on: June 16, 2011, 02:33:24 pm »
Nah. I was countering (very effectively, I might add) lameass trolls.

I was mainly talking about Raz.

Seemed effective.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Zoupa

  • Naked Mole Rat
  • ********
  • Posts: 3294
  • Debout, les damnés de la Terre...
Re: Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?
« Reply #329 on: June 16, 2011, 02:47:24 pm »
I am surprised you find Zoupa in full on crazy mode bemusing.

Bah.  He is just countering lameass trolls on him.
Nah. I was countering (very effectively, I might add) lameass trolls.  Talking about defecating on DVDs is crazy-mode talk.*  Expecting someone to be bothered because one is going to defecate on some DVDs is full-crazy-mode talk.  :bowler:

Zoups is your classic "I can dish it out but cannot take it" poster.  What makes him endearing is that, when his thin skin is pierced without effort, he threatens to do things his target couldn't care less about.  Zoups in vengeance mode is like a snake in bicycling mode.


*unless German, of course.

Sure  :lol: My thin skin is all ablaze!