i still don't get how Obama going in to war is ok. But Bush lied people died no war for oil blah blah blah. Obama was not even in the country at the time. He just got back.
No occupation, consent of the UN, and we're in discussions on handing over control to another group; the no-fly zone is now in NATO's hands, and the ground assaults are in the works. Even if this was a war, it's not America's.
And what does being in the country change, exactly?
Not sure if you're implying that the UN are launching ground assaults, which if you are.. They aren't.
The whole point of the UN coalition (which currently stands to include; US, Britain, France, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Canada, Qatar and UAE - though I think there are a few more..) is to keep Gaddafi from doing more harm to civilians, which to begin with was to stop the attacks on Benghazi and Minsrata. But since then Gaddafi's forces and his mercenaries have been attacking more cities since then, which has led to the broadening of attacks on Libya.
But in order to enforce a successful no fly zone, you need to eliminate, or significantly reduce the threat to coalition pilots; by taking out Air Defence and Command infrastructure, which is exactly what is happening.
Though some may argue "It's for oil!". Then tell me, before the riots started, and indeed in the initial days we were still getting oil from Libya. We were happy to pay for the supplies, and they were happy to sell them. So why would we go in to "invade", change the regime, just so we can cut off oil supplies and ramp up the fuel costs in the short term, whilst spending millions on the Armed Forces to carrying it out?
I really believe you need to do a little more research on the Constitution maybe also a little research on the UN. People can say what they want but if you notice President Obama's doin it by the book which is new, considering what our past few Presidents did not.