Thoughts on current administration (of the country(s))

[Ertxiem]

The analogy is not perfect, but it works.
Anyway, I have an objection: If not for anything else, it would be polite of him to speak with the principal before speaking with the school board.

I like Obama. I agree with many of his ideas. But I think that in this case he should send this issue to Congress straight away.

[SmartyPants]

Think of it this way, A teacher (Barrack Obama) wants to know if he can do X in his classes. He could go to the principal (U.S Congress) of the school, or he could go to the school board (The UN). I think the school board might have a better knowledge than one single principal...

Too bad that the school policy requires the teacher to ask permission from the principal.  The principal needs to be asked, because if things go wrong, then the principal and the school (America) suffer, while the school board remains uneffected.

It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American person[ne]l and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.

I find that remark unfair.
It must be easy for people in America to vote on using American personnel and resources because they personally wouldn't have to spend their own money or risk their own lives.

The major difference is that our fellow countrymen's lives are being risked and our taxpayer dollars are the ones being spent.  Are Canadians flying our jets over Libya?  No, it is our famliy and friends who are the ones put in harms way.  Are the Canadains paying for over 280 tomahawk missiles that cost about 1.5 million dollars each?  No, that cost is the burden of the American taxpayers.  War is such a serious matter that committing armed forces to military action is not a decision that should be left to one man (even the President) and a group of foreigners.  That is why the founding fathers gave the decision to go to war to Congress.

[Zackirus]

I was always aware that the teacher could either go to the principal or school board. I mean the principal does need to get approval from the school board for a lot of education things...

Yes, our soldiers lives are being put on the line as well. We are flying are own jets over Libya using are own missiles and bombs. Canadians are doing their part too. Sure not as much as the America, but we are still using our tax payers money for this. You act as though everyone is watching you while you get rid of the problem. What the Founding Fathers didn't count on was that after World War One, an organization was formed that included most of the world's countries. This organization does not pick and choose, it simply addresses the problem, and anyone who wants to help out can, and it gives them their approval.

I'm sorry but the UN doesn't look at specific country to take from, it only wants to improve the life of those or are in dire situations.

[SmartyPants]

I was always aware that the teacher could either go to the principal or school board. I mean the principal does need to get approval from the school board for a lot of education things...

It doesn't matter who a teacher asks, because it is a stupid analogy.  The President has to get congresstional approval according to the consititution.

Yes, our soldiers lives are being put on the line as well. We are flying are own jets over Libya using are own missiles and bombs. Canadians are doing their part too. Sure not as much as the America, but we are still using our tax payers money for this. You act as though everyone is watching you while you get rid of the problem. What the Founding Fathers didn't count on was that after World War One, an organization was formed that included most of the world's countries. This organization does not pick and choose, it simply addresses the problem, and anyone who wants to help out can, and it gives them their approval.

Good for them.  (Canada didn't fire a single tomahawk missile and I can count all the Canadian deployed jets on one hand.)  I don't think you see my point.  Canada and the rest of the UN don't have the power to give Obama or anyone else the power to defy the Constitution.  Lets say that the rest of the world wanted to quickly hunt down terrorists in Canada.  Does the UN have the ability to allow Stephen Harper to ignore the Canadian Consititution and enforce unreasonable search and seizure?

[Zackirus]

Actually you can't count the amount of Jets we have deployed with one hand. We sent six  . And we are using our own missiles... We can't send all of our jets because some of them are for use in training and some are in Afganistan.

Yes the UN has the ability to do that, if under the right circumstances. They would have to prove a dangerous threat the a lot of lives. Besies, it is not an act of war, it is simply miltary imvovlement.

What this propbably is, is a wrap around. Obama wants to help, but he thought that Congress wouldn't give him the approval, so he went to another source to get the okay, the UN.

[ArtDrake]

In some respects, one could say that the UN is just a World Congress. They have quite a bit of power. So yes, to you question about Canada. But if it really were completely ridiculous, it mightn't pass.

[SmartyPants]

Clearly you guys don't believe in sovereignty.  Throughout Canadian history, the Canadians had the British make all the decsions for them, so I can see Zackirus why would rather listen to foreign powers then his local community.

You can call it "simply miltary invovlement" or whatever, but this is NATO choosing sides and then sending armed forces to kill people in a civil war.

[Zackirus]

Clearly you guys don't believe in sovereignty.  Throughout Canadian history, the Canadians had the British make all the decsions for them, so I can see Zackirus why would rather listen to foreign powers then his local community.

You can call it "simply miltary invovlement" or whatever, but this is NATO choosing sides and then sending armed forces to kill people in a civil war.

First of All, we did not listen to Britain all throughout Canadian history. We could make laws ourselves, they just needed to be approved by the Queen (Representative). However, we did have to follow their laws. These Foreign powers, as I have said, try to look out for the world, not just their countries. America is not the only country that matters, I would know this first hand.

It has happened in Canadian history where something that was said by the government, has been changed from a higher power, and for the good. For example, in 1929 their was a famous Canadian case called The Persons Case. I'm sure you have never heard of it. What happened was that the Supreme Court of Canada decided after that women were not considered persons. So, the Famous Five, the five women who went to the Supreme court, got a another idea. They simply went to the British court, and the British court decided that women were considered persons, so by default, women were considered people in Canada. See, sometimes the higher powers have a better understand of whats going on. 

[SmartyPants]

So Canada doesn't have the competence to make the right decision for themselves, so they have the British do it for them?

American history is a little different.  The British made decisions that benefited themselves despite the harm it caused to the American people.  Instead of blindly following the foreign leaders' decisions like their northern neighbor, America decided that representatives of Americans would make better decisions for Americans then the foreign leaders.

I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.

[Zackirus]

Canada does have the competence to make the right decisions, we abolished slavery and started the equal-rights movement, without British accord, much sooner than other countries.

Unlike our southern neighbours, we had much more land and farming available to everyone, because we were nice to our Aboriginals, they didn't bother us as much, as we sent them to live on reverses. Now, if we would shunned away our British influence, not as many Europeans would come to Canada. So, The price of the British government was a fair trade (as we did get Fair Trade!).  

I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.

That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.  

[SmartyPants]

I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.

That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.

It isn't arrogance; it is fact.  For example, France and Britain were unwilling to strike in Libya untill they were able to use America's unrivaled Naval power to destroy Libya's anti-air power. 

As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

Since WWII, the UN has relied on mostly American and British militaries to enforce its resolutions.  Can you hostely say that Canada could have protected Kuwait from Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War or protected South Korea from the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War?  If Canada withdraws thier forces it is a small lost at best.  When America withdraws its forces, then the war is lost.

[Zackirus]

Since WWII, the UN has relied on mostly American and British militaries to enforce its resolutions.  Can you hostely say that Canada could have protected Kuwait from Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War or protected South Korea from the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War?  If Canada withdraws thier forces it is a small lost at best.  When America withdraws its forces, then the war is lost.

Canada, while not the strongest military wise, has another role. We are the original peace-keepers. Lester B. Pearson, our 14th Prime Minister, defused the Suez crisis, and started the original peace-keeping in the UN. While Canada might have not been able to protect Kuwait or South Korea, we had another role. We kept the peace after wars have ended. While, the fight for peace is very important, so is keeping it. If we didn't do our Job, you would have fought a lot of more wars. 

[Ertxiem]

I moved the discussion about the Independence from the British Empire.

[SmartyPants]

FACT CHECK

Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

Putting aside the fact that Obama in ignoring the Constitution, can you at least admit that Obama is a hypocrite?

[Dean_Lukas]

I don't think that's really in doubt at this point. Though in fairness, everyone breaks a lot of their campaign promises.