Vandeervecken
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Midland MI USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
ludahai said:But we are the ones who called for the UN resolution. We even got the Soviets pissed off about the whole China representation thing and got them to walk out so the resolution would pass.
ludahai said:Who fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? U.S. involvement in the region was token prior to 1964.
ludahai said:If you have the money, you can get the press time. In many countries, you simply can't. Chavez has access and control of the state broadcaster (PBS is the closest thing to a state broadcaster in the US) and intimidates the independent press. The two do NOT correlate.
ludahai said:I don't know why you are bringing FL into the discussion.
ludahai said:So, is the glass half empty, or half-full? :2razz:
ludahai said:That book has also been discredited on many fronts. As for KSA being our enemy? I don't regard them as afriend, that is for sure, but it was the Taliban in Afghanistan who hid the criminals who repeatedly attacked the US and US interests, NOT KSA.
ludahai said:It isn't mine, it is linked from another site. USE IT USE IT - and spread it to as many people as possible.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:That makes it a war. I just bought a giant dictionary, an amazing 2500 page monster with an entire page dedicated to just the word "round"...it's gonna give me a hernia...it says:
war:
1 An open armed conflict between nations or states [Iraq is a nation, right? The US of A is a nation, right? We're in conflict, right?] or between parties in the same state [Iraqi animals are killing Iraqi citizens, right?] carried on by force of arms [this means "using weapons"] for various purposes [the animals want to enslave the citizens, the citizens don't wish to be enslaved by the animals]; a conflict of arms between hostile parties or nations. [the random use if IED's is nothing if not hostile, right?]
2. the profession, science or art of military operations...
3. any state of violent opposition or contest; [like when animals hijack peaceful airliners, murdering passengers and crew, to attack harmless buildings], inimical act or action [yeah, I'd say that Saddam's payoff's to successful suicide bombers is an inimical act against everyone]; hostility, strife.
war (v)
1to make war, to carry on hostilities; to engage in military operations. [we're engaged military ops in Iraq, right?]
2. to contend; to strive; to be in a state of hostility or contention.
war
Hmmmm....not one single mention of the United States Constitution. You think maybe my two dollar dictionary has made a mistake?
...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:That's okay. I haven't used that word in regard to Hugo yet. I'm sure the time will come, but not yet.
...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:That you responded to....
...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:You implied he was a sucker. Your exact words:
That I chose to dress it up in my own unique way doesn't alter the fact that you think that a man that re-enlisted could be doing so because he's been conned.
There's no evidence of "vengeance" in the war in Iraq, that's mere slanderous speculation on your part.
...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:1) I can imagine what the Surrender Monkeys would have said if the stated primary reason for invading Iraq was strategic control of the center of the board. I can hear the applause when the award for using the word "Belgium" the most times in a single Surrender Monkey article is handed out.
2) Hussein was a threat. The Democrats for the eight years we suffered under their perjurer claimed that Bush the Elder should have moved on Baghdad in the first Gulf War and removed the problem then. I hear the nation's chiropractors made billions fixing all the necks whiplashed by the Democrat heads when Bush the Younger got elected.
3) I'm not the president. The guy we got now is better than the guy he replaced. Which isn't saying much at all.
...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Was Brazil rewards for Japs that killed Americans? Your analogy fails.
...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:No. The number one enemy of the United States is the internal cadre of Surrender Monkeys and Blame America Firsters that inhibit efficient or even moral action....
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The number two enemy is China....
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Fairly far down the list is the little kingdom with all the oil. They're only a problem because of internal domestic strife between the rulers and the lunatic fanatic koran thumpers....
Scarecrow Akhbar said:No. Bush "cozied" up to them because it was necessary to achieve the primary objective of the Taliban. It's called "cost-benefit" analysis. Frankly, a couple of low yield nukes aren't that big a big deal. Islamabad isn't going to run away if their toys get used, now will it?...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Yeah, there's never been a representational secular government in an Islamic land. I'm hungry, I think I'll see if I got some Turkey for a sandwich. You want one?...
...nah, no Turkey handy. Got some in the freezer, maybe I should nuke all of it in the microwave?
Yeah, those Iraqis are incredibly unwilling. Our troops had to use bayonets on those millions and millions of voters the last time they had an election...
Trajan Octavian Titus said:No it's not I suggest you read the war powers resolution of 1973 again, we are in an official state of war.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Al-Qaeda and Saddam were allies it's all right in the 9-11 Commission Report. No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 though that's two different things.
Navy Pride said:Vandeervecken
Tell that to the over 100,000, 58,000, and the 0ver 3,000 that have died in the last 3 conflicts that we were not at war............
Vandeervecken said:Dead people have a tendency not to listen.
Fact remains the US has not been in a declared state of war since the end of World War Two.
Facts are facts, you can try and get emotional about it if you like, but the facts still remain.
Vandeervecken said:The fact remains it was a conflict started by the UN, not by Truman.
I'd like to know, I suspect it is the Pentagon who staged it.
I don;t know if you have noticed, but our current ruling party owns its own major media outlet, Fox News.
Because all the things you listed as signs of tyranny fit there.
Neither, it is over-engineered by 50%.
That book has not been discredited ANYWHERE. I challenge you to show me a reputable discrediting of that book. the research, and footnoting on it were extensive and accurate. It is the KSA that consistently funds, and provides the religious cover for Islamic terror and this has been true for the last 6 decades at least. You cannot fight Islamic Terror without a serious smack-down of the KSA.
Already have my own version. Thanx. I just ordered Koran Toilet paper. LOL
Vandeervecken said:Dead people have a tendency not to listen.
ludahai said:The Republican Party owns Fox News? That is news to me. BTW, I don't have a satellite dish, so I can't watch FNC anymore.
Vandeervecken said:You mistake the collequial use of the word with the legal use of the word. The United States of America is not legally at war until the United States Congress issues a formal declaration of war as is their right and duty under the US Constitution.
Vandeervecken said:Nice to have the next obbgy-man all lined up to keep the people afraid and pliable.
Vandeervecken said:Never. I am not a name caller.
Vandeervecken said:Being fooled and being a sucket are two different hings. It is easy to fool people when you have them living in a state of fear, even easier when they are in themilitary and you control all their access to information.
Vandeervecken said:Belgium? What is your problem with Belgium? I would dispute that what we have now is better than what we had too. Clinton was a putz, and a lower medicore President at best, but I think the abomination in office now is the worst we have ever had.
Vandeervecken said:What? Are some words missing from this?
Vandeervecken said:I disagree. The Number One Enemy is Fundementalist Islam as controlled by the KSA.
Vandeervecken said:When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Whcih is how we got in this mess in the first place when Papa-Doc Bush and Reagan created al-Qaeda in the first place.
Vandeervecken said:I said rationality, not democratic Representative government, Two different things.
Vandeervecken said:This is simply a lie. We are not legally at war until Congress SPECIFICALLY issues a declaration of war. Read your Constitution.
War Powers Resolution
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The 9-11 Commission report says that the ties were not meaningful. A few meetings wherein neither side got anything from the other side. The US had more meaningful ties to both al-Qaeda and Iraq than they had with each other.
The fact you repeat this lie again and again will not make it true.
Saddam's Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17
THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Read the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
NYStateofMind said:Um, you need to read it yourself. It clearly states that there are 3 circumstances where the President can use his power as CIC to send the military into hostilities, with the declaration of war being the first one. That means that he can send troops in WITHOUT congress declaring war. How does that make it an official declaration of war? It doesn't.
The AUMF was not a declaration of war, it was an authorization to use military force. There are a lot of people on this thread that seem to think that it is just semantics, but I disagree, along with a bunch of legal scholars. While I agree that the actions on the ground by the troops may be the same, it isn't LEGALLY the same, and yes, that makes a difference. It seems that the president has assumed the same things that some of you here have....that he has the same authority as he would have if Congress had declared war (ie: the domestic spying issue) which is why the courts need to sort it out. It's more than just semantics, it is a legal issue.
You can say that as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true. The US Congress has not declared war since WW II. Fact.Trajan Octavian Titus said:It is semantics but it is much more than that it is a way for congress to look tuff and when the war is popular say: "see look I voted for this war," and then when the popularity of the war goes south they can say: "I never voted to go to war."
We are in a state of war and have been since 9-11. You don't grant the President the war powers unless we are at war.
NYStateofMind said:You can say that as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true. The US Congress has not declared war since WW II. Fact.
Not true.Trajan Octavian Titus said:For all intents and purposes we are officially at war, whenever the war powers are given to the President we are officially at war you can not give the war powers to the President when not in an official state of war. Does that not compute????
It specifies 3 circumstances in which the President is given authority to send the military into hostile action....note the fact that it doesn't say WAR, it says HOSTILITIES. ONE of those circumstances is in case of a declaration of war. The other two are in other circumstances, the ones you put in bold print yourself. I know this is hard to comprehend, but the AUMF was not a declaration of war, it authorized the president to use his constitutional powers to send the troops into hostilities under the THIRD provision. The president has legally sent our military into hostilities, but we have not declared war. The effect on the ground is the same, but technically, legally, the congress didn't declare war.War Powers Resolution
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
NYStateofMind said:Not true.
Go back and read what you quoted VERY carefully.
It specifies 3 circumstances in which the President is given authority to send the military into hostile action....note the fact that it doesn't say WAR, it says HOSTILITIES. ONE of those circumstances is in case of a declaration of war. The other two are in other circumstances, the ones you put in bold print yourself. I know this is hard to comprehend, but the AUMF was not a declaration of war, it authorized the president to use his constitutional powers to send the troops into hostilities under the THIRD provision. The president has legally sent our military into hostilities, but we have not declared war. The effect on the ground is the same, but technically, legally, the congress didn't declare war.
"For all intents and purposes" aside, the fact remains that congress did not declare war. FACT. They authorized military action, but didn't declare war. We haven't declared war since WW II. If you can prove that we have, please show me a source!
Navy Pride said:The point I am trying to make to you is those guys arte just as dead whether a war was declared or not.........Did you know that no war has been declared since WW2.............
ludahai said:Actually, it was started when the North Koreans invaded the South. It was Truman who pressed for UN sanction, but it was most certainly a US-led operation.
ludahai said:Resulting in an escalation of the conflict under a Democratic administration.
ludahai said:The Republican Party owns Fox News? That is news to me. BTW, I don't have a satellite dish, so I can't watch FNC anymore.
ludahai said:I am not a friend of the KSA and they have a lot to answer for. However, connecting the Bush Presidency to al-Saud any more than any other presidency since FDR is simply fallacious.
ludahai said:Quran toilet paper? LOL! I just ordered a whole bunch of Danish cheeze. Should get here in a couple of days.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:No I don't. We're at war. You're quibbling because you have some ideological itch to take care of.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:When he becomes a pain in our ass, we'll take care of him. I'm not going to lie and say everyone would be all lovey-dovey if it weren't for the big bad evil United States. Chavez is a marxist/socialst and he'll need to establish a scapegoat when his economy goes south.
But if you're claiming I'm setting him up in advance, that's ludicrous. If he leaves us alone I see no problem with not killing him.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:What it meant was that Brazil was neutral in WWII, but Iraq was a player in the action of terrorism. Thus your analogy doesn't hold up.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Oh, dear, I was almost going to agree with you, then you vomited forth a whole gutful of putrid nonsense. Perhaps the United States should have just let the Soviet Union take Afghanistan and establish themselves in a strategic position against Iraq?
You are aware that it was Carter that started the covert operations in Afghanland, right, and Reagan merely prevented the Democrats from sabotaging American interests in the matter?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Oh, well no nation has ever had a rational government. They're all run by people who're successful at seizing power or winning elections, not by people who can run a country.
Vandeervecken said:Actually my point is other than quick raids and instant reactions I do not think we should commit troops without a declaration of war.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Read the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:LMFAO Al-qaeda didn't exist during the Afghani-Russo conflict, and your assertions that the U.S. had ties with Iraq are unfounded, we supplied appx .5% of foriegn military aid to Iraq during the Iran war, the bulk came from Russia and the French.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:It's not a lie.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:We are in a state of war and have been since 9-11. You don't grant the President the war powers unless we are at war.
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?