By gerard, March 24 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment
SteveL:  The Constitution got changed drastically when Bush was Pres.

Article 5 of the constitution calls for an amendment to change the constitution. 
Don’t remember any of these passed during he Bush years.  Just exactly where did
the constitution get changed?

SteveL:  The Constitutioin got changed drastically when Bush was Pres. He more or less legalized endless wars in the Middle East, torture, indefinite imprisonment, unwarranted fear and panic, and the
intrusive “surveillance” of the citizens of his propagandizzed nation, thanks to media collusion.
We, the people, are partially guilty of our own imprisonment because we have permitted it, and still do, every day.

By FRTothus, March 24 at 12:24 am Link to this comment

Congress ceded its Constitutional power to declare war
to the emperor long ago.

Just when did the constitution get changed?

Long overdue.

Congress ceded its Constitutional power to declare war
to the emperor long ago.

Jakeo..you cant have our constitution ‘’‘and’ a draft..a draft is ..involuntary
servitude.-read the 4th Amend.
If there is no danger imminent to the US..it takes congress to-DECLARE’ war..which
they have not done since WW2.
This country..the politicians and the majority of the people in it..are a complete
joke.

“Let the Libyan people work it out.”  They tried—until the dictator brought out his hired guns and heavy ammunition and started mowing them down.
  I still stand by the fact that early alternatives are “where it’s at” so far as stopping eternal wars is concerned. Peace has to be made, created, brought to life, whatever. Peace is more than simply the lack of war.
  Many alternatives could be tried—methods differing according to different circumstances. There is no one way.  Many of those alternatives would involve mutually arrived at fair and open solutions to both internal problems and external relations.  All would involve cooperation from all those mutually affected by decisions. 
  Of course it’s idealistic—and easy to shoot down because there are few examples of it having even been tried.  It is totally beyond the comprehension of all those who still lean on the war system as “the only possible” answer.  Nobody can predict ahead of time how to do it, what would be the outcomes, etc., but it begins to look like trying methods other than war might be a good idea in more than mere principle. 
  We won’t know till be try it.  How to convince people to try it is the problem.  War is a bad habit and we are addicted.  Drunks can never envision their freedom from alcohol.  Cocaine says “Trust me. I am all you have and all you need.”  War says:  “I’m inevitable!  Ha, ha!  Look how long I’ve been going on, how many jobs I provide, how great victory is!”  A few nore defeats and holocaousts ought to pretty much cook its goos.  Then what?

Since when is a no fly zone a free fire zone?

Sounds tame i.e. no fly zone, a real sales pitch.

The war powers act was suppose to fix the glaring constitutional ambiguities of waging war.

http://www.answers.com/topic/war-powers-act

When the government starts deciding which parts of the constitution it wants to observe and ignore, watch out and keep your powder dry.

Legislators Question Constitutionality of Libya Attack

anyone who’s been up on the news knows that all military action since WW2 is unconstitutional in the respect that the president didn’t follow the rules before launching the strikes.

While congress may have denied the president on Libya, to argue about constitutionality now is a farce and wholly unhelpful. People are dying, were at war in the middle east again, and the rest of the world just sits by (I am sorry, abstaining from a UN vote is doesn’t do jack for those being slaughtered)- oh and we can’t afford it.

“All we are saying, is give peace a chance.” Is continual unconstitutional war working?

Indeed, many bad things can be said about Ghadafi, but to have true integrity as a People of the United States then we should extend that to many other countries in Asia & Africa. 

I think it pretty clear where the US is headed here.  If we can’t wait for to create perpetual war at home with Mexico (watch and see!), we will certainly keep working the Arab option.

Unless you think Obama, and Bush before him, have violated sacred trusts with the America people, the time has come to bring back Conscription in the United States—the Military Draft—for Everyone. 

If the US seems so committed to spread its brand of “democracy” around the world, then all of us need to be involved.  We all need to be willing to put the lives of our sons, daughters and ourselves on line.

gerard:

Gaddafi doesn’t have US war equipment. It’s French and Russian.

What “early alternatives” would you have suggested that would persuade Gaddafi to be a nicere man to his people?

Besides, isn’t the whole point of the objection to this military operation that it interferes with Libya’s “internal affairs”? What business is it of anyone’s to try and change his behavior? His “mad behavior” has been “counterproductive to his own welfare and prestige” right at home- hence the rebellion. Let the Libyan people work it out. Right?

The saddest thing is that by the time things reach the “no-fly zone” stage it’s much too late for anything but a military cneounter.  Do you suppose this delay is intentional?  Prolonger to the point where it gives the military something to do?  Could be.  Prevention seems never to cross anyone’s mind.

Ghadaffi has been fed military supplies and equipment for years even though he appears mad.
Now it’s quite possible that American war equipment is bombing American war equpment—along with any Libyans who happen to be in the way. 

What if Ghadaffi had not been patronized? What if his mad behavior had been counterproductive to his own welfare and prestige?  What if his repressive policies had been more widely publicized and criticized?  What if ... patronizing him had been linked to improvements in his governance?  Were there no other ways to avoid the present crisis there?  Obviously, no serious consideration was given to early alternatives by any government concerned, including the U.S.  Seems like intercession never comes in the form of peaceful alternatives—a sure sign that all governments prefer war to peace as their “foreign policy.”

What if Moammar Ghadafi attacked the U.S. to free Bradley Manning? And I wonder how much support he’d get if he went to the UN to get approval for a joint attack?
If the UN were made up of citizens of the world rather than entrenched ‘leaders’ of countries. I’ll bet the U.S. would have to veto the unanimous approval of the motion to free Manning. Even the way it is, I’ll bet it’s better than 50/50 that the attack would be approved by the majority, unless the US printed a lot more money in order to bribe folks to vote against.