Obama to seek congress approval

[QuickHitCurepon]

I'm surprised how much talk there is by congressmen on regular news media about impeaching Obama -- so no, I don't think he'll ask for their vote and then refuse to obey it!

Biden's remark and the other are just that, talk and a new talking point. They can look good and show their bravado.

 

[Vox]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

It was indeed authorized by Congress. Nothing else required to make it "legal."

I know.

But that war was even blessed by SC resolutions.
That war had many mistakes involved and the main one - it was not waged as the war should be, but supposedly we should have learned the main lesson - there are no good guys in the ME and involvement in the military action should be put on a back burner from now on.

 

[Vox]

no, it was not. It was approved by congress and within the us constitution - so a perfectly legal war both from internal side ( per constitution) and internationally ( per un sc resolutions)

the only justification that the constitution gives congress to declare war is defense of the united states. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

You can make it even in RED, but is still does not change the issue - the 2003 war was PERFECTLY LEGAL

 

[Vox]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

The only justification that the Constitution gives Congress to declare war is defense of the United States. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

It was absolutely, perfectly, constitutionally legal.

The President of the US can not declare war himself( not that this rule were not abandoned, but not in discussed issue)
If he gets Congressional approval - it is legal.
It was the defense of the United States.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False.

true

False. They were not war resolutions.

How strange, I didn't say they were. I guess that means you are lying.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I think this whole thing is about going to war with Iran. That's why the news today says BOTH Saudi Arabia and Israel are pushing hard now to get Obama to shell Syria ------- they want us to get into a big war with Iran so they don't have to.

All it would take would be one lie, like Bush with his faked-up WMD claim. Lies get America into fully half the wars we wage. The American people are extremely easy to lie into war.

I think everyone abroad realizes this and won't play, because war that spreads to Iran would be World War III. Hey, somebody might even attack us, and that never happens.......we're only supposed to attack THEM, they never attack us, not even in WWII.

But that could change.......

Hell yea, like a mini-domino theory. Take down Libya and predictably the rebels set their sights on neighboring Syria, knowing by our track-record (whether justifiably or not) the U.S. will not let them lose without helping them too. War is a dirty business.

 

[Vox]

Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements. presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.


Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the president cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). The 1973 War Powers Act attempted to define when and how the president could send troops to battle by adding strict time frames for reporting to Congress after sending troops to war, in addition to other measures.

President Bush had the Congressional approval of 2003 war.
It was absolutely constitutionally LEGAL

 

[Contumacious]

the only justification that the constitution gives congress to declare war is defense of the united states. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

You can make it even in RED, but is still does not change the issue - the 2003 war was PERFECTLY LEGAL

Are you a war profiteer

Are you a zionist

Are you retarded?

'fess up.

.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

BTW At the beginning of the Libyan war, I predicted the war would cause a lot of unrest and death in Syria, and ALL the deaths would be our fault.

 

[Vox]

Hell yea, like a mini-domino theory. Take down Libya and predictably the rebels set their sights on neighboring Syria, knowing by our track-record (whether justifiably or not) the U.S. will not let them lose without helping them too. War is a dirty business.

Yep.

And having had 12 years of experience and two failed regime changes - it would be the most idiotic thing to do - to get involved in Syria

 

[Vox]

You can make it even in RED, but is still does not change the issue - the 2003 war was PERFECTLY LEGAL

Are you a war profiteer

Are you a zionist

Are you retarded?

'fess up.

.

it is you, who are retarded.

you post stupid claims and when rebuffed resort to name calling.

grow up.

 

[Contumacious]

You can make it even in RED, but is still does not change the issue - the 2003 war was PERFECTLY LEGAL

Are you a war profiteer

Are you a zionist

Are you retarded?

'fess up.

.

.

it is you, who are retarded.

you post stupid claims and when rebuffed resort to name calling.

grow up.

You chose to plead the fifth. That's telling.

.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

no, it was not. It was approved by congress and within the us constitution - so a perfectly legal war both from internal side ( per constitution) and internationally ( per un sc resolutions)

the only justification that the constitution gives congress to declare war is defense of the united states. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The*United Nations Charter*is the foundation of modern international law.[9]*The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans theuse of force by states*except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[10]This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said*Louise Doswald-Beck,*Secretary-General*International Commission of Jurists.[11]Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing membership states to use force against Iraq.[9] Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And none of the UN Resolutions regarding Iraq authorized its invasion.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

It was indeed authorized by Congress. Nothing else required to make it "legal."

Bad news Mr Dingle Berry.

Legal mean that Congress had the authority to delegate the authority. They don't.

Learn, go forth and sin no more.

.

Wrong Ms. enema nozzle breath.

Authorize means authorize.

They authorized the use of our military might contingent on some specific conditions, but they still authorized. That's not delegation.

Besides, when did some lolberal asshole prog like you suddenly start caring about whether a delegation is valid or not?

Try to find a functioning brain cell to use in place of your utterly defective jelly mass.

 

[Circe]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

The UN Charter doesn't matter at all and no power pays any attention to it. Russia invading Georgia, for one of many, many instances. The 1967 Israeli/Arab war, for another.

There is no law without enforcement, and international law cannot have any enforcement, because there is no enforcing power above all the sovereign nationstates, so that's that.

As for whether it was illegal under OUR law, which is all that matters, probably not since Congress approved it, though Congress did not vote a Declaration. So I'm not sure. I'd a lot rather see Declaration, but it never happens anymore, and yet we still have wars, so what does "legal" MEAN in that context?

Not much, probably.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

the only justification that the constitution gives congress to declare war is defense of the united states. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Sherri Mudderlyn is all upsetty wetty that the US ratification of the UN charter did not come complete with an abdication of our own sovereignty.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

The UN Charter doesn't matter at all and no power pays any attention to it. Russia invading Georgia, for one of many, many instances. The 1967 Israeli/Arab war, for another.

There is no law without enforcement, and international law cannot have any enforcement, because there is no enforcing power above all the sovereign nationstates, so that's that.

As for whether it was illegal under OUR law, which is all that matters, probably not since Congress approved it, though Congress did not vote a Declaration. So I'm not sure. I'd a lot rather see Declaration, but it never happens anymore, and yet we still have wars, so what does "legal" MEAN in that context?

Not much, probably.

When you go to war by mistake, what more is there to say? What is worse than starting a war by mistake?

 

[TooTall]

I'm surprised how much talk there is by congressmen on regular news media about impeaching Obama -- so no, I don't think he'll ask for their vote and then refuse to obey it!

What surprised me is that the California democrats are pretty united in voting against a strike on Syria.

WTF! Xavier Bercerra was just on the news speaking for the democrats saying they were going to oppose obama's use of force. Of course, as a democrat, he could be lying.

Of course they are lying. I watched them on C-Span and most of them said they would vote no today, some used weasel words and I will bet almost every one of them will vote yes when the pressure from the DNC threatens to cut off their campaign funds next year.

 

[Circe]

When you go to war by mistake, what more is there to say? What is worse than starting a war by mistake?

Starting a war by lying is worse.

I don't believe for one moment that Bush made a "mistake."

He lied us into war and everyone knows it.

That's why Obama isn't getting his "oh, the poor Syrians!" war through --- that chicken just came home to roost.