You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
It's called the Wars Power Act, they have to get congressional permission to conduct a war and lay out their reasons. Bush didn't want to, but he still did... Interestly though, Romney doesn't think he needs to if he wants to go to war with Iran... Which he has NO top secret information, or access to classified information.
Obama never promised to get us out of the middle east on the comapign in 2008 and yes, he wanted to double down on Afghanistan:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/pol … anist.html
Again, I have ZERO partisan ideology.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Again, that's you thinking naive. I have a pretty good understanding of what they "have" to do; I also have a pretty good understanding of what really happens. Bush (God bless him) didn't lay out the reasons for the war, he got the war approved by giving reasons for a war at a time when people were reacting emotionally to a crisis. If he actually had to lay out the reasons for that war, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place.
I didn't read the whole article, but as far as I read, there was nothing about doubling down on Afghanistan other than McCain saying the surge in Iraq showed them how to advance there.
What I see is Obama saying he would redirect from Iraq to Afghan...which he did for the most part...eventually...after admitting that he couldn't in the time he promised after he was elected.
You may think (wish) you have no partisan ideology, but you're a talking democratic robot (or at least a posting one). I think the "education" that you're giving yourself on politics must not be coming from good sources; certainly not balanced ones.
My views come from my experience. That's why I focus on not supporting the lazy and things like that...it's what I see. I'm all for helping those that are in need and can't help themselves; I've yet to figure out how to help them while weeding out the freeloaders. If the democrats can figure out a way to either pay for their social programs without ruining the economy or filter out the freeloaders, they would never lose an election. Ever. Unfortunately they cannot do it because it seems it can't be done.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Dude, you're so full of yourself. You said he promised to get out of the middle east. You were proved wrong. You said that no one had to make a case to go to war. You were proved wrong. You cannot admit when you are wrong and have a very selective memory, not to mention uninformed.
btw, Bush did lay out his evidence and people did vote against war with Iraq, like Obama.
I have said numerous times I didn't like the healthcare bill, etc., anyone here can couch for it, that I've gone after liberals and I have no party ties. That's laziness on your part calling me a democrat because you have no rebuttal.
Have fun on the playground by yourself. 
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
LOL. I was not proven wrong on either case. Read some more. You backed up my Obama point AND you ignored my Bush point. You're 0-2. You're still living in imaginary world. Come out and join the rest of us in the real world.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
Syria will use chemical weapons.
I always like reading your opinion on military issues but I disagree with you here. We've entered an era where the only REAL deterrent is if you have massive amounts of nukes. In the past decade we've bombed these countries that have/had access to chemical and/or nuclear weapons:
Iraq
Libya
Pakistan
They haven't used them yet. Honestly it set a dangerous precedent but no one can guarantee that an enemy will throw the kitchen sink at us when we bomb and/or invade. The only country likely to launch is Russia, maybe China if we invaded their territory. Chances of a war with one of the two not likely right now.
I know the assumption has always been that NK would use theirs the moment US troops cross the DMZ but honestly, how likely is it in reality? Libya supposedly has/had stockpiles of chemical weapons. US bombed the shit out of it without even seriously taking a counterstrike into consideration.
The fact we invade or bomb countries with limited yet very lethal deterrents makes me realize our military is probably much more advanced than anyone knows.
In previous decades could you imagine the US bombing countries with chemical stockpiles and launching drone attacks and special ops missions that make global headlines in a country with nuclear weapons?
No wonder Putin considers the US a "parasite". We're the most unpredictable global power in the history of civilization. We'll strike at nations which destroys all theories on deterrence. A nation that can(and WILL) strike nations with WMD can(and will) strike at anyone. The main reason I cant be sold on a war with Iran anymore. Iran having one(or several) nuclear weapons has been proven to not be enough of a deterrent(to US or Israel). I know you can bring up Korea, but the main issue there(and you'd probably agree) is that its a wasteland and the fighting would be more like WWII instead of 21st century warfare.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
LOL. I was not proven wrong on either case. Read some more. You backed up my Obama point AND you ignored my Bush point. You're 0-2. You're still living in imaginary world. Come out and join the rest of us in the real world.
You've been schooled in every argument in this thread. When you want to sit at the grown up table, let me know.
fyi, Bush did lay out the reasons. He even went to the UN to do it. He said the Wars Power Act was unconsitutional - to be forced to give the reasons, he didn't like it, but he did anyway.
Obama ran on getting out of the middle east.
It should take you 2 seconds to find any article with him saying this. Go ahead... I'll wait.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
buzzsaw wrote:LOL. I was not proven wrong on either case. Read some more. You backed up my Obama point AND you ignored my Bush point. You're 0-2. You're still living in imaginary world. Come out and join the rest of us in the real world.
You've been schooled in every argument in this thread. When you want to sit at the grown up table, let me know.
fyi, Bush did lay out the reasons. He even went to the UN to do it. He said the Wars Power Act was unconsitutional - to be forced to give the reasons, he didn't like it, but he did anyway.
buzzsaw wrote:Obama ran on getting out of the middle east.
It should take you 2 seconds to find any article with him saying this. Go ahead... I'll wait.
You're STILL not getting it. I don't care what the rules say. I care about what happened. Bush made shit up, he did not give his reasons for the war. And if you're going to claim victory because I meant Iraq and said middle east and that's all you got, congratulations. Technically you didn't lose one minor point. That is a first for you.
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
I'm not even arguing that he lied, or exaggerated, or was given faulty information, or whatever.
And I believe you that you misspoke and meant Iraq but said Middle East instead. But he did campaign on getting out of Iraq and sending a surge into Afghanistan and he did that. I'm not even saying I agree with it, we should be out of Afghanistan right now. And I don't want to go into anymore unecessary wars, or what some neocon tells us is necessary.
BTW, here are the reasons Bush laid out for war:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Not saying any of that was correct, just what he said and what was voted on that gave him Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002
Re: Election 2012-Issue #1 labor unions/right to work states
He said the Wars Power Act was unconsitutional -
Many presidents agree. It's why many bypass it and rightfully so. No president should be forced to make crucial decisions with their hands tied behind their backs from a partisan congress. Besides, an actual "declaration of war" isn't necessary and hasn't been in ages. While Daddy Bush got approval, he said he was going into Iraq even if they threatened to impeach him.
The act needs some fine tuning. Its out of date considering how the US conducts foreign policy.
Thanks for posting the reasons laid out for war because this one I had an issue with:
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
While Clinton used "pin prick" strikes, he did retaliate with cruise missiles on the issues above so I thought it was a reach using that as one of the pretexts for war.
Regardless of anyone's stance on the second Iraq war, the US had legitimate reasons to go back in there literally minutes after the first Gulf War ended.
Bush made shit up, he did not give his reasons for the war.
Come on Buzz. Being opposed to that war is understandable. I think it was a mistake because it diverted Bush's attention from other areas of the globe that should have been decimated following the 9/11 attacks. Bush had reasons to go in. So did Clinton. Iraq was contained although that containment was slowly unraveling as France and Russia(maybe others) were wanting the sanctions gone and for the US to leave the region.
