Obama to seek congress approval

[kaz]

the only justification that the constitution gives congress to declare war is defense of the united states. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Nothing the UN did made the war legal or illegal. It was illegal because it violated the Constitution. The powers of the US military were specifically limited to "defense." Defending the American people from foreign governments like the Taliban and Libya is defense. Protecting oil supplies or attacking governments we don't like isn't. The Federal government is by the 10th Amendment prohibited from doing anything it has no authority to do. Securing oil is not an enumerated authority of the Federal government. The UN is irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

[/size][/b]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Sherri Mudderlyn is all upsetty wetty that the US ratification of the UN charter did not come complete with an abdication of our own sovereignty.

She's abdicating our authority to the UN, you're giving the Federal government authority the Constitution doesn't. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[Contumacious]

It was indeed authorized by Congress. Nothing else required to make it "legal."

Bad news Mr Dingle Berry.

Legal mean that Congress had the authority to delegate the authority. They don't.

Learn, go forth and sin no more.

.

Authorize means authorize.

Yo head-cheese, McCain is not a Founding Father.

The War Powers Resolution Fraud

.

 

[Circe]

Nothing the UN did made the war legal or illegal. It was illegal because it violated the Constitution. The powers of the US military were specifically limited to "defense." Defending the American people from foreign governments like the Taliban and Libya is defense. Protecting oil supplies or attacking governments we don't like isn't. The Federal government is by the 10th Amendment prohibited from doing anything it has no authority to do. Securing oil is not an enumerated authority of the Federal government. The UN is irrelevant.

Can you cite the line where war is limited to "defense"?

Whatever that means. We're a big country; we HAVE to drive. So we have to have oil.

So oil is important to our national interests to defend. I have no problem with making war to secure oil: we must do that.

Making war on behalf of some worthless Syrians, whatever side they happen to be on?

Not so much, no.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

When you go to war by mistake, what more is there to say? What is worse than starting a war by mistake?

Starting a war by lying is worse.

I don't believe for one moment that Bush made a "mistake."

He lied us into war and everyone knows it.

That's why Obama isn't getting his "oh, the poor Syrians!" war through --- that chicken just came home to roost.

That's true. My point was the Iraq war was proven to be (at least) a mistake.

If all our leadership has been lying all along, then we need to think on a whole new level.

Edit:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/310789-analysis-obama-s-credibility-on-line-in-reversal.html

From the other thread.

“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[Contumacious]

Nothing the UN did made the war legal or illegal. It was illegal because it violated the Constitution. The powers of the US military were specifically limited to "defense." Defending the American people from foreign governments like the Taliban and Libya is defense. Protecting oil supplies or attacking governments we don't like isn't. The Federal government is by the 10th Amendment prohibited from doing anything it has no authority to do. Securing oil is not an enumerated authority of the Federal government. The UN is irrelevant.

Can you cite the line where war is limited to "defense"?

Whatever that means. We're a big country; we HAVE to drive. So we have to have oil.

So oil is important to our national interests to defend. I have no problem with making war to secure oil: we must do that.

Making war on behalf of some worthless Syrians, whatever side they happen to be on?

Not so much, no.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

James Madison

Why the fuck can we either pay for the oil or get the enviro-nazis out of the way and explore sources in our own country?

.

 

[TooTall]

There's no need at all to do anything but let them vote.

Trajan's post above illustrates why.

You don't think anti war people ( and there are a lot of em) are going to be watching very closely ?

Of course they are..

Bottom line is the US ALREADY screwed the pooch on this issue during the Iraq/Iran war.

This is a chance for Redemption.

Iraq did use poison gas during the Iran/Iraq war. Are you suggesting that we should have taken sides with Iran? The same Iran that invaded the US Embassy and held US citizens hostage for months? I don't think so.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Sherri Mudderlyn is all upsetty wetty that the US ratification of the UN charter did not come complete with an abdication of our own sovereignty.

She's abdicating our authority to the UN, you're giving the Federal government authority the Constitution doesn't. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Wrong.

She would cede our authority to the UN. That part is true. but she's an asshole, so her opinion is irrelevant.

But our involvement was absolutely NOT Unconstitutional. Your CLAIM is baseless and pretty fucking stupid.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

[/b]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Nothing the UN did made the war legal or illegal. It was illegal because it violated the Constitution. * * * *

Horse shit.

 

[Circe]

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

James Madison

Thank you, but that line does not say we cannot legally make war for some other, ANY other reason besides "defense."

I mean, suppose we wanted to invade somebody? Oh, wait, we always want to invade somebody. That line does not speak to that issue.

Why the fuck can we either pay for the oil or get the enviro-nazis out of the way and explore sources in our own country?

We always pay for the oil!!!!!!!!!!! We are the richest country in the world by FAR, and paying is just not the problem!

Also, we are fracking and importing shale oil from Canada and bid fair to suddenly, unexpectedly, possibly becoming an oil EXPORTER again ------------

But in the meantime, our oil is under their stupid sand, and I say if we want it they would do real, real well not to try to deny it to us. I have kept a lot of horses in my time and the idea of going back to horses for transport is not one I favor. Oil is well worth a war.

But that is not what is going on with Syria.

The Syria thing is just not worth getting mixed up in.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Bad news Mr Dingle Berry.

Legal mean that Congress had the authority to delegate the authority. They don't.

Learn, go forth and sin no more.

.

Authorize means authorize.

Yo head-cheese, McCain is not a Founding Father.

The War Powers Resolution Fraud

.

Yo, dick cheese: I never said, suggested, implied or believed that he was.

McCain has nothing to do with this conversation you diseased sub moron asshole.

You are an abject idiot.

The authorization to use military force came from Congress. That is all that the Constitution calls for.

I cannot cure your tragic mental retardation.



,




,



;



.



,

 

[TooTall]

You don't think anti war people ( and there are a lot of em) are going to be watching very closely ?

Of course they are..

Bottom line is the US ALREADY screwed the pooch on this issue during the Iraq/Iran war.

This is a chance for Redemption.

Bush screwed the pooch by getting the UN, an international coalition, and Congress, behind him when he invaded Iraq.

Obama is redeeming us by openly saying that, since the UN disagrees with him, he doesn't need them, nor does he need Congress, and he won't even lead from behind like he did in Libya, he will just act because, despite the fact that no nation has ever acted in the past when chemical weapons were used, we have to do it because history demands it.

Sorry, I got lost trying to figure that one out, can you explain it?

Assad kills over 100,000 men, women and children with guns and bombs and not a word from the White House. Then he kills 1400 with gas and Obama goes ballistic. They are all just as dead. Why not wait until he kills another 98,000 with gas?

 

[Synthaholic]

true

False. They were not war resolutions.

How strange, I didn't say they were. I guess that means you are lying.

Then you were being dishonestly vague in replying to care4all.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Synthaholic]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

The UN Charter doesn't matter at all and no power pays any attention to it. Russia invading Georgia, for one of many, many instances. The 1967 Israeli/Arab war, for another.

There is no law without enforcement, and international law cannot have any enforcement, because there is no enforcing power above all the sovereign nationstates, so that's that.

As for whether it was illegal under OUR law, which is all that matters, probably not since Congress approved it, though Congress did not vote a Declaration. So I'm not sure. I'd a lot rather see Declaration, but it never happens anymore, and yet we still have wars, so what does "legal" MEAN in that context?

Not much, probably.

When you go to war by mistake, what more is there to say? What is worse than starting a war by mistake?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Since Sherri Mudderylyn, is worried about the alleged illegality of US action (as laughably calculated by reference to the UN Charter), I think we need to allow the other members of the fucking UN to invite us out:

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be' expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

-- The Avalon Project : United Nations Charter; June 26, 1945

Too bad, in this particular case, that we have a veto over any such Security Council "recommendation."

Otherwise, for as long as we have to be in that shit hole organization of international scum, we NEED to be able to veto the shit out of security council resolutions.

 

[Synthaholic]

You don't think anti war people ( and there are a lot of em) are going to be watching very closely ?

Of course they are..

Bottom line is the US ALREADY screwed the pooch on this issue during the Iraq/Iran war.

This is a chance for Redemption.

Iraq did use poison gas during the Iran/Iraq war. Are you suggesting that we should have taken sides with Iran? The same Iran that invaded the US Embassy and held US citizens hostage for months? I don't think so.

How about staying the fuck out of it to begin with?

Short of that, how about Reagan letting Saddam know that there would be serious repercussions if he used chemical weapons, instead of actually helping Saddam to achieve his chemical weapons attacks?

 

[Synthaholic]

Since Sherri Mudderylyn, is worried about the alleged illegality of US action (as laughably calculated by reference to the UN Charter), I think we need to allow the other members of the fucking UN to invite us out:

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be' expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

-- The Avalon Project : United Nations Charter; June 26, 1945

Too bad, in this particular case, that we have a veto over any such Security Council "recommendation."

Otherwise, for as long as we have to be in that shit hole organization of international scum, we NEED to be able to veto the shit out of security council resolutions.

Does anyone have a Spittle-to-English dictionary?

 

[kaz]

Nothing the UN did made the war legal or illegal. It was illegal because it violated the Constitution. The powers of the US military were specifically limited to "defense." Defending the American people from foreign governments like the Taliban and Libya is defense. Protecting oil supplies or attacking governments we don't like isn't. The Federal government is by the 10th Amendment prohibited from doing anything it has no authority to do. Securing oil is not an enumerated authority of the Federal government. The UN is irrelevant.

Can you cite the line where war is limited to "defense"?

Whatever that means. We're a big country; we HAVE to drive. So we have to have oil.

So oil is important to our national interests to defend. I have no problem with making war to secure oil: we must do that.

Making war on behalf of some worthless Syrians, whatever side they happen to be on?

Not so much, no.

That isn't how the Constitution works. It doesn't say the Federal government can do anything except that which is prohibited, it says it can't do anything other than that which is granted.

Defense of the American people is granted. Nothing else militarily is. They didn't think it was necessary to say all the things the military couldn't do, they thought it was sufficient to say the military is there to defend the United States.

As for US interest, I used to buy that line too. But eventually you have to start to realize we aren't serving our interest. We should be exploring and developing energy at home and buying it on the open market. We aren't policeman to the world and it's not our job to secure energy for Europe or Japan and it's not our job to prop up tin pot dictators in the middle east. And it's not in our true interest to do any of that either.

 

[kaz]

Why the fuck can we either pay for the oil or get the enviro-nazis out of the way and explore sources in our own country?

.

We're on the verge of energy independence with horizontal fracking and the left are fighting that too. That's after fighting nuclear, which is the only zero emissions energy. They block exploration. They fight even clean burning coal plants because it's "coal."

I wish they were just fracking nuts, but they clearly wish to harm the United States. Though in fairness that's the leaders, most of the sheep who vote for them just don't analyze what they are told critically.

 

[Kondor3]

This is the best decision Obama has ever made as President.

Correction...

This is the Best Use of an Escape Hatch After Making a Very Bad Decision that Obama has ever made as President.

All fixed...