He simply has to end the war

[Paulie]

Libertarian social policies are indeed liberal.

What a load of fucking bullshit.

Liberals want social policy to be legislated. So do mainstream conservatives, as a matter of fact.

Libertarians would rather the government stay the fuck out of it. If you don't like that someone is gay, turn your fucking head and ignore it.

Libertarians do NOT agree with the government regulating our social lives. The fact that mainstream conservatives do, speaks VOLUMES as to how liberal they actually are.

Read a fucking book or something. Educate yourself.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

War Powers Resolution of 1973

October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

So even though you may not agree with the methods and the original reasons for going into Iraq to say that that War is illegal is completely wrong as it was Authorized and is in complience with the War Powers Act. Secondly. by saying, lets end the War is to not understand the current situation in Iraq. Currently, US Forces are handing over authority for security to Iraqi forces and the situation there is much improved. So much so that Centcom recently announced that the US will withdraw 2 Brigades from Iraq 2 months sooner than planned. So I have news for you, the war is ending in Iraq and if allowed to continue as planned, US Forces will leave there and leave the country in the hands of the Iraqis with a chance for them to build a stong and free country that is peaceful.

An un-Constitutional piece of legislation that undermines the system the founders of our nation gave us. Congress was to declare war, and the President, as Commander-in-Chief, was to direct the war once the declaration was made.

And just for kicks, here's some information on the Constitutional War Powers Resolution of 2001, which sought to repeal the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.Res27:

 

[Paulie]

An un-Constitutional piece of legislation that undermines the system the founders of our nation gave us. Congress was to declare war, and the President, as Commander-in-Chief, was to direct the war once the declaration was made.

You'll find that there are several conservatives on this board who agree with this. Don't let Glockmail ruin your day.

Glock, legislating social policy is LIBERAL. You are advocating government intrusion into people's lives and decisions. That is not CONSERVATIVE.

Liberals want the government to control the market and people's decisions, and that is no different than wanting the government to control people's decisions regarding sexual preference, or whether they want to keep a baby.

A TRUE conservative advocates states' rights, and it should be left up to the states to decide their policy on abortion. Just like California held a ballot referendum on gay marriage, states should do the same for abortion.

You don't want to admit how liberal YOU actually are, by advocating the federal government spend even one MILLISECOND debating and legislating someone's personal life.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is not unconstitutional when taking in the primary job of the commander in chief... in terms of incidents that need action that cannot wait on the lobbying of congress, the resolution was justly and correctly made

And while that action is being done, there is nothing that stops the congress from then declaring war if they see fit... and if wrongful action is determined to be taken, the congress can impeach the president or pull the funding of the action taken.... the checks and balances are still there...

 

[Navy1960]

An un-Constitutional piece of legislation that undermines the system the founders of our nation gave us. Congress was to declare war, and the President, as Commander-in-Chief, was to direct the war once the declaration was made.

And just for kicks, here's some information on the Constitutional War Powers Resolution of 2001, which sought to repeal the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Thank you for the link Kevin, but while I undersand your point , let me ask you, who determines if a law is unconstituational or not? As the US Supreme Court has not heard this and to my knowledge has not struck down the War Powers Act as unconstitutional it stands. Secondly, while I am well aware of the 2001 Resolution and thank you for the link it did in the end not come into being and died in committee. While I don't disagree that the founders intended that the power to declare War lay in the hands of congress, it is that very same congress that ceeded that power in come cases to the President. So, if someone wishes to repeal the 1973 Law then all they need do is do it within the framework of the government or have it struck down by the SCOTUS.

 

[WhiteLion]

Tell that to my friends and family over there who hate you and people like you because you will not allow them to fight to win.

Exactly right, same fucking scenario as the Vietnam war in the late 60's and early 70's... The American communist propaganda machines killed the morale of the military men and women in uniform and the American public opinion, thus leading to symbolic American military lost in Vietnam, what a fucking shame...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You'll find that there are several conservatives on this board who agree with this. Don't let Glockmail ruin your day.

Glock, legislating social policy is LIBERAL. You are advocating government intrusion into people's lives and decisions. That is not CONSERVATIVE.

Liberals want the government to control the market and people's decisions, and that is no different than wanting the government to control people's decisions regarding sexual preference, or whether they want to keep a baby.

A TRUE conservative advocates states' rights, and it should be left up to the states to decide their policy on abortion. Just like California held a ballot referendum on gay marriage, states should do the same for abortion.

You don't want to admit how liberal YOU actually are, by advocating the federal government spend even one MILLISECOND debating and legislating someone's personal life.

Glockmail is incapable of ruining my day. I don't let people get to me over the internet. The rest of your post is absolutely right, however.

It is not unconstitutional when taking in the primary job of the commander in chief... in terms of incidents that need action that cannot wait on the lobbying of congress, the resolution was justly and correctly made

And while that action is being done, there is nothing that stops the congress from then declaring war if they see fit... and if wrongful action is determined to be taken, the congress can impeach the president or pull the funding of the action taken.... the checks and balances are still there...

So Iraq couldn't wait on the lobbying of Congress? Despite the fact that they're a third world country, despite the fact that they had not attacked us, and despite the fact that the weapons of mass destruction were all a dream?

Thank you for the link Kevin, but while I undersand your point , let me ask you, who determines if a law is unconstituational or not? As the US Supreme Court has not heard this and to my knowledge has not struck down the War Powers Act as unconstitutional it stands. Secondly, while I am well aware of the 2001 Resolution and thank you for the link it did in the end not come into being and died in committee. While I don't disagree that the founders intended that the power to declare War lay in the hands of congress, it is that very same congress that ceeded that power in come cases to the President. So, if someone wishes to repeal the 1973 Law then all they need do is do it within the framework of the government or have it struck down by the SCOTUS.

Well I appreciate the fact that you can discuss something in a civilized manner, unlike some of our other friends in this thread. You would be correct in saying that it traditionally falls to the Supreme Court as the final word on Constitutionality. However, all government officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so it is every person in every branch of government's responsibility to see that nothing undermines the authority of the Constitution. Congress should never have approved this bill, the President should never have signed this bill, and the Supreme Court has failed to overthrow this bill. If they felt that they needed to change the rules for warfare, they were free to attempt to amend the Constitution. Instead they simply circumvented the Constitution because it's easier. This is a gross injustice as the Constitution is meant to restrict the power of the federal government, and it can't do it's job if the government ignores it and nobody challenges them. You mentioned that Congress ceded it's power to declare war to the President, and you are correct. But I ask what gave them the right to do this? Certainly not the Constitution. The power to declare war was not only the right of Congress, it was also the responsibility of Congress as the direct voice of the people of the United States.

 

[DiamondDave]

So Iraq couldn't wait on the lobbying of Congress? Despite the fact that they're a third world country, despite the fact that they had not attacked us, and despite the fact that the weapons of mass destruction were all a dream?

Continual violations of cease fire since the cease fire agreement (try reading the resolution approving the action/continuation of hostilities)... the change in the situations because of 9/11 (notice I did not say Iraq caused or was behind 9/11)... action was taken... congress approved... even Nazi Pelosi did not pull troop funding when she had the chance... if there was evidence of being unconstitutional, we would be having an impeachment hearing even as we speak...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Continual violations of cease fire since the cease fire agreement (try reading the resolution approving the action/continuation of hostilities)... the change in the situations because of 9/11 (notice I did not say Iraq caused or was behind 9/11)... action was taken... congress approved... even Nazi Pelosi did not pull troop funding when she had the chance... if there was evidence of being unconstitutional, we would be having an impeachment hearing even as we speak...

Your last sentence is dead wrong. This day and age all branches of the federal government see the Constitution as an obstacle that they could do without.

 

[Navy1960]

Glockmail is incapable of ruining my day. I don't let people get to me over the internet. The rest of your post is absolutely right, however.



So Iraq couldn't wait on the lobbying of Congress? Despite the fact that they're a third world country, despite the fact that they had not attacked us, and despite the fact that the weapons of mass destruction were all a dream?



Well I appreciate the fact that you can discuss something in a civilized manner, unlike some of our other friends in this thread. You would be correct in saying that it traditionally falls to the Supreme Court as the final word on Constitutionality. However, all government officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so it is every person in every branch of government's responsibility to see that nothing undermines the authority of the Constitution. Congress should never have approved this bill, the President should never have signed this bill, and the Supreme Court has failed to overthrow this bill. If they felt that they needed to change the rules for warfare, they were free to attempt to amend the Constitution. Instead they simply circumvented the Constitution because it's easier. This is a gross injustice as the Constitution is meant to restrict the power of the federal government, and it can't do it's job if the government ignores it and nobody challenges them. You mentioned that Congress ceded it's power to declare war to the President, and you are correct. But I ask what gave them the right to do this? Certainly not the Constitution. The power to declare war was not only the right of Congress, it was also the responsibility of Congress as the direct voice of the people of the United States.

While I agree it is the responsibility of any public official to take the oath of office they take very seriously, and I know a little about that oath. lol I submit that congress since almost it's inception skirted the constitution in one form or another. When doing so I have always felt that the framers of our constitution put into place the ability for you and I by the power of our vote and the ability of the courts to strike down those laws that were unconstitutional to keep congress in check. IMHO we as voters by our own apathy and continually voting for the people that do this year after year have failed in our obligation as citizens to keep them in check and more so by not being brought before the courts to be heard, again the checks are failed. I will also sbumit that congress though when passing a bill, signed by the President that becomes law, even though it may not express the will of the people is not acting in an unconstutional manner as such, but if the bill itself is , then again I submit that the two checks I mentioned need to be applied with more vigor to see to it that the intent of the constitution id adhered too.

 

[DiamondDave]

Your last sentence is dead wrong. This day and age all branches of the federal government see the Constitution as an obstacle that they could do without.

Purely baseless and your subjective opinion...

 

[WhiteLion]

It is not unconstitutional when taking in the primary job of the commander in chief... in terms of incidents that need action that cannot wait on the lobbying of congress, the resolution was justly and correctly made

And while that action is being done, there is nothing that stops the congress from then declaring war if they see fit... and if wrongful action is determined to be taken, the congress can impeach the president or pull the funding of the action taken.... the checks and balances are still there...

All you say maybe true to a certian extent, however the Executive branch has trumped all other branches with the Presidents nearly unlimited executive orders that are lawful??? You decide check out this video on YouTube most of the more serious executive orders are shown and listed halfway thru the video please educate yourselves ASAP!!!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDYllakM0hk"]YouTube - FEMA Executive Orders List & Directive 51[/ame]
If this video offers any consolation then i say states succession is an understatement... again you decide....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
Paulitics avatar is kinda synonymous with my opinion the "boiling frog syndrome"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates38.html
The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to Militarism
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Jacob G. Hornberger[/FONT],
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp
“The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling. Thomas Sowell quote

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While I agree it is the responsibility of any public official to take the oath of office they take very seriously, and I know a little about that oath. lol I submit that congress since almost it's inception skirted the constitution in one form or another. When doing so I have always felt that the framers of our constitution put into place the ability for you and I by the power of our vote and the ability of the courts to strike down those laws that were unconstitutional to keep congress in check. IMHO we as voters by our own apathy and continually voting for the people that do this year after year have failed in our obligation as citizens to keep them in check and more so by not being brought before the courts to be heard, again the checks are failed. I will also sbumit that congress though when passing a bill, signed by the President that becomes law, even though it may not express the will of the people is not acting in an unconstutional manner as such, but if the bill itself is , then again I submit that the two checks I mentioned need to be applied with more vigor to see to it that the intent of the constitution id adhered too.

So I believe we're in agreement that all branches of government have been lacking when it comes to following the Constitution? As far as it being voters fault, I would say partially. But how can we not vote for the same people year after year when that's all that's on the ballot? The Republican and Democrat duopoly makes it damn near impossible for anyone that's not bought and paid for to make any headway in politics.

Purely baseless and your subjective opinion...

So it's my imagination that the federal government has grown completely out of proportion to what's outlined in the Constitution? And how can you even call what I said baseless and subjective when I was responding to a hypothetical situation that you made up? My point was that Congress would not impeach Bush for his unconstitutional war because they went against the Constitution themselves by letting him make the declaration of war.

 

[glockmail]

1. I'm being honest when I say that I'm pro-liberty, and if liberals agree with me then I have no problem with that.

2. Well if you're unable to gather my meaning from very clear statements then your critical reading skills leave much to be desired.

3. Interesting. The argument could be made that our current policy of spreading Democracy whether the rest of the world wants it or not is fascist.

2. When your clear statements are peppered with "Bush lied" then there is only one conclusion to be made: you're a Bush-basher.

3. Its fairly obvious that the terrorists don't want democracy yet the vast majority who live in the effected countries do. Killing the terrorists so the people can vote for their own governments doesn't appear to be fascism to me.

 

[Turboswede]

But he won't----Iraq was the hotbed of liberal hate for years and now Mr. Hope and Change is going to tell them that he can't do it.-----and you know what? They will accept it.

The solution in Iraq is an easy one, just pull it from the Regan playbook. All we need to do is arm a brutal (secular) dictator to the teeth and back him to the hilt with cold war era arms and equipment. As America we have a hard time pulling out folks fingernails, at least we did before the W, but that’s why have always and will always back authoritarian dictators throughout the world.

I am just being a realist here people, we need to get our folks out of there as even Regan knew it’s a part of the world where we can’t win unless we throw what America stands for out the window. It’s in everyone’s interest to have a secure and stable Iraq, up to its armpits in M60 tanks ready to pounce on Iran at a moment’s notice. We just need to find someone willing to take over and as we decimated the Iraqi military finding a new junta leader is going to be tough.

As for the Iraqi people, over 100,000 have been by allied bombs, shells and bullits in the past 7 years, I don’t think any Iraqi grown dictator would do any worse. So we have a completely unstable country with 100,000 casualties and at the same time have like 20,000 Killed and wounded Americans and a bill in the trillions. Obama needs to start looking for “Saddam, The Next Generation” before he starts looking to fill his own cabinet spots. I don’t care if Iraqis are having their fingernails pulled out, as long as it’s not by Americans, and I can’t see how anything (except Pol Pot) could be worse.

 

[Paulie]

3. Its fairly obvious that the terrorists don't want democracy yet the vast majority who live in the effected countries do. Killing the terrorists so the people can vote for their own governments doesn't appear to be fascism to me.

Killing a populace, to merely enable us to impose our way of life on someone else, is not conservative, no matter how much you want it to be.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed so that a handful of terrorists could be eliminated, thus enabling the United States to impose AMERICAN ways of life on people of not only a different culture, but a different religion as well.

That YOU think democracy would be better in some other country does not make it the most acceptable decision. It doesn't even matter to the US government, so long as whoever is chosen plays ball. We invade, conquer, and install friendly puppet leaders, and when those leaders are no longer useful to us, we invade, conquer, and install once again.

Don't pretend like it hasn't been going on for decades.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hussein isn't going to 'end' the war... he's simply going to make the war more favorable for the enemies of America; which he's already done... given that they've just won an Presidential election.

 

[glockmail]

Killing a populace, to merely enable us to impose our way of life on someone else, is not conservative, no matter how much you want it to be......

I see that you believe your messiah when he accuses American troops of bombing villages and killing children.

 

[Turboswede]

I see that you believe your messiah when he accuses American troops of bombing villages and killing children.

In war you can’t avoid bombing villages and killing children, I don’t think anyone who states the obvious is accusing anyone of anything. Of course the pilot’s intent isn’t to kill civilians any more than it was the pilots intent back in the early years of the war to kill all those Canadian troops, point is, war is a dirty & bloody business.

That’s why we should be bankrolling someone else to do it for us.

 

[glockmail]

In war you can’t avoid bombing villages and killing children, I don’t think anyone who states the obvious is accusing anyone of anything. Of course the pilot’s intent isn’t to kill civilians any more than it was the pilots intent back in the early years of the war to kill all those Canadian troops, point is, war is a dirty & bloody business.

That’s why we should be bankrolling someone else to do it for us.

I believe that the accusation was that the killings were intentional.