What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[hadit]

I agree, he should have insisted on a formal declaration of war.

First of all, it was not a "war". We did not invade Iraq, plant the American flag in their soil, and placed their citizens under U.S. rule. We conducted military operations to remove a dictator and immediately handed the country over to the Iraqi people.

Second, Bush did get Congressional approval to conduct the military operations. Something Barack Obama has never done (of course - because Dumbocrats believe president = dictator).

Third, not only did Bush get Congressional approval, he then went before the UN and got UN approval.

Oh, he certainly got approval, and needed it. After Japan was defeated in WWII, we helped them rebuild and regain their sovereignty, just as we did in Iraq. My bottom line is that the president should not have the authority to unilaterally send troops into offensive combat. That power is far too easily abused.

There is some truth to that, but there is no alternative. You can't have a committee in charge. You need one person. Now, the President does require approval from Congress to wage an actual war. But for military operations, you can't have people sitting around for weeks debating when action is required. The windows of opportunity will close before a decision is made. Furthermore, what if certain factions of the military show loyalty to certain people on the committee while other factions show loyalty to other people on the committee? It would be a mess.

It is absolutely correct that one person must be in charge, there is no disputing that, and the president IS authorized to conduct the war. The only thing Congress has to do is vote on funding. It is a different matter, however, when we're talking about an offensive action like Iraq. We had weeks of debate and ultimately Congress gave approval. Since it wasn't a formal declaration of war, however, they began backpedaling and trying to claim that they didn't mean for us to do THAT. IOW, they wanted and got a loophole.

 

[P@triot]

That's what I thought. You need sleaze to peddle your bullshit, not me.

Moron...there are dozens of other publications that assert the same thing.......Here, deny THIS....

You know what is really funny? In your desperation, you fail to account for the most basic and obvious realities. And it makes you look really stupid.

I'm going to throw you a bone here sweetie - because you are desperately in need of one. Do you know how Al Qaeda got started? Do you have any idea? Oh wait....what am I saying? Of course not. You didn't even know that a chemical weapon was a WMD.

Al Qaeda got started with the CIA trained Osama Bin Laden and his people to fight the Soviets in the late 70's and early 80's. And guess what, stupid? Then they turned on us so we went into Afghanistan to kill them. That happens in the geopolitical landscape. And just like we first trained Osama Bin Laden, and then killed him because he morphed into a maniac, we supported Saddam Hussein because it was in our interests. But then we had to kill him because he became a maniac.

The problem is you are ignorant and view the world like a 4th grader. Why don't you simply let the adults talk because this is clearly way above your capacity.

 

[nat4900]

False narrative as always from little Natalie. An AR-15 is no more capable of killing "as many people as possible" than a revolver.

....Ergo.....and the above is WHY we should just give our soldiers in war zones.....a simple "revolver"...
Correct, nitwit?

(what an )

 

[nat4900]

The price of freedom is high. Live with it because you have no choice.

So, the "price of freedom" is the cost we must then bear to have terrorists within our shores, easily and readily buy military style, assault weapons........."Live with it"......????

 

[nat4900]

Don't try to get out of this. You claimed Iraq had no WMD's (because you had no fucking clue what constituted WMD's). And because you had no clue, you then posted something proving they had WMD's.

When you're ready to become a "big girl" for the first time in your life and admit you were wrong, I will gladly address your questions. Let me know when you're ready.

So, fuck head.......After we invaded and occupied Iraq.....HOW MANY of those WMDs did we find???
OOOOOOpppppps !!!!

(sorry families of 4500 American soldiers....we goofed....)

 

[P@triot]

It is absolutely correct that one person must be in charge, there is no disputing that, and the president IS authorized to conduct the war. The only thing Congress has to do is vote on funding.

That simply isn't true...

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition to that, there is the true intent of the U.S. Constitution by our founders:

But what the framers actually meant by that clause (Article II, Section 2) was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

Presidential War Powers: The Constitutional Answer

In short - the president has never had the power to declare war on someone.

 

[P@triot]

The price of freedom is high. Live with it because you have no choice.

So, the "price of freedom" is the cost we must then bear to have terrorists within our shores, easily and readily buy military style, assault weapons........."Live with it"......????

You're the people who invited and facilitated terrorists on our shores when you refused to enforce border security in hopes of getting 20 million illegal aliens into the U.S. in hopes of granting them amnesty so you would have the voters you need to win elections since you can't win clean elections.

 

[nat4900]

I'm going to throw you a bone here sweetie - because you are desperately in need of one. Do you know how Al Qaeda got started? Do you have any idea? Oh wait....what am I saying? Of course not. You didn't even know that a chemical weapon was a WMD.

Al Qaeda got started with the CIA trained Osama Bin Laden and his people to fight the Soviets in the late 70's and early 80's. And guess what, stupid? Then they turned on us so we went into Afghanistan to kill them. That happens in the geopolitical landscape. And just like we first trained Osama Bin Laden, and then killed him because he morphed into a maniac, we supported Saddam Hussein because it was in our interests. But then we had to kill him because he became a maniac.

The problem is you are ignorant and view the world like a 4th grader. Why don't you simply let the adults talk because this is clearly way above your capacity.

According to THIS moronic recap....We are simply a country of morons.....

We arm people, train them......and then we have to send our troops to die to kill exactly those we arm and train.

You've got to LOVE the simple "logic" of right wing fuckheads.....

(Never mind that we had OBL turn on us because we occupied "holy" Saudi lands....and Never mind that Saddam turned on us when we first gave him permission to invade Kuwait and when the Saudi balked at that, we had to start a wat to split Iraq into 3 parts.)

 

[Papageorgio]

The price of freedom is high. Live with it because you have no choice.

So, the "price of freedom" is the cost we must then bear to have terrorists within our shores, easily and readily buy military style, assault weapons........."Live with it"......????

It is none of your business why anyone buys assault weapons. I might buy a hundred to just collect them. as far as terrorist inside our borders. What do you suggest, take away freedoms so we "feel" safer?

 

[P@triot]

Don't try to get out of this. You claimed Iraq had no WMD's (because you had no fucking clue what constituted WMD's). And because you had no clue, you then posted something proving they had WMD's.

When you're ready to become a "big girl" for the first time in your life and admit you were wrong, I will gladly address your questions. Let me know when you're ready.

So, fuck head.......After we invaded and occupied Iraq.....HOW MANY of those WMDs did we find???
OOOOOOpppppps !!!!

(sorry families of 4500 American soldiers....we goofed....)

Sweetie...I already documented that. We found thousands of them. Thousands. Cache after cache after cache of chemical weapons. Now, when you're ready to be a big girl, calm down, and admit you were wrong, I will answer your questions (which will educate you - and you desperately need that if you're going to be discussing this stuff). I'm here for you, Natalie.

 

[nat4900]

You're the people who invited and facilitated terrorists on our shores when you refused to enforce border security in hopes of getting 20 million illegal aliens into the U.S. in hopes of granting them amnesty so you would have the voters you need to win elections since you can't win clean elections.

True, fuckhead.......So the terrorists in San Bernardino and Orlando...came across the border????

What an IDIOT !!!!

 

[hadit]

It is absolutely correct that one person must be in charge, there is no disputing that, and the president IS authorized to conduct the war. The only thing Congress has to do is vote on funding.

That simply isn't true...

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition to that, there is the true intent of the U.S. Constitution by our founders:

But what the framers actually meant by that clause (Article II, Section 2) was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

Presidential War Powers: The Constitutional Answer

In short - the president has never had the power to declare war on someone.

We are saying the same thing. CONDUCT the war =/= DECLARE the war. To be clear, the president cannot declare war, but is authorized to conduct the war once it's declared. Congress cannot conduct the war, but is authorized to declare the war.

 

[nat4900]

It is none of your business why anyone buys assault weapons. I might buy a hundred to just collect them. as far as terrorist inside our borders. What do you suggest, take away freedoms so we "feel" safer?

Fine, feel "safe" by buying 100 such weapons AND also ensure that those that want to kill your sorry ass have the same, exact, privilege........Feel better ????

(the gun manufacturers agree with you 100%)

 

[nat4900]

Sweetie...I already documented that. We found thousands of them. Thousands. Cache after cache after cache of chemical weapons. Now, when you're ready to be a big girl, calm down, and admit you were wrong, I will answer your questions (which will educate you - and you desperately need that if you're going to be discussing this stuff). I'm here for you, Natalie.

Besides the many reasons why you're a MORON......Add the fact that you're trying to debate a 70 year old MALE who fought in Vietnam....but who has NOT lost his fucking head like you morons have, LOL

(we found THOUSANDS of WMDs and that was well worth 4500 American lives, fuckhead???)

 

[P@triot]

According to THIS moronic recap....We are simply a country of morons.....

Well....truth be told....we are. See, we have a cancer called "liberals" in this nation. And liberals are the epitome of "moron". They believe that every action occurs in a vacuum. They are too stupid to realize that every action creates a ripple effect of chain reactions.

We arm people, train them......and then we have to send our troops to die to kill exactly those we arm and train. You've got to LOVE the simple "logic" of right wing fuckheads..... Never mind that we had OBL turn on us because we occupied "holy" Saudi lands....and Never mind that Saddam turned on us when we first gave him permission to invade Kuwait and when the Saudi balked at that, we had to start a wat to split Iraq into 3 parts.

That simply isn't true. But I wouldn't expect you to know better. You've already illustrated that you don't understand anything about U.S. history or politics. We never "occupied" land in Saudi Arabia. What we did was use Saudi territory to launch U.S. operations in the Gulf War. But that was at the invite of the Saudi Arabian government. They invited us to use territory. If Bin Laden wasn't an unhinged maniac, he would have directed his anger at the Saudi's as they were the one's who facilitated the U.S. being in the country. We did not invade. We did not occupy.

See....what you did just now was quickly Google why Bin Laden turned on us (you didn't even know that we had trained him) and then you clicked on the first link from a libtard source that you love. And as usual, you got the propaganda they spoon feed you idiot minions to make you believe the U.S. is to blame.

 

[P@triot]

Sweetie...I already documented that. We found thousands of them. Thousands. Cache after cache after cache of chemical weapons. Now, when you're ready to be a big girl, calm down, and admit you were wrong, I will answer your questions (which will educate you - and you desperately need that if you're going to be discussing this stuff). I'm here for you, Natalie.

Besides the many reasons why you're a MORON......Add the fact that you're trying to debate a 70 year old MALE who fought in Vietnam....but who has NOT lost his fucking head like you morons have, LOL

(we found THOUSANDS of WMDs and that was well worth 4500 American lives, fuckhead???)

Ah.....so now it all comes out. You're angry because of Vietnam. Well, I can understand that. It was a bullshit war and you guys were hung out to dry. But remember, it was the Dumbocrats who did that to you. LBJ manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident and sent you guys in there and then refused to win the war.

The fact that you're not only clueless about the geopolitical landscape, but that you also blame Republican's for Dumbocrats sending you into Vietnam speaks volumes.

 

[P@triot]

we found THOUSANDS of WMDs and that was well worth 4500 American lives, fuckhead???

Actually....yes. Each and every one of those fine American's signed up of their own free will. They were not drafted like Vietnam. They knew what they were getting into. Not one of them whined like a little bitch. So why are you? Freedom isn't free at all. It comes at a price.

Second....we didn't risk American lives for the WMD's. We risked the American lives to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. It was one of the best things the U.S. has ever done. It is cowards like you that allowed Adolf Hitler to march through the world costing 12 million lives because you people didn't have the backbone or the foresight to realize that stopping him before he got started was wiser. It is cowards like you that allowed Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to crash planes in the U.S., costing 3,000 lives because you people didn't have the backbone or the foresight to realize that stopping him before he got started was wiser. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We lost 4,500 lives in Iraq. We saved millions. It was a great deal. Maybe the best deal in U.S. history. Let the adults speak now Natalie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sweetie...I already documented that. We found thousands of them. Thousands. Cache after cache after cache of chemical weapons. Now, when you're ready to be a big girl, calm down, and admit you were wrong, I will answer your questions (which will educate you - and you desperately need that if you're going to be discussing this stuff). I'm here for you, Natalie.

Besides the many reasons why you're a MORON......Add the fact that you're trying to debate a 70 year old MALE who fought in Vietnam....but who has NOT lost his fucking head like you morons have, LOL

(we found THOUSANDS of WMDs and that was well worth 4500 American lives, fuckhead???)

Ah.....so now it all comes out. You're angry because of Vietnam. Well, I can understand that. It was a bullshit war and you guys were hung out to dry. But remember, it was the Dumbocrats who did that to you. LBJ manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident and sent you guys in there and then refused to win the war.

The fact that you're not only clueless about the geopolitical landscape, but that you also blame Republican's for Dumbocrats sending you into Vietnam speaks volumes.

It's the brain damage.

 

[2aguy]

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

Wrong....over 3,000 Americans died because clinton allowed muslim terrorists to fester and grow in power.....sadaam had been in violation of every part of the cease fire agreement he had signed.....and was funding terrorist groups around the world......allowing him to continue to be a problem would have been a mistake....

Bush's biggest mistake...going to war with democrats behind him...because as soon as the war began, they started undermining the effort.....

I agree, he should have insisted on a formal declaration of war.

He had a use of force decree backed by both democrats and Republicans....the constitution does not specify the exact wording for going to war.......and even if they wrote it on parchment, the democrats were going to turn on this country as soon as the first shot was fired anyway....

 

[2aguy]

Who are you to decide why or what a person buys? It was a sarcastic comment based on liberals trying to control things that are not their business. It seems that when you got nothing you jump to name calling, which is often.

Fine.......Just know that it is YOUR ilk that is making the purchase of military weapons to would be terrorists both LEGAL and READILY available............Live with it.

No.....you can't sell any gun to a convicted felon...which an actual terrorist would be....but an American put on a no fly list because the U.S. air Marshals are required to put a specific number of names on the list each month....yeah...not an actual terrorist.....