You just cannot get around it!

Discussion in 'Religion' started by craigG, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. craigG

    craigG New Member

    No matter how BAD Saddam was, no matter what he did to his people, no matter how many WMD's he may or may not have had, this is an illegal war that we should not be fighting.

    Why? Simple, Congress has never declared war. Under our Constitution, that is the ONLY way we can start wars. Congress may have given Bush the power to declare war, but that is unconstitutional and shows what cowards they are. Period.

    For some reason conservatives just can't get this through their heads even though they claim to follow the Constitution, and liberal dolts think the Constitution is outdated and shouldn't be used, so forget any sensible comments from them.

    But if you have some breathtakingly wonderful reason that I'm wrong, please post it.

    CraigG
     
  2. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Face it...this is war against islamic radicalism (animals). Iraq/Afghanistan/Middle East are the front lines for this war. Congress will NEVER vote for a war against islamic jihad because they don't want to offend the muslim community.

    Tough Cookies!

    I don't care if we offend the muslim community. Many here in this country may want to stick their head in the sand and 'hope" islam doesn't show their ugly religion around them, but islam has demonstrated time in and time again what their religion is all about.

    Today, two American soldiers were tortured and murdered by islamic animals. I just hope that these soldiers didn't lose their lives because they were pressured by bleeding heart liberals (like our village idiot) to "reach out first" before defending themselves from these animals.

    Any Americans soldier should keep their gun safety off, their finger on the trigger BEFORE trusting any group of muslims who approach their checkpoint. Our military is being pressured by bleeding heart liberals to be "sensitive" to these muslim animals, all at the expense of American soldier lives and their well-being.

    I just wonder if the likes of Polosi and Murtha are responsible for forcing our military to be "sensitive" to these people instead of hunting down and killing these islamic animals.

    Hesitation in WAR is deadly...unfortunately, that is what liberals want our soldiers to do which is hestitate, reach out, and understand these people INSTEAD of doing what our military is trained to do...kill bad guys and knock down their buildings.
     
  3. craigG

    craigG New Member

    Midas, I completely agree with you, but the only legal way for this war is if Congress declares it, and they haven't.
    And if Congress won't do it because they don't want to offend the muslims, vote 'em out and put in some people who don't follow the whims of terrorists and rapists and islamic animals!

    CraigG
     
  4. Midas

    Midas New Member

    It is all about "splitting hairs" with the definition of "war".

    Think about it...we have no format required for declaration(s) of war. The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War." That concept has never been tested in the US Court system.

    Remember the War Powers Act of 1973? That act may be viewed as unconstitutional because it limits the powers of the president to "protect and defend" the United States. But with Vietnam, Nixon's impeachment, a democratic congress...you do the math!

    We called the Korean War a "police action" and since then, we tried to sugar coat the use of our military with terms like "military action" or "armed response." This was most notably used by the United States in its war in Vietnam. Anybody with a brain knew it was a war, but politics trumped logic because we have to make bleeding hearts "feel good".

    Not declaring war provides a way to circumvent constitutional safeguards against the executive declaring war, and also, in some cases, to avoid feeling bound by the established laws of war. Not using the word "war" is also seen as being more public relations-friendly. For these reasons, they have generally ceased to issue declarations of war, instead describing their actions by euphemisms such as "police action" or "authorized use of force."

    I say, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
     
  5. craigG

    craigG New Member

    "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." then it's probably the duck that is Pres. Bush's main advisor.:D

    Oh, it's definitely a war, but one that Congress didn't declare. Like I said.

    And I would be absolutely OK with this war if Congress had made a declaration of war, but they didn't.

    CraigG
     
  6. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    OK Craig lets look at it logicaly if your congress were to go ahead and declare a war WHO would they declair it against?? You are at peace with the Goverment of Iraq :p If you wish to be totaly legal then you need to serve notice on your oponent that a state of war exists Um wonder where Bin Boy is hidding today :p Dont forget the Invasion was due to Sadam not complying with UN resolutions and we are now there at the behest of the Iraq Goverment to help stabalise the country until they are able to proceed on there own. UM so therefore what war are you talking about?? LOL

    De Orc :kewl:
     
  7. Midas

    Midas New Member

    I seriously doubt you will ever see Congress officially declare any war (i.e., December 8th, 1941 after the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor). There are just too many legislators (yes, even many republicans) who are afraid of that word of "war" associated with their namesake.

    This is why a president needs to lead and "damn" the critics. After all, if we had the same liberal critics you see today back when we fought World War II, we would have LOST! Could you imagine the bleeding hearts marching on Washington protesting the war with Germany!?! After all Germany didn't attack us on December 7th (except in the movie Animal House), the Japs did!

    "Wrong war, wrong place" would have been their chants. Thank God, most Americans told these losers where to go!
     
  8. craigG

    craigG New Member

    Um, De Orc, apparently you don't understand what I'm saying. Congress should have declared war on Iraq back in 2003 if we were going to fight them legally.

    And just because puddinheads in Congress won't declare war doesn't mean the President can break the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

    CraigG
     
  9. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    As a point of interest does it actualy say that the President can not invade another country without congress declaring it a war?

    De Orc
     
  10. craigG

    craigG New Member

    Section 8 goes into what powers the Congress has, and includes:
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    CraigG
     
  11. Midas

    Midas New Member

    I am assuming you are referring "it" to the US Constitution. To answer your question, it does NOT.

    Otherwise, as Americans and our allies are being killed, it allows our President to act, instead of waiting for Congress to do something!

    Here's what it says...however, one may read it differantly than the next person which leads to constitutional debate!

    ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

    The Congress shall have Power:

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

    ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

    Remember, "police actions" and "military response" are not defined as "war" and hence, this is how you skirt around the issue!
     
  12. craigG

    craigG New Member

    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." also from the Constitution. Well, there goes our wonderful democracy!

    Midas, no debate is necessary. The Constitution doesn't say he can do it, so he can't. Simple.

    CraigG
     
  13. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Remember, we have a republic (to which it stands). We never had a true form of democracy where everybody can vote on every issue and on every bill.
    Well, they aren't doing their job aren't they? You can look no further than our southern borders. It is an invasion, indeed! I can make the argument that their failure to protect this country and its legal citizens is in fact UNconstitutional and ILLEGAL!
     
  14. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    Removed as it was a 'double' post
     
  15. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    Not quite so simple Craig. The Constitution does allow and directs Congress to make and pass laws which allow them to do some fairly strange things. All legal and within the frame work of the Constitution.

    Were you aware of the fact that the United States hasn't actually declaired ANY war since doing so on June 5, 1942 after already being at war with Japan. It was called WWII, remember?

    Then like Pres. Harry Truman did with the so called Korean War. This so called war was never autherized by Congress either, but was authorized under the United Nations resolutions. It was called a "Task Force" operation, never a war. Remember?

    So ever since WWII all Military Engagements (remember NOT WARS) have been authorized by Congress, reguardless of what you believe. Here are examples;
    1. Operation Enduring Freedom a.k.a. Invasion of Afiganistan. Senate Joint Resolution, Sept 18, 2001 with the Senate voting 98 to 0, and the House voting 420 to1 in favor.
    2. Operation Iraqi Freedom a.k.a. Iraqi War. Initial authorization by House Joint Resolution 114 on Oct. 16, 2002. Senate vote 77 to 23, and House vote 296 to 133 in favor.

    I don't think these matters are ever quite as simple as most people think they are, but never forget, you are one of the people who elected the ones who are in there passing these laws and carrying out the decisions. They are yourselfs in the mirror, so be careful of how you complain. Have a nice day!:high5:
     
  16. bqcoins

    bqcoins New Member

    However, now we are in Iraq at the request of the iraqi government to quell the insurgency that has imported itself into Iraq. In fact we are protecting the new Iraqi government from foreigners and their sympathetic comrades from destabilizing the fledgling democracy. Forget what is and isn't constitutional, think about what is RIGHT.
     
  17. craigG

    craigG New Member

    Lol, I didn't elect any of them as I didn't vote for any of them.

    I am quite aware that we haven't fought any declared wars since WWII. We haven't won any of them either. See the pattern?

    You can say Afghanistan was won, but there's still resistance, and the way that government acts it might as well be just another muslim nation.

    I hadn't thought about your first point. Maybe you're right...

    CraigG
     
  18. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Wow! The reason we are in Iraq just keeps changing and changing and now we are there because they asked us to be there. When we entered Iraq the current government didn't exist so how did they ASK US to be there? Kool-Aid for everybody! :headbang:
     
  19. craigG

    craigG New Member

    Strawberry Kool-Aid?! Yuck, isn't there any grape?

    So,
    1st, it's WMD's
    2nd, it's Saddam's evil oppressive terrorist regime
    3rd, it's to help keep the government going
    4th, ... and it goes on forever, at least until we run out of Americans to kill. Disgusting...
    Even worse is that our soldiers are handicapped and criticised just for doing their jobs.

    That Haditha massacre? Big deal! It serves those Iraqis right for getting in the way.

    How the hell do they expect us to keep the peace in their damn country if they keep hugging in the terrorists just as we shoot?!

    And if they want to lug along their babies who'll just grow up into terrorists, fine! Shoot 'em all then.

    And if Danr thinks this is genocide he's nuts, and he might want to look up the definition of genocide.
    "Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group" not a few fools who can't avoid a couple 5.56 MM bullets.

    Heck no, I don't advocate genocide of the "Radical Extremist Islamic Muslim types who want to kill any infidels", I advocate complete liquidation, extinction, and annihilation of ALL OF THEM.

    And if the peaceful wonderful loving other Muslims would like to avoid it, fine. Just let them declare their support of us and anger and nonapproval of the REIM ones.
    Has that ever happened? Just about never, except for 1 or 2.

    Guess those were the only ones, OK nuke all the others. You hardly ever hear of muslims condemning this kind of stuff, because they like it, just as Midas has said about 50 gazillion times.

    And if you think I'm wrong then you're just a Nazi and an Extremist unpatriotic left wing wacko.
    No actually, that is a liberal tactic used by the likes of Danr and Moen.
    If you disagree with me that's perfectly fine, and to be expected. In fact, who cares as long as most people think like me and then make our government do it?

    Oh, all the liberals are controlling our country tho', so that's out. Doggone it!

    CraigG
     
  20. Old Silver

    Old Silver New Member

    Amen! :high5:
     

Share This Page