If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   "Five repercussions of a military strike in Syria." Only five?   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, U.S., U.S. military, ramifications, Anthony Cordesman, Heads of state of Syria, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

5553 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 8:59 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-29 10:21:12 AM

Ned Stark: I like how not bombing people is "isolationism". As if wonton murder is the only way the US has to interact with the world.

It would be pathetic and sad if it weren't so frightening.


Dude I murdered some wontons last night. F*cking love those crunchy little bastards.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:16 AM

simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.


So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?
 
2013-08-29 10:23:37 AM
When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.
 
2013-08-29 10:25:02 AM
*sigh*

It's times like these that I find myself missing the nazis.
 
2013-08-29 10:25:22 AM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?


The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.
 
2013-08-29 10:29:20 AM

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.


Who exactly is pining for war that is a Farklibulartardo? The way I see it, the only good thing to come from the rabid hate of Obama from the right is that maybe now with a coalition of peace-niks and Obamaphobes we may actually have the traction to put the brakes on this insane venture.
 
2013-08-29 10:30:04 AM

simplicimus: The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.


Since there is no historical precedent of Congress ever stopping the initiation of hostilities after 60 days, that threat is a paper tiger.  No Congressman is going to risk appearing to not "support the troops".  The President authorizing military action of any scale is therefore a de facto declaration of war.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be repealed.
 
2013-08-29 10:31:02 AM

J. Frank Parnell: And chemical weapons are probably banned because simply they kill too many people too cheaply, and the military industrial complex doesn't like that. They have many equally horrible ways to kill people which are perfectly legal, so it can't realistically be an ethics thing.


Actually, chemical weapons are entirely inefficient in killing ability (at least in a battlefield sense). They were banned after WW1 because the public found them to be horrific weapons, much like nukes haven't been used since WW2 because of the horrific nature of it.
 
2013-08-29 10:32:43 AM

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?

The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.


You're a liar.

I notice you left out the part of the War Power Act that says this:

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Funny how you could miss the sentence right before the section you quoted.

Obama is violating the War Powers Act by deciding on his own to attack another nation that has not attacked us without consulting with Congress.
 
2013-08-29 10:33:08 AM
How about instead of bombing and killing more people... wait, stay with me here... We make a big deal about sending aid to those displaced children?  I know it's a crazy idea...
 
2013-08-29 10:33:12 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Who exactly is pining for war that is a Farklibulartardo? The way I see it, the only good thing to come from the rabid hate of Obama from the right is that maybe now with a coalition of peace-niks and Obamaphobes we may actually have the traction to put the brakes on this insane venture.


I sure do hope you're right.
 
2013-08-29 10:35:34 AM

AngryDragon: somedude210: I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games

I'm hearing that Americans are overwhelmingly farking tired of being the world's policemen and sick of warfare.  I don't think we really care who the president is.  It doesn't seem to matter anymore.


As long as people can be made to feel defensive when called an "isolationist", nothing will change.
This "cop and nanny to the world" bullshiat has been our foreign policy since WWII - nobody in either of the major parties has the slightest intention of changing it.
 
2013-08-29 10:35:40 AM

D135: How about instead of bombing and killing more people... wait, stay with me here... We make a big deal about sending aid to those displaced children?  I know it's a crazy idea...


But that would put us firmly on moral ground. Can't have that, it sends mixed messages.
 
2013-08-29 10:37:10 AM

somedude210: Actually, chemical weapons are entirely inefficient in killing ability (at least in a battlefield sense). They were banned after WW1 because the public found them to be horrific weapons, much like nukes haven't been used since WW2 because of the horrific nature of it.


Maybe mustard gas or something, if the enemy has masks, but VX and others are about as efficient as you can get.

And have you perhaps seen the horrifying birth defects caused by depleted uranium, not to mention all the cancer? The public is universally horrified with that, yet it persists. Maybe if brown people countries start using those shells it will be deemed illegal, then a year later they'll get invaded.
 
2013-08-29 10:38:17 AM

J. Frank Parnell: somedude210: if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?

My sources indicate it was you that ordered their use. Although i cannot reveal these sources for security reasons. I'm sure you understand.

But seriously, i'd suggest the entire purpose of 'international law' is to give casus belli for invasions. Why else would they ignore the majority of violations and only concern themselves with ones alleged to have happened in countries they want to attack? And chemical weapons are probably banned because simply they kill too many people too cheaply, and the military industrial complex doesn't like that. They have many equally horrible ways to kill people which are perfectly legal, so it can't realistically be an ethics thing.


This - you can't have people running around killing thousands for pennies. It's unprofitable , and hence, un-American.
 
2013-08-29 10:38:53 AM

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.


I'm pretty much against a war, or even limited strikes without further information, and I was against the Iraq war, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Firstly calls for Bushes impeachment really hinged around the fact his lies were exposed. The justifications for war his government fabricated are known as lies. That is worthy of a call to impeach. Obama hasn't done anything yet. Someone demanding he be impeached for invading Syria is a mentalist.

Secondly there does lie an issue with justification. Bush had none. If this can be proved to be a chemical attack on civilians carried out by Assad's regime, then there does exist a clear casus belli under international and humanitarian law. (As far as my limited understanding goes, based on the fact that NATO in Bosnia set a legal precedent)

That is an if, and I don't support action because I want some cast iron, 100% proof before I agree to anything.

Fortunately for us all I am the one in charge of the world, because governments have people read Fark just to hear my thoughts and opinions on what to do. I assume they do, anyway.
 
2013-08-29 10:39:33 AM

AngryDragon: simplicimus: The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.

Since there is no historical precedent of Congress ever stopping the initiation of hostilities after 60 days, that threat is a paper tiger.  No Congressman is going to risk appearing to not "support the troops".  The President authorizing military action of any scale is therefore a de facto declaration of war.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be repealed.


IIRC, the last declared war was WWII.
 
2013-08-29 10:41:17 AM

Slaxl: Firstly calls for Bushes impeachment really hinged around the fact his lies were exposed. The justifications for war his government fabricated are known as lies. That is worthy of a call to impeach. Obama hasn't done anything yet. Someone demanding he be impeached for invading Syria is a mentalist.


The US has been gunning for Syria for 20 years.
 
2013-08-29 10:43:38 AM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?

The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.

You're a liar.

I notice you left out the part of the War Power Act that says this:

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Funny how you could miss the sentence right before the section you quoted.

Obama is violating the War Powers Act by deciding on his own to attack another nation that has not attacked us without consulting with Congress.


So, the section you quoted contradicts the section I quoted. They're both in the same Act.
 
2013-08-29 10:44:08 AM

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.



It's an entertaining test -- to see if the Proggies love Obama more than they hate Bush.

It's even more entertaining when you consider the possibility that the chemical weapons that Obama is illegally attacking may be the same stockpile of weapons that Iraq moved to Syria just before the Iraq war in 2003 (as top Iraqi military officials later asserted).

3.bp.blogspot.com

This military campaign by the Proggies' man-crush Obama could, in a single move, both vindicate the Bush administration on the "fabricated WMDs" narrative, AND reveal Obama to be MORE willing to launch an unpopular war than Bush, on account of his failure to even seek the approval of Congress.
 
2013-08-29 10:46:51 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Maybe mustard gas or something, if the enemy has masks, but VX and others are about as efficient as you can get.


well the law was written in 1925, so the advancement of chemical/biological warfare did not get to such levels yet. and chlorine gas was far more potent a weapon than any other gas developed during the war. That said, yes, the law needs to be tweaked.

J. Frank Parnell: And have you perhaps seen the horrifying birth defects caused by depleted uranium, not to mention all the cancer? The public is universally horrified with that, yet it persists. Maybe if brown people countries start using those shells it will be deemed illegal, then a year later they'll get invaded.


I am not at all endorsing this potential conflict or the use of weapons such as these.

and aren't depleted uranium shells frowned upon? Much like white phosphorous usage?
 
2013-08-29 10:47:01 AM

Slaxl: Secondly there does lie an issue with justification. Bush had none


Congress passed the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq.

In contrast, Obama refuses to even consult with Congress.
 
2013-08-29 10:47:25 AM

simplicimus: AngryDragon: simplicimus: The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.

Since there is no historical precedent of Congress ever stopping the initiation of hostilities after 60 days, that threat is a paper tiger.  No Congressman is going to risk appearing to not "support the troops".  The President authorizing military action of any scale is therefore a de facto declaration of war.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be repealed.

IIRC, the last declared war was WWII.


Precisely.  The WPR of '73 was passed to legitimize Korea and Vietnam and has been used in Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya (twice), Kosovo, and Bosnia since.
 
2013-08-29 10:49:52 AM

Phinn: This military campaign by the Proggies' man-crush Obama could, in a single move, both vindicate the Bush administration on the "fabricated WMDs" narrative, AND reveal Obama to be MORE willing to launch an unpopular war than Bush, on account of his failure to even seek the approval of Congress.


I have to ask this because there is a lot of war talk going on.

There hasn't been a single mention of the West (US, GB, NATO, etc) putting boots on the ground at all, correct? So this is going to be at worse, Libya or Kosovo?

Making comparisons that this is the same as Operation Daddy Issues is intellectually disingenuous.
 
2013-08-29 10:49:55 AM

phenn: Slaxl: Firstly calls for Bushes impeachment really hinged around the fact his lies were exposed. The justifications for war his government fabricated are known as lies. That is worthy of a call to impeach. Obama hasn't done anything yet. Someone demanding he be impeached for invading Syria is a mentalist.

The US has been gunning for Syria for 20 years.


I would have thought longer, but does that on it's own really change anything? If the matter is whether a chemical weapon attack on populations is punishable by international intervention then does the fact that they're someone we've been jonesing for a fight with really matter? Only if you consider the possibility that the chemical weapon attack didn't happen, or was done by the US or something crazy like that.

Like I said, I don't want a war, but I don't think that someone anti-Iraq and pro-Syrian war are necessarily hypocritical (though perhaps it will be easy to find a few uninformed partisan hacks who are as you describe).
 
2013-08-29 10:53:13 AM
newyork.citypudding.com

"Three, sir!"
 
2013-08-29 10:56:12 AM

BullBearMS: Slaxl: Secondly there does lie an issue with justification. Bush had none

Congress passed the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq.

In contrast, Obama refuses to even consult with Congress.


A) Congress is not in session to consult with
B) If the president gets the paperwork McConnell and Boehner within 48 hours, he's in the clear
 
2013-08-29 10:57:51 AM

simplicimus: So, the section you quoted contradicts the section I quoted. They're both in the same Act.


Yes, liar.

However the section you quoted deals with what what the President must report to Congress in the event of military action, and doesn't have a damn thing to do with him consulting with Congress before sending our military into combat.

Consulting with Congress is an absolute requirement if it is at all possible.

That's why the section you quoted is titled "Reporting" and not "Consultation".

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
Nice attempt to lie about the contents of the War Powers Resolution, though.
 
2013-08-29 10:59:15 AM

Slaxl: Like I said, I don't want a war, but I don't think that someone anti-Iraq and pro-Syrian war are necessarily hypocritical (though perhaps it will be easy to find a few uninformed partisan hacks who are as you describe).


This is not a US problem.  That's what people are upset about.  There are 193 members of the UN, 28 members of NATO, and 15 members of the Security Council.  Let someone else take the lead this time.  Syria has a lot of neighbors in those groups whose interests are a hell of a lot closer to Syria than ours.
 
2013-08-29 11:00:39 AM

simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with


Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.
 
2013-08-29 11:02:48 AM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.


Um, we're not the UK.
 
2013-08-29 11:04:22 AM

simplicimus: B) If the president gets the paperwork McConnell and Boehner within 48 hours, he's in the clear


If the President attacks another nations without consulting with Congress first, he is in violation of the War Powers Act as both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out.

Why continue to lie about it?
 
2013-08-29 11:05:30 AM

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.

Um, we're not the UK.


The President can't call Congress into session?
 
2013-08-29 11:13:47 AM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.

Um, we're not the UK.

The President can't call Congress into session?


Honestly, I have no idea. Would need to research. State Governors have that power.

BullBearMS: simplicimus: B) If the president gets the paperwork McConnell and Boehner within 48 hours, he's in the clear

If the President attacks another nations without consulting with Congress first, he is in violation of the War Powers Act as both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out.

Why continue to lie about it?


OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?
 
2013-08-29 11:16:26 AM

karnal: Evil Mackerel: Maybe we'll send a nuke this time and give our troops a chance to rest for a change.

/Or maybe we can just sit this one out.

Where are all the Muslim countries for this.....this is their responsiblity.  I'm looking at you Bosnia, Saudi, Kosovo, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Eastern Turkestan, Chechnya, Somalia and Afghanistan.
I understand all you Muslim leaders are sitting very fat and comfortable in your golden palaces....but why wouldn't you send troops to help your fellow Muslims?


WHY?


/Swims past the hook.
 
2013-08-29 11:19:29 AM

simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?


Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.
 
2013-08-29 11:19:45 AM
If Dick Cheney was running the show, it would be a win-win situation, with just rosy outcomes all around.
 
2013-08-29 11:20:12 AM

Slaxl: Like I said, I don't want a war


No one should - not under ANY president.

War is the folly of bankers who hedge their bets by funding both sides of the conflict. The people in the middle - the men, women and children - who are innocent and who lose life and limb are nothing more than collateral damage to the greedy farks perpetrating the destruction.

Can you think of any evil worse than war? I can't.

My original point is that Americans should be JUST as disgusted and outraged with this as they once were about Iraq. But, neighbor, I ain't hearing much.

There is simply no justification for any of this.
 
2013-08-29 11:23:39 AM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?

Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.


Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?
 
2013-08-29 11:26:06 AM

AngryDragon: BullBearMS: simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?

Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.

Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?


Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?
 
2013-08-29 11:27:56 AM

phenn: There is simply no justification for any of this


What are you?  Some kind of racist?
 
2013-08-29 11:28:30 AM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?

Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.


Libya was part of the Nato Compact. Which leads to this lump of gobbledygook:
(a)  Inferences from any law or treatyAuthority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.(b)  Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commandsNothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
 
2013-08-29 11:29:36 AM
6)  Top US General's Read "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler and realize they are no longer protecting America and are protecting Oil/Gas Cartels and Usury banking.  So instead of attacking Syria on the basis of lies and propaganda they use facts and evidence by following the money to attack the traitors and criminals within the US government.  Everyone connected with PNAC and AIPAC are arrested and pressured to give up information on their superiors(without the use of torture but lesser sentences if not immunity).  The Federal Reserve Bank's Charter is to be revoked as congress is disbanded and new "fair" elections to take place that eliminate the 2 party system of dominance giving equal time and money to any canidate that accumulates enough of popular support from individuals not groups what ever that number is.  An updated version of the Constitution is created and signed by Any member State or Nation, Now called the United States of Earth. The Central Banking scheme is permanently banned.  Prosperity, justice, and the rule of law return to the US and expanded to the rest of the world through open communication and compromise rather than by force of arms and bullying.
 
2013-08-29 11:31:23 AM

BullBearMS: Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?

Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?


We're missing each other here somehow.  The War Powers Resolution is not a part of the Constitution.  The enumerated powers of the branches of government are.  The Senate ONLY can declare or authorize war.  In my opinion if the WPR is going to be the way going forward it should be amended to remove the 60-day grace.
 
2013-08-29 11:33:15 AM

J. Frank Parnell: AngryDragon: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu, 544BC - 496BC

Rushing into a strike because we have to "DO SOMETHING" is just another disaster in the making.

Agreed. And to be clear, i'm sure the US knows each and every group they'd be pissing off if they attacked, and their ability to retaliate. If they try to act like they didn't expect Russia and China to do something it will smell like bullshiat to everyone, because they couldn't be more obvious. Coincidentally i notice that isn't on the list of possible repercussions, and it's by far the most dire.


I disagree with US military involvement. However, I'm not sure what you think Russia and China are going to do. China has no ability to stop us in the region, and Russia won't directly attack or disrupt US military action.
 
2013-08-29 11:33:58 AM
My fav article title so far was at CNN

"What a US air strike against Syria may look like."   OMG, we KNOW what US air strikes look like.  We know less about Paris Hilton's tits than we do about what US air strikes.
 
2013-08-29 11:41:31 AM

simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.


Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Libya didn't attack America. Libya didn't attack any NATO nation.

You know what Libya did do?

Thanks to State Department cables leaked by Manning, we know that Libya was threatening to kick western oil firms out of Libya and keep their oil wells right before we decided to depose him.

So yet another oil nation where we deposed a leader who threatened us.

Obama's illegal war was about oil company profits, and nothing else.
 
2013-08-29 11:41:54 AM

prjindigo: My fav article title so far was at CNN

"What a US air strike against Syria may look like."   OMG, we KNOW what US air strikes look like.  We know less about Paris Hilton's tits than we do about what US air strikes.


Where have you been?  They're actually fairly nice.
 
2013-08-29 11:45:19 AM
I'm hypothetically angry about these hypothetical outrages.
 
2013-08-29 11:50:39 AM

AngryDragon: BullBearMS: Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?

Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?

We're missing each other here somehow.  The War Powers Resolution is not a part of the Constitution.  The enumerated powers of the branches of government are.  The Senate ONLY can declare or authorize war.  In my opinion if the WPR is going to be the way going forward it should be amended to remove the 60-day grace.


Ahhh... I get your drift now.

Remember that the 60 days only applies if another nation attacks us first.

With modern communications, however, allowing the President to retaliate for 60 days without Congressional approval does seem excessive.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report