• 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!

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

I don't even know what side we are on.

We are on the side of the terrorists so far...

Not that being on the side of a dictator is much preferable of a choice.

The only correct option here is to stay out...
 
I guess you never heard of the War Powers Act that Clinton and Bush used..:confused:

The war powers act does not support your position. In fact it flies squarely in the face of your position. The war powers act was written to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

My ConLaw professor Ed Firmage is one of the most renowned scholars on the War Powers Act and the author of "To Chain the Dog of War" which indepthly talks about the history of the War Powers act.
 
We are on the side of the terrorists so far...

Not that being on the side of a dictator is much preferable of a choice.

The only correct option here is to stay out...

What is this we **** kemosabe? You have a mouse in your pocket?
 
The war powers act does not support your position. In fact it flies squarely in the face of your position. The war powers act was written to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

My ConLaw professor Ed Firmage is one of the most renowned scholars on the War Powers Act and the author of "To Chain the Dog of War" which indepthly talks about the history of the War Powers act.

You are so full of it? again now read my lips....Why did Clinton and Bush use it.......Why did I bring you back....To the ignore list you go.
 
I agree but it will happen.

Yes, of course it will. Americans have been allowing presidents to violate our laws for so long now, hell, so many don't know or don't care (as can be seen here on this board) what the constitution has to say on this subject.
 
good to see yer all getting yer boxers inna bunch over this
Oh-bammer never intended to strike Syria its a distraction
everyone is falling for it, but hang round for the big reveal
right after this commercial message
and now a word from our sponsor
 
good to see yer all getting yer boxers inna bunch over this
Oh-bammer never intended to strike Syria its a distraction
everyone is falling for it, but hang round for the big reveal
right after this commercial message
and now a word from our sponsor


You big kidder, love it. Say, will you kindly keep an eye on the important **** for us so we can keep kicking this horse.
 
good to see yer all getting yer boxers inna bunch over this
Oh-bammer never intended to strike Syria its a distraction
everyone is falling for it, but hang round for the big reveal
right after this commercial message
and now a word from our sponsor

Why is there not more concern about who used the gas. Forget War Powers, coalition, joint resolutions, and acknowledge that the fat wallets of Saudi Arabia are financing the rebels and stop giving substance to the assertion that the Syrian people are revolting. CIA intrigue, Saudi intrigue, al Queda intrigue, Israeli intrigue and a nice controlled press to make sure you don't wake up from the story line to reality. We all gonna play "Who Do You Trust?" None of the above. The USA must support the Saudis so that the Saudis don't decide to price OIL in a denomination other than US Dollars. That would bankrupt the US of A. We always support the Israelis because of the strong political influence of AIPAC. The CIA financed and armed al Queda and looks like they still do. If not one of the players is trustworthy, the issue should be moot. Let's send Assad a shipload of food and some medical supplies and a thank you card for allowing millions of Iraqis refuge when our chaos, destruction, death, and misery drove them from their homes and country and into Syria.
 
Davey as long as the oil keeps flowin' priced in dollars our sons won't have to die in that sandbox?
 
You are so full of it? again now read my lips....Why did Clinton and Bush use it.......Why did I bring you back....To the ignore list you go.

The actions of both Bush and Clinton violated the war powers act. You need to read it before you claim to know what it says. The entire premise behind the war powers act was to require authorization by congress before initiating an attack. It was meant to be a check on the powers of the President to prevent an unwarranted attack by a President gone awry. The only time a President is authorized to attack without approval of congress is if the President is responding to an attack on the United States.
 
The actions of both Bush and Clinton violated the war powers act. You need to read it before you claim to know what it says. The entire premise behind the war powers act was to require authorization by congress before initiating an attack. It was meant to be a check on the powers of the President to prevent an unwarranted attack by a President gone awry. The only time a President is authorized to attack without approval of congress is if the President is responding to an attack on the United States.
Several presidents used the War Powers Act to take actions in and emergency. Why can't you understand that?
 
Several presidents used the War Powers Act to take actions in and emergency. Why can't you understand that?

The "emergency" MUST be us getting attacked, or imminent threat of us being attacked. When has that criteria been met?
 
Several presidents used the War Powers Act to take actions in and emergency. Why can't you understand that?

Where does it authorize the President to do that in the War Powers Act? Let me save you the trouble....it doesn't except in a case where the United States is attacked first, the President has the authority to act without congressional approval. But in the case of a US First strike, the War Powers act requires an authorization of Congress, for the very reason that we don't want to live in a country where one individual has the power to make a unilateral decision to attack another country. The War Powers act is a check on the power of the President.
 
Last edited:
5vq0if.jpg
 
The actions of both Bush and Clinton violated the war powers act. You need to read it before you claim to know what it says. The entire premise behind the war powers act was to require authorization by congress before initiating an attack. It was meant to be a check on the powers of the President to prevent an unwarranted attack by a President gone awry. The only time a President is authorized to attack without approval of congress is if the President is responding to an attack on the United States.

The explanation you provide clears both Bush and Clinton from violating the war powers act.
 
The explanation you provide clears both Bush and Clinton from violating the war powers act.


What??? How could an Internet dude provide an explanation that would clear two US presidents of violating our constitution?
 
Oh really? When did Iraq attack the United States?

Iraq attacked members of our military routinely after the first Gulf War. In violation of a treaty they signed to boot.
 
Back
Top Bottom