• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO Uses Attack Helicopters for First Time in Libya

Prove that US choppers are involved. I have shown you that the only choppers involved are French & British. If you have any proof US choppers are involved, go ahead and post it, otherwise, admit you're wrong.

Oh my god. Are you REALLY going to even start with a president violating the constitution and making an "empirical" executive branch? Look at the previous administration. Lying to congress about torture, saying they don't have to answer to the legislative, etc.

As for this President, like I said, I believe that the war powers act is unconstitutional. No President has ever followed it since its enactment. That includes Reagan, your messiah. As for the constitution, I totally agree with you. I think Presidents should consult congress and a declaration of war should be passed before engaging in any foreign military operation. I do believe what he is doing is not constitutional, same thing with any other President who sent us overseas without a formal declaration of war.
 
Gargantuan said:
Prove that US choppers are involved. I have shown you that the only choppers involved are French & British. If you have any proof US choppers are involved, go ahead and post it, otherwise, admit you're wrong.

Oh my god. Are you REALLY going to even start with a president violating the constitution and making an "empirical" executive branch? Look at the previous administration. Lying to congress about torture, saying they don't have to answer to the legislative, etc.

As for this President, like I said, I believe that the war powers act is unconstitutional. No President has ever followed it since its enactment. That includes Reagan, your messiah. As for the constitution, I totally agree with you. I think Presidents should consult congress and a declaration of war should be passed before engaging in any foreign military operation. I do believe what he is doing is not constitutional, same thing with any other President who sent us overseas without a formal declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Obama said it himself. An attack such as he conducted on Libya is unconstitutional.

Don’t act all surprised. He has obviously changed his mind.
 
Gargantuan said:
sent us overseas without a formal declaration of war.
Click to expand...

So you think the operation killing OBL was unconstitutional? Disaster relief in Haiti, unconstitutional.


Surely you can see how this "I just love the constitution" is a shallow and insufficient position to take in reality?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
So you think the operation killing OBL was unconstitutional? Disaster relief in Haiti, unconstitutional.


Surely you can see how this "I just love the constitution" is a shallow and insufficient position to take in reality?
Click to expand...

No I do not. That was a counter terrorism operation by an elite special operations force. OSS/CIA has been doing things like that since the 40s under every single President. These are not prolonged combat operations involving the deployment of divisions of troops.

As for disaster relief, that was not sending troops into combat.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
So you think the operation killing OBL was unconstitutional? Disaster relief in Haiti, unconstitutional.


Surely you can see how this "I just love the constitution" is a shallow and insufficient position to take in reality?
Click to expand...

As it wasn’t an attack on a sovereign nation, but an attack on an enemy at war with the US, I think killing OBL in Pakistan without informing Pakistan was constitutional.
 
Gargantuan said:
No I do not. That was a counter terrorism operation by an elite special operations force. OSS/CIA has been doing things like that since the 40s under every single President. These are not prolonged combat operations involving the deployment of divisions of troops.

As for disaster relief, that was not sending troops into combat.
Click to expand...

Prolonged combat operations have nothing to do with whether it is constitutional.
 
I’ll be AFK for at least 2 months.

When I return, I’m sure the hot issues will be completely dirrerent.

Just don’t want anyone to think my non-response to the BS some of you will post while I am gone in any way reflects on your superb debate skills or common sense. I just won’t be in a position to respond for a few months.

Godspeed
 
i dont know what it is about them, but war helicopters look really terrifying and are intimidating... even more then planes/tanks/people/ships ... id say battleships are a close second to being most scary b/c of their size
 
It's because they look like giant insects - with various probes.


GPS_Flex said:
Just don’t want anyone to think my non-response to the BS some of you will post while I am gone in any way reflects on your superb debate skills or common sense. I just won’t be in a position to respond for a few months.

Godspeed
Click to expand...

Sir Robin, come back!
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
As it wasn’t an attack on a sovereign nation, but an attack on an enemy at war with the US, I think killing OBL in Pakistan without informing Pakistan was constitutional.
Click to expand...

When did we declare war on Osama Bin Laden? Did congress issue an actual declaration of war? No they did not. My justification is that this was a covert counterterrorism operation. This was not a mobilization of US forces.
 
Gargantuan said:
When did we declare war on Osama Bin Laden? Did congress issue an actual declaration of war? No they did not. My justification is that this was a covert counterterrorism operation. This was not a mobilization of US forces.
Click to expand...

the story within the story is how Obama and his minions have been so outspoken against torture of "innocents until proven guilty" but were ok with an assasination of same.
but alls well that ends well, so moving on.

I wish everyone would quit with this NATO BS..Its the US acting under the cover of the NATO moniker.

And yes he has to get congressional approval to send our children into harms way.
 
Gargantuan said:
Prove that US choppers are involved. I have shown you that the only choppers involved are French & British. If you have any proof US choppers are involved, go ahead and post it, otherwise, admit you're wrong.

Oh my god. Are you REALLY going to even start with a president violating the constitution and making an "empirical" executive branch? Look at the previous administration. Lying to congress about torture, saying they don't have to answer to the legislative, etc.

As for this President, like I said, I believe that the war powers act is unconstitutional. No President has ever followed it since its enactment. That includes Reagan, your messiah. As for the constitution, I totally agree with you. I think Presidents should consult congress and a declaration of war should be passed before engaging in any foreign military operation. I do believe what he is doing is not constitutional, same thing with any other President who sent us overseas without a formal declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Look, you need to settle down on that kind of rhetoric. If Bush had lied to Congress, and there was sufficient proof, you can bet your ass that impeachment hearings would have ensued. Getting bad advice or the existence of dubious definitions does not translate into lying to Congress. The Dems were still plenty sore about Clintons impeachment, so you can bet your ass if they had had anything real and substantial, they would have gone after him. So rest assured, they had nothing.
 
American said:
Look, you need to settle down on that kind of rhetoric. If Bush had lied to Congress, and there was sufficient proof, you can bet your ass that impeachment hearings would have ensued. Getting bad advice or the existence of dubious definitions does not translate into lying to Congress. The Dems were still plenty sore about Clintons impeachment, so you can bet your ass if they had had anything real and substantial, they would have gone after him. So rest assured, they had nothing.
Click to expand...

The historical documents showed that Harry Reid, nancy Pelosi and many other prominent democrats not only knew about waterboarding but went so far as to ask if there wasnt more they could do to extract info. Their fiegned outrage over 'torture' is pure BS.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Actually, it's "combat arms" and "combat support arms". Just "support arms" as you attempt to use it is so infrequent that it is not readily understood in that way, and has more relevance as noted by others, that being more as part of a chair, or as a description (and command) as to how a weapon can be carried in a non-aiming position.

I think you'd be better off with just "combat units" and "support units", or "logistical support" etc.
Click to expand...

I think it would be better for some people--GPS-Flex--to educate themselves a little more on the subject, so as to be familiar with basic military nomaclature.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I see, you called me a hypocrite for no reason, came up with new definitions for "arms” to support your political blood thirst and I’m the one with zero knowledge of how the military works.

I’ll let you wallow in the muddy hole you have dug. The Army produces some very talented intelligence personnel but you obviously don’t fit that class. Only grunts like you would refer to air sorties as “support arms” and most grunts easily recognize the difference between logistics and combat. You sure you were in the Army?




I see, you once again prove that you value your conclusions first and follow up by seeking evidence later. You also give evidence that your reading comprehension isn’t very good as I made clear that the first bomb dropped was unconstitutional. Who is the real hypocrite here apdst?


Obviously you have an integrity problem or a reading comprehension problem but if you are into mental masturbation, go for it.
Click to expand...

It's an age old definition.

Com·bat Arms


plural noun
Definition:

units engaged in combat: in the U.S. Army, the units that actually engage the enemy in combat, e.g. the infantry, armored vehicle units, or field artillery
Click to expand...

arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the term, "arm", as it is used in the military. Perhaos you should expend more mental power learning and less insulting and you would be able to comprehend what I'm telling you.

If you trust that US attack missions ended 2 weeks into the operation, you are more of a tool than I thought. You have 2 more hours to redeem yourself from the dregs of political zombie because I won’t care what you post after 12:00 PST and won’t be available to respond.
Click to expand...

I'm not trusting anything. I'm simply going on the information that is available. If you have evidence that proves that U.S. combat missions are being conducted in Libya, then now would be a good time to post it. If U.S. units are engaged in combat mission, at this time, then I would agree that O'Bama could be be in violation of the WPA. I've yet to see any evidence to suggest that that is so, therefore I'm not going to agree that he's breaking the law.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I’ll be AFK for at least 2 months.

When I return, I’m sure the hot issues will be completely dirrerent.

Just don’t want anyone to think my non-response to the BS some of you will post while I am gone in any way reflects on your superb debate skills or common sense. I just won’t be in a position to respond for a few months.

Godspeed
Click to expand...

"Shane ! Come back Shane ! "

Godspeed as well. And thank you from us all.
 
apdst said:
I think it would be better for some people--GPS-Flex--to educate themselves a little more on the subject, so as to be familiar with basic military nomaclature.
Click to expand...

I always kind of liked "front line", and "REMF's". :)
 
apdst said:
Got any docs that show that the U.S. is stealing oil? No? When you do, come see us.[/QUOTE

Yo pabst, you think we in Libya to steal their sand? The USA now has several million barrels a day of Iraqi OIL going through USA oil company distribution and no USA companies were doing that with Saddam. ONly maybe a nickel a gallon profit, but what the hey, ya gotta take your billions where you can. Get you ears bobbed.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom