Obama & Kerry have not convinced me. I oppose this Libyan intervention.

[beachmom]

I listened to that entire SFRC hearing, and I found the dissenters far more compelling than those in favor. I also listened to the President speak just now, and remained unmoved. I just don't have a bone in my body for "liberal interventionism". I am for using diplomacy and other peaceful means to change things. Beyond that, it better be directly in the United States's strategic interest before our military force is used. Clearly, in this case it is not. Again, horrible things are happening in Bahrain and Yemen, and we aren't planning on doing anything there. So this is just based on our historically not liking Qaddafi, and being able to hobble together Europeans and the Arab League to do this action. I am with Lugar questioning how much will the Arab League be involved either militarily or financially. Not much, in my opinion.

This is the Kerry supporter forum, but that does not mean we Kerry supporters are going to agree with him on every issue. In this case, I disagree vehemently with him.

Having said all that, I hope to God I am wrong, and that this action is quick and successful. But seriously, this country has major financial problems and we need to be winding down our foreign interventions not adding new ones.

Edit: Oh, and one more thing. Let's have an AUMF for this. Bush got one, let's have Obama get one from this Congress. I find Kerry's argument that we don't have time not particularly persuasive. Even if it's after intervention today it should authorize retroactively. We do have another branch of government which should do oversight. The Congress after all has the power of the purse to actually pay for yet another war.

2nd Edit: Well, well, well. The British Prime Minister seems to think regime change is the ultimate goal:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6795879/cameron-vs-obama-they-cant-both-be-right-about-regime-change.thtml

Is that what it is going to come to?

[ProSense]

1. I agree with them

given what I've heard and read.

"Let's have an AUMF for this. Bush got one, let's have Obama get one from this Congress."

You don't need an AUMF for a U.N. resolution.

This has nothing to do with Bush's actions.

[karynnj]

2. Kerry was one of the people arguing that Bush needed to go to Congress

Here, I get his point that there is a time issue - and this should actually have been done earlier. Where I have a problem is that getting Congressional approval conditional on the UN resolution could have been attempted 3 weeks ago - when he was first asking for it.

The fact is that Iraq and Afghanistan had the authorizations - unlike all the examples Kerry gave - Kosovo, Serbia and Libya, under Reagan. The first two were UN and NATO approved, but Libya was not - I believe the justification was that Libya attacked US interests. If this war goes badly, not getting that authorization will mean that it is just on Obama's head. (Kerry as an advisor and someone very public on this will likely be blamed as well - and I bet the Republicans will forget they were for it.)

[ProSense]

3. I understand that

but that was specifically for unilateral action. The U.S. led the invasion of Iraq while misleading Congress even after securing an AUMF. The Afghanistan war was basically a declaration of war by Congress.

This action is U.N approved. From what I understand the resolution specifically states, no ground troops.

"If this war goes badly, not getting that authorization will mean that it is just on Obama's head."

The military action sanctioned by the U.N. will still be separate from the U.S. authorizing a war. Congressional authorization, including funding, would be required for the U.S. to take any action beyond the U.N. parameters.

[karynnj]

4. I agree - and that is why the NATO (and I think UN) Bosnia and Serbia

are comparable. I am not saying that there is no international approval - there is, in abundance. I agree that it is not troops on the ground.

What I meant is that in the US politically. But, then, Bush really never succeeded (except among our left :( ) to actually spread the blame equally over the Democrats. Here, I agree 100% with the motivation - and there appear to be two parts - the humanitarian disaster and to continue the "Arab spring".

[beachmom]

5. For military planes to bomb Libya we need authorization.

Or we SHOULD need authorization. As Kerry pointed out in the hearing, it's rarely done, but that doesn't make it right. I think Congress should approve the U.S. being involved militarily. It cost money and that is Congress's job.