I actually largely agree with the current action in Libya, but my devotion to the rule of law and the Constitution trumps that and in a few hours, Obama will be in technical violation of both.
Why? What is our national interest?
Then I want my money back. The Constitution does not say it is okay to wage a war of choice if you can wave your hand in just the right way as you claim it is for "ideals".Direct national interests aren't always the only thing thats important when making a decision. Things like ideals come to mind.
Why? What is our goal? How is the achievement of that goal in our national interest? Does the goal have a reasonable chance of accomplishment? What measures should we use to determine if we are on track to succeed or to fail?
Then I want my money back. The Constitution does not say it is okay to wage a war of choice if you can wave your hand in just the right way as you claim it is for "ideals".
Show me where I am wrong.
1. Ask Obama what HIS goal is, but if it protects civilians from a brutal dictator, especially one that was a thorn in the side of the U.S., that is a benefit. Frankly, we should have shot him up back in the 80s.
2. Chance of accomplishment depends on the goal. If it is to protect civilians, that has already happened. If it is to overthrow Wacky Quaddafi, that would likely need more work.
However, having said that, as Obama did not follow legal and Constitutional procedures, that trumps whether or not I agree in the policy.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction"
UN, NATO: None of that here!
Bush: Yes there is, WAAAARRRRR.
That's a lie.
Bush: Hmm, no WMD. Well, They're linked to Osama Bin Laden!
UN, NATO, U.S. Intelligence Agencies: No they're not.
Bush: YES THEY ARE, WAAAAARRRR.
That's a lie.
Bush lied, he got his war. It cost thousands upon thousands of lives and did almost no effing good whatsoever.
Yup. That's correct.
Tell me how offering NATO support, i.e. fueling stations, is not following the constitution.
Benefit perhaps but not a reason for Americans to go to war. Or do you recommend we start wars in all of the other countries where we could be protecting civilians? And what level of brutality is appropriate before we use the armed forces to intervene? Are there any other countries in the Middle East where the case could be made that dictators are brutal? Shall we wage wars against each serially? Or should we declare war on all of them? And what about Mexico? Should we extend this to say if a nation is exporting its poor and ill to the US that is a positive act of war against us?1. Ask Obama what HIS goal is, but if it protects civilians from a brutal dictator, especially one that was a thorn in the side of the U.S., that is a benefit.
A rose by any other name...Tell me how offering NATO support, i.e. fueling stations, is not following the constitution.
1. Ask Obama what HIS goal is, but if it protects civilians from a brutal dictator, especially one that was a thorn in the side of the U.S., that is a benefit. Frankly, we should have shot him up back in the 80s.
2. Chance of accomplishment depends on the goal. If it is to protect civilians, that has already happened. If it is to overthrow Wacky Quaddafi, that would likely need more work.
However, having said that, as Obama did not follow legal and Constitutional procedures, that trumps whether or not I agree in the policy.
3 working days?
1) That may be too long and 2) Which Congress are we talking about? :rofl
He is "offerring support" in an area of hostilities. The US and Nato are engaged in hostilities against Libya. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to commit our armed forces to war, though Congress and the WPA did give away some of those rights to the president, but the President is now coming up to the limit of that leeway...
A rose by any other name...
A war is still a war. Even if you try to deceive the people and the Congress by calling it something else.
Would you say that our role today is very similar to the first half-year or so of our European involvement in WWII? We were in a supporting role there as well. So I guess FDR really did not need to ask for a declaration...And there was no war powers act.I'm not arguing that a war isn't taking place, I'm arguing that the US isn't directly involved and that maintaining our commitment to NATO does not constitute the need for congressional approval.
Would you say that our role today is very similar to the first half-year or so of our European involvement in WWII? We were in a supporting role there as well. So I guess FDR really did not need to ask for a declaration...And there was no war powers act.
Benefit perhaps but not a reason for Americans to go to war. Or do you recommend we start wars in all of the other countries where we could be protecting civilians? And what level of brutality is appropriate before we use the armed forces to intervene? Are there any other countries in the Middle East where the case could be made that dictators are brutal? Shall we wage wars against each serially? Or should we declare war on all of them? And what about Mexico? Should we extend this to say if a nation is exporting its poor and ill to the US that is a positive act of war against us?
It begins to get complicated, doesn't it?
Standard working days, when Congress is in session. While they take a lot of time off, there could be details worked out to call emergency sessions should military intervention be absolutely necessary.
If FDR's plan was only to provide logistical support than an act of war from congress would not have been required if a treaty was already being honored. We know that both of those were not the case.
Twist as much as you like. The one term president Obama is prosecuting an illegal war for purposes not in our national interest.
If FDR's plan was only to provide logistical support than an act of war from congress would not have been required if a treaty was already being honored. We know that both of those were not the case.
If he intends war, yes. Even within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Had the Soviets crossed the Inter German Border we would have fought and the Congress would have declared war.Are you saying the president has to get congressional approval for every action in support of an existing treaty?
FDR did provide strictly logistical support, prior to 7 December 1941 and he didn't have to seek Congressional approval to do so.
Sorry, but I don't want to put the fate of the nation's security in the hands of Congress.
He is "offerring support" in an area of hostilities. The US and Nato are engaged in hostilities against Libya. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to commit our armed forces to war, though Congress and the WPA did give away some of those rights to the president, but the President is now coming up to the limit of that leeway...
And on that thought, if you think about it, lets say......Iran began bombing our cities. (I know it won't happen, but stay with me) Would we consider a country that was aiding Iran by providing them logistical support to be at war with us? Would bombing our cities be considered a "hostile action" or a flat out war? It's war, plain and simple. I support stopping Daffy duck. But I want his head. Go after him. Stop ***** footing around and get this son of a bitch. Then end the conflict.
But we are definitely at war. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
And you want it in Obama's hands????
Are you saying the president has to get congressional approval for every action in support of an existing treaty?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?