Home› A Moving Train

"I have not made a decision"

unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
edited August 2013 in A Moving Train
Well, that's good. It isn't your decision to make, it's a decision that Congress must make. You aren't King.


http://politi.co/1498aGg
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • LosientoLosiento Posts: 282
    This is a tough call. We are talking thousands of innocent people in mass graves. Unfortunate, though they didn't act upon it and join the Middle East were trying lay down sanctions which were continually being defile by Assad. The climate is very hostile, besides I have already told you what UN inspectors will find there, that is even if they let them in.

    It is called Genocide.
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    President Bush had the support of congress to remove sadamn.

    This one...he will not get support.

    ...he will spit on the Constitution again.
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    Losiento wrote:
    This is a tough call. We are talking thousands of innocent people in mass graves. Unfortunate, though they didn't act upon it and join the Middle East were trying lay down sanctions which were continually being defile by Assad. The climate is very hostile, besides I have already told you what UN inspectors will find there, that is even if they let them in.

    It is called Genocide.
    Even if congress approves, we don't know who used chemicals and likely never will.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    unsung wrote:
    Well, that's good. It isn't your decision to make, it's a decision that Congress must make. You aren't King.


    http://politi.co/1498aGg

    Yes. If he doesn't go to Congress he must think he's king. Something that hasn't been done since Pearl Harbor. Having said that, I do want him to go to Congress because the GOP is blood thirsty for impeachment.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    funny thing is under a white president the gop would be all in favor of attacking.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    funny thing is under a white president the gop would be all in favor of attacking.

    I'm not seeing race being a factor in this one. It could be any Democrat in office and they'd still be doing the same thing. Who can forget the millions of dollars wasted on the Clinton impeachment? They are sharks in the water and just looking for the slightest drop of blood to attack.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 9,475
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    funny thing is under a white president the gop would be all in favor of attacking.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    funny thing is under a white president the gop would be all in favor of attacking.



    Yeah that why those white GOP senators McCain and graham are only pretending to want to get involved.
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    ...ovama would not have wom the election without whiteys vote
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    unsung wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    funny thing is under a white president the gop would be all in favor of attacking.



    Yeah that why those white GOP senators McCain and graham are only pretending to want to get involved.
    if romney were president we would have gone in immediately.

    bank on it.

    these guys are gonna oppose it if obama wants to go in, and they will call him a coward and terrible leader if he doesn't. the man can not win with these dickheads in congress.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    ledvedderman wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    funny thing is under a white president the gop would be all in favor of attacking.

    I'm not seeing race being a factor in this one. It could be any Democrat in office and they'd still be doing the same thing. Who can forget the millions of dollars wasted on the Clinton impeachment? They are sharks in the water and just looking for the slightest drop of blood to attack.
    race has been a factor in everything the gop has done in the last 2 terms.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    What about this guy?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbdXSrM0m9w

    :D
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I don't care who is President, and I don't care what party has the office. NO President is authorized to conduct military attacks without Congressional approval. We are not under any threat that time would be an issue. Just like Libya, any attack without approval is ILLEGAL.

    Stop pointing fingers at the GOP especially when you are doing the EXACT same thing.

    Whatever happened to the anti-war left? Oh it's ok cause it is your guy. You are no different than those you criticize. Don't worry, the Libertarians and Constitutionalists are coming.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    race has been a factor in everything the gop has done in the last 2 terms.
    The election race, that is.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Posts: 20,299
    ajedigecko wrote:
    President Bush had the support of congress to remove sadamn.

    This one...he will not get support.

    ...he will spit on the Constitution again.

    LOL....how did he get support? Do you remember?
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,139
    ajedigecko wrote:
    President Bush had the support of congress to remove sadamn.

    This one...he will not get support.

    ...he will spit on the Constitution again.


    The last war Congress declared was World War II. Everything since—Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq (again!) and Libya—has been fought with something less than a full-throated declaration of war by the U.S. Congress

    [ :nono: name-calling removed by Admin. See Posting Guidelines.]
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    unsung wrote:
    I don't care who is President, and I don't care what party has the office. NO President is authorized to conduct military attacks without Congressional approval. We are not under any threat that time would be an issue. Just like Libya, any attack without approval is ILLEGAL.

    Stop pointing fingers at the GOP especially when you are doing the EXACT same thing.

    Whatever happened to the anti-war left? Oh it's ok cause it is your guy. You are no different than those you criticize. Don't worry, the Libertarians and Constitutionalists are coming.

    Who is pointing fingers? I'm sorry, but it looks like you at the left. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I'm against intervention.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    unsung wrote:
    I don't care who is President, and I don't care what party has the office. NO President is authorized to conduct military attacks without Congressional approval. We are not under any threat that time would be an issue. Just like Libya, any attack without approval is ILLEGAL.

    Stop pointing fingers at the GOP especially when you are doing the EXACT same thing.

    Whatever happened to the anti-war left? Oh it's ok cause it is your guy. You are no different than those you criticize. Don't worry, the Libertarians and Constitutionalists are coming.
    i am sick of fighting fucking wars. i am sick of protesting. it gets us nowhere. the warmongering in both parties has broken me.

    i am anti war. i am against any intervention at any time.

    you can not be anti war and support military action. no matter who the president is.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    why can't we take care of our own people for once?

    we can't get a universal health insurance system, but we can sure as fuck pay for a stealth bomber or 15, and then rebuild what we blow up.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    to me obama is worse than bush regarding war.

    bush laid out his case, even though it was all a lie.

    obama has done no such thing.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    satansbed wrote:
    ajedigecko wrote:
    President Bush had the support of congress to remove sadamn.

    This one...he will not get support.

    ...he will spit on the Constitution again.


    The last war Congress declared was World War II. Everything since—Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq (again!) and Libya—has been fought with something less than a full-throated declaration of war by the U.S. Congress

    Really?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    this is what happens when you play world cop. you have to either help everyone all of the time, or help nobody.

    what message is it sending to places like egypt and the occupied territories when we say war is an option in syria but nowhere else??

    you can not interfere in a civil war without helping the rebels and harming the syrian regime. if we strike we are taking sides with the rebels.

    seems that nobody has learned this lesson...only overthrow your government when you know you can. the rebels can't finish the job without help from other countries.

    it sounds cold, and i guess it is. but if you start a civil war that you can't finish, that is on you and your side. not ours. it is nobody else's fault but your own.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I agree with that. It should also be said that arming the rebels is arming al-Qaeda. I thought they were our enemy.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    unsung wrote:
    I agree with that. It should also be said that arming the rebels is arming al-Qaeda. I thought they were our enemy.
    i thought that too.

    i don't know who to believe anymore.

    and that to me is the most distressing part of all of this.

    we are about to blow up a country and interfere in their internal fight, and all the media wants to talk about is miley cyrus rubbing her ass on everything.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i am sick of fighting fucking wars. i am sick of protesting. it gets us nowhere. the warmongering in both parties has broken me.

    i am anti war. i am against any intervention at any time.

    you can not be anti war and support military action. no matter who the president is.

    I'm not anti-war because sometimes some wars are necessary.

    I am anti unnecessary war and this just SCREAMS unnecessary. Regardless of who is in the White House there is no reason to involve ourselves in this.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    what does the president or congress have to do with this?
    the US will do whatever israel wants us to do

    decision made
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    satansbed wrote:
    ajedigecko wrote:
    President Bush had the support of congress to remove sadamn.

    This one...he will not get support.

    ...he will spit on the Constitution again.


    The last war Congress declared was World War II. Everything since—Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq (again!) and Libya—has been fought with something less than a full-throated declaration of war by the U.S. Congress


    Bush had their support...informally.

    He and congress could not wait 10 months to act - formally.
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,139
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    this is what happens when you play world cop. you have to either help everyone all of the time, or help nobody.

    what message is it sending to places like egypt and the occupied territories when we say war is an option in syria but nowhere else??

    you can not interfere in a civil war without helping the rebels and harming the syrian regime. if we strike we are taking sides with the rebels.

    seems that nobody has learned this lesson...only overthrow your government when you know you can. the rebels can't finish the job without help from other countries.

    it sounds cold, and i guess it is. but if you start a civil war that you can't finish, that is on you and your side. not ours. it is nobody else's fault but your own.

    But it's not about helping the rebels, if obama wanted to do that there would have been action when this all kicked off. its about punishing assad for using chemical weapons

    i posted this elsewhere but i feel its a good take on why action should be taken.

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... 8138828%7C


    also it's not going to be war.

    and it's not going to be just the U.S.A
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    if we strike, we make ourselves targets. again...

    nobody remembers why 9/11 happened i guess.

    and no it was not about them hating us for our freedom...

    :fp:
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    satansbed wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    this is what happens when you play world cop. you have to either help everyone all of the time, or help nobody.

    what message is it sending to places like egypt and the occupied territories when we say war is an option in syria but nowhere else??

    you can not interfere in a civil war without helping the rebels and harming the syrian regime. if we strike we are taking sides with the rebels.

    seems that nobody has learned this lesson...only overthrow your government when you know you can. the rebels can't finish the job without help from other countries.

    it sounds cold, and i guess it is. but if you start a civil war that you can't finish, that is on you and your side. not ours. it is nobody else's fault but your own.

    But it's not about helping the rebels, if obama wanted to do that there would have been action when this all kicked off. its about punishing assad for using chemical weapons

    i posted this elsewhere but i feel its a good take on why action should be taken.

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... 8138828%7C


    also it's not going to be war.

    and it's not going to be just the U.S.A
    if it is about punishing assad, then the international community needs to be involved. but russia will use its veto at the un. we will feel like the rest of the world feels every time the US uses its UN veto power to protect israel in spite of the world consensus....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Sign In or Register to comment.