RE: "Hostilities"

RE: "Hostilities" (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 6:57:44 AM)
quote: Original: TheHeretic That may well be true, Orion, but I'm going to be leery of any future plans that need a precedent of the US President claiming there is nothing hostile about making war, when you do it by remote control. 50 USC 33. 1542 § 1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultations The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situation. Insofar as I am able to determine, Obama didn't write this statute or sign it into law. The elected legislature did. If the statute is intended to convey something different, they should fix the fuckin thing. That is sorta what they are supposed to do down there, make law and fix shit. (*NB: This has been totally re-edited because I did not want Rich to think I was being only snarky with him, and it could have seemed that way. I apologize in advance for my original curtness of answer.)

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 7:12:31 AM)
I've read it, Ron. The President isn't challenging the law though. He's saying that attacks on a foreign "king" don't count, when that king can't shoot back. Have you had a chance to go over that report to Congress? *add No prob with your answer, Ron, but duty calls, and I need to be getting on out the door. Have a good one.

mnottertail -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 7:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I've read it, Ron. The President isn't challenging the law though. He's saying that attacks on a foreign "king" don't count, when that king can't shoot back. Have you had a chance to go over that report to Congress? *add No prob with your answer, Ron, but duty calls, and I need to be getting on out the door. Have a good one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/united-states-activities-libya.html I've read the 32 pages, which is the complete document as I understand it, and he did not say that, and used no rationale remotely like that. Why would he challenge a clear law in his favor, and against himself? My understanding is that hes saying the law doesnt apply to this action, and I suspect he is looking at 1542, and saying, "I'm constitutional, here"..... The legislature is challenging it, I thought. The spin makes it hard to figure out who's zooming who.

Politesub53 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 11:01:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Heretic, this is a great idea for Europe. Dems are doing what they always do, what ever the Europeon left tells them to. Except the two European countries who pushed for action are not socialist but Conservative. I suspect this little nuance had escaped your attention, since it destroys your political rant about Europe. Its also noticable that you keep mentioning the killing of Syrian civillians, but only when its suits your cause. I didnt read a peep from you when the IDF opened fire on the unarmed crowds at the border.

Moonhead -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 1:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Except the two European countries who pushed for action are not socialist but Conservative. I suspect this little nuance had escaped your attention, since it destroys your political rant about Europe. This is a right leaning American poster who probably thinks you're a Marxist as well, bear in mind...

tweakabelle -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 2:18:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic 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? US involvement in hostilities in Libya is minimal - mainly logistics and participation in a naval blockade. It has been thus since the very earliest days. To equate this to a full scale invasion such as Iraq could well be seen as a symptom of insanity - certainly a failure to comprehend reality at a minimum. Your attempts to manufacture a legal issue out of this are being exposed here on this thread as increasingly contrived and desperate. It's painfully obvious that the people "bug[ging] out their eyes, and spray[ing] spittle with their whines and wails of denial and excuses when confronted with the fact(s)" are the people on your side of this argument. Grandiose rhetoric is the only viable tactic left to your side of the argument. There's nowhere else to go as your side's blatant opportunism and callous disregard of principle on this issue are obvious to the blind. Time to move on and find a real issue.

Politesub53 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 4:13:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead This is a right leaning American poster who probably thinks you're a Marxist as well, bear in mind... He probably thinks i`m Marx himself. [;)]

Lucylastic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 4:14:48 PM)
Last I saw Marx, he was shoving up daisys in highgate cemetary You most def aint dry and dusty :) well ok, not the ACTUAL Marx just his last resting place tomb thingie:) but man he would be dry and dusty now, ick grins

mnottertail -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 4:15:23 PM)
The bloody Lord High Minister, the Earl of Marx, guv.

Politesub53 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 4:27:47 PM)
I meant Groucho [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 4:34:01 PM)
Groucho was a liberal, some of us yanks (and very few to be sure) can tell the difference between the two of you blighters.

BamaD -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 5:30:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic 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? US involvement in hostilities in Libya is minimal - mainly logistics and participation in a naval blockade. It has been thus since the very earliest days. To equate this to a full scale invasion such as Iraq could well be seen as a symptom of insanity - certainly a failure to comprehend reality at a minimum. Your attempts to manufacture a legal issue out of this are being exposed here on this thread as increasingly contrived and desperate. It's painfully obvious that the people "bug[ging] out their eyes, and spray[ing] spittle with their whines and wails of denial and excuses when confronted with the fact(s)" are the people on your side of this argument. Grandiose rhetoric is the only viable tactic left to your side of the argument. There's nowhere else to go as your side's blatant opportunism and callous disregard of principle on this issue are obvious to the blind. Time to move on and find a real issue. While there is a difference in degree a naval blockade is an act of war.

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:06:24 PM)
"Orwellian"....... [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=yeahright.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=lol.gif][sm=lame.gif]

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:07:21 PM)
That's all well and good, Tweak, except you left out the part about the drones. You know. Those remote control aircraft that prowl over Tripoli, shooting at legitimate military targets, while the definition of a command and control center is, "anyplace we think Kuhdaffy might be."

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:21:08 PM)
quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/united-states-activities-libya.html Check page 25 of the report, bottom of the first paragraph, Ron. He's defining 'hostilities" based on casualty risks, rather than combat objectives against the enemy. How the hell is trying to kill the king not hostile, Ron?

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:22:44 PM)
Semantics........yawn Oh cabana boi.....the king needs his feet washed.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Orwellian"....... Have you read your Orwell, O59? He was a committed Socialist, you know. He wrote a couple cautionary tales, tragedies, about how the dream could go horribly wrong. Classic stuff.

Owner59 -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:34:53 PM)
oh jeezze....now the socialist yarn.....you`re giving pathetic a bad name. Wash`m those feet real good rich.They`re covered in American blood.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:46:34 PM)
I'll take that as a "no, you haven't read Animal Farm or 1984," then, O59. They're good books. Ask anybody. War is Peace. Truth is Lies. Assassination is a Helping Hand.

BamaD -> RE: "Hostilities" (6/20/2011 9:49:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'll take that as a "no, you haven't read Animal Farm or 1984," then, O59. They're good books. Ask anybody. War is Peace. Truth is Lies. Assassination is a Helping Hand. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875