It's a case of euro's not siding on the side of genocide, I guess.

Lol youre either with us or with the terrorists/nazis/saddams/gadhafis/commies. Incredible.

I feel bad for liberals who had to put up with this **** for 8 years. So brutal

There is a clear difference between the random attack on Iraq and saving civilians in the Balkans and Libya. But I know that the people who are against this intervention were also against stopping the genocide in the Balkans so at least they're consistent.

If by "Euro gonna Euro" you mean "Euro gonna not give a flying **** what your constitution says", then yes. Too many opponents in America are using a lazy shorthand that "stopping Ghoodaffy is morally wrong cos Obama didnt follow some fine print in a 250 year old document". Or the even worse uber flawed "anything but complete pacifist isolationism equals baby eating barbarianism".

Pacifist isolationist anti war types dont care about innocent people. They dont care if they die, they just dont want them to die in any way related to their action. I mean its a nice easy consistent outlook to follow but you dont get to pretend to be on the side of moral right. Most of the people, such as myself, were against the Iraq invasion (and yet in favor of stopping Saddam) because we dont need dumb rules of thumb to evaluate situations. Some people just didnt want to stand by and watch from afar as another massacre happened in Africa, crazy i know.

Muresan: Do you understand that an action could be both right and unconstitutional?

Hey if as a brit you dont give a **** about the US Constitution then fine, its expected. I'd say it's a little different for THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to not give a **** however.

I guess if people dont support endless excursions into the affairs of middle eastern countries then they dont care about innocents. Because, ya know, we've been such a stabilizing influence in that region, which hasnt resulted in innocent lives being lost. MI MAL

Of course. When did i imply otherwise? But youre setting a frightening precedent by allowing a single politician to wield such vast power. That is where the issue lies.

MuresanForMVP doesn't get that it's possible to oppose the invasion of Iraq and support intervention in the Balkans, Libya and Syria at the same time. If it's impossible to discuss nuances like this I don't see what the point of continuing this is.

Its almost like things are more complex than some people would like to believe. Whoda thunk it.

"The west should stand back and let Guudaiphy slaughter thousands of innocent people cos something something innocent people will die if we try and stop him."

You implied otherwise when you said 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NEXT'.

Lol the guy who surrendered escaped and the other dude appeared to be free in a vid last night despite all the CONFIRMATIONS he was in custody oh and he literally said "A fart on the International Court". guess we back to square one.

So the US= the west now? Silly me for thinking some ******* politician who swears to uphold the constitution should actually do so.

Please. Your nuance is "itll be easy, just some airstrikes, and hes a bad guy so why the hell not?"

Fair enough if your view on the US const. is IDGAF, but hopefully you can see why that type of thing should be kinda important for the POTUS

I never said such a thing.

Im not talking about the morality of the situation, and im not talking about the balkans. I dont wtf youre babbling on about. I gotta dig up dvaut's posts about this from momths ago but im on my phone

It's just that it is a different discussion.

Issue 1: was the intervention (an international effort) justified?
Issue 2: was it legal/right for Obama to not seek timely congressional approval?

The answers to these questions are obviously not mutually exclusive.

For me it is yes/no, but I must admit I only know the US legal issues from a distance.

Next up Americans discuss the intricacies of the Brazilian federal tribal conflict. What do you mean under the Brazilian constitution Native Indians may be deemed incapable of understanding Brazilian law and thus can't be judged by it?

I realize that passions are high on this subject, but consider this a collective warning on the personal attacks.

This. When Euros are talkingabout right/ wrong they are talking about moral right/wrong and not procedural right/wrong which is what the Constitutional issue is about.

I'm babbling about the ability to differentiate between different international interventions. Can you do the same? Or is your only issue here the constitution? If that's the case you're obviously doing it wrong with posts like this:
Which have no relation to the American constitutional situation.

Yes, i'd like to add that the answer to one of these questions determines the fate of a few million people, while the other is as you said a procedural issue.

The former is more important than the latter

BTW Mur, if you think US action in Libya means

then you're wrong.

Congrats to everyone ITT mentioning Kosovo which represents the 5% of the time our foreign policy works out. I think you should seriously reflect on the long term damage which has been enacted on millions and millions of people so you can sleep tight at night, not to mention the damage done to this country's economy.

noble.