- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
This House believes that US intervention in Libya, lacking congressional approval, was illegal
This House believes that US intervention in Libya, lacking congressional approval, was illegal
This is a discussion on the Debatabase item titled: This House believes that US intervention in Libya, lacking congressional approval, was illegal.Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
47 weeks 4 days ago
NATO goes against the sovereignty of the United States and the US should have never been a member state in the first place. NATO alongside the UN completely goes against the independence and national sovereignty of almost every member state and should be abolished.
How on earth do you get to that conclusion? In both organisations member states retain complete independence. NATO is just an alliance - it cant force any member state to do anything it does not want. Nothing like the EU. It complements US sovereignty by providing a force multiplyer. Without NATO the United States would not be able to do nearly as much internationally. You may think it is a bad thing that the US can intervene in places like Libya but having NATO at least opens up another option which to me means more sovereignty not less.
47 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
The United States should not be expending its resources on interventions all around the world. Whether it is an 'authorised' or 'international' intervention really should not matter. I dont agree with the President not getting the permission of congress but ultimately whether he had permission does not matter. George W Bush managed to get permission for the disaster that was Iraq, Libya by comparison has not cost very much, not damaged US reputation and not caused US casualties. The outcome matters as much as how we got there.
47 weeks 12 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
I believe that the NATO intervention in Libya, without congressional approval, goes against the constitution, which states that there must be a declaration of war by CONGRESS.
This assumes that in Libya the United States was at war - there have been a great many 'police actions' by the US through the last hundred years, often with considerably more US casualties than this engagement
And, by the way, what business does the US have in Libya? Libya has not threatened the national defence of the United States, meaning that we do not need to intervene in their internal matters.
This kind of reasoning never seems to have bothered the United States (or other great powers) before. The United States has been meddling in internal affairs throughout the world for decades. At least in this instance there was nominally a moral imperitive to prevent a massacre.
NATO goes against the sovereignty of the United States and the US should have never been a member state in the first place. NATO alongside the UN completely goes against the independence and national sovereignty of almost every member state and should be abolished.
Now you are going off the rails. Neither organisation constrains US sovereignty any more than if that organisation did not exist. And NATO in particular increases US sovereignty considerably. Sovereignty tends to be defined as supreme authority within a territory. Now would you like to tell me how the UN or in particular NATO dictates what the US can and cannot do within its own territory.
There are a few things that the US has agreed to that might be said to constrain sovereignty such as the UN declaration of human rights but frankly the US got there a long time earlier with a bill of rights so is it really having its sovereignty taken away or just doing what the nation feels is right anyway? And if the US did go against the United Nations would the UN do anything about it? Almost certainly no and it could not because it does not have any power over US domestic affairs.
Even if we go a bit broader and consider sovereignty to include being able to take any action wished within the international sphere as well it is difficult to see how US sovereignty is constrained more than it would be without these institutions. Without these institutions NATO countries would be much more worried about the US and would probably be endevouring to reduce rather than enhance US influence around the world.
46 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
I believe that the NATO intervention in Libya, without congressional approval, goes against the constitution, which states that there must be a declaration of war by CONGRESS. What Obama ordered is absolutely unacceptable and he should be called for impeachment by the United States congress. And, by the way, what business does the US have in Libya? Libya has not threatened the national defence of the United States, meaning that we do not need to intervene in their internal matters. NATO goes against the sovereignty of the United States and the US should have never been a member state in the first place. NATO alongside the UN completely goes against the independence and national sovereignty of almost every member state and should be abolished.