Per US citizen? Per barrel? Total? Cite please?

All journalists and other people involved are now out of the Rixos, so that nasty situation has ended.

Wiki 2010 US defense budget, not counting indirect defense spending like veterans retirement and nasa. Total / 300 million people.

$2,200 for the entire year? Cool.

That works out to only $0.0000073 per person per year.

Let me attempt to bring the argument to an end by saying that I meant one of the "richest nations on earth" as comparison of GDP per capita, had the oil revenue been invested in the country for the past 42 years.

If it had, Libya could be another little India, with a bunch of IT biz, etc. & oil being only a percentage of its total GDP. Under the right leader, the country could have prospered quite handsomely.

Awesome story bro.

The war CLEARLY isnt over oil for the exact reasons ive said before. Libya was already selling the oil to us.

sigh i tried not once but twice to type out a multi-paragraph response on how BASaint is wrong and the imporance of following the constitution. Now I'm too over it and tilted at 2p2 so just rest assured BASaint you are very very wrong and if you REALLY cared about morals you would see why the president cannot have the power to unilaterally declare war. It's tyranny and stealing from 300million americans when there is a perfectly good LEGAL option to take.

it's really simple stuff. It's the basics of the morals that make u upset when gaddafi kills civilians, only this time it's just killing americans rights. What makes it really wrong is that there is a way to do it without trampling american's rights but they take the tyrannical route more traveled instead

So we disagree. IMHO, Europe was very dependent upon that light crude oil and if they just sat back while the rebels tried to overthrow Qaddafi & someone else stepped in with assistance..............well, don't know that Europe would still be getting the oil instead of the "someone else" who helped.

However, I've been wrong before. So, if you're correct and oil had absolutely nothing to do with it, I believe you have an explaination as to why those nations who jumped up to assist the rebels, have ignored Darfur. Please share your theory.

When we are fighting for peace, justice and freedom, >50% of these countries just happen to have by random chance huge oil reserves.

My position is not that I want the president to be able to unilaterally declare war.

My position is that in this situation, and others like it, where seeking congressional approval will cause a delay which will have bad concequences, there needs to be a legal way to intervene first, seek approval later. I know that sounds ass-backwards, but i'm just not having a situation where urban civilian targets are being shelled and the only country with the capability to stop it cant do anything because they need to make sure its ok to stop a bunch of innocent people from dying.

There is a perfectly (empasis on perfectly, because what Obama did was legal, albeit messy) legal way to do it, but it means at least a few thousand dead Libyans in this situation.

As i've already said, I care more about the morality of killing civilians than I do about the killing of american rights. I just dont buy the slippery slope, erosion of checks and balances etc argument.

Would 60 days be sufficient do you think? Say there was a hypothetical law that required the President to notify Congress of any military action, and then he would have 60 days, unless Congress declared war or otherwise authorized the actions. I guess Congress could extend the 60 day period too. Oh, it would probably be smart to say the 60-day-period was automatically extended if Congress is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Reasonable?

lol

Too slow. If we couldn't teleport in there within minutes, then we're letting the whole world down.

I am POTUS and Allies in Europe want us to be a part in their assistance to the rebels. Time is of the essence. At the point in which I conclude that there is a possibility that I may order the strike, I have my staffers contact key Congressional leaders to come to the White House immediately, however, I do not wait for them, instead continuing with the work to prepare.

As soon as the leaders arrive, they are briefed in and are a witness to the unfolding of the process. They may provide input, however, the ultimate decision is mine, all they can do is go back to Congress and report what they observed to those with the proper clearances.

As soon as it is possible (no reason to be later the coming weekend, since nobody is working) I instruct Congress to be in their seats at 9am (or whatever) for a briefing.

That is how it is done in my mind, in the United States of America. Somewhere along those lines. I, as POTUS, do not dictate that we are going to get involved with a conflict & stay there indefinitely.

I understand that I must seek Congressional approval ASAP, just as that lying ass Obama (whom I voted for) said is the way it is suppose to be done, when he ran for office.

If it was about the oil the west could've done nothing or supported Gaddafi and end this war within 2 days. If this was about oil the puppet masters are ******ed.

Others know much more about the political decisions at work re the 60 days than I do. I dont understand why he hasn't sought approval in that time. Based on what I know, he should.

A lot of you give me the impression that you would rather ignore an escalating situation for the 24 hours or so that it would take to get approval, than allow the president to act on his own. That's my problem with your position.

he hasnt sought it because he knows he won't get it

Yeah, obviously. This makes Obama an unbelievable scumbag for waging war unconstitutionally but at the same time it makes him a great man for ignoring the political opportunism of the Republicans. I would be fine with impeachment proceedings tho.

If the Republicans really cared they would have cut his funding, but they didn't.

The problem is that you're coming across with the position that would be presented by a human rights advocate.

The United States of America is not in the business of policing human rights atrocities throughout the world.

Noone else was stepping in with assistance.

Sudan has oil. If it was all about oil then leaping in with two feet into Darfur would likely have happened. And yes, i think more should have been done in various other situations over the years. Libya's rebels were fortunate to time their revolution at a time of intense focus on rebellions in the nearby countries in the middle east and Egypt especially. If they had rebelled 2-3 years earlier (or in 2003 when Darfur started) the west would have stood back and done nothing.

This is probably the key. Obama may have contacted key leaders in Congress and was told by Republicans, you ain't gettin' our approval, but you can go out on your own, we'll give you hell about it, but we won't stop the funding, or move forward with impeachment proceedings.

I can see scumbag politicians handling it that way. Yes sir, I sure can. And I'm not being facetious.

This. Had oil. Now they have a pipeline. For oil from South Sudan.

Why can't people leave Gaddafi alone, he just wants to party?

The rebel commander in charge of the brigade that took Tripoli has estimated that there have been 50,000 killed so far.

Nice to see that we avoided a bloodbath.

Ummmm i seen a CNN article yesterday with 60k Libyans dead. You people are a bunch of war mongerer fish. Keep telling yourself Obama did the right thing.