Kryzbyn wrote: ewan cummins 325 wrote: Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Yay! He's a kinder, gentler, more transparent invader of oil-rich Arabic countries!
Yup. And he's not Bush. So its ok. Yup. Many of those 'anti-war' people were really just 'anti-Bush.' It was never about principles for them, only an excuse to attack Bush.
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Kryzbyn wrote: ewan cummins 325 wrote: Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Yay! He's a kinder, gentler, more transparent invader of oil-rich Arabic countries!
Yup. And he's not Bush. So its ok. Yup. Many of those 'anti-war' people were really just 'anti-Bush.' It was never about principles for them, only an excuse to attack Bush.
And they gave the rest of us a bad name.
Sanakht Inaros wrote: The mandate doesn't have to come from Congress. Yes it does. Only Congress may declare war. The Constitution says so. Do you have a copy? Look it up if you don't believe me.
The UN may not declare war on behalf of Congress. It may ASK the United States to go to war, but Congress still has to approve that. Nothing in the UN Charter that would contradict any part of the US Constitution is binding upon the US. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void- or do you reject that legal principle?
Sanakht Inaros wrote: And they gave the rest of us a bad name. I don't doubt that there were people who were honestly anti-war for reasons of conscience. There were also hypocrites like Obama and Clinton.
iirc, he can do whatever he wants for 90 days with our military. After that he needs Congress' approval for further funding.
If it's an actual war declaration, then COngress has to vote to approve a formal declaration.
EDIT: There's alot he can do under the power of his office without Congress. It's a two-edged sword.
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote: The mandate doesn't have to come from Congress. Yes it does. Only Congress may declare war. The Constitution says so. Do you have a copy? Look it up if you don't believe me.
The UN may not declare war on behalf of Congress. It may ASK the United States to go to war, but Congress still has to approve that. Nothing in the UN Charter that would contradict any part of the US Constitution is binding upon the US. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void- or do you reject that legal principle?
You silly rules-lawyer. Don't you understand that the rest of us are old school GMs. We make the rules up as we go. Things like Constitutions are just "rule suggestions". Silly metagamer.
Kryzbyn wrote: iirc, he can do whatever he wants for 90 days with our military. After that he needs Congress' approval for further funding.
If it's an actual war declaration, then COngress has to vote to approve a formal declaration.
Ah, the much misundertood and much abused War Powers Resolution!
Libya didn't attack us. This is not 'hitting back.'
It's an unprovoked act of war against a soveriegn state without any approval from Congress.
pres man wrote: ewan cummins 325 wrote:
You silly rules-lawyer. Don't you understand that the rest of us are old school GMs. We make the rules up as we go. Things like Constitutions are just "rule suggestions". Silly metagamer. LOL! Foolish me, for caring about things like rule of law, honor, decency, the future of the republic, etc. ;)
:0
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Kryzbyn wrote: iirc, he can do whatever he wants for 90 days with our military. After that he needs Congress' approval for further funding.
If it's an actual war declaration, then COngress has to vote to approve a formal declaration.
Ah, the much misundertood and much abused War Powers Resolution!
Libya didn't attack us. This is not 'hitting back.'
It's an unprovoked act of war against a soveriegn state without any approval from Congress. I thought that resolution allowed for when we needed to step in to avoid mass loss of life quickly.
Did Clinton get OK from congress before he sent planes to Serbia?
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Andrew Tuttle wrote: Well, at least the United States is operating within and under an international mandate. It's not just "Obama's War" (although, you can of course, claim that).
Not that a group of stooges trying to fight a war makes it any less messy than when just one does.
There does seem to be some sort of international mandate going on (even the Arab League supported some sort of intervention ... of course, once missiles have been fired and folks killed the Arab League's got complaints, it seems).
They seem to want to support the no-fly zone, with no civilian casualties.
How much you know about anything really boils down to your sources, and whether you can trust your sources, huh?
-- Andy
The mandate must come from Congress- that's what's missing. IIRC he gets 90 days to use the armed forces before needing congressional approval, and that little caveat as been pretty much nothing more than a footnote since Vietnam.
Now we can claim BS on everyones sources all day, it doesn't really move the conversation forward. In fact, that is the conservative strategy regarding NPR as I see it, to label it a biased left-wing organization, and be like "SEE! Everyone's biased, so now no more complaining about how FOX news has an agenda! We all have agendas! TRUTH IS RELATIVE!"
Kryzbyn wrote: ewan cummins 325 wrote: Kryzbyn wrote: iirc, he can do whatever he wants for 90 days with our military. After that he needs Congress' approval for further funding.
If it's an actual war declaration, then COngress has to vote to approve a formal declaration.
Ah, the much misundertood and much abused War Powers Resolution!
Libya didn't attack us. This is not 'hitting back.'
It's an unprovoked act of war against a soveriegn state without any approval from Congress. I thought that resolution allowed for when we needed to step in to avoid mass loss of life quickly.
Did Clinton get OK from congress before he sent planes to Serbia? I don't recall if Clinton had approval. If he hadn't, then that was also illegal, IMO.
Let me be perfectly clear; Bush, Clinton, Obama- they are ALL wrong. All of them violated the Constitution. Both Republicans and Democrats have violated our laws- neither party has a clean record. This is not a new problem.
Obama's recent acts of war against the sovereign state of Libya are especially egregious in light of his former position on the war in Iraq (he was against it, or so he said) and his illegal bypassing of Congress.
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote: The mandate doesn't have to come from Congress. Yes it does. Only Congress may declare war. The Constitution says so. Do you have a copy? Look it up if you don't believe me.
The last declaration of war by Congress was December 1941.
That did not stop us from being involved in
*Korea
*Vietnam
*Grenada
*Ncarauga
*a few side adventures in places like Cuba, El Salvador, Chile
*Installing dictators in places like Nicaruaga, Libya, Iran,
*Two wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which were declared by Congress btw.
Undeclared wars have loopholes the size of which you could fly a Boeing through.
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote: The mandate doesn't have to come from Congress. Yes it does. Only Congress may declare war. The Constitution says so. Do you have a copy? Look it up if you don't believe me.
The UN may not declare war on behalf of Congress. Nothing in the UN Charter that would contradict any part of the US Constitution is binding upon the US. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void- or do you reject that legal principle?
I do have a copy. Very well worn.
War HAS NOT been declared. The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution for the no-fly zone. Congress was told that a no-fly zone resolution would be, for all intents and purposes and act of war. Yet, they are still debating it.
What we are currently doing, is what Congress approved when the U.N. Charter was ratified. (Chapter 7)
Obama as well as the Joint Chiefs DON'T want to be involved in this.
LazarX wrote:
The last declaration of war by Congress was December 1941.
That did not stop us from being involved in
*Korea
*Vietnam
*Grenada
*Ncarauga
*a few side adventures in places like Cuba, El Salvador, Chile
*Installing dictators in places like Nicaruaga, Libya, Iran,
*Two wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which were declared by Congress btw.
Undeclared wars have loopholes the size of which you could fly a Boeing through.
You do realize that I am agreeing with you, yes? I am not saying that we haven't fought undeclared wars- I'm saying that we OUGHT NOT TO DO SO.
Getting 'authorization' from Congress is a half-measure not actually recognized by the Constiution. Obama didn't even bother with that.
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Obama as well as the Joint Chiefs DON'T want to be involved in this.
If that is true, then I have even less respect for him. A real man, a true and loyal American, would tell the foreigners who want us to shoulder the burden for them to go pound sand. They can damn well wait until our Congress grants or denies approval. If other nations want to fight a war, which is what this is, they are welcome to do so. We aren't hindering them in any way.
I just wish we were consistent.
Preventing innocent loss of life is a just cause, wherever it may be needed.
Are we the world's police force? No. Should we sit by and let two-bit dictators slaughter their own citizens? No.
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Obama as well as the Joint Chiefs DON'T want to be involved in this.
If that is true, then I have even less respect for him. A real man, a true and loyal American, would tell the foreigners who want us to shoulder the burden for them to go pound sand. They can damn well wait until our Congress grants or denies approval. If other nations want to fight a war, which is what this is, they are welcome to do so. We aren't hindering them in any way. The UN can pass anything they want, doesn't mean the US has to be involved with its implementation. How many Chinese or Russian planes are providing air support?
Kryzbyn wrote: I just wish we were consistent.
Preventing innocent loss of life is a just cause, wherever it may be needed.
Are we the world's police force? No. Should we sit by and let two-bit dictators slaughter their own citizens? No.
+1.
There are other places that we could/should be intervening.
Sanakht Inaros wrote: Kryzbyn wrote: I just wish we were consistent.
Preventing innocent loss of life is a just cause, wherever it may be needed.
Are we the world's police force? No. Should we sit by and let two-bit dictators slaughter their own citizens? No.
+1.
There are other places that we could/should be intervening. The one thing I approve about this war is that it ISN"T an American intervention, it's a UN action in which we are partcipating with real partners instead of bannaboat nations with bribed token contributions so that Bush could claim a "colaition" to support his cowboy antics. This time Americans aren't even going to be the core ground forces.
I do hope however that whatever action is being planned is executed with more foreplanning and finesse than the Baghdad operation.
ewan cummins 325 wrote:
If you are tired, I'll take that into account.
You are entirely incorrect in your assumption that I only uphold the first ten amendments. Now that your mistaken assumption has been corrected, please refrain from mistating my position. Thank you.
I do not propose any changes to the Constitution, not at this time. I propose that our government should act within the limits of the Constitution, and not outside those limits. That is the essence of the reform I desire.
So where are they acting outside of those limits?
EDIT: (to be clear -- I am asking you, not attacking you with this question -- it is my intent to understand your position on what the country is doing illegally -- though I may provide what I consider to be evidence to the contrary of your opinion.)
pres man wrote: The UN can pass anything they want, doesn't mean the US has to be involved with its implementation. How many Chinese or Russian planes are providing air support? From what I've read, Russia and China abstained from the vote. And now Russia is undermining the U.N. Resolution. As is the AU/AL.
Obama has stated that he wants to provide only support.
Now with everyone backing out...
LazarX wrote:
The one thing I approve about this war is that it ISN"T an American intervention, it's a UN action in which we are partcipating with real partners instead of bannaboat nations with bribed token contributions so that Bush could claim a "colaition" to support his cowboy antics. This time Americans aren't even going to be the core ground forces.
I do hope however that whatever action is being planned is executed with more foreplanning and finesse than the Baghdad operation.
+1
ewan cummins 325 wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Obama as well as the Joint Chiefs DON'T want to be involved in this.
If that is true, then I have even less respect for him. A real man, a true and loyal American, would tell the foreigners who want us to shoulder the burden for them to go pound sand. They can damn well wait until our Congress grants or denies approval. If other nations want to fight a war, which is what this is, they are welcome to do so. We aren't hindering them in any way. I'm wondering where exactly the constitution requires the approval of congress to use his power as commander in chief. As stands we have a treaty agreed upon by congress with the U.N -- what the U.N. has asked of us (as a country) to do is covered under that treaty and doesn't require further action from congress to be acted on.
As far as I can tell the president has used his power as commander in chief in aid of a treaty already established made legally by the president with the aid of the senate (as required).
It doesn't require any other action by the Congress due to lack of requirement by the constitution.
Abraham spalding wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
I stopped at this point because it was no longer a statement of opinion but an outright unadulterated lie. That is a simple statement of fact. There is no way around it.
Wait, maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are talking about some web-site of his and not his television show. I watch it mainly for entertainment value but they DO NOT do what you state they do. I know what they say and what they don't say.
But, maybe it is on the web-site.
Please link to show you are not lying. I will apologize right now -- I incorrectly attributed that -- it was not Glenn Beck that stated that -- it was Louis Dobbs. I was completely in error in assigning that -- I will edit the post saying that the statement was incorrectly attributed. I blame lack of sleep for that error and again apologize. Apology accepted, and please accept mine for coming across like a boob. With that, I'm done here.
I'm all for peace and love. Some folks misbehave, and need a time-out.
Or if they just don't get it, a spanking.
Ronnie called Gadhafi (in the way-back machine, before the Television and the Interwebz delivered the "news to us") a "Mad Dog."
Here's a link, from an Israeli newsite, that proves it.
At least one "Lonely Conservative" has said so too, so it must be true (in addition to being "proven").
It's high-time someone told Gadhafi his time-out is over, and spanking-time has come.
I'm all for peace and love, but some elbows are going to be scraped (or innocent people killed) spanking him, but ... well.
Lesser of several evils.
-- Andy
Meanwhile, vital US allies are mowing down protesters in Bahrain and Yemen. And before he fell, HRC made a big show about how Mubarak was a great family friend.
"He may be a son-of-a-b&$+$, but he's our son-of-a-b+!*&."
Removed some posts and their replies. Vulgar language is not appreciated, and neither is engaging in arguments about each others' opinions.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Abraham spalding wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
I stopped at this point because it was no longer a statement of opinion but an outright unadulterated lie. That is a simple statement of fact. There is no way around it.
Wait, maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are talking about some web-site of his and not his television show. I watch it mainly for entertainment value but they DO NOT do what you state they do. I know what they say and what they don't say.
But, maybe it is on the web-site.
Please link to show you are not lying. I will apologize right now -- I incorrectly attributed that -- it was not Glenn Beck that stated that -- it was Louis Dobbs. I was completely in error in assigning that -- I will edit the post saying that the statement was incorrectly attributed. I blame lack of sleep for that error and again apologize. Apology accepted, and please accept mine for coming across like a boob. With that, I'm done here. It's no thing -- heck I misassigned blame to Glenn Beck -- I don't like him, I don't agree with several of his points/opinions/methods, but I generally respect him for trying to stay straight with what he is doing and calling his own side to task when they fall short.
Wait a second...
NPR declared an unconstitutional no-fly zone over Libya?
Evil Lincoln wrote: Wait a second...
NPR declared an unconstitutional no-fly zone over Libya?
"Totenburg" means "Death Mountain" in German I think.
Evil Lincoln wrote: NPR declared an unconstitutional no-fly zone over Libya? Naw, Bad Lincoln.
National Public Radio stands to lose significant funding to its local affiliates.
NPR can do fine, the intarwebz and all that. New distribution channels, and so on and so forth.
Words not out on local affiliates.
In other news, Gadhafi recently flipped out (... again) after protests in "his" country (Libya).
Bullets have been tossed.
-- Andy
pres man wrote:
The UN can pass anything they want, doesn't mean the US has to be involved with its implementation. How many Chinese or Russian planes are providing air support?
I agree, Pres Man.
Evil Lincoln wrote: Wait a second...
NPR declared an unconstitutional no-fly zone over Libya?
NPR unconstitutionally declared a no-fly zone over Libya. They did this because they thought that Juan Williams was hiding there.
ewan cummins 325 wrote: pres man wrote:
The UN can pass anything they want, doesn't mean the US has to be involved with its implementation. How many Chinese or Russian planes are providing air support?
I agree, Pres Man. How many Russian or Chinese planes have state of the art munitions that can minimize collateral damage?
There's a price you pay for haveing the best gear.
Abraham spalding wrote:
I'm wondering where exactly the constitution requires the approval of congress to use his power as commander in chief. As stands we have a treaty agreed upon by congress with the U.N -- what the U.N. has asked of us (as a country) to do is covered under that treaty and doesn't require further action from congress to be acted on.
As far as I can tell the president has used his power as commander in chief in aid of a treaty already established made legally by the president with the aid of the senate (as required).
It doesn't require any other action by the Congress due to lack of requirement by the constitution.
Not so, Abe. Only Congress may declare war. That is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. Attacking a soveriegn state that has not attacked us and presents no immediate threat is pretty clearly an act of agressive war. This isn't an immediate act of self-defense, not by a long shot. The treaty with the UN cannot require our government to act in a way repugnant to the Constitution- such as by going to war without Congress first approving said war. You could argue that Congress OUGHT to declare war in order to uphold a treaty obligation. That is a seperate argument. The UN may only REQUEST that we go to war- it cannot override our national sovereignty.
Kryzbyn wrote: I agree, Pres Man. How many Russian or Chinese planes have state of the art munitions that can minimize collateral damage?
There's a price you pay for haveing the best gear. Let the wealthy Arabs to whom we sold US made warplanes handle it.
This is not our fight. We need to deal with the two wars we have going on now, not needlessly involve ourselves in new wars. This is getting crazy. Obama must be Bush's bastard son, or something.
YMMV
We already have a thread for Libya, we don't need two. Thread locked.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
|
