Congressional Authorization

so is that what you people are waiting for ?

for Obama to craft a bunch of fucking lies about Syria so you don't have to do it for a flimsy reason like children being gassed to death?
 
Article One Section 8, United States Constitution. Only the Congress has the authority to declare war. There’s no constitutional authority for any President ever, anywhere to commit America’s military forces into actions without “FIRST” receiving a “Declaration Of War” from the Congress.

The “War Powers Act” is not constitutional. Such legislation constitutionally would require a constitutional amendment that was never even attempted.
 
evince said:
whos declaring war?
Click to expand...

Nobody in America has since 1945. That's the fucking problem numb-skull. Cowardly Congresses allow idiot Presidents to kill off our youth in unconstitutional wars without a "Declaration" from a Congress.
 
/k/ said:
Oh, this will be good. What 'lessons' should we have taken from Vietnam?
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh, that we suck ass at insurgent, guerrilla type warfare? That fighting war with small units(what did they call them? Search and destroy?) leads to only stalemate and loss?

Tell me if we used that in WWII?
 
It would be nice to see England, France, and Italy deal with this. This is more in their back yard than ours.
 
Since someone had to go PC, OCA is correct - Bush is a moron.

Now, the rest of his argument is weak, but I think he's being facetious, anyway.
 
OCA said:
I'm for staying out of it all together but if he is hell bent on going ahead then Repubs have zero leg to stand on if they do decide, which it looks like they will, to fight him.
Click to expand...

It's kind of odd, isn't it? It's like the ACA - repubs were for mandates until Obama was for them and then repubs turned against them.

I could swear all the saber-rattling going on over the time of the Syria civil war has been from republicans - neo-cons wanting to arm the rebels... but now they're against doing anything?

I agree, I would prefer we stay out of it all together. I wish Obama hadn't made the comments re chemical weapons that he did.

If we do feel the need to "do something", I hope the options are thoroughly vetted out with the possible consequences of each option. If we throw a few missiles at some strategic targets - what will Russia do? What will Iran do? Will we be dragged in deeper?

If we can do something that says "stop it already with the chemical weapons" but that doesn't get us further involved, I still wouldn't be thrilled with it, but wouldn't be way upset.
 
OCA said:
Congress gave the retarded cowboy from Crawford approval to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy so now they balk when kids are being gassed? Personally I think its none of our business and there are no American interests at stake in Syria but neither was there in Iraq so they need to go ahead and give Barack the green light in all fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-strikes/
Click to expand...

Things like this is why the UN was created. Sense we were not attacked, let the UN decide.
 
Liberty said:
Things like this is why the UN was created. Sense we were not attacked, let the UN decide.
Click to expand...

I really wish that what i'm about to say weren't true but the U.N. is about as useless as tits on a boar.

My big fear is that this drags Iran into the picture and America can't handle a million Iranians, they will destroy us.
 
OCA said:
I really wish that what i'm about to say weren't true but the U.N. is about as useless as tits on a boar.

My big fear is that this drags Iran into the picture and America can't handle a million Iranians, they will destroy us.
Click to expand...

naw, they won't destroy us. But they would cost us a lot of money and we might have to resort to bombs we really don't want to use.

They might destroy Israel though

And fighting Iran would be hugely destabilizing to the whole area.
 
tekkychick said:
naw, they won't destroy us. But they would cost us a lot of money and we might have to resort to bombs we really don't want to use.

They might destroy Israel though

And fighting Iran would be hugely destabilizing to the whole area.
Click to expand...

America doesn't have the gumption to do what it takes to win war anymore, Iran would, they are freaking fanatical, heck they fought an 8 yr trench/chem war with Saddam, never backed down.
 
OCA said:
Congress gave the retarded cowboy from Crawford approval to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy so now they balk when kids are being gassed? Personally I think its none of our business and there are no American interests at stake in Syria but neither was there in Iraq so they need to go ahead and give Barack the green light in all fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-strikes/
Click to expand...

70% of the senators that were in office when bush was in office are no longer in the senate. Theres been a lot of turnover, and it's a different congress now.
 
OCA said:
I'm for staying out of it all together but if he is hell bent on going ahead then Repubs have zero leg to stand on if they do decide, which it looks like they will, to fight him.
Click to expand...

war isn't a game where you get to say "but the other guy did it so I can go kill people too!"

Other things that are different:

1) Bush had 48 countries backing him, obama has pretty much nobody right now.
2) Bush also had support of 70% of the nation, whereas 60%+ of the nation is currently opposing obama.
3) As I mentioned above, there has been a lot of turnover in the senate, 70% of the senate never were in office when bush invaded iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top