Obama and the Military

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

matters not to me what you think. the war was the wrong decision. how much money did we waste again? and what is it exactly that we accomplished? our troops are still dying in that place, so yeah we won :roll:

Well, if it was the wrong decision, it was the wrong decision on both sides of the aisle. Unlike Libya, which Congress knew nothing about.

Barry broke the law.

Godfather. wrote:

"
"I don't usually respond to you Gimme, because, and don't take this personally, you are consistently the most ill-informed individual on this board. That's not to say I don't find you entertaining, but an academic? Not so much."

from ELE.Delta

hay bro I like reading your stuff and agree with you on most issues but that honor you bestowed upon Gimmi actually belongs to me.

Godfather.

I actually don't remember posting that...

from 2006.... war powers act is different from a congressional declaration of war, which has not happened since world war II...


It's Time to Declare War on Iraq

By JEFFREY KLUGER Friday, Dec. 01, 2006


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 64,00.html


We may never know the multitude of options the Baker commission considered in preparing its recommendations for resolving the Iraq crisis, but here's one two-part strategy I'd wager no one thought of: Declare war, then get out.
The get-out part is easy for anyone who's given up on the entire enterprise as an ill-considered mess that we never should have gotten into in the first place. The declare-war part is a little harder to argue for. But the fact is, if we're ever going to get fully beyond this passage in our history — and figure out how never to make a similar mistake again — officially declaring a state of war with the sovereign nation of Iraq might be one of the most curative things we can do. After all, it's awfully hard to bring a formal end to something that never had a formal beginning.

Politicians and policy makers have burned no small amount of energy in the last half century parsing the fine, and sometimes nonexistent, shades of meaning that distinguish a police action from a conflict from a peacekeeping mission from a war. There are a lot of reasons those lines are so easy to blur, but one of the most problematic is that the U.S. Constitution — an otherwise estimable document — just dropped the ball on this one.

The true strength of the Constitution has always been tensile — the taut, almost musically tuned cables that suspend and balance the executive, legislative and judicial branches against one another. But the business of war powers has, from the beginning, been something of a flat string. Article I specifically vests Congress with the authority to declare war, but Article II designates the President as commander in chief not only of the Army and the Navy, but of the militias of the several states. That's a whole lot of power explicitly given to one person, and a whole lot that may or may not have been given to the legislature to share with him.

If the office of the President really wields absolute authority over the nation's military — and it does — then why involve Congress at all? When it comes to taking the country into combat, is the American legislature merely a symbol? A chorus? A solemnly nodding counsel of elders charged with standing behind the President when he dons battle gear?

The answer to that question may be nothing more than symbolic, but since all wars are fought as much with symbols as with steel, it's worth asking. When you're about to open up a can of hurt on somebody, there's a cleansing, tonic quality to declaring explicitly that those are your intentions. That's especially true when you were hit first — as the U.S. was on Sept. 11 or in December of 1941 — and the nation needs the lift of a good, bellicose roar. But there's more to it than that.

In the constellation of Congressional actions, a declaration of war is simply clearer, less cluttered than an authorization for war. There's a pusillanimous, don't-blame-me quality to simply giving the President the keys, inviting him to take the wheel and then tsk-tsk'ing if he wrecks the thing. War is a mortally serious business, one that is best not embarked on by granting the commander in chief a mush-mouthed authority to do that which he's empowered to do anyway. It's a little like those make-work proclamations Congress periodically busies itself issuing — declaring November Reading Readiness Month, or somesuch. It's a fine sentiment, but was the legislature really opposed to reading readiness before the measure passed?

A Congress that is more insistent about its right to declare officially when the country wades into war focuses the global and domestic minds on what's to come, not to mention its own. If you can't make a convincing case in the chambers of the House and Senate for a constitutionally proclaimed war, then perhaps we oughtn't embark on it. President George W. Bush took what was arguably undeserved heat during the 2004 campaign when, in a flash of either candor or carelessness, he conceded the point that the war on terror would not end explicitly with, say, a satisfying ceremony on the deck of a battleship during which all of the belligerents sign a peace accord.

A mere declaration of war would not have made that kind of appealing ending much likelier, but it couldn't have hurt either. Sixty-five years ago, we declared war against Japan and Germany, and we fought that one tenaciously and decisively and won it conclusively. We did not send the same message before hostilities began with either Iraq or Afghanistan, and there we drift and dither still. Now, we await commissions and coalitions to help extricate us from the shambles Iraq has become and achieve the stable state that Afghanistan could still be. Knowing what we were getting into in the beginning — and saying so out loud — might have helped spare us and the world a lot of pain.

Parachute wrote:

TIME magazine?! TIME?!!!

3 hours to come up w/ this drivel?


hahhahhhahhahha


OWNED.

COMPLETELY.

OWNED.

yeah yeah whatever. some of us work all day and can't scour the internet for things that happened in 2002. there are over 30 more but i am not going to post them for you because it would not have any bearing on your understanding of the situation..besides, they are all legal sources which would obviously go over your head. i figured time was more your reading level.

but as far as your gloating goes, you appear to be 5 years old.

Electric_Delta wrote:

It always amuses me when you hear the bleeding hearts on the left, like John Kerry, bemoaning the Iraq War when they enthusiastically supported it.

i never enthusiastically supported the iraq war, or the war in afghanistan, so you are not talking about me. i was out in the streets protesting it.

i highly doubt that anyone who was against it back then would suddenly have a hard on for it now...

Parachute wrote:

tybird wrote:

Our, humankind's, ability to wage war in a more efficient way has always out-stripped the capability of our morality to absorb or curtail its horrors. The rules of war-fare change at a very escalated rate. Our laws dictating these rules are locked in a by-gone area.

President Obama can project force (beyond ICBMs) anywhere in the world within hours, if not within minutes. President Johnson could only project force within weeks...days if the forces just happened to be near the projected target. Since WWII, the US military has grown into an true international presence with feet on the ground all around the globe. These factors were probably not considered when the War Powers Act was created.

This is why Presidents and Congress can split hairs over what is "war" and what is not. Libya, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan may all look the same to many of us, but the lawyers and policy-makers can twist and turn a bunch of $2 dollars all around and make them appear to be completely different. The law needs to reflect more of the current world, but I do not expect our leaders to change something that they can so easily manipulate to their interests.

I'm floored.

The Train is not used to coherent, eloquent thought.

Very nice.

Thank you

Godfather. wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Parachute wrote:

OCT 11, 2002:
"In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133."

Except there were no weapons of mass destruction for Saddam Hussein to 'give up'.

in the thick of it all hussein and his followers were the weapons of mass destruction.
remember chemical ali wiping out whole villeges with expermintal chemical weapons
or the torture chambers or the rapes or killing of fathers and son's...did that matter ?

Godfather.

nobody is disputing the fact that those were very bad people. we are protesting because the part about iraq being an "immediate threat to the united states" was all bullshit and based on lies and motives other than freeing the citizens of iraq.