WAG THAT DOG!!!

WAG THAT DOG!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 1:50:15 PM)
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_war_clouds;_ylt=AtYRq7HtX5D_YVy3QkApx4kDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M- Nice attempt to distract us from the lies that got us into Iraq, and the lies Scooter Libby is getting grilled for...

SirKenin -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 1:55:22 PM)
blah blah blah. What do you pay more attention to? The bacon, or the eggs burning in the frypan beside it? Give your head a shake.

farglebargle -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 2:08:58 PM)
Perhaps SECURING IRAQs BORDERS? That way, the local nutjobs can't just wander across and take potshots at the troops? Of course, then Bush wouldn't be able to blame Iran for his failure.

sleazy -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 2:36:24 PM)
How do you propose securing said borders???????

farglebargle -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 2:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy How do you propose securing said borders??????? I didn't invade and occupy Iraq, so it's not my problem, but just off the top of my head, let the RG units do it, just like they did before. Oh, right. Bremmer fired all of them. That was pretty fucking dumb, wasn't it? You know, if Bush didn't have a history as "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", maybe he'd have some credibility, but as it stands, this is just an attempt to widen the war to distract from his failure right down the line.

SirKenin -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 3:19:39 PM)
Can someone please tell him that with a Democratic Senate, it will be the Dems sending America into war with Iran, not the Republicans. Thank you.

Sinergy -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 4:41:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Can someone please tell him that with a Democratic Senate, it will be the Dems sending America into war with Iran, not the Republicans. Thank you. This is not entirely true. Based on the Tonkin Bay Resolution (if memory serves) the President can send people to war, but has to go to Congress within a certain amount of time to have it approved. In other words, he can invade Iran all he wants. He may have to pay for it himself. It will also be the Democrats who cut his funding for his current war after 6 months. I thought it was hilarious that the Republicans said this would be disrespectful to our troops. Like banishing them to the desert for years with no end in sight is somehow respectful? Sinergy

UtopianRanger -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 5:38:44 PM)
quote: This is not entirely true. Based on the Tonkin Bay Resolution (if memory serves) the President can send people to war, but has to go to Congress within a certain amount of time to have it approved. That is absolutely true. It's a unitary privilege that seems to thwart a system founded with ''checks and balances'' attached. I've been calling for the war powers act to be completely returned to congress. - R

cyberdude611 -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 5:40:54 PM)
There is a deep divide between constitutional scholors over who has power to declare war. The constitution seems to conflict itself since it states that only congress can declare, yet the same constitution states that the military is to be controled by the Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. So the founders seemed to leave that debate open. The War Powers Act of 1973 only further complicated the process since it states the President can go to war when the United States is under threat but must get congressional approval within 60 days. So this is also like Congress admitting it doesnt have the power to stop the preisdent from starting a war. If Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq, it would be legal for Bush to go to war against Iran. It would also be legal internationally. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that every member-nation has an "inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." If Iran is attacking US or Iraqi forces, it is considered an act of war. And the war in Iraq right now is also legal since the original war in 1992 was never officially ended. Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire. And a cease-fire is an agreement to hold off hostilities (basically a pause in fighting). However, Saddam Hussein violated this cease fire 17 times including shooting live missiles at American fighter planes patroling the no-fly zones. That alone would have been enough to justify the invasion in 2003.

farglebargle -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 7:13:10 PM)
"If Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq, it would be legal for Bush to go to war against Iran." Of course, Given Bush's track record manipulating the Truth, why should ANYONE believe "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?" this time? All this Iran bullshit is just an attempt to deflect people's attention to the little court case where it's coming out that Dick Cheney fibbed to Federal Investigators. That's what sent Martha Stewart to prison. Might be time to give Condi another Social Promotion. ( Cause she NEVER showed results. )

MzMia -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 7:15:30 PM)
Well fargle, we knew it was just a matter of time. We will need a hell of a lot more than 20,000 or 40,000 MORE troops over there. So when are they going to bring back the draft or send some of the men in prison or the illegals to Iraq?

farglebargle -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 7:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia Well fargle, we knew it was just a matter of time. We will need a hell of a lot more than 20,000 or 40,000 MORE troops over there. So when are they going to bring back the draft or send some of the men in prison or the illegals to Iraq? Consider what would happen when they went and sent a draft notice to a homosexual. End of Draft. You can't play "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when you conscript troops.

Sinergy -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 7:40:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 There is a deep divide between constitutional scholors over who has power to declare war. The constitution seems to conflict itself since it states that only congress can declare, yet the same constitution states that the military is to be controled by the Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. So the founders seemed to leave that debate open. The War Powers Act of 1973 only further complicated the process since it states the President can go to war when the United States is under threat but must get congressional approval within 60 days. So this is also like Congress admitting it doesnt have the power to stop the preisdent from starting a war. If Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq, it would be legal for Bush to go to war against Iran. It would also be legal internationally. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that every member-nation has an "inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." If Iran is attacking US or Iraqi forces, it is considered an act of war. And the war in Iraq right now is also legal since the original war in 1992 was never officially ended. Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire. And a cease-fire is an agreement to hold off hostilities (basically a pause in fighting). However, Saddam Hussein violated this cease fire 17 times including shooting live missiles at American fighter planes patroling the no-fly zones. That alone would have been enough to justify the invasion in 2003. cyberdude611, I would suggest you reacclimate yourself with the military power structure. The only branch of the military the President has "direct" control over is the U.S. Marines. The other ones he can use on an "emergency" basis, but to continue using them he has to obtain congressional approval after a certain amount of time. I suspect that since Congress is now controlled by Democrats, he is unlikely to get funding for his silly desert war thing, and will end up bringing the troops home. Adapt or die. Sinergy

cyberdude611 -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 7:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 There is a deep divide between constitutional scholors over who has power to declare war. The constitution seems to conflict itself since it states that only congress can declare, yet the same constitution states that the military is to be controled by the Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. So the founders seemed to leave that debate open. The War Powers Act of 1973 only further complicated the process since it states the President can go to war when the United States is under threat but must get congressional approval within 60 days. So this is also like Congress admitting it doesnt have the power to stop the preisdent from starting a war. If Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq, it would be legal for Bush to go to war against Iran. It would also be legal internationally. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that every member-nation has an "inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." If Iran is attacking US or Iraqi forces, it is considered an act of war. And the war in Iraq right now is also legal since the original war in 1992 was never officially ended. Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire. And a cease-fire is an agreement to hold off hostilities (basically a pause in fighting). However, Saddam Hussein violated this cease fire 17 times including shooting live missiles at American fighter planes patroling the no-fly zones. That alone would have been enough to justify the invasion in 2003. cyberdude611, I would suggest you reacclimate yourself with the military power structure. The only branch of the military the President has "direct" control over is the U.S. Marines. The other ones he can use on an "emergency" basis, but to continue using them he has to obtain congressional approval after a certain amount of time. I suspect that since Congress is now controlled by Democrats, he is unlikely to get funding for his silly desert war thing, and will end up bringing the troops home. Adapt or die. Sinergy Yep, he can go to war for 60 days without congressional approval. That's what the War Powers Act states. And you are wrong... He controls more than just the Marines... According to Article 2, Section 2 of the US constitution... "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,"

Sinergy -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 7:58:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 There is a deep divide between constitutional scholors over who has power to declare war. The constitution seems to conflict itself since it states that only congress can declare, yet the same constitution states that the military is to be controled by the Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. So the founders seemed to leave that debate open. The War Powers Act of 1973 only further complicated the process since it states the President can go to war when the United States is under threat but must get congressional approval within 60 days. So this is also like Congress admitting it doesnt have the power to stop the preisdent from starting a war. If Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq, it would be legal for Bush to go to war against Iran. It would also be legal internationally. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that every member-nation has an "inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." If Iran is attacking US or Iraqi forces, it is considered an act of war. And the war in Iraq right now is also legal since the original war in 1992 was never officially ended. Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire. And a cease-fire is an agreement to hold off hostilities (basically a pause in fighting). However, Saddam Hussein violated this cease fire 17 times including shooting live missiles at American fighter planes patroling the no-fly zones. That alone would have been enough to justify the invasion in 2003. cyberdude611, I would suggest you reacclimate yourself with the military power structure. The only branch of the military the President has "direct" control over is the U.S. Marines. The other ones he can use on an "emergency" basis, but to continue using them he has to obtain congressional approval after a certain amount of time. I suspect that since Congress is now controlled by Democrats, he is unlikely to get funding for his silly desert war thing, and will end up bringing the troops home. Adapt or die. Sinergy Yep, he can go to war for 60 days without congressional approval. That's what the War Powers Act states. And you are wrong... He controls more than just the Marines... According to Article 2, Section 2 of the US constitution... "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," I am not wrong. For 60 days. He has to return to congress to get funding to continue the war effort. But we just had the "Yer Fired" election. Sinergy

WyrdRich -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 8:03:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You can't play "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when you conscript troops. Sure you can. The burden of proof is on the individual (and no, you can't spit).

cyberdude611 -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 8:05:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 There is a deep divide between constitutional scholors over who has power to declare war. The constitution seems to conflict itself since it states that only congress can declare, yet the same constitution states that the military is to be controled by the Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. So the founders seemed to leave that debate open. The War Powers Act of 1973 only further complicated the process since it states the President can go to war when the United States is under threat but must get congressional approval within 60 days. So this is also like Congress admitting it doesnt have the power to stop the preisdent from starting a war. If Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq, it would be legal for Bush to go to war against Iran. It would also be legal internationally. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that every member-nation has an "inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." If Iran is attacking US or Iraqi forces, it is considered an act of war. And the war in Iraq right now is also legal since the original war in 1992 was never officially ended. Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire. And a cease-fire is an agreement to hold off hostilities (basically a pause in fighting). However, Saddam Hussein violated this cease fire 17 times including shooting live missiles at American fighter planes patroling the no-fly zones. That alone would have been enough to justify the invasion in 2003. cyberdude611, I would suggest you reacclimate yourself with the military power structure. The only branch of the military the President has "direct" control over is the U.S. Marines. The other ones he can use on an "emergency" basis, but to continue using them he has to obtain congressional approval after a certain amount of time. I suspect that since Congress is now controlled by Democrats, he is unlikely to get funding for his silly desert war thing, and will end up bringing the troops home. Adapt or die. Sinergy Yep, he can go to war for 60 days without congressional approval. That's what the War Powers Act states. And you are wrong... He controls more than just the Marines... According to Article 2, Section 2 of the US constitution... "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," I am not wrong. For 60 days. He has to return to congress to get funding to continue the war effort. But we just had the "Yer Fired" election. Sinergy You stated that the president only has command of the Marines. The Constititon specifically states he has command of the Army and Navy as well. And since when did Bush give a damn what his poll numbers were? His poll numbers right now is at 28% and he doesn't give a shit. So I can perfectly invision him starting a war in Iran.

farglebargle -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (1/31/2007 8:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You can't play "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when you conscript troops. Sure you can. The burden of proof is on the individual (and no, you can't spit). I think you misunderstand. You can BE OUT in the military if they draft you. That's why it'll never happen. The idea of Homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals to serve is intolerable to TPTB.

Real0ne -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (2/1/2007 8:41:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin blah blah blah. What do you pay more attention to? The bacon, or the eggs burning in the frypan beside it? Give your head a shake. i pay attention to the assshole(s) that turned the burner up to hi in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 There is a deep divide between constitutional scholors over who has power to declare war. The constitution seems to conflict itself since it states that only congress can declare, yet the same constitution states that the military is to be controled by the Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. So the founders seemed to leave that debate open. i am not a constitutional scholar but it seems to me that there is a big difference between controlling a military and declaring war. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle All this Iran bullshit is just an attempt to deflect people's attention to the little court case where it's coming out that Dick Cheney fibbed to Federal Investigators. That's what sent Martha Stewart to prison. well with bush you never know..... it makes sense alright and par for the course however bush is an oil man and like his predeccessor (johnson) also an oil man wants to take over the whole middle east. So he might be luny enough to go through with it and start ww3 if not then its just the business as usual of providing americans with smoke screens to draw attention away from the cheney and the cases agaist bush himself. . Our only savior, even tho the dems and reps are all in bed together is if the dems have brains enough to pull them out. Otherwise this is going to be another nam and get uglier.

sleazy -> RE: WAG THAT DOG!!! (2/1/2007 8:57:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Our only savior, even tho the dems and reps are all in bed together is if the dems have brains enough to pull them out. A repeat of a lawless Yemen, with money. Tell me you are joking please!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125