Correction: they have not declared war in the same manner as before WWII, since. The advent of atomic weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles changed things. The USA will never declare war in that way again.Trip wrote:No, the US has not declared war since WWII.
Mark Klein is my Hero!
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Indeed correct.Trip wrote:No, the US has not declared war since WWII.
Declared war in the same manner? Only the Congress can declare war, thus they have yet to declare war.Plissken wrote:Correction: they have not declared war in the same manner as before WWII, since.
Plissken wrote:The advent of atomic weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles changed things.
An invalid argument. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq did not pose a threat, less a nuclear one. Also care to note, that none of these countries attacked you.
You're an outside force disturbing the equilibrium in the entire middle east (something which you've done for the past 50 years). "You" are now conducting an illegal war of aggression...a well known fact. (no offence)
Last edited by walle on Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ah yes, I forgot about the atomic weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile Amendment and Iraq's dire threat. [/sarcasm]Plissken wrote:Correction: they have not declared war in the same manner as before WWII, since. The advent of atomic weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles changed things. The USA will never declare war in that way again.Trip wrote:No, the US has not declared war since WWII.
Trip wrote:What's your solution specifically?
Going along for your joke a little bit: If either of the "Teams" you now have were perfect, I would have thought you had recognized it already and never voted for the other guys anymore. Or maybe you did and voted accordingly, but it didn't count![/quote]I vote Constitution Party usually. They oppose all this interventionist madness, but they are probably more conservative than you'd like.Jokoto wrote:I don't think I really have a solution. In any case, you will have to find it for yourselves - which I hope you are still allowed to do before you become a de facto autocracy. At least the first step is clear in principle if not in practice: reversal of the madness of the last seven years and all of its legislative missteps.
We can all agree it's madness, but we can't agree on what sanity is
Does the "Iraq WAR Resolution" that congress passed ring a bell? Oh, that's right, it wasn't a declaration of war. It was... uh... something else. But I KNOW it wasn't a declaration of war because... well, because I said so!walle wrote:Declared war in the same manner? Only the Congress can declare war, thus they have yet to declare war.Plissken wrote:Correction: they have not declared war in the same manner as before WWII, since.
It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. Yes, there was an inferred argument, but one that you missed and got backwards. You are welcome to try again.walle wrote:Plissken wrote:The advent of atomic weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles changed things.
An invalid argument. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq did not pose a threat, less a nuclear one. Also care to note, that none of these countries attacked you.
yes, I'm very familiar with the "war resolution" and the grounds used for its passing. I repeat; Congress have yet to declare war.Plissken wrote:Does the "Iraq WAR Resolution" that congress passed ring a bell?
As was mine, it was also a point. I therefore fail to see what would be backwards with the statement and with the point made.Plissken wrote:It wasn't an argument, it was a statement.
That would be correct, yes.Plissken wrote:I KNOW it wasn't a declaration of war...
Edit:
You need to learn the differences between declaring war and using a resolution in order to attack another country (in this case to seek validation) and whilst I’m at it; please read the constitution. No offence and non indented...
One more thing:
Restore your country; restore your Republic.
Repeat it as often as you like, but the "Iraq War Resolution" was a declaration of war, whether you like it or not. I presume notwalle wrote:yes, I'm very familiar with the "war resolution" and the grounds used for its passing. I repeat; Congress have yet to declare war.Plissken wrote:Does the "Iraq WAR Resolution" that congress passed ring a bell?
Ok, I'll spell it out. It was backwards because my inferred premise was the possesion of these weapons by the USA, and not the enemy, as you assumed. Any "old school" type of war declaration has not, and will not, ever happen again. By "old school" I mean verbage such as "will use all necessary resources to defeat" etc, because today that war would would last about 15 minutes, and will also (hopefully) not happen. I am very familiar with the US Constitution, and the wikipedia page on war declarations (as someone suggested earlier). The Constitution does not specify "how" war is to be declared, only that "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". Regarding the Iraq War Resolution:walle wrote:I therefore fail to see what would be backwards with the statement and with the point made.
- Authorization for use of force to defeat: check
- Approval of funding: check
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
And don't worry about offending me. I refuse to be offended.
If I've offended you... too bad! (just kidding, I try to keep it civil)
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7681
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
- Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
- Contact:
Greetings,
When Bush was elected in 2000, I thought hmmm -- so how long until we attack Iraq? Bush Jr. will want to "finish" what his father started, was what I assumed -- but how was another question. After September 11th, and after we had already started fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the first rumblings about Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction" (my, how that phrase has now entered the lexicon...) -- I knew that we would be attacking Iraq.
All that crap about working with the UN, etc. was as transparent as glass. Bush and Cheney wanted to attack Iraq, and they were looking for an excuse -- and they thought it would gain them political power, to win the next election (which it did) and help them justify and obtain new, unprecedented powers (which it has), that are outside the Constitution.
The war in Iraq is based on lies. They paid for their "intelligence" and they cooked it up sufficiently (in Cheney's extra-curricular back office) to be able to say the words "mushroom cloud" -- and they are trying to blame it on the CIA that it was wrong. They have given away billions to Cheney's old comapany (and others), and they have tried at every turn to claim that the laws and the Constitution do not apply to them:
Guantanamo is not in the USA, and it is not in Cuba, and therefore NO laws apply. Ditto for the so-called "black sites".
They wanted to have secret evidence, that even the person charged would not be told about! They have twisted and turned on how the hearings for the prisoners will happen -- at every turn, they have continued to make new "laws" (which no one can hold them accountable, anyway...)
"Illegal enemy combatants" -- which they get to define and apply to anybody they choose, including US citizens -- means that USA laws do not apply, and the Geneva Convention does not apply, and even US Military Law does apply.
Cheney is not part of the Executive Branch, and he is not part of the Legislative branch -- but he can claim executive privilege and act as a shadow president.
They can issue signing statements, such as the one for the McCain anti-torture bill, that essentially say: "Well, that's a nice law, but it doesn't apply to us, if we say so, and we don't even have to tell you what we are going to do in your name."
They are writing secret letters to your banks, ISP's, libraries, etc., and can demand all your records -- and the fact that the letter even exists is keep secret, and it cannot even be stopped by the courts. No limits apply, and you will never know if it ever happened to you.
They have hired companies like Blackwater to do much of our fighting for us -- and these companies do not follow USA law, and they certainly don't follow the laws of the country they are fighting in, and US Military law doesn't apply either!
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Folks, Bush and Cheney are doing scary things, and they are breaking down our democracy and our Constitution. Don't be just sittin' there and take it -- this is how Nazi Germany happened; when all the folks who knew better sat back and let the fear mongers take more an more power, until they were worked into a frenzy.
We have to depend on people like Mark Klein to blow the whistle -- and we have to depend on out fellow citizens to use all of their brains (and not just the amygdala) to figure this out, too.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I thought hmmm -- so how long until we attack Iraq? Bush Jr. will want to "finish" what his father started, was what I assumed -- but how was another question. After September 11th, and after we had already started fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the first rumblings about Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction" (my, how that phrase has now entered the lexicon...) -- I knew that we would be attacking Iraq.
All that crap about working with the UN, etc. was as transparent as glass. Bush and Cheney wanted to attack Iraq, and they were looking for an excuse -- and they thought it would gain them political power, to win the next election (which it did) and help them justify and obtain new, unprecedented powers (which it has), that are outside the Constitution.
The war in Iraq is based on lies. They paid for their "intelligence" and they cooked it up sufficiently (in Cheney's extra-curricular back office) to be able to say the words "mushroom cloud" -- and they are trying to blame it on the CIA that it was wrong. They have given away billions to Cheney's old comapany (and others), and they have tried at every turn to claim that the laws and the Constitution do not apply to them:
Guantanamo is not in the USA, and it is not in Cuba, and therefore NO laws apply. Ditto for the so-called "black sites".
They wanted to have secret evidence, that even the person charged would not be told about! They have twisted and turned on how the hearings for the prisoners will happen -- at every turn, they have continued to make new "laws" (which no one can hold them accountable, anyway...)
"Illegal enemy combatants" -- which they get to define and apply to anybody they choose, including US citizens -- means that USA laws do not apply, and the Geneva Convention does not apply, and even US Military Law does apply.
Cheney is not part of the Executive Branch, and he is not part of the Legislative branch -- but he can claim executive privilege and act as a shadow president.
They can issue signing statements, such as the one for the McCain anti-torture bill, that essentially say: "Well, that's a nice law, but it doesn't apply to us, if we say so, and we don't even have to tell you what we are going to do in your name."
They are writing secret letters to your banks, ISP's, libraries, etc., and can demand all your records -- and the fact that the letter even exists is keep secret, and it cannot even be stopped by the courts. No limits apply, and you will never know if it ever happened to you.
They have hired companies like Blackwater to do much of our fighting for us -- and these companies do not follow USA law, and they certainly don't follow the laws of the country they are fighting in, and US Military law doesn't apply either!
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Folks, Bush and Cheney are doing scary things, and they are breaking down our democracy and our Constitution. Don't be just sittin' there and take it -- this is how Nazi Germany happened; when all the folks who knew better sat back and let the fear mongers take more an more power, until they were worked into a frenzy.
We have to depend on people like Mark Klein to blow the whistle -- and we have to depend on out fellow citizens to use all of their brains (and not just the amygdala) to figure this out, too.
No; it was a mean to circumvent the proceedings of declaring war, and that’s not the same thing. There is no authority to wage war without the Congress passing a declaration of war, and this war is by the Constitution (and by UN laws) illegal. Now, had the legal process (as defined in the Constitution) been followed, there would have been no war. Furthermore; planning a war of aggression (in this case, a preventive war) is illegal. This war has been driven by commercial interests and other agendas Plissken. And as a side note here: preventive war was a bloody invention of Hitler and are thus best reserved for rouge nations and not for democracies.Plissken wrote:"Iraq War Resolution" was a declaration of war
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 4284
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
It's something else as well. It's a way to get insurance companies off the hook for any future damages. Insurance policies typically have a clause that states they do not pay for "acts of war". So really the first ting out of GWB's mouth after 9-11 was to protect the corporations. Who alerted me to this fact? An insurance compliance officer.Plissken wrote:Repeat it as often as you like, but the "Iraq War Resolution" was a declaration of war, whether you like it or not. I presume not ....walle wrote:yes, I'm very familiar with the "war resolution" and the grounds used for its passing. I repeat; Congress have yet to declare war.Plissken wrote:Does the "Iraq WAR Resolution" that congress passed ring a bell?
No points for consistency.
Edited for spelling.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:24 am
- Location: 'Sunny' Cornwall U.K.
To various of the above posters, no-one inpartcular! :
That's just typical of you Americans, thinking everything you do is 'Bigger & Better' than that which the rest of the world does/can do!.
There are in fact, several other democracies in the world capable of producing enough idiots to vote in a totally inappropriate leader...
Think about it.......
[ Pete thinks...]
Er, OK... Actually, Y'all got me on this one, you do it bigger and better........
Pete
[/ ]
That's just typical of you Americans, thinking everything you do is 'Bigger & Better' than that which the rest of the world does/can do!.
There are in fact, several other democracies in the world capable of producing enough idiots to vote in a totally inappropriate leader...
Think about it.......
[ Pete thinks...]
Er, OK... Actually, Y'all got me on this one, you do it bigger and better........
Pete
[/ ]
Well said, Neil.
All of that should have been obvious to your people before the last election and the tale of that joke of an administration should have ended right then. However! Sadly, half of the nation seems to have been brainwashed by Fox - "we distort, you believe". People are like sheep, too easy to control and eager to conform even though we value the individual in our societies - I guess it's just superficial. I understand it's the easiest way to live, but I still don't quite get it.
All of that should have been obvious to your people before the last election and the tale of that joke of an administration should have ended right then. However! Sadly, half of the nation seems to have been brainwashed by Fox - "we distort, you believe". People are like sheep, too easy to control and eager to conform even though we value the individual in our societies - I guess it's just superficial. I understand it's the easiest way to live, but I still don't quite get it.
W.J. 'Bill' Clinton was booed when he ordered military action abroad. Was it because he didn't think of lying enough to the entire world about the motives first, or because there wasn't nearly as much money to be made for the corporations from limited military action such as bombing Iraq (in the way it was done through the nineties), or intervening in Yugoslavia? There were no self-inflicted economic crises of the magnitude of your current one, on the contrary the economy boomed and there was surplus in the federal budget for the first time in a looong while. I don't know how the taxation was then, but at least you weren't bankcrupt. Clinton seriously went after Osama as well, and didn't just leave Saddam alone either. What about that is so objectionable to you?Plissken wrote:I hope this helps.
His approval ratings were record-high 65% at the end of the term. How's your beloved Bush Dumber, er, Junior doing nowadays? 30%?
Just let the man speak for himself: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/
Transcript here.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 5316
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
- Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
Let's see.....9-11 never happened. Or, it was caused by some internal conspiracy. We in the USA have nothing to fear from Islamic terrorism. "But I never inhaled" was the whole truth, and almost nothing but the truth.....and made a wife-cheater and a draft-dodger our most be-loved president, who could/did no wrong. Nazi, racist, monkey.....and other terms can be rightfully applied to our current president. Next November will cure all ills.....and we will enter a new land of milk and honey, with free medical care for everyone who can sneak across our borders. Our phone lines will become safe, and the entire constitution will be once again...respected. No more undeclared wars, no more threats from abroad, peace and freedom for everyone......including all the released illegal combatants now behind bars.
And if you buy all that, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona for sale.
And if you buy all that, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona for sale.
Don't be naive. Current war is/was supported, because terrorists managed to make a dent in pride (and safety) of Americans. Secondary motive is also very obvious - revenge. It's very natural (and obvious) that Bush will have more support for retaliation then Clinton had for intervention. I have to believe you understand this as well? Support for war had nothing to do with money and oil.Jokoto wrote:W.J. 'Bill' Clinton was booed when he ordered military action abroad. Was it because he didn't think of lying enough to the entire world about the motives first, or because there wasn't nearly as much money to be made for the corporations from limited military action such as bombing Iraq (in the way it was done through the nineties), or intervening in Yugoslavia?
I have no love for Bush, but I think the man has been demonized too much. Economy of a country cannot depend so much on one man and his decisions or lack of them, even if he is the president of the united states.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 4284
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
This has not been an issue for the last seven years because no one has ever found anything truthful leave W's mouth.Bluefront wrote:and almost nothing but the truth...
Got Newt Gingrich, the world's second biggest hypocrit?Bluefront wrote:..and made a wife-cheater
Got Dick Cheney, because unlike other draft dodgers that don't want to kill, he doesn't want to be killed while more than willing to send others to do the work for him. And for that he's A-1 top notch big and better hypocrit.Bluefront wrote: and a draft-dodger...
Funny how you can't see all the scum you enjoy endorsing.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 4284
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
Everything Clinton did or wanted was denied by a republican congress, including asking for more funding for covert ops to fight terrorism.Jokoto wrote:W.J. 'Bill' Clinton was booed when he ordered military action abroad. .....Plissken wrote:I hope this helps.
When Billary suggested a Palenstinian state she was booed, When Rice does it then it's a great idea.
Funny how republicans forget all that.
And all the stuff they voted against during Clinton's term, they voted that way because it was the right thing to do, not just because the old farts were jealous of the young guy who got farther in life than they ever will. Yeah, congressional professionalism at it's finest.
Erssa, sure I understand. The thing that bugs me is that they declared a war on the wrong country to exact that revenge. While most Fox-watching Americans believe Iraq had a connection to the WTC attacks, nobody else should. We are talking about the Iraq war here, aren't we? No country in the world had a problem with the US taking care of Afghanistan. In principle I had nothing against liberating Iraq either, but it should have been done from the inside - by their own people. When an external force did it, it left a power vacuum as there was no domestic party suddenly strong enough to keep the country under control afterwards. If a revolution had happened more like they usually do, those revolutionists could have had a slight chance.
Concerning Bush: of course he has been demonized too much, and that is because he's the most visible figurehead of his administration. He is mostly a puppet of his supporters but he is the one with the executive power. He is only a man, which is why I have always been talking about the whole administration, not the president. Becoming the president is the result of teamwork and the administration's doings are the result of many people's (hopefully) concentrated effort. It was Plissken who specifically mentioned GWB and I digressed a bit, sorry about that. I am not much into that kind of cult of personality thing some of his supporters have going. Especially when they are incapable of recognizing crooks in their own side.
I'm not about to go out of my way to defend either party over there, since in a two-party system getting only good people on either of the sides just can't happen. It won't work in any other system either, but at least the administrations wouldn't seem polar opposites that undo most the previous one's legislation as soon as they get the chance. If the Republicans lose the next election, some of their doings will get undone, but to me it is quite obvious that much of these judicial powers will remain in place because the winners will find them so very handy - just as their predecessors did. When the current ruling party does lose, they might even be a little sorry for giving such powerful tools to their opponents... We won't have seen the last of NSLs, wire tapping and secret arrests!
Concerning Bush: of course he has been demonized too much, and that is because he's the most visible figurehead of his administration. He is mostly a puppet of his supporters but he is the one with the executive power. He is only a man, which is why I have always been talking about the whole administration, not the president. Becoming the president is the result of teamwork and the administration's doings are the result of many people's (hopefully) concentrated effort. It was Plissken who specifically mentioned GWB and I digressed a bit, sorry about that. I am not much into that kind of cult of personality thing some of his supporters have going. Especially when they are incapable of recognizing crooks in their own side.
I'm not about to go out of my way to defend either party over there, since in a two-party system getting only good people on either of the sides just can't happen. It won't work in any other system either, but at least the administrations wouldn't seem polar opposites that undo most the previous one's legislation as soon as they get the chance. If the Republicans lose the next election, some of their doings will get undone, but to me it is quite obvious that much of these judicial powers will remain in place because the winners will find them so very handy - just as their predecessors did. When the current ruling party does lose, they might even be a little sorry for giving such powerful tools to their opponents... We won't have seen the last of NSLs, wire tapping and secret arrests!
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 5316
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
- Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
Frankly I'm still sick to the stomach seven years after slick Willey and his filthy bunch were voted out. And the stains on the carpet of the oval office are still there, along with the stench.
At the least you can say about GWB......the "ho's" were out of there for eight years. Now after next November......?
At the least you can say about GWB......the "ho's" were out of there for eight years. Now after next November......?
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 4284
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
Poor and desperate denial of the last 7 years or any signs or mention about real issues that affect society and the entire globe today.Bluefront wrote:Frankly I'm still sick to the stomach seven years after slick Willey and his filthy bunch were voted out. And the stains on the carpet of the oval office are still there, along with the stench.
At the least you can say about GWB......the "ho's" were out of there for eight years. Now after next November......?
No points for consistency when your position is as solid as a weeble.
The stench of Ken Lay, Tom Delay, Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, and others like them can never be removed.
Or ignored.
No points for being able to prioritize.
By the way does Newt Gingrich's extramarital affair smell any better to you? That hypocrit DNA is really the main link the chain, isn't it?
And who's the bigger ho? Monica or Dick Cheney? I'd love to see a poll of that one. But I forget, the cost of one large cigar is much greater than the cost of this war.