• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook

What about when WE were training AQ?

Are you still actually wondering if they had WMD? Egads!

The whole country agreed with invading Iraq because it was utterly deceived by a false flag operation meant to involve us in Iraq, Israel's mortal enemy. Hmmm.....:confused:

The WMD's were there, they were moved.
 
Not sure how it is relevant, but the country as a whole agreed with the war in Iraq at the time if you recall. And if they did have WMD and WERE training Al Queda then yes, it did fit the bill.

No WMD found despite the fact that Bush and his administration were 'absolutely certain' Iraq possessed them, and the country as a whole did not agree with the war.
Bush propagandized that Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks and undertook 'preventive war' at his will.
Why do you think Americans are weary of another Iraq?
 
No I haven't actually. However, if the POTUS orders the killing of innocents, should the military then comply because he said so?

Yup. We do that all the time, actually. It's called "Collateral Damage", and it's when we know we are going to kill innocents, and consider the objective worth the loss.
 
Yup. We do that all the time, actually. It's called "Collateral Damage", and it's when we know we are going to kill innocents, and consider the objective worth the loss.

No, I mean if he directly said "go kill innocents" and target them. That was my point.
 
No, I mean if he directly said "go kill innocents" and target them. That was my point.

No such thing as innocent in war. All are legitimate targets.
 
No such thing as innocent in war. All are legitimate targets.

Once again, you missed the point. Let me put it more bluntly....

What if Obama said go bomb that church in Kansas? Is the military required to obey those orders or uphold the Constitution?
 
Once again, you missed the point. Let me put it more bluntly....

What if Obama said go bomb that church in Kansas? Is the military required to obey those orders or uphold the Constitution?

In your example, are we at war with them? If not the orders aren't valid. If we are the church and its members should be a smoking hole.
 
We aren't at war with Syria are we?...........

Then there would be a question with the validity of the orders, to be determined by a court of law.
 
Then there would be a question with the validity of the orders, to be determined by a court of law.

If the President ordered the bombing of a church in Kansas, you would wait on court orders? I'm sorry, I would defy the President.
 
Once again, you missed the point. Let me put it more bluntly....

What if Obama said go bomb that church in Kansas? Is the military required to obey those orders or uphold the Constitution?

No. In fact, such an order is completely illegal.

Why is it that so many people ask such stupid questions?

If the President ordered the bombing of a church in Kansas, you would wait on court orders? I'm sorry, I would defy the President.

I would order his immediate removal, for giving orders that were illegal on so many areas it is not even funny.

Why are you giving such a stupid scenario? Do you actually want people to take you as a complete joke?
 
Once again, you missed the point. Let me put it more bluntly....

What if Obama said go bomb that church in Kansas? Is the military required to obey those orders or uphold the Constitution?

Today, that depends on whether the church is muslim or christian. Political Correctness supercedes the rule of law these days.;)
 
No. In fact, such an order is completely illegal.

Why is it that so many people ask such stupid questions?



I would order his immediate removal, for giving orders that were illegal on so many areas it is not even funny.

Why are you giving such a stupid scenario? Do you actually want people to take you as a complete joke?

I had to give such a stupid scenario because people here can't see the point. The point was that if Obama unilaterally decided to strike Syria it would be Unconstitutional. The question was do the soldiers have a higher priority to serve the Constitution or the President?
 
I had to give such a stupid scenario because people here can't see the point. The point was that if Obama unilaterally decided to strike Syria it would be Unconstitutional. The question was do the soldiers have a higher priority to serve the Constitution or the President?

No, it would not be Unconstitutional. All he has to do is notify Congress 48 hour prior. That is all. He could be telling them now then attack Sunday morning, and it is perfectly legal.

And part of that oath we take also involved following orders. And it is an order in long standing that members of the military do not get involved in politics, and do not protest in uniform.

Hey, if Private Snuffy wants to put on her civies and march around with Code Pink, good for her! If she wants to scream how evil the President is, then that is her right.

But the moment she puts on her uniform and does so, she is breaking regulations and I think she should pay for it to the full extent of the regulation. Article 15, Special Court Martial, I do not care. And after that impashioned speech about rules, it amazes me you think that people should then violate a regulation.

Make up your mind will you?
 
No, it would not be Unconstitutional. All he has to do is notify Congress 48 hour prior. That is all. He could be telling them now then attack Sunday morning, and it is perfectly legal.

And part of that oath we take also involved following orders. And it is an order in long standing that members of the military do not get involved in politics, and do not protest in uniform.

Hey, if Private Snuffy wants to put on her civies and march around with Code Pink, good for her! If she wants to scream how evil the President is, then that is her right.

But the moment she puts on her uniform and does so, she is breaking regulations and I think she should pay for it to the full extent of the regulation. Article 15, Special Court Martial, I do not care. And after that impashioned speech about rules, it amazes me you think that people should then violate a regulation.

Make up your mind will you?

Which goes back to the question, which is more important, the Constitution, or the President? You seem to skirt around that one.

And just because the 48 hours is in the War Powers Resolution does NOT make it Constitutional. The Resolution itself is unconstitutional.
 
Which goes back to the question, which is more important, the Constitution, or the President? You seem to skirt around that one.

And just because the 48 hours is in the War Powers Resolution does NOT make it Constitutional. The Resolution itself is unconstitutional.

ANd why do you say that? Because we need a declaration of war before any hostilities need be taken?

If that is your argument, then you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
ANd why do you say that? Because we need a declaration of war before any hostilities need be taken?

If that is your argument, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Before we attack another country, especially one that has no security threat to the United States, absolutely we must have a declaration. That is what the Constitution says. We don't need to be involved in any other type of operations, including Syria.
 
It wasn't there the first time I looked at your post. Sorry for the quick draw.

As to the oath, it doesn't say to interpret and states to "Constitution of the United States against all enemies" and the POTUS is not an enemy. It also states "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The UCMJ defines what a "lawful order" is and is not. It also defines what acceptable speech is and is not, for members of the military. The military doesn't have Free Speech.

Have you read Article 88 of the UCMJ?
If the choice is between supporting and defending the Constitution and obeying the president who is an enemy of the Constitution what is one to do?
 
Back
Top Bottom