Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 237 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #231
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    When asked about it, you never said no. You still have not answered. I have all the information I need.





    It was in your now less than phone book sized contract. YOU FAIL



    who is this elected official again?




    What ambassadors are infallible? As infallible as your vaunted UN?





    Hmm how did you even know what a sock puppet was? That's Irie sense of how things are my man...



    And I thought you were taking your ball and going home? Was that a lie?


    This is so pathetic. Nobody said the ambassador is infallible but that gets tossed out to ignore the fact 1441 never authorizes unilateral military action. You can't defend your claim so you look for something...anything...no matter how ridiculous to cling to for avoiding admitting you can't support what was said.

    Then you imply I must be a sock because I know what a sock is? Rotfl. Yep. This must be the only message board on the entire internet! Lol.

    Once again we see you avoid the issues in lieu of focusing more on other posters. Happy sausagepalooza!

  2. #232
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Rethinking Schools Online


    thats a great source for military information
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #233
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    This is so pathetic. Nobody said the ambassador is infallible but that gets tossed out to ignore the fact 1441 never authorizes unilateral military action. You can't defend your claim so you look for something...anything...no matter how ridiculous to cling to for avoiding admitting you can't support what was said.

    Then you imply I must be a sock because I know what a sock is? Rotfl. Yep. This must be the only message board on the entire internet! Lol.

    Once again we see you avoid the issues in lieu of focusing more on other posters. Happy sausagepalooza!



    So you were lying when you said you were leaving.


    Anyways. Are troops murderers? YES OR NO?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #234
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Except for the fact that we issued a war authorization to invade Iraq, which is just fine and meets the Constitutional requirements.
    It's not a declaration, it's authorization to use military force but at no point did we declare war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You're right. The Constitution doesn't specify any other formats.

    The Constitution doesn't specify ANY format.

    Argument done.

    You lost, I'm bored with it.
    You're "bored" because you can't defend your position. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". That's what it says, there are no other formats given thus no other format is open to the Congress. Official declaration of war is all they are given to do in terms of authorizations for it. There is no other allowed option, they declare war which is an official declaration of war; the last of which was issued during WW II. You have no concept of history if you keep thinking that we've declared all our wars, Vietnam, Korean, Iraq, etc. The last time war was officially declared was WW II and that's historic fact. You can run around chasing your tail as much as you want, but you can't dispute history no matter how much you'd like to rewrite it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You need to learn how to read. Start with the Tenth Amendment.
    I'm a physicist, I know how to read. I know what the Constitution says and what it means. You're trying to expand powers to the government to justify a war we should never have engaged in. You big government types are dangerous, you'll grant as much power as necessary to the government to engage in improper global management. The founders warned us well against the type of actions you call for. Global meddling, exerting our control over others and dictating terms of existence to the world. That sort of megalomaniac attitude will never drive the Republic to a good place. Just big brother fascism, which seems to be what you favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You haven't refuted it. The purpose of reserving the power to declare war to the Congress was to ensure the People's wishes were being followed and that we weren't being dragged into a war by a monomaniacal despot. That purpose was served by Congress's actions prior to our invasion of Iraq.
    No, it was to separate power so that the President, who is Commander in Chief, could not declare war himself and act as a king with the nation's military. Of course, in the end there is supposed to be some amount of control over Congress by the People and the States, but in reality that control is extremely limited and lessened through pointless partisanship and blind allegiance to parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You could try reading the Federalist Papers sometime. It explains a lot of the Constitution you clearly don't understand at all.
    I have read them, along with the Anti-Federalist papers (the actual federalists). I've also read the complete letters and correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and John and Abigail Adams. I'm well read in the writings of the founders and political philosophy. Maybe you should try reading more instead of just grasping to one source pretending it says something it doesn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You have a truly misguided view on my view of the Constitution. However, I understand the document, you, and your president, do not.
    HAHA, my President. What an ignorant and immature argument. Prove he's my President or let this shine as an example of your lies. You have a truly misguided view on my view of the Constitution and the course this Republic should take.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Argument over.

    Won.

    Done.

    Don't bother to respond further.
    It's big of you to admit your defeat.
    Last edited by Ikari; 03-26-09 at 12:56 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #235
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not a declaration, it's authorization to use military force...
    Constitutionally speaking, what is the difference?
    How is one not the other?

  6. #236
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Authorization to use force doesn't come with the same restraints as an official declaration of war. To use force doesn't specify enemy, goal, time, etc. But in official declaration of war, you declare war against States. Thus everything is laid out, endgame is known. Surrender of the other side, which is listed in the official declaration of war. Thus in function, a formal declaration of war comes with more constraint than authorization to use military force and is why they are not the same thing.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #237
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Authorization to use force doesn't come with the same restraints as an official declaration of war.
    According to whom/what?
    Where does the Constitution specify what must be in a declaration of war?

    To use force doesn't specify enemy, goal, time, etc.
    Hmmm...
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
    Looks to me like it did... except for timeframe, which obviously can never be specified.

    But in official declaration of war, you declare war against States.
    The state in question: Iraq.

    [In a DoW] everything is laid out, endgame is known. Surrender of the other side, which is listed in the official declaration of war
    The DOW against Japan:

    JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

    Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
    It doesnt seem that this declaration meets your standards, as the endgame is not known, and surrender is not listed as a goal.

    In fact, the authorization of force in Iraq is FAR more specific than the DoW against Japan.

    Thus in function, a formal declaration of war comes with more constraint than authorization to use military force and is why they are not the same thing.
    Not so much, especially as you have laid out the argument.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •