Cindy Sheehan arrested........

[Vandeervecken]

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????

Ah the equivocation begins. You've now gone from, "Congress has declared war," to "For all intents and purposes. . ." :rofl

Yes indeed you can give war powers to the President, as your oft cited 1973 War Powers Act showed. It listed the three times and ways some or all the powers of war can be given to the President by Congress. From a declaration of war, to an authorization of force, to a defensive reaction. Different things, which is why they were set out and defined in that act.

Hoisted upon your own petard.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Well that is exactly what your party, the democrats did in Korea (Truman) and Viet Nam (Kennedy)...

Three problems here:

#1 I am not a democrat.

#2 Our duties as signatory to the UN Charter sent us into Korea.

#3 Eisenhower sent the first US troops into Vietnam in 1956. First casualties where while he was still president in 1959. Eisenhower was a Republican.

No Rice-A-Roni for you. We won't even give you a copy of our stinking home game. . .

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Three problems here:

#1 I am not a democrat.

#2 Our duties as signatory to the UN Charter sent us into Korea.

#3 Eisenhower sent the first US troops into Vietnam in 1956. First casualties where while he was still president in 1959. Eisenhower was a Republican.

No Rice-A-Roni for you. We won't even give you a copy of our stinking home game. . .

Two problems here,

1) the U.N. doesn't trump our national soveriegnty if Truman didn't want the war in Korea he would have had us veto it in our vote on the Security Council.

2) Under Eisenhower the troop levels were minimul and we were there in an advisory rather than combat roll, under Kennedy, however, we assasinated the South Vietnamese President and ensured that we were there to stay. (though I am for the Vietnam war, it was a Democratic war none the less.)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ah the equivocation begins. You've now gone from, "Congress has declared war," to "For all intents and purposes. . ." :rofl

Yes indeed you can give war powers to the President, as your oft cited 1973 War Powers Act showed. It listed the three times and ways some or all the powers of war can be given to the President by Congress. From a declaration of war, to an authorization of force, to a defensive reaction. Different things, which is why they were set out and defined in that act.

Hoisted upon your own petard.

When granted the war powers the President is granted the inherent war powers under Article 2 Section 2 so what the hell is the difference if he is granted the war powers through a declaration of war, a joint resolution of congress, or an attack upon this country? The net result is the same, in all three instances the president is granted the war powers so your point is moot.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

#3 Eisenhower sent the first US troops into Vietnam in 1956. First casualties where while he was still president in 1959. Eisenhower was a Republican.

I believe he Gulf of Tonkin Incident is more important than you're letting on.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I believe he Gulf of Tonkin Incident is more important than you're letting on.

The Gulf of Tonkin certainly had an impact on the escalation but Kennedy's decision to assasinate the President of South Vietnam cemented our commitment in Vietnam.

 

[NYStateofMind]

Two problems here,

1) the U.N. doesn't trump our national soveriegnty if Truman didn't want the war in Korea he would have had us veto it in our vote on the Security Council.

2) Under Eisenhower the troop levels were minimul and we were there in an advisory rather than combat roll, under Kennedy, however, we assasinated the South Vietnamese President and ensured that we were there to stay. (though I am for the Vietnam war, it was a Democratic war none the less.)

So, because the number of troops was small, they weren't involved in the conflict? The men who were KIA starting in 1959 were killed by "advising?" No, they were there, and they were killed in action. They are listed on the wall as casualties of the Vietnam War. It's pretty hard to be KIA unless you are a) there, and b) in action.

For someone who is so pro-Vietnam War, I find it suprising that you would minimize the sacrifice of any soldier the way you have. As the wife of a Vietnam vet, I consider ALL of the soldiers' sacrifices important, none of them were tokens. Shame on you.

It's really pretty simple: the conflict started in 1955, we sent soldiers there shortly after, the first US soldiers KIA were in 1959.

Wow, I haven't had to explain things in such simple terms since my daughter was 5 or so. :roll:

BTW, as you used it here, it is "role" not "roll."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So, because the number of troops was small, they weren't involved in the conflict? The men who were KIA starting in 1959 were killed by "advising?" No, they were there, and they were killed in action. They are listed on the wall as casualties of the Vietnam War. It's pretty hard to be KIA unless you are a) there, and b) in action.

For someone who is so pro-Vietnam War, I find it suprising that you would minimize the sacrifice of any soldier the way you have. As the wife of a Vietnam vet, I consider ALL of the soldiers' sacrifices important, none of them were tokens. Shame on you.

It's really pretty simple: the conflict started in 1955, we sent soldiers there shortly after, the first US soldiers KIA were in 1959.

Wow, I haven't had to explain things in such simple terms since my daughter was 5 or so. :roll:

BTW, as you used it here, it is "role" not "roll."

I'm not minimizing anything I'm just stating a fact which is that Kennedy and Eisenhower are responsible for the U.S. entrance into the war in Vietnam. It wasn't a war until the Gulf of Tonkin precipitated the escalation and it wasn't until the assasination of the President of Sourth Vietnman that we had any real commitment there.

 

[NYStateofMind]

Ah the equivocation begins. You've now gone from, "Congress has declared war," to "For all intents and purposes. . ." :rofl

Yes indeed you can give war powers to the President, as your oft cited 1973 War Powers Act showed. It listed the three times and ways some or all the powers of war can be given to the President by Congress. From a declaration of war, to an authorization of force, to a defensive reaction. Different things, which is why they were set out and defined in that act.

Hoisted upon your own petard.

Thank you Vandeervecken. You saved me the trouble of going through it all over again. :smile:

 

[NYStateofMind]

I'm not minimizing anything I'm just stating a fact which is that Kennedy and Eisenhower are responsible for the U.S. entrance into the war in Vietnam. It wasn't a war until the Gulf of Tonkin precipitated the escalation and it wasn't until the assasination of the President of Sourth Vietnman that we had any real commitment there.

.....and the equivocation continues. Why can't you just admit that you mis-stated the facts? Eisenhower introduced US troops into the Vietnam conflict. Come on, you can say it.

Yes, our involvement escalated under Kennedy, I haven't said any different. I just dislike the way you twisted the facts to fit your agenda. I'll call you on it every time. I like facts, you should be more respectful of them. Facts are stubborn, they don't change just because you are on one side of the aisle or the other.

And again, it was not technically a "war" at any time.....haven't we gone over that enough yet? No, the Vietnam War started before we got there, and ended after we left. Our involvement in it started under Eisenhower, and ended under Nixon.

Since we didn't declare war on anyone, it makes it really hard to determine when the war started, doesn't it? The only real reference we have is when we sent troops, which was under Eisenhower.....wait, haven't I said that already?

I agree with the idea that we should come big or stay home. It's awfully hard to fight with one hand tied behind your back, which is the lesson we *should have* learned from Vietnam.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Thank you Vandeervecken. You saved me the trouble of going through it all over again. :smile:

Dee dee dee the President was granted the war powers on September 14, 2001, as such the President has been granted all legal rights as commander and chief under Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if the Congress has specifically declared war or not if A) the congress declares war, we are at war B) the Congress grants the president the war powers, we are at war, or C) we are attacked, then we are at war.

Tell me what do you think the legal difference is between authorization of the use of force, or an official declaration of war? I'll give you a hint there is none in either case the President is granted the full war powers. Your point is moot.

 

[ludahai]

Nonetheless it was as an obligation to the UN charter that we went, the democrats did not control the UN.

It wasn't an obligation. Truman pressed for the resolution. It was proposed by the United States and we engineered a discussion on the China representation issue to **** off the Soviets and get them to walk out. Then the U.S. QUICKLY submitted the resolution and got it passed before the Soviets knew what happened.

Yes it did, then Nixon a republican escalated it even more. So the claim was the Democrats started the war. Now you admit they merely escalated it, something the GOP also did. SO how do you blame that war solely on the Democrats?

Nixon got is OUT of the war!

Why would you want to?

Because I am sick of CNN. After we buy a house next year, we are getting a satellite dish. Well, at least I can listen to NEal Boortz on the Internet

Read the book and tell me that. While your at it read, SLEEPING THE THE ENEMY too.

No time right now. Too many other things on my plate. Maybe this summer.

I already got my cheese. There are several of us discussing printing large versions of the cartoons and picketing the Mosque in the city next door this week. That should be fun.

The cheese came in today. I am going to grate it tomorrow and with some Italian mozarella make a scrumptous homemade lasagna!

I wish we had a mosque here to protest, but as far as I know, there is only one mosque in the entire country.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It wasn't an obligation. Truman pressed for the resolution. It was proposed by the United States and we engineered a discussion on the China representation issue to **** off the Soviets and get them to walk out. Then the U.S. QUICKLY submitted the resolution and got it passed before the Soviets knew what happened.




Nixon got is OUT of the war!




Because I am sick of CNN. After we buy a house next year, we are getting a satellite dish. Well, at least I can listen to NEal Boortz on the Internet




No time right now. Too many other things on my plate. Maybe this summer.





The cheese came in today. I am going to grate it tomorrow and with some Italian mozarella make a scrumptous homemade lasagna!

I wish we had a mosque here to protest, but as far as I know, there is only one mosque in the entire country.

You can download Rush off of Limewire. And Fox News has a pretty extensive web site.

 

[NYStateofMind]

Dee dee dee the President was granted the war powers on September 14, 2001, as such the President has been granted all legal rights as commander and chief under Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if the Congress has specifically declared war or not if A) the congress declares war, we are at war B) the Congress grants the president the war powers, we are at war, or C) we are attacked, then we are at war.

Tell me what do you think the legal difference is between authorization of the use of force, or an official declaration of war? I'll give you a hint there is none in either case the President is granted the full war powers. Your point is moot.

The point is not moot. There are laws that have been written which specifically mention declared wars as being exceptions to them. This is part of the issue with the domestic spying program. There is a LEGAL difference. I'm not sure what else I can say that will make you understand, apparently you wish to keep your head firmly in the sand. Enjoy the view. :lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

.....and the equivocation continues. Why can't you just admit that you mis-stated the facts? Eisenhower introduced US troops into the Vietnam conflict. Come on, you can say it.

Yes, our involvement escalated under Kennedy, I haven't said any different. I just dislike the way you twisted the facts to fit your agenda. I'll call you on it every time. I like facts, you should be more respectful of them. Facts are stubborn, they don't change just because you are on one side of the aisle or the other.

And again, it was not technically a "war" at any time.....haven't we gone over that enough yet? No, the Vietnam War started before we got there, and ended after we left. Our involvement in it started under Eisenhower, and ended under Nixon.

Since we didn't declare war on anyone, it makes it really hard to determine when the war started, doesn't it? The only real reference we have is when we sent troops, which was under Eisenhower.....wait, haven't I said that already?

I agree with the idea that we should come big or stay home. It's awfully hard to fight with one hand tied behind your back, which is the lesson we *should have* learned from Vietnam.

We were not at war with North Vietnam until the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

HJ Res 1145 Aug 7, 64
Formally titled: Southeast Asia Resolution
Approved by House 416 to 0; Senate 88 to 2

To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia.

---WHEREAS naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the UN and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked US naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

---WHEREAS these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in NV has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and

---WHEREAS the US is assisting the peoples of Southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, mili or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way; Now, therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the US of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Cmdr in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the US and to prevent further aggression.

---SECTION 2. The US regards as vital its national interest and to world peace and security in Southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the US and Charter of the UN and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, [SACDT] the US is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the SACDT requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

---SECTION 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The point is not moot. There are laws that have been written which specifically mention declared wars as being exceptions to them. This is part of the issue with the domestic spying program. There is a LEGAL difference. I'm not sure what else I can say that will make you understand, apparently you wish to keep your head firmly in the sand. Enjoy the view. :lol:

Umm no there isn't no matter how many times you say it does not make it so, tell me what exactly is the difference then? The only issue is the war powers of the President under Article 2 Section 2 whenever the Congress grants the authorization of use of force they are granting the President the war powers in full, you have no idea what you're talking about, catch a clue.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Let's break it down for you there skippy:

(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.

Now what Constitutional Powers are they referring to??? The Constitutional Powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief of course as it clearly says. Now what are the Pesidents Constitutional Powers as Commander-in-Chief? Well they're the War Powers of the President as found in Article 2 Section 2 as seen here:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

the war powers and the Constitutional powers of Commander-in-Chief are one in the same. There is no legal difference if these powers are granted through an expressed declaration of war or the authorization of the use of force the net result is the same . . . which is what? THE PRESIDENT HAS THE WAR POWERS WE ARE AT WAR!!!!!

 

[Mickyjaystoned]

Sheehan unfolded an anti war banner in the middle of the Chamber for Christs sakes!!!!!!! They should arrest the senator who gave her the pass too!

So much for land of the free.

What a joke America truly is!

 

[NYStateofMind]

We were not at war with North Vietnam until the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:

Where in that resolution do you see that congress declared war on North Vietnam?

The resolution gives the President authority to use force. It is not a declaration of war. The resolution clearly acknowledges that we were already there helping defend South Vietnam. Are you trying to say that we weren't there before this resolution was passed? Are you trying to say that our soldiers weren't involved or dying before this? Are you, once again, ignoring the sacrifice of the soldiers who died over there before this resolution passed?

Yes, it is an escalation, but not the beginning of the conflict, or the beginning of our involvement in it.

 

[NYStateofMind]

Umm no there isn't no matter how many times you say it does not make it so, tell me what exactly is the difference then? The only issue is the war powers of the President under Article 2 Section 2 whenever the Congress grants the authorization of use of force they are granting the President the war powers in full, you have no idea what you're talking about, catch a clue.

Here is an example of what I'm trying to get you to understand. War powers being authorized does not equal declaration of war.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

Read it. It clearly states declaration of war by congress. Not war powers being authorized. Get it? If not, you're hopeless.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Where in that resolution do you see that congress declared war on North Vietnam?

The resolution gives the President authority to use force. It is not a declaration of war. The resolution clearly acknowledges that we were already there helping defend South Vietnam. Are you trying to say that we weren't there before this resolution was passed? Are you trying to say that our soldiers weren't involved or dying before this? Are you, once again, ignoring the sacrifice of the soldiers who died over there before this resolution passed?

Yes, it is an escalation, but not the beginning of the conflict, or the beginning of our involvement in it.

Dee dee dee the U.S. was not in combat operations against the North Vietnamese until the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We have troops in Japan too, last time I checked we aren't at war with Japan.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

So much for land of the free.

What a joke America truly is!

Read some. It can be educational. Not only was Sheehan shown the door, so too was a lady that had a pro-military shirt on. They can dance and sing in the streets, but not in the chamber.
And they all knew it.

 

[Gill]

#3 Eisenhower sent the first US troops into Vietnam in 1956. First casualties where while he was still president in 1959. Eisenhower was a Republican.

Actually the first casualty was in 1957.

It was the Regan administration that got us involved with bin Laden, that is a fact.

Wrong… Carter starting supporting the Mujahiddin before Reagan took office; in July 1979 to be exact.

.....and the equivocation continues. Why can't you just admit that you mis-stated the facts? Eisenhower introduced US troops into the Vietnam conflict. Come on, you can say it.
Yes, our involvement escalated under Kennedy, I haven't said any different. I just dislike the way you twisted the facts to fit your agenda. I'll call you on it every time. I like facts, you should be more respectful of them. Facts are stubborn, they don't change just because you are on one side of the aisle or the other.

You should also be respectful of facts!! It’s hard to say this was Eisenhower’s war when a grand total of 8 of the 58,000+ killed in Vietnam were during Eisenhower’s term. You are being disingenuous at best.

The only real reference we have is when we sent troops, which was under Eisenhower.....

NO, Eisenhower sent a very small number of advisors to Vietnam. Troop numbers greatly escalated in 1965. If this is anybody’s war, it is Johnson’s. He is the one that greatly escalated our involvement and micromanaged the battles rather than let his military commanders do their jobs.

The point is not moot. There are laws that have been written which specifically mention declared wars as being exceptions to them. This is part of the issue with the domestic spying program. There is a LEGAL difference.

Then spell it out for us… what EXACTLY are these laws that you allude to?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here is an example of what I'm trying to get you to understand. War powers being authorized does not equal declaration of war.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

Read it. It clearly states declaration of war by congress. Not war powers being authorized. Get it? If not, you're hopeless.

It's you who doesn't get it it is not a Declaration of War which is of importance it is the War Powers of the President which are at issue these war powers were given to the President on September 14, 2001 in a Joint Resolution of Congress. There is no legal difference between a formal Declaration of War and an a Joint Resolution of Congress granting the President the War powers.

That passage has nothing to do with the war powers of the President the FISA act which was written in peace time does not trump the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the Constitution.

Your argument is weak at best.

 

[Pacridge]

Dee dee dee the U.S. was not in combat operations against the North Vietnamese until the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We have troops in Japan too, last time I checked we aren't at war with Japan.

So those men who lost their lives all slipped in the shower?

How long is the list of causalities for our guys stations in Japan?