RE: Any minute now

RE: Any minute now (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 8:51:26 AM)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. The president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. That's what they said, and while I have some quibbles with the imperfections in their speech, the case for imminent threat is pretty good, given the past and recent history in the area.

TheHeretic -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 9:09:21 AM)
If there is time for speeches and a public conversation, there is time to take it before Congress. The only reason not to, would be because our President knows he hasn't got the chops to get what he wants from them.

kdsub -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 9:44:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic We got stuck in Iraq because everybody danced to Bush's perfectly played tune. Are you really going to support Obama dragging us into another, when he can't even do as well as Korn covering Pink Floyd? I believe there is a basic difference between Bush and Obama when it comes to going to war. In Bush's case he and his advisors made up threats that did not exist. These false threats, at least threats with no concrete proof, convinced the American public that the war in Iraq was essential to our safety. Obama on the other hand is not making up threats and is trying to convince the American public that Americans have the moral responsibility to protect all world citizens from real weapons of mass destruction. This is a much harder sell, yet honest one. This decision on moral responsibility to protect the world's innocent is dividing both political parties and the nation with no clear cut path to a majority. Personally I believe we should wait for the UN's fact finding mission results and if positive then demand action through the UN. Then if this fails and only if it fails we should look to the Arab League... and if this fails and only if it fails...should Obama then request permission through the congress for punitive military action. Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 9:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. The president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. That's what they said, and while I have some quibbles with the imperfections in their speech, the case for imminent threat is pretty good, given the past and recent history in the area. You spew horseshit as well as any. There is no imminent threat to the US. Terrorists getting their hands on chemical weapons and using them against Americans at some point in time, isn't imminent. quote: Imminent ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head Where is there any evidence of anything ready to take place or hanging over our heads threateningly?

mnottertail -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 9:56:13 AM)
There is no imminent threat to the US. Terrorists getting their hands on chemical weapons and using them against Americans at some point in time, isn't imminent. Ha ha ha ha. That is fuckin cute. I see you disagree with it being imminent. Nevertheless, it is imminent. A fiscal disaster is imminent in this country, and has been since Reagan. at some point in time is a sense of imminent.

TheHeretic -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 9:56:58 AM)
Bullshit, Butch. The UN has already said no, and Putin is out having a ball, announcing that a US strike will be a violation of international law The only thing the President is trying to convince anyone of is that it's all his final decision to make (Google for the video - BBC has it on their coverage).

Yachtie -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:01:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail at some point in time is a sense of imminent. I never knew Bill Clinton consulted you on the use of the word "is". I'm impressed[:D] Really, I am[;)] [sm=rofl.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail There is no imminent threat to the US. Terrorists getting their hands on chemical weapons and using them against Americans at some point in time, isn't imminent. Ha ha ha ha. That is fuckin cute. I see you disagree with it being imminent. Nevertheless, it is imminent. A fiscal disaster is imminent in this country, and has been since Reagan. at some point in time is a sense of imminent. Saddam could have restarted his WMD program. Saddam could have bought WMD from elsewhere. According to your definition, then, going into Iraq to take out Saddam was just protecting us from an imminent threat. Could use that same line of reasoning to invade any not-rock-solid-stable ME country. Brilliant.

kdsub -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:05:43 AM)
quote: UN has already said no The UN has said no... but that may change when the fact finding mission reveals their results. Please... I hold no hopes of the UN being anything but a joke... But it is a step that should be made if nothing else to show the world our honest attempts for a world agreed upon mandate. And if this fails it will again show how useless the UN is and perhaps convince Americans to stop funding and kick then out of the country. Just me perhaps but if anything Obama is a savvy politician and would not want to be forced to make a decision as this without political support. So if he makes it then I believe he will be doing it because he truly thinks it is the right thing to do and not to stroke his ego or for political purposes. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:06:54 AM)
quote: Obama on the other hand is not making up threats and is trying to convince the American public that Americans have the moral responsibility to protect all world citizens from real weapons of mass destruction. This is a much harder sell, yet honest one. Protecting all world citizens from anything is not the responsibility of Americans by any stretch of mission creep. Our president made no such pledge at his inaugeration and has no such duty. Nor are we morally responsible to spend our blood and treasure to save anyone other than our own citizens. So no, not an honest one.

mnottertail -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:10:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail There is no imminent threat to the US. Terrorists getting their hands on chemical weapons and using them against Americans at some point in time, isn't imminent. Ha ha ha ha. That is fuckin cute. I see you disagree with it being imminent. Nevertheless, it is imminent. A fiscal disaster is imminent in this country, and has been since Reagan. at some point in time is a sense of imminent. Saddam could have restarted his WMD program. Saddam could have bought WMD from elsewhere. According to your definition, then, going into Iraq to take out Saddam was just protecting us from an imminent threat. Could use that same line of reasoning to invade any not-rock-solid-stable ME country. Brilliant. Nope, because he did not restart it, it was verified by the UN, and George Tenet in the CIA, and the DIA, that he didnt have a program, or have them. Here, we are quite sure that somefuckinbody in Syria has Chemical Weapons.

kdsub -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:10:55 AM)
quote: Protecting all world citizens from anything is not the responsibility of Americans I agree Vince... how many times have I ranted about how we should keep our armed forces at home. But I realize I am in the minority on these boards and perhaps a slight minority in the nation...but that is changing. As much as I believe something is right or wrong does not change reality and I am just stating what I believe to be the reality... I am not saying I agree. Butch

RottenJohnny -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Protecting all world citizens from anything is not the responsibility of Americans by any stretch of mission creep. Our president made no such pledge at his inaugeration and has no such duty. Nor are we morally responsible to spend our blood and treasure to save anyone other than our own citizens. Amen.

mnottertail -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:18:50 AM)
I don't know that you are the minority on these boards, I believe the bulk of americans wish we wouldnt do this, and have wished it for some great number of years. But we do it anyway, some have resigned themselves to that, knowing that we can't even change the laws of this country to stop widespread political 'corruption' via corporate interests. How you gonna stop the military-industiral complex now, its the only place to get jobs here these days.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Any minute now (8/31/2013 10:23:57 AM)
FR, This thread is locked for review.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Any minute now (9/5/2013 5:37:08 PM)
Unlocked. Please do not make other posters the topic.

popeye1250 -> RE: Any minute now (9/5/2013 10:04:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Protecting all world citizens from anything is not the responsibility of Americans by any stretch of mission creep. Our president made no such pledge at his inaugeration and has no such duty. Nor are we morally responsible to spend our blood and treasure to save anyone other than our own citizens. Amen. Amen again.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Any minute now (9/6/2013 12:14:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Protecting all world citizens from anything is not the responsibility of Americans by any stretch of mission creep. Our president made no such pledge at his inaugeration and has no such duty. Nor are we morally responsible to spend our blood and treasure to save anyone other than our own citizens. I know that there's already someone that does a "quote of the day" on these boards but I also know that that person rarely ventures down here. So, I award this quote the first ever: "P & R Absolute Truth" And, I'll add my prayers, as well. Peace, Michael

Kirata -> RE: Any minute now (9/6/2013 5:38:38 AM)
~ FR ~ From the Jerusalem Post, quoting ABC and the New York Times... Despite statements from both US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that a US-led strike on Syria would be a "limited and tailored" military attack, ABC News reported on Thursday that the strike planned by Obama's national security team is "significantly larger" than most have anticipated. According to ABC News, in additional to a salvo of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four Navy destroyers stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, the US is also planning an aerial campaign that is expected to last two days. This campaign potentially includes an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs from US-based B-2 stealth bombers that carry satellite-guided bombs, B-52 bombers, that can carry air-launched cruise missiles and Qatar-based B-1s that carry long-range, air-to-surface missiles, both ABC News and The New York Times reported. "This military strike will do more damage to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years," a national security official told ABC News. Meanwhile, Obama has directed the Pentagon to expand the list of potential targets in Syria following reports Assad's forces have moved troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons in anticipation of the US-led strike against them, the Times reported on Thursday. K.

DarkSteven -> RE: Any minute now (9/6/2013 5:43:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. The president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. That's what they said, and while I have some quibbles with the imperfections in their speech, the case for imminent threat is pretty good, given the past and recent history in the area. Ron, there is no imminent threat, and that is why Obama is actually getting a buy-in from Congress. I assume that your post was made prior to him requesting approval.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875