For the third time, I challenge you to address the fact that Obama has broken US law by authorizing military action without congressional approval. I know you like what he is doing, but laws exist for a reason, and no amount of good intention or pretty words erase the fact that it is illegal for the executive to declare war without congressional approval.
Would you support a republican president in the same decision? The logician in me says you would not. And even if you would, it would still be unconstitutional!
The issue I take as an American with this war (intervention is a pretty word for an ugly thing) is that our involvement occurred illegally. It is very clearly stated in our Constitution how the USA may become involved in warfare, but that did not happen. No vote was taken, no representatives discussed - a unilateral decision was made by the elites within American society, and off to war we went.
This is a legal war internationally, but under US law our involvement is not. War must be declared by the Congress, not casually begun at the imperial discretion of the executive. That's just such a horrible precedent to set, especially by a peace prize-winning "Constitutional scholar" like Barack Obama. You try to dismiss such criticisms of the UN action by pointing out that security council is not a law-making body, but precedent is still a valid concern. Like Nixon and presidential lawbreaking, like Clinton and intervention in Kosovo, this action lays another stone in the path toward an imperial executive - a path, I should add, this nation has taken about 20,000 steps too far down.
I do not doubt that Barack Obama will never be seriously challenged on his involvement. The elites love war. The middle classes love winning. The poor have no representation. Who then will dare challenge the legitimacy of a popular sitting president, even if he has acted illegally? The precedent will stand, of that I am sure, and the next intervention (war) will be all the easier.
But let us say our involvement in the war in Libya were legally ratified. (It hardly lacked support among the elites.) I would still then be in opposition. The reason is simple: we cannot afford to feed American children. We cannot pay for basic services. We have no money for schools, for roads, for healthcare or for childcare. Yet somehow, we have many millions more for war - money heaped upon the trillions already spent to fight wars across the world. Millions for Death in Libya, while people starve slowly in the American street; it would be a dark comedy if not for the truth in it.
I condemn the war in Libya because we are paying for it with our national credit card, and show no intention of paying things back. Surely there is some value in the preservation of human life, but why must it always be paid for with American missiles, and American planes? What moral legitimacy is there in claiming that this time, the bombing and killing is noble and right, because the opposition are bad guys? I have received no hurt from Quadaffi, and likely never will. He and his forces have done horrible things, surely, but are we not simply choosing to keep Libyan rebels alive at the expense of letting American poor, American homeless, and American future generations suffer and die for lack of aid? The choice is not mine, and that is fortunate for the Libyan rebels indeed, for I do not see their fight as my own, or that of my countrymen.
I would make a poor American President, because unlike them, I am more concerned with the people of my nation than I am with preserving our hegemony abroad. This is written on my phone - I apologize for disorganization and any errors.
The justness or righteous of this conflict does not permit the president to break the law. I know it's tempting to want to help everyone in need, but at this point, our government isn't even pretending to acknowledge the separation of powers.
Millions for bombs means less for the poor, the homeless, the sick, and the future. I cannot stand behind agressive war, simply because "this time it's for the right reasons."
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
For the third time, I challenge you to address the fact that Obama has broken US law by authorizing military action without congressional approval. I know you like what he is doing, but laws exist for a reason, and no amount of good intention or pretty words erase the fact that it is illegal for the executive to declare war without congressional approval.
Would you support a republican president in the same decision? The logician in me says you would not. And even if you would, it would still be unconstitutional!
The issue I take as an American with this war (intervention is a pretty word for an ugly thing) is that our involvement occurred illegally. It is very clearly stated in our Constitution how the USA may become involved in warfare, but that did not happen. No vote was taken, no representatives discussed - a unilateral decision was made by the elites within American society, and off to war we went.
This is a legal war internationally, but under US law our involvement is not. War must be declared by the Congress, not casually begun at the imperial discretion of the executive. That's just such a horrible precedent to set, especially by a peace prize-winning "Constitutional scholar" like Barack Obama. You try to dismiss such criticisms of the UN action by pointing out that security council is not a law-making body, but precedent is still a valid concern. Like Nixon and presidential lawbreaking, like Clinton and intervention in Kosovo, this action lays another stone in the path toward an imperial executive - a path, I should add, this nation has taken about 20,000 steps too far down.
I do not doubt that Barack Obama will never be seriously challenged on his involvement. The elites love war. The middle classes love winning. The poor have no representation. Who then will dare challenge the legitimacy of a popular sitting president, even if he has acted illegally? The precedent will stand, of that I am sure, and the next intervention (war) will be all the easier.
But let us say our involvement in the war in Libya were legally ratified. (It hardly lacked support among the elites.) I would still then be in opposition. The reason is simple: we cannot afford to feed American children. We cannot pay for basic services. We have no money for schools, for roads, for healthcare or for childcare. Yet somehow, we have many millions more for war - money heaped upon the trillions already spent to fight wars across the world. Millions for Death in Libya, while people starve slowly in the American street; it would be a dark comedy if not for the truth in it.
I condemn the war in Libya because we are paying for it with our national credit card, and show no intention of paying things back. Surely there is some value in the preservation of human life, but why must it always be paid for with American missiles, and American planes? What moral legitimacy is there in claiming that this time, the bombing and killing is noble and right, because the opposition are bad guys? I have received no hurt from Quadaffi, and likely never will. He and his forces have done horrible things, surely, but are we not simply choosing to keep Libyan rebels alive at the expense of letting American poor, American homeless, and American future generations suffer and die for lack of aid? The choice is not mine, and that is fortunate for the Libyan rebels indeed, for I do not see their fight as my own, or that of my countrymen.
I would make a poor American President, because unlike them, I am more concerned with the people of my nation than I am with preserving our hegemony abroad. This is written on my phone - I apologize for disorganization and any errors.
The justness or righteous of this conflict does not permit the president to break the law. I know it's tempting to want to help everyone in need, but at this point, our government isn't even pretending to acknowledge the separation of powers.
Millions for bombs means less for the poor, the homeless, the sick, and the future. I cannot stand behind agressive war, simply because "this time it's for the right reasons."