Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Oct 3 debate in review

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
Anti-War people are really just anti-war when there is a Republican as President.
What war? I thought we were done with war when I stopped hearing anything important about anti-war activists in 2008...oh....ohhhhhh.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
The true facts are that this was a suggestion made in the early days which he withdrew within 48 hours that had been given to him by a staffer.
Thank you for withdrawing your suggestion that it was proven false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
here is the history of the war power resolution.
That link says nothing about Bush or Nixon violating it. Please cite your proof.

Presidents and the courts have used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Iraq Resolution as grounds to allow the sitting US President in his role as Commander In Chief to authorize the use of US forces in a police action against another sovereign nation. War need not be declared, nor was it in the case of Libya. Congress needs to authorize funding the action, but they can't technically stop the president from sending troops or warplanes somewhere.

And speaking for Canadians with similar political views to myself, we don't have a problem with war per se. We disagree with how the Afghan War has been executed (massive corruption and war profiteering hav not helped win their hearts and minds) and we disagree with the Iraq War both for the equally corrupt way the occupation has been run and for the fact that it was a war of aggression waged on manufactured intelligence. It's not quite as simple as "hurr, war bad, durr hurr".

Lord Ben- different claims- the orriginal one was false (that the president was going to require the US military to buy their own insurance) the true claim (that he proposed having existance insurance pay claims before the US government did) was simply a bad idea that was quickly rejected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
Presidents and the courts have used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Iraq Resolution as grounds to allow the sitting US President in his role as Commander In Chief to authorize the use of US forces in a police action against another sovereign nation. War need not be declared, nor was it in the case of Libya. Congress needs to authorize funding the action, but they can't technically stop the president from sending troops or warplanes somewhere.
Those resolutions were passed, where is the Libya resolution allowing hostilities there? There isn't one, and he sent forces there longer than 60 days. The only way it could be argued, the way Obama does it, is that bombing Libya isn't "hostilities".

Again, they establish that the president can send forces somewhere without the consent of congress. So it's not actually illegal, just something you disagree with. And considering that the Republicans aren't even being subtle about the fact that they will block anything thr has a chance of letting Obama claim an accomplishment no matter what, it's also the only way that he could intervene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
Again, they establish that the president can send forces somewhere without the consent of congress. So it's not actually illegal, just something you disagree with.
That is true, within 60 days. After 60 days he needs to get approval or cease hostilities. It wasn't an illegal war until the 60 days were up and he failed to get permission. There isn't a debate as to how the law works on this. I am right and you have the wrong facts.

Operation Oddessy Dawn lasted for twelve days before command was handed over to NATO. That sounds like signifigantly less than sixty days.

Yes, and we're part of NATO and still took part for beyond 60 days after beginning hostilities at which point our involvement violated the War Powers Resolution. Had we turned it over to NATO and not took part any longer it would have been legal.

Yes, but US involvement in NATO operations is automatic due to treaty obligations.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us