RE: "Hostilities"

RE: "Hostilities" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

luckydawg -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 6:15:17 PM)
and thats about all you do.... Because you can't articulate the reasons for the Policy. No one told you what to think yet.

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 6:45:28 PM)
I`m not the one "" going to the left of Obama" on Libya. Lindsey Graham And it`s you guys that have the problem and the cry-baby act and can`t cope. We aren`t at a loss as you and dick are. McCain just told you to STFU.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 6:47:01 PM)
If you go left of obama, according to some here, you would circle around to being a RRC taliban member Oh fuck... thats NOT GOOOOD

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 6:57:13 PM)
It has nothing to do with going to "the left of Obama," Lucy. This is a US legal issue, based on how our government works, and how our system tried to avoid another US President taking us into a war entirely on his own authority, passed over Nixon's veto in the wake of Vietnam. Are you familiar with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Lucy? As you may have noted elsewhere in the thread, the Obamabot talking points haven't quite caught up with events yet.

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 7:05:57 PM)
[8\|] "legal issue"....Righhhhhht...... Either take John`s advice or get Muammar a towel,cabana boi.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 7:12:33 PM)
Rich, then please dont rag on me for using that term,I was using it from a righties comments not "mine" I dont see it as a war, hostilities yes and I am not looking at it from a legal point of view, however IF it were as cut and dried as you seem to want it to be, this would have been brought up and would be over, impeachement would have been brought up months ago, when this started, or even the first "deadline" the fact that even now it is a mixed up convoluted mess, then boy you need to tighten up a lot of your laws. Your constitution and your bill of rights, because this kind of bickering and showboating is pathetic and poor to the point of ridiculousness. I am so sorry I am not up on every single law in your land, I have neither the inclination or the temperament. Leading this to a constituional discussion means that the law is NOT clear enough to anyone with an iota of intelligence. Thats the fault of YOUR government, left right and independants. The fact is that the arab league requested help, Nato, and the UN are involved as a whole, this is not a war, and it is not based on LIES. I dont like it, but if there was anything the right could use, they would have used it months ago. until you can see that, you will be discussing this ad nauseam until ghadaffi is dead an pushing up daisies. I wont be back, as I was just laughing at "left of europe" as some kind of evil dynasty derailing the US way of life.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 7:22:31 PM)
You seem to be flailing wildly here, O59. Maybe if you clarify your assertions that hostililties are appropriate, with the President's claims that the US is not engaged in hostilities, it would help you focus?

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 7:33:47 PM)
I think the reason folks think neo-cons are so full of shit on Libya is lack of sincerity.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 9:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I think the reason folks think neo-cons are so full of shit on Libya is lack of sincerity. Yes, I'm sure you would see it that way, O59. Care to explain how blowing up targets in a foreign country isn't hostile when it is done by remote control?

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 9:13:06 PM)
Remembering The Victims The worst terrorist attack on an airliner before 9/11. If it has to be explained to`ya,you probably won`t understand.

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 9:22:23 PM)
The Last Flight of Pan Am 103

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 9:28:43 PM)
In memory of the Pan Am 103 victims.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 9:54:44 PM)
Yes, I understand that you are all in favor of hostilities against Libya and Kuhdaffy (you like war just fine, since a Democrat has taken us into this one, being the obvious asumption) but that doesn't address the President claiming that there are no hostilities under way. Not that it isn't amusing to watch your desperation dance, mind you.

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 10:04:02 PM)
Who`s posting/trolling endlessly on this............ and getting nowhere but slapped by McGramps. Not I....lol

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/19/2011 10:11:53 PM)
Why do you keep coming back to this absurd McCain reference? I think he's wrong on the issue. So what?

tweakabelle -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 3:29:01 AM)
My feeling is the legal basis of the Libyan situation was set out in the UN Security Council Resolution authorising military intervention. IIRC, that resolution prioritised essentially a policing action to defend innocent civilians. Questions around the use of the word 'hostilities' may reflect potential legal complications in US law over translating that policing matter into US policy. I continue to find it odd that those who have no issues defending Western belligerence in Iraq and elsewhere suddenly rediscover the negative implications of military interventions in foreign lands when the internal US political target - Obama - is on the opposite side of politics and the potential political capital to be harvested appears favourable to them. To describe this sudden change of heart as expedient would be to grossly exaggerate the extent of honour or principle present in such apparently miraculous conversions.

Charnegui -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 3:52:48 AM)
If there is no economic benefit to achieve, I think the European and the USA will not interfere in internal affairs such as Libya. (so there is something to achieve there) In the nearby past, everyone supported Khadaffi with arms and other things to repress his people with. Now the world wants him away? And what about Yemen? Why do we not interfere there? Because of the Saoudi's, they must be our friends, otherwise we'll be short of oil and investments Why is Syria left alone? It is as bad as Libya is. And so I can go on for a while......... If there's nothing to gain for us we let them fight their wars, if there is, we'd roll over one another screaming the loudest; Shame!! It is all about money in this world. Shame on all of us!

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 5:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charnegui If there is no economic benefit to achieve, I think the European and the USA will not interfere in internal affairs such as Libya. (so there is something to achieve there) In the nearby past, everyone supported Khadaffi with arms and other things to repress his people with. Now the world wants him away? And what about Yemen? Why do we not interfere there? Because of the Saoudi's, they must be our friends, otherwise we'll be short of oil and investments Why is Syria left alone? It is as bad as Libya is. And so I can go on for a while......... If there's nothing to gain for us we let them fight their wars, if there is, we'd roll over one another screaming the loudest; Shame!! It is all about money in this world. Shame on all of us! What was there to gain by NATO`s actions in ending the Bosnian war? What money or resources were there that we fought over? I say shame on us for not stopping the genocide sooner.

mnottertail -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 6:42:09 AM)
I will also point out that they tried to hammer Clinton on the WPA in Bosnia, and when certain congressmen and senators sued, they were found to have no standing, dismissed, and the supreme court refused to hear the case, essentially upholding the lower court. I also think I understand the trick thats coming, but am unsure that I want to go thru the legal argumentation and the reasoning (i am aposiopetic in regard to this, Firm, LOL). But for those of you who would like to couch this in other 'spinful' terms, please acquaint yourself with the actual statute, particularly para 1542. (endgame Obama). I think the incorrigible constitutionalists on the right should read the fucking thing, and then the laws that flow from the fucking thing, if they want to be like---constitutionalists. And here is a foreshortened flight of fancy: Then gander at 1543 (c) and recall the scope and purpose document (which I am too lazy to find that served as WPA justification for W) Was it WMD? Was it Saddam? Was it that in 2003 the 1988 chemical attack against his own people was a clear and present danger? Was it bin Laden? I wonder if the current administration has reported Iraq and Afghanistan in accordance with WPA during the current administration. For all you technicians, LOL. So, even with the dubious constitutionality of the WPA (on grounds of presentment and other nefarious encroachments..) If he is commanded to pull Libya, by the same circumstance, immediate and total withdrawl of Iraq and Afghanistan must occur. Guantanamo would be arguable, but the simple war spoils at least, would have to go. The idea at campaign time was that these things would be done, but they have constantly been confounded by a discordant legislature. Just in time for elections.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 6:56:22 AM)
The quick answer, Tweak, is that we already got ourselves stuck in Iraq, why on God's green earth would we want to get stuck in yet another war over there? No matter how much the Democrats may bug out their eyes, and spray spittle with their whines and wails of denial and excuses when confronted with the fact, Bush II had Congress on board when we invaded Iraq. As a nation, we took ownership of what happened there. Surely though, the Orwellian nature of President Obama's approach to skirting the law transcends the differences of law between our countries?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875