Haven't there been numerous undeclared wars renamed "police actions" over the years? Congress hasn't fulfilled its duty in many things much less declaring war. You should be griping about them rather than the President who is doing all he can to protect the American people from terroristic activities. Perhaps you should write a letter to your congressmen about how little opinion you have of them. Better yet, next election just vote for their opponent, whomever that may be.
Yes there have. That doesn't change the fact that they were unconstitutional, also know as "illegal".
"You cannot amend the Constitution with persistent evasion."
-Mario Cuomo
You're right. Congress didn't fulfill its duties. The president set up a situation to intentionally put congress between a rock and a hard place. It worked, not only on congress, but on at least 150 million other chumps like you who believed the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do.
No clue - that's not showing up here.
C&P-ed:
I didn't ask you that. I asked if there is a weekly news magazine which you
*do* like/trust & read.Cathy
Are you really that friggin' stupid? Did you hear what Bush said about 'temporary guest workers' or amnesty? It went something like, "We give them temporary SSI numbers."
Now, WTF do you think he would do that?
No rocket science involved...
Well, the President announced it in a televised speech, gave Saddam an ultimatum, and Congress voted on it.
I'd say, ample warning.
"ron" ...
Feh - I doubt you've abused your body the way Kennedy did.
Natalie
Actually, congress did NOT vote on it. They delegated their authority to the president, which they shouldn't have done. It's violates the law. Both parties did it because they wanted to appear "clean" when the clusterfuck became obvious to the American public.
So what's your problem with the idea, then?
That answer makes no sense. While Iraq was involved in international terrorism back then, Lebanon was much more in Syria's sphere of influence, as it always has been, historically.
I thought our worst policy was the way we handled the WWI victory, which led to WWII. And do you really think the Middle East would have been much more peaceful if modern Israel never existed? Israel wasn't involved in the most destructive war there of the past 100 years, between Iraq and Iran, for example.
That should have been, "guess which president wisely _threatened_ to do that..."
In message news:zx6Yj.928$kZ1.196@trndny02, =?iso-2022- jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= burned some brain cells writing:
What Article and Section of the Constitution contain the words "ample warning"? Would you accept extermination of all blacks if the President "gave ample warning"?
In message news: snipped-for-privacy@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com, "larry moe 'n curly" burned some brain cells writing:
My Iraq reference was to the present day (or the present defined as starting March 2003).
Not the United States' problem.
I meant destructive TO THE UNITED STATES. I don't CARE about Iraq, Iran or Israel.
Elimination of all foreign aid is most wise.
Perhaps he was referent to Clinton and Bosnia. Iraq was a resumption of hostilities, authorized by Congress, for violations of the ceasefire agreement. Bosnia was never authorized by the Congress
Translation: Do the wrong thing often enough and it magically becomes right.
"You cannot amend the Constitution with persistent evasion."
-Mario Cuomo
Then sending the whole US military to Iraq was a bad idea.
That doesn't answer the question.
So was I. Remember, soon after WWII, the UN created nations for both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the Palestinians rejected the mandate. If they had accepted nationhood back then, it's likely there would have been less turmoil in the Middle East in the succeeding years, the Palestinians wouldn't be 60 years behind in building a nation, and there would be another secular state in the Middle East (always a good thing, compared to the alternative type of state). All that was in our interests.
Why did we start to give foreign aid? IOW, strategically, what's the alternative to foreign aid (don't say no aid)?
In message news:pcGdnbCcw9k3U6zVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@ptd.net, "Mike hunt" burned some brain cells writing:
The "hostilities" which were "resumed" were unconstitutional as well. The United States has not engaged in a legal military offensive since WWII. I care not whether the president was Republican (Bush I Iraq, Bush II Iraq, Nixon Cambodia, etc.) or Democrat (Johnson Vietnam, Clinton Bosnia, etc.).
The only proper "authorization" is a declaration of war. The most recent such declaration was made on June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
In message news: snipped-for-privacy@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com, "larry moe 'n curly" burned some brain cells writing:
Sending one US troop to Iraq was, is, and shall remain, a bad idea, save for circumstances (yet to occur) in which Iraq attacks the US (not nebulous "US interests" or "US allies") or can be shown without reasonable doubt to be planning such attack imminently.
Life's too short to waste time on irrelevant questions. I embrace Jeffersonian foreign policy: free trade, honest friendship and neutrality with all nations; entangling alliances with none. Let Middle Easterners deal with the Middle East. Would you have liked, say, China to have sent "election monitors" to Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004?
Ummm... not quite. The UN created a nation for Jews out of Palestine once the British gave up on the area, being tired of having hotels blown up by terrorist groups headed by future Israeli leaders. The vast majority of people living in the territory used to create modern-day Israel in 1948 were Arabs, not Jews ("By the end of World War II, Jews accounted for 33% of the population of Palestine" - Wiki entry for Israel).
Israel did not become a "Jewish state" in the sense of having a demographic majority until (a) 711,000 Arab refugees fled their homes during the 1948 war; Israel refuses to consider a "right of return" despite UN Resolutions demanding it; (b) over a million Jews immigrated from Europe, Arab lands and elsewhere into the country.
"Just let us steal half your land and everything will be OK". If that sounds like a good deal, please (a) have your accountant determine your net worth; (b) send me a check for half. Deal?
And what of the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who would have been instantly subjected to minority rule in the land they'd lived in their whole lives?
By "alternative type of state" I assume you're referring to Israel, whose current government was elected because a fanatical religious leader claimed he had a vision just before the election, and who also bowed to religious extremist leaders in effectively banning interfaith marriages.
You support it; you tell me.
Why not? Obviously the alternative to foreign aid is no aid. You do know we're running up $400,000,000,000.00 deficits year after year, right?
The people who attacked us on 9/11 are dead. The people who trained and financed them are still alive and laughing in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Other than being a bit over the belt, how did he abuse his health? I don't believe he's ever smoked. Other than the stress factor of being a U.S. Senator, it appears to me he's lived a full life and has enjoyed his family and friends which always helps. So maybe he's had a few two fingers regularly, that alone does not make him alcoholic or anywhere near, in fact drinking alcohol (wine, beer, spirits) in moderation seems to have some health benefit. The fact that he's made it to 76 is a good sign. As much as I wish he were more conservative, regardless of it, I hope he makes a full recovery.
Yes, that's what I was alluding too, a sympathy vote.
I said help propel. Nothing is for sure.
Just another opinion of mine.
Do we have yet another political paradox?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required