I mean you have got to be joking, right? I heard the hissy fits of Kusinich and Sessions regarding the ? right ? of the President to send USA assets to Libya.
France has many interests in the area. We are an ally of France and we are a MEMBER of NATO. Does that RESPONSIBLITY ring a bell for anyone?
France has many interests in the area. We are an ally of France and we are a MEMBER of NATO. Does that RESPONSIBLITY ring a bell for anyone?
Italy pushes for NATO control of Libya mission (click title to entry - thank you)
ROME
..."It's important that the command passes to NATO with a different coordination structure than what we have now," Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said at a political rally in Turin.
Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said if an agreement was not reached for NATO control of the U.N.- mandated no-fly zone over Libya, Italy would resume its own separate command structure.
"Italy will consider the idea of introducing its own separate national command to handle the control of all those military operations that require the use of the seven bases our country has put at the mission's disposal," the ministry said in a statement.
Earlier Frattini told reporters in Brussels that "we would have to look for an operational solution which would ensure that someone else's action did not rebound on us."...
The War Powers Resolution states:
S.1541(c)
(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
"Specific statutory authorization" applies to the alliance the USA has with NATO and other nations such as France and Great Britain.
We can't 'get real' about this?
Either we are allies to other nations willing to act in support of their priorities or we aren't.
Any prolonged engagement would have to be by an act of Congress, but, there is no question that President Obama has the right to engage the USA military when allies deem it necessary.
I really can't believe how negative the dialogue is about protecting the Libyan people by the coalition which includes the USA.
UN Resolution 1973 is quite specific. There is to be every effort to protect the people of Libya from hostilities engaged by their current dictator.
The USA is a sovereign authority with a membership to the United Nations.
The monies being spent in support of Libya is a drop in the bucket compared to the past and current engagements of our military elsewhere and besides the cruise missiles being deployed to MAKE THE WORLD SAFER for Libyans were collecting dust anyway.
There isn't going to be another Iraq because there is already a new leadership emerging in Libya. It is just a matter of time before there is a paradigm shift and a different leadership structure becomes apparent.
Is the American media and political theater in the USA so very jaded we can't see the forest for the trees?
..."It's important that the command passes to NATO with a different coordination structure than what we have now," Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said at a political rally in Turin.
Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said if an agreement was not reached for NATO control of the U.N.- mandated no-fly zone over Libya, Italy would resume its own separate command structure.
"Italy will consider the idea of introducing its own separate national command to handle the control of all those military operations that require the use of the seven bases our country has put at the mission's disposal," the ministry said in a statement.
Earlier Frattini told reporters in Brussels that "we would have to look for an operational solution which would ensure that someone else's action did not rebound on us."...
The War Powers Resolution states:
S.1541(c)
(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
"Specific statutory authorization" applies to the alliance the USA has with NATO and other nations such as France and Great Britain.
We can't 'get real' about this?
Either we are allies to other nations willing to act in support of their priorities or we aren't.
Any prolonged engagement would have to be by an act of Congress, but, there is no question that President Obama has the right to engage the USA military when allies deem it necessary.
I really can't believe how negative the dialogue is about protecting the Libyan people by the coalition which includes the USA.
UN Resolution 1973 is quite specific. There is to be every effort to protect the people of Libya from hostilities engaged by their current dictator.
The USA is a sovereign authority with a membership to the United Nations.
The monies being spent in support of Libya is a drop in the bucket compared to the past and current engagements of our military elsewhere and besides the cruise missiles being deployed to MAKE THE WORLD SAFER for Libyans were collecting dust anyway.
There isn't going to be another Iraq because there is already a new leadership emerging in Libya. It is just a matter of time before there is a paradigm shift and a different leadership structure becomes apparent.
Is the American media and political theater in the USA so very jaded we can't see the forest for the trees?
