Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#402 Apr 12 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

You realize that W also received congressional approval to move on Iraq before he did so right?


Ya what was the reason he gave them? Was it links to Al Qaeda that was proven false...Was it for the WMD's also proven false...

Also why does Obama need a timeline? He has 60 days to use the troops how he sees fit, by American Law. He doesn't need to ask congress sh*t, because they already gave him authority to do so.

At least Obama didn't table phoney evidence to support his decision, he let the media supply the evidence, civilians being gunned down by an army is more than enough reason to warrant action, or did we already forget Kosovo, Bosnia, and other wonderful government oppressions.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#403varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 11:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) r2d2,
#404 Apr 12 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
r2d2,

W had the same intel congress did when they approved his action.


Oh course, W also had Rumsfeld and Cheney demanding evidence from their subordinates to justify action, but...
Quote:
That's beside the point.


Point is, if we're still there after 60 days without anything going to Congress, then you can moan about it more. I don't agree with taking action in Libya, but the only reason you're against it is because of the current president. I don't think you'd even deny it.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 1:58pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#405 Apr 12 2011 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

You realize that W also received congressional approval to move on Iraq before he did so right?
He also blatantly lied about the threats posed by Iraq to make invasion a much stronger case than it actually was. Color me unconvinced by that argument.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#406 Apr 12 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
varusword75 wrote:
r2d2,
Obama simply said f*ck you congress I'll do what I want.



Which he is allowed to do under his authority as President for 60 days, so what is your point?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#407varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 12:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#408 Apr 12 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama actually consulted with members of Congress from both sides and then, on the following Monday, provided written justification for his use of power under the War Powers Act. You can say you don't agree with his reasons but that's neither here nor there unless Congress decides to act on it.

There's a long, proud history of asking forgiveness rather than permission. From the column Varus quoted:
Quote:
It was Republican Richard Nixon, after all, who vetoed the War Powers Act, only to be overridden by Congress. When he sent troops into Lebanon, Ronald Reagan balked at complying.

Then there was George W. Bush, whose legal advisers insisted that the president has virtually unlimited authority in this realm. He requested congressional authorization for the Iraq war while insisting the Constitution gave him the right to invade on his own.

But after losing an election, the GOP takes a less expansive view. When President Clinton bombed Serbia in the 1999 Kosovo war, a group of mostly Republican members of Congress filed a lawsuit to make him end the war within 60 days, as mandated by the War Powers Act. (The courts threw it out.)


Edited, Apr 12th 2011 1:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#409 Apr 12 2011 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Varus I don't understand what your point is in that? Obama said the president can't do it, but did it (we know politicians lie already so what?) Was it that Bush asked congress but said, even if you say no I can do it anyway. Or was it that the GOP only has an issue when it is not the GOP doing it? As said here...
Quote:

Republicans, meanwhile, have acquired a strange new respect for the notion that there are limits to the president's use of military force. This is a sentiment that surfaces in the GOP only when a Democrat becomes president.


I don't really understand what your point is. He has 60 days to do whatever the hell he wants. So until 60 days is up deal with it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#410 Apr 12 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:
unlike the Christians who believe that Jesus is God in the flesh.


Can you expound on this?


Really? This is the first time you've heard that Jesus was god in the flesh? Smiley: dubious


I just asked him to expound..If he can't, he should just say so.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 10:35pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#411 Apr 12 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

Quote:
He also blatantly lied


No he didn't. That you refuse to accept this fact clearly illustrates what a tool you've become for the Democrats. You just can't face the truth that W had the same intel as congress when they approved the action against Iraq.
Nope. In fact, they're STILL trying to hide those lies.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#412 Apr 12 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
I just asked him to expound..If he can't, he should just say so.


I don't think I should have to. Pretty much everyone in Western Society has heard these claims. But if you want to have some proof of why people believe that Here is a bible passage you may or may not know.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
...
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Essentially, The Word Was God, and the Word became flesh and lived among us, The one who came from the father.

Another Important one that also displays reasoning to believe this:

-Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.
(Heb 1:8).
God said to his son God your throne is forever (why would god call his son god?)

Emmanuel, God with Us
Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
Emmanuel interpreted is actually God with Us.

And so on and so forth over the course of the Old testament, and New Testament. Even the following are used interchangably between God and Jesus.

The Light, The Alpha and Omega, Logos (the Word), Lord.

The old Apostles Creed which is spoken to God, uses the phrases the Lord, Lord Father, Lord God, with the holy spirit refrenced as just a spirit. While the newer Nicene Creed spoken to Jesus is Lord Jesus, God from God, True God of God, Lord, with the holy spirit referenced as giver of life.)

(note newer and older are kind of relative, as the Apostles Creed was penned largely by Matthew in 28:19 although changed over time during the first and second century when it was finally put into writing. The Nicene Creed came shortly after the council of Nicea in which the Catholic Church was born, and thus the love affair with Jesus being the God of God, and immortalizing him began.

Its all there if you read the bible to be quite honest, most people skip that stuff, I luckily happened to read the greatest novel ever written. (It is really a great book, lots of murder, and infighting and all that good stuff) Jesus may or may not have been just a man, he may or may not have been god in the flesh, but there is writtng that both supports and refutes either claim within the bible itself. There are some who practice both ways.

Was that expanded enough for you or would you like more passages to look up, and other names that are interchangeable throughout out the texts. (Just for clarification to support my overall point that Christianity is just an evolved for of the old pagan religions primarily Egyptian. Horus was also referred to as the God of God, the Sun of God, the Light, the light of the word, the lamb of god, emmanuel, The Alpha and Omega, True God of God, etc etc. as was Judaism and as such is Muslim an evolved form of all three.)





____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#413 Apr 12 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Varus I don't understand what your point is in that? Obama said the president can't do it, but did it (we know politicians lie already so what?) Was it that Bush asked congress but said, even if you say no I can do it anyway. Or was it that the GOP only has an issue when it is not the GOP doing it?


It's based on the why and how of doing it. Every president since Nixon has repeated the same "I have the power to do this anyway, but I'll go along" spiel. It follows with the idea of not giving away power unless required to. Since the Supreme Court has never actually ruled on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and it absolutely does limit the presidents power as commander in chief, presidents say this just as a formality.

Apparently though, Obama actually took that literally in this case and acted upon it.


Quote:
He has 60 days to do whatever the hell he wants. So until 60 days is up deal with it.


That's not true at all. And it's funny how everyone focuses on the reporting requirement section of the Act, while ignoring the very first section:

War Powers Act wrote:

 
(a) Congressional declaration 
    It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers 
    of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective 
    judgment 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) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause 
    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 
    hereof. 
 
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation 
    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. 




Notice the three requirements listed in section (c). Those are the only three cases under which the president is authorized to introduce our military into hostilities (which is clearly the case here).

1. We have not declared war.
2. He has not received statutory authorization
3. We were not attacked in any way


That's why his use of the military in this case is considered a violation of the War Powers Act. Bush got Congressional authorization prior to attacking Afghanistan *and* prior to attacking Iraq. Thus, he met condition (2) (or even 1 depending on how you look at it). Obama received no such authorization from Congress. In this cases, it is not enough to just inform congress. He should have gotten approval first. You can't even argue that this is a deployment into a non-hostile location. We sent our forces there specifically to get involved in an existing civil war. So this is not the same as deploying forces to Lebannon or Saudi Arabia ahead of hostilities as a show of force.


What he's done is a pretty clear violation of the War Powers Act. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 4:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#414 Apr 12 2011 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
1. We have not declared war.
Not trying to go with logical fallacy or a counter point or anything. I just find it interesting the US hasn't formally declared war since 1941.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#415 Apr 12 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
1. We have not declared war.
Not trying to go with logical fallacy or a counter point or anything. I just find it interesting the US hasn't formally declared war since 1941.


Yeah. Congress has the power to declare war. However, with the passage of the war powers act, what it does instead is satisfy condition (2) by passing a law authorizing the use of military force under the war powers act. For example, if you look at the Joint Resolution which authorized the use of military force in Iraq, you'll find this section:

 
Quote:
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


You'll also note that a whole section of that resolution essentially restates the notification requirements under the War Powers act. So basically, congress wrote a law authorizing the president to invade Iraq, but he was still required to notify them within 48 hours of using that power and then the 60 day clock started for continued approval.


What's missing in the case of Libya is any sort of statutory authorization for action in Libya. It's not enough to just consult and then notify congress. That's why Bush had to get a resolution from congress prior to deciding to invade (which some oddly tried to insist was itself wrong or backwards, but is in fact exactly in keeping with the requirements of the War Powers Act). Obama's use of military force in Libya is very clearly in violation of the War Powers Act.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 4:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#416 Apr 12 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And it's funny how everyone focuses on the reporting requirement section of the Act, while ignoring the very first section

That's the "Purpose & Policy" section. In other words, "the rest of this bill will describe how we'd like this stuff to happen". The actual requirements come after which are the bits you lament everyone being interested in.

Quote:
What he's done is a pretty clear violation of the War Powers Act. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that.

If this is true, there's a clear Congressional course of action. To be honest, Congress doesn't pursue it because they don't want a real Supreme Court challenge made against a legislative barrier against Constitutional powers. They'd rather the Act served as a "good enough" hedge against presidential military action than seriously test it and see it sink completely. They tested those waters with Clinton ("they" being Congress, not just Republicans) and got nowhere. As long as Obama makes the right movements within the sixty day period, no one will make a serious peep about it despite the usual grumbling.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#417 Apr 12 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
gbaji wrote:


What's missing in the case of Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan is any sort of plan


FTFY.

Killing as many 'baddies' as possible with as many new types of technology as possible may well be the (unspoken) plan, but its hardly the actions of a moral or civilised country no matter how many tracts of legal blither gets bought up.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#418 Apr 12 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=763831&mesg_id=764064

He has authority because the UN supersedes anything as its charter was ratified prior to this Act an the US is an undersigned on said Charter, and is a major player on the security council. Ergo he has authority to send troops where ever he sees fit as long as the actions involve one or more nation involved within the UN, or any other treaty (such as NATO) Since he sent them in under a UN resolution he is completely in the right to do so for 60 days (wit a 30 day draw down)

Further supported by section 4 which says:

Quote:
[Reporting]
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.


Of which he has complied by stating his reasoning for choosing to exercise his authority to do so.

Further supported in Section 5 which states:

Quote:
SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.


He does not need to submit a report, as the clock starts ticking regardless if he files a report or not. Furthermore if this was such a big deal to the GOP why have they not exercised their constitutional authority to override the decision based on 5.(c). They can't because he has specific authority that supercedes this Act because it is a Multi-National UN action, he has provided reasoning for not declaring War.

The only thing he has not done, is submit a report to the House, or Senate, but he is only required to do so once every 6 months.

Quote:
4(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.



Read up on your own laws I shouldn't have to do it for you.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 8:08pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#419 Apr 12 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

I'm fairly certain that means that the president does not need to get authorization to use military force and then get additional authorization to operate with the UN or NATO. He's still supposed to get the basic garden variety authorization though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#420 Apr 12 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

I'm fairly certain that means that the president does not need to get authorization to use military force and then get additional authorization to operate with the UN or NATO.


For actions approved prior to the adoption of the war powers resolution. The UNs vote to authorize humanitarian aid and support to Libyan rebels most definitely came after the enactment of the War Powers Act.

rdm actually quoted the relevant section, yet it also got ignored:

Quote:
SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.


The UN simply passing a resolution isn't sufficient authorization for the President of the US to introduce US forces into hostilities. It's pretty darn clear cut. The section you both quoted after that was intended to grandfather existing military activities, not to provide the UN or NATO with the power to authorize the US President to send US forces into combat.

Quote:
He's still supposed to get the basic garden variety authorization though.


He was supposed to get specific authorization prior to taking action though. You're correct though that it looks as though congress is pretty much letting him get away with it. It still sets a horrible precedent though. He basically just drove a nail right through the head of the War Powers Act. Not exactly what I think most people expected of him.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 5:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#421 Apr 12 2011 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't know if you thought I was agreeing with Rdmcandie or what. I was saying that the quoted section wasn't really a defense.

Obama is keeping with the letter of the requirements -- the actual requirements laid out -- in the War Powers Act. Even if you or whoever thinks he's not keeping in the spirit of it, it won't get tested by Congress because a failed challenge will result in a loss of power for Congress and, partisan politics and parties aside, the Executive branch cares about keeping their executive powers supreme and the Legislative branch cares about keeping their legislative powers supreme. No one's going to play a game of chicken over it if some political theater will suffice to let everyone get an ego rub.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#422 Apr 12 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
I'm just tired of playing Team America: World Police.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#423 Apr 12 2011 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Of the UN Charter which the US signed prior to The War Measures Act.

Quote:
Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.



Quote:
Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.


Quote:
Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


All of which were signed by the United States, and preempt any of the War measures Act, in accordance to the War Measures act that States the UN Charter supersedes it.

Quote:
Article 43

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.


Since this Charter was signed prior to the War Measures Act passing, the relevant constitutional process in he US allows for the president to commit troops to UN security council request. This is even supported as such in the War Measures Act itself.

Basically Obama has done nothing wrong, he has followed the Act to the letter.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#424 Apr 12 2011 at 7:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
I'll answer this again, since you both appear to have completely failed to grasp what I'm saying here:

Jophiel wrote:
I'm fairly certain that means that the president does not need to get authorization to use military force and then get additional authorization to operate with the UN or NATO.


Yes. He more or less does (although your wording is strange). If the UN or NATO decide to take some military action, the president must get authorization from Congress in addition to whatever international treaties or resolutions were also passed.

For example. In 1991, the UN authorized the use of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. In addition to that, the President also got the US Congress to approve said use of force in this resolution


Notice at the end of this resolution we once again see those familiar paragraphs:

Quote:
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Freaking amazing! Why, if there was no requirements for authorization needed other than a UN vote, did we bother to go through the steps of writing this "additional authorization"?

Because the war powers act specifically states that no treaty shall be inferred to be authorization "unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution."

In case you are both still curious "by legislation" means that congress has to pass a law stating that an international agreement we've entered into counts as a war powers resolution. That's why congress passed a separate joint resolution in 1991. It's why we passed one when we went into Afghanistan, and again in late 2002 in preparation to an attack on Iraq.


Isn't it strange that the Republican presidents manage to consistently do this right, but it's the Democrats who manage to find reasons to avoid complying? Yet, it's the GOP who get called war mongers and their wars labeled "illegal". It's like we're living in upside down world here.

Obama's use of military force in Libya is a clear violation of the War Powers Act. For what that's worth of course, given that as you've noted, if Congress doesn't do anything about it, then nothing happens. But let's not pretend that he didn't violate both the letter *and* the spirit of the Act itself. Lest we forget, the purpose of the Act is:

Quote:
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment 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.



The UN is not the Congress. The Act was (among other things) directly intended to prevent the President from using the UN to circumvent Congressional approval for war (those pesky "police actions" we had in Korea and Viet Nam being key reasons for the Act in the first place). Yet, that is exactly what Obama did in this case. He's violated the law. Pure and simple. Now perhaps he'll get away with it (although I'm quite sure no Republican president would), but that doesn't change the absolute fact that he did violate the law in this case.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 6:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#425 Apr 12 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
rdm? I'll re-quote myself again since you must have missed it the first time:

gbaji wrote:
The section you both quoted after that was intended to grandfather existing military activities, not to provide the UN or NATO with the power to authorize the US President to send US forces into combat.


Each UN resolution counts as a new treaty, which may or may not directly involve US action and may or may not require ratification by the Senate. And in the case of a resolution by the UN requesting military action, it absolutely requires a joint resolution of congress declaring said action to be authorized under the War Powers act.

That's what the freaking law says. Pretty much plain as day unless you really go out of your way to misinterpret it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#426 Apr 12 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Now perhaps he'll get away with it (although I'm quite sure no Republican president would)

lulz. Coming for forgiveness rather than permission is the standard operating procedure for the War Powers Act. You should educate yourself a little so you'd stop acting like such an outraged virgin who just got her butt patted.

The "purpose" of the act can be whatever it wants. Obama complied with the actual regulations laid down in the act re: consultation and reporting.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 8:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#427 Apr 12 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Except what you just posted supports exactly what I just said.

Quote:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.



8A1)
Quote:
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution


5B)
(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of [b]enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.[/b]

Can I have Double boliding on the UN CHARTER please.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/28/IMG/NR057528.pdf?OpenElement

Read this, and then read this.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml


Signed in 1945. Thus it covers A a specific authorization from the UN to use MEMBER (which includes the US) in Accordance with 5(B).

Thus negating the requirement for:
APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS-

Since it already passes on the required regulations. Now lets see a similar situation. Libya approached the UN under section 50 of chapter 7, the UN invoked Article 41(the no fly zone), followed by Article 42 (air strikes). Both of which comply with 5B and both of which are in compliance with authorizing the use of American Military in Libya.


Isn't Law fun





____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#428 Apr 12 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
After looking through this, this act is pretty much useless, it doesn't really prevent anything. The president can do whatever he wants with the military as long as he gives a report within 6 months. To be quite frank, it is a worthless waste of ink.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#429 Apr 12 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
RDD wrote:
I don't think I should have to. Pretty much everyone in Western Society has heard these claims. But if you want to have some proof of why people believe that Here is a bible passage you may or may not know.


Given the biased beliefs of the rest of your post, I was curious on your interpretation of that statement, hence the reason why I asked for you to expound. That's the reason why I didn't quote the parts which I obviously disagree with, but that particular claim. It sounded like the only possible legitimate claim, which seemed very odd to me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#430 Apr 12 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Now perhaps he'll get away with it (although I'm quite sure no Republican president would)

lulz. Coming for forgiveness rather than permission is the standard operating procedure for the War Powers Act. You should educate yourself a little so you'd stop acting like such an outraged virgin who just got her butt patted.


I'm well aware of the history of the Act Joph. The point is that Obama is the first president to engaged in a massive and ongoing campaign of attacks on foreign soil who has not bothered to get any sort of congressional authorization before hand. Most of the rest involve putting soldiers into areas where they might be attacked, but on non-military missions and the question of where the boundaries lie comes up.

Reagan putting marines in the embassy in Lebanon, for example. Technically, we were not at war in the country, there was no military endeavor in place, and an embassy is sovereign soil. Skirting the rules, but not breaking them. Similar arguments have been used to justify the use of military advisers and trainers. The argument being that they aren't being given offensive military orders and aren't there to engage in hostilities.


Surely you can agree that Obama's actions in Libya go well beyond those past events? This isn't a single air strike on a terrorist camp, or putting military forces in international or US controlled areas in order to "show our colors" so to speak. This isn't even putting forces in a quasi war zone with the intent to create safe havens for refugees.

We're talking about an active and ongoing air campaign to destroy a nations military forces. We're actively seeking out and engaging that nations air and ground defenses. This is a war by any definition, no matter what they're trying to call it.

Quote:
The "purpose" of the act can be whatever it wants.


OMFG! So you're saying that the law says whatever the president wants it to say, but only when it's a Democratic president sitting in the White House? Are you seriously suggesting that if Bush had done something like this that you wouldn't be one of the many voices on this forum howling for impeachment?

Of course you would. And you damn well know it!

Quote:
Obama complied with the actual regulations laid down in the act re: consultation and reporting.


No, he didn't. Those are not the only requirements, as I have stated several times now. You're using the excuse that past presidents haven't followed the regulations perfectly to justify Obama completely ignoring them.


For the most part, past actions have at least tried to come up with some reason why what they are doing wasn't putting our forces into hostilities, or that it was a small enough but important enough action to take immediately that the president had to act. This was neither. Obama had enough time to get the US to pass a resolution, but couldn't be bothered to ask Congress to authorize said action under the War Powers Act? Heck. He could have even asked Congress to pass a resolution and then decided that the need was too great to wait and he'd have some kind of cover. But he didn't do that and still hasn't done that. He's making the same ridiculous case many of you are that he doesn't need to ask permission, but merely to notify after the fact. And while that may fly for a single air strike, or rescue operation, or other similar actions, this is way way way way beyond those in terms of scope. He's committing us to a military campaign.


It's a clear violation. Just because there have been past violations doesn't make this not a violation too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#431 Apr 12 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
After looking through this, this act is pretty much useless, it doesn't really prevent anything. The president can do whatever he wants with the military as long as he gives a report within 6 months. To be quite frank, it is a worthless waste of ink.


That's not what the Act says though. Perhaps if you stopped believing the BS claim that all it means is that the president has to notify congress after he starts a war, you might just understand this.

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing. It's right there. There are three conditions under which the president may put US forces into hostilities. Period. The rest of the Act is about what the President is also supposed to do if/when one of those three conditions is met. If none of them are met, then complying with the other stuff is completely irrelevant.

Your argument is the equivalent of insisting that you shouldn't be ticketed for driving without a license because you were not speeding at the time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#432 Apr 12 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm well aware of the history of the Act Joph.

Obviously not, Mr. "Republican presidents manage to consistently do this right".

Quote:
OMFG! So you're saying that the law says whatever the president wants it to say, but only when it's a Democratic president sitting in the White House?

No, you retard. I'm saying that the introductory parts of a bill are not the actual legislative mechanics. You keep quoting those parts rather than paying any attention to the actual mechanics that must be complied with. If I pass a law and preface it with "We don't want anyone to eat apples" and then the actual mechanics are "When eating an apple, you must give me a call and let me know", that doesn't make eating apples illegal. It makes eating apples without giving me a call illegal.

Quote:
No, he didn't. Those are not the only requirements, as I have stated several times now.

Yeah, you keep "stating it" because you don't understand it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#433 Apr 12 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:
I don't think I should have to. Pretty much everyone in Western Society has heard these claims. But if you want to have some proof of why people believe that Here is a bible passage you may or may not know.


Given the biased beliefs of the rest of your post, I was curious on your interpretation of that statement, hence the reason why I asked for you to expound. That's the reason why I didn't quote the parts which I obviously disagree with, but that particular claim. It sounded like the only possible legitimate claim, which seemed very odd to me.


Biased in what way? I don't believe in an omnipotent fellow, but I do believe that there are some very nice stories written about him, and the people that spread his message, whether or not it existed. I imagine the people who told the stories of God, were real people, otherwise they would not be so well documented. (hell Jesus has 4 Chapters devoted to just his life and teachings, and is mentioned dozens of other times throughout the new testament, and old testament).

Or was it because I said religion is a joke at the end of my thing, concluding that Muslims, Jews, and Christians arguing over whose god is right is stupid because it is all the same imaginary man that is based nearly entirely off egyptian mythology.

Maybe it was a bit biased in my belief that they are just stories passed down, but oddly enough, in my bias it seems I know more about the religion than you, be it truth or fiction. Like I said, great stories, but they are all about the same dude, and that was my point.


Edited, Apr 12th 2011 10:34pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#434 Apr 12 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Except what you just posted supports exactly what I just said.

Quote:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Yes. Hello!? That means that congress says that they authorize the actions requested by the UN under the War Powers Act. Without that authorization, the UN's resolution doesn't do so. What part of that don't you get? I've only explained this three times now!



Quote:
5B)
(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of [b]enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.[/b]



Ok. You're still not getting it. Nowhere in the UN charter does it say that in 2011, the UN authorizes member states to partake in military actions against Libya. This section of the War Powers Act was intended to grandfather existing military operations being undertaken by the US military as part of any existing treaty agreements with foreign nations that already existed at the time the War Powers Act was passed.

It did not give a blanket authorization to any future agreements which might be passed in the UN. I suspect you just plain aren't understanding this. I'll point out again that one of the reasons this Act was passed was because of police actions like Korea and Viet Nam. In both cases, the president at the time used the existence of international agreements to justify "police actions" in those countries and thus skirt the requirement that congress authorize war.

The War Powers Act was created precisely to avoid this. But that's exactly what Obama has just done. You can't possibly fail to see this, can you?



And btw. It doesn't matter what the UN charter says. It's US law which matters. And the US law says that only military actions already approved prior to the passage of the War Powers Act do not need to comply with that act. I'll point out again that the UN resolution which authorized the military operations in Libya was passed well after that time. The argument you're making is absurd. Just stop and think about it for a bit and you'll see why.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#435 Apr 12 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm well aware of the history of the Act Joph.

Obviously not, Mr. "Republican presidents manage to consistently do this right".


In terms of getting congressional approval prior to launching massive military campaigns against a foreign state? Yeah. They are pretty good at making sure to do that.


I'll point out again that had Bush done what Obama just did, the screaming we'd hear from the left would be deafening. Yet, because it's Obama, we get just a few Democrats decrying it, and mostly silence or even excuses from the media. Funny!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#436 Apr 12 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:
I don't think I should have to. Pretty much everyone in Western Society has heard these claims. But if you want to have some proof of why people believe that Here is a bible passage you may or may not know.


Given the biased beliefs of the rest of your post, I was curious on your interpretation of that statement, hence the reason why I asked for you to expound. That's the reason why I didn't quote the parts which I obviously disagree with, but that particular claim. It sounded like the only possible legitimate claim, which seemed very odd to me.


Biased in what way? I don't believe in an omnipotent fellow, but I do believe that there are some very nice stories written about him, and the people that spread his message, whether or not it existed. I imagine the people who told the stories of God, were real people, otherwise they would not be so well documented. (hell Jesus has 4 Chapters devoted to just his life and teachings, and is mentioned dozens of other times throughout the new testament, and old testament).

Or was it because I said religion is a joke at the end of my thing, concluding that Muslims, Jews, and Christians arguing over whose god is right is stupid because it is all the same imaginary man that is based nearly entirely off egyptian mythology.

Maybe it was a bit biased in my belief that they are just stories passed down, but oddly enough, in my bias it seems I know more about the religion than you, be it truth or fiction. Like I said, great stories, but they are all about the same dude, and that was my point.


Edited, Apr 12th 2011 10:34pm by rdmcandie


How does asking you to expound on a statement that you said in a paragraph of biased beliefs translates into me as knowing less than you? Just another curious question.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#437 Apr 12 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
If you had to ask me to explain the understandings of biblical text, then I would say it does. In spades.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#438 Apr 12 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
If you had to ask me to explain the understandings of biblical text, then I would say it does. In spades.


Given the biased beliefs of the rest of your post, I was curious on your interpretation of that statement, hence the reason why I asked for you to expound. That's the reason why I didn't quote the parts which I obviously disagree with, but that particular claim. It sounded like the only possible legitimate claim, which seemed very odd to me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#439 Apr 12 2011 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
cool story, I did, even though it is pretty much common knowledge that Jesus and God are used interchangeably. Often.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#440 Apr 12 2011 at 9:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
cool story, I did, even though it is pretty much common knowledge that Jesus and God are used interchangeably. Often.


I'm just going to concede in saying that you're not comprehending my statement. Maybe a failure on my explanation. In any case, cool story indeed.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#441 Apr 12 2011 at 10:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
In terms of getting congressional approval prior to launching massive military campaigns against a foreign state? Yeah. They are pretty good at making sure to do that.

I'll point out again that had Bush done what Obama just did, the screaming we'd hear from the left would be deafening. Yet, because it's Obama, we get just a few Democrats decrying it, and mostly silence or even excuses from the media. Funny!

Wow.. a move-the-goalposts, "But if BUSH did it...!", "Liberal media!!" trifecta! Way to present a salient argument!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#442 Apr 12 2011 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
Yes. Hello!? That means that congress says that they authorize the actions requested by the UN under the War Powers Act. Without that authorization, the UN's resolution doesn't do so. What part of that don't you get? I've only explained this three times now!


Except it doesn't matter if congress accepts it or not. The War measures act is a useless piece of legislation. In the end it allows the President to use the military as he sees fit for up to 60 days, as long as he notifies congress and provides a report at least 1 time in a 6 month period. Furthermore Congress can not deny the use of troops in UN sanctioned missions that fall under Chapter 7 articles, as they were all written prior to the War Measures Act. Regardless of the fact the UN resolution was ratified after. The Measures act clearly stipulates UN Charter not UN resolutions. As such anything pertaining to the Charter (minus a few amendments that occurred post-measures act) Is not in violation of the War Measures act. Just because congress agreed to it doesn't mean that they had a choice in the matter.

It is clearly written in plain English that the UN Charter falls under Statutory Authorization. The Charter not each specific resolution. Other treaties (specifically NATO also fall into this category). What it does not permit is for the President to send US forces solely into battle under a UN resolution 1 or more Countries must also be involved. Since there a half dozen nations involved this is a purely legitimate action.

Not that any of that matters since the President can use the military as he sees fit for up to 60 days, as long as he notifies congress and provides a report 1 time within 6 months.

So quit bitching about and wait for 60 days, then if you are still there, bitch about it. The law is right there, its pretty effing clear, and the UN Charter that it is supported by (specifically Chapter 7 Articles) are pretty effing clear too.

Isn't Law fun, you say potato and I say potato.

Quote:
I'll point out again that had Bush done what Obama just did, the screaming we'd hear from the left would be deafening.


He could have for 60 days. But I agree with you the left would have bitched and moaned about it (oh wait they did anyway regardless) kind of like how the right is now your partisan politics is funny. But notice how there hasn't been a motion to overturn the Presidents decision....bitch and moan is all they can do, because Obama is 100% within his authority.





Edited, Apr 13th 2011 12:33am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#443 Apr 13 2011 at 2:32 AM Rating: Default
****
4,143 posts
rdmcandie wrote:


He could have for 60 days. But I agree with you the left would have bitched and moaned about it (oh wait they did anyway regardless) kind of like how the right is now your partisan politics is funny. But notice how there hasn't been a motion to overturn the Presidents decision....bitch and moan is all they can do, because Obama is 100% within his authority.


Perhaps its because, just like in Europe, its all about business. Obama is carrying right on where GWB left off, and the opposition is making all the noises that they are supposed to be making and the only genuine bitching and moaning about the Libyan disaster in the making is coming from people who are losing out on the financial rewards of having another fUcking war to exploit.

The thing that really gets my goat tho', is how the antiwar/antiBush crowd is bending over backwards to defend Obamas idiotic behaviour because he's supposed to be a thoughtful compassionate intelligent human being as opposed to Bush's obvious 'all guns blazing' brand of idioocy.




Edited, Apr 13th 2011 8:33am by paulsol
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#444 Apr 13 2011 at 4:57 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Well to be fair I supported the initial Afghan War, and supported my countries contribution to committing troops. Initially. Nearing a decade later I really don't know why we are there still. Fighting an enemy that gets stronger, simply by being there fighting them. How can you win that which is not winnable. The Iraq War I did not agree with, and still don't it was a dirty war, and I dislike Britain and America even going. Mostly based on the fact that Iraq had complied with the UN resolution (1441) allowed inspectors and provided a list of all their weaponry well before the deadline date (January 15th 2003). I support the Libyan campaign in the same light that I supported the Kosovo War. Khadaffi needs to be stopped, the same as Mislosivech was in 99. He and his upper staff should be marched infront of a UN tribunal and charged with crime against humanity. Combating a rebellion is one thing, killing innocent people because they don't like you on the way is not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#445 Apr 13 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll point out again that had Bush done what Obama just did, the screaming we'd hear from the left would be deafening.
I'll just point out that you're right. In the sense that both parties are almost always against each other. So if you put a Democrat in charge, the Republicans will bitch, moan, and scream every chance they get, and if a Republican in charge, the Democrats will do the same. So I guess what I'm getting at is that there really is no difference between the parties.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#446varusword75, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 8:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gbaji,
#447 Apr 13 2011 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Gbaji,

Quote:
I'll point out again that had Bush done what Obama just did, the screaming we'd hear from the left would be deafening.


And this is why I advocate deposing all Democrats using whatever methods are available. They really couldn't care less about any rules that impede their desired end of some socialist utopia. Until the GOP learns to be as ruthless as they are they will continually get out manouvered.


Yeah, we call that totalitarianism, bud. You also want a Christian theocracy, so I'm not really all that surprised.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#448varusword75, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 8:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#449 Apr 13 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Gomorrah.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#450varusword75, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 8:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#451 Apr 13 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Talking, whining. Six of one, half a dozen of another.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
JennockFV, Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (51)