This isn't patriotism

[Caladan 19]

This is a strange battle cry: "NO IT IS ONLY MY PRESIDENT WHO LIES TO CONGRESS YOU CAN'T NAME ANOTHER ONE!!!!!"

here is your next thought to ponder. is the war in iraq a declared war by congress?

Just adding some info down here. The CIA, under JFK administration, planned and set up all the military dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile on the middle of the 20th century...

and was that a declared war?

I'm not sure what you're after here. Presidents have manipulated Congress to expand their own war powers (Korea, Vietnam, pick something with Reagan, pick a Clinton airstrike, this current mess). This one managed to use 9/11 to get himself a fully declared warlike thingy (the difference between a police action and a war at this point is moot). (And yes, McKinley, 1898, a declared war, fueled by Hearst & the young war hawks.)

You seem to want to claim that only Bush has lied to Congress to get us into a war, but I have to admit that I'm totally bewildered as to why you seem to think this is a badge of honor.

And, to your charge of Bush-bashing, in a thread about whether questioning a President is treasonous and unpatriotic, when someone brings up 'only in wartime', it isn't bashing to say, 'what if the guy lies to get you into that war? is it unpatriotic to point that out?' It's only bashing if it's irrelevant, false, or off-topic... that's just not the case here.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Caladan

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Charles the last time we formally declared war was WWII. I don't think this is the argument you want to be using.

because it's been a lot of fun leading all of you around due to your using the wrong phrases

[Alex+R 0]

This one managed to use 9/11 to get himself a fully declared warlike thingy (the difference between a police action and a war at this point is moot).

I would agree that for the purpose of this argument yeah it is (people are still dying) but there is a difference in how accountable the gov't feels to its people when it's not formally at war.

In the NSA wiretapping hearings, Alberto Gonzales said:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

So it seems to make a difference to him. Also, these actions technically do not require congress's approval, although the current ones have it.

edited for spelling of Gonzales

Edited January 9, 2007 by Alex+R

[Heracles 417]

A link for all the Dems here:

http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf

The irony of that video is that they use the first amendment to say ####### like that yet hypocritically refuse to accept other people's differing beliefs and views..

It cracks me up when Democrats like George Clonney use the US Amendments to bag the ###### out of America yet chose to live in countries where they don't have half as many of these laws to use at their convenience. Ignorance and naiveness is a two way street.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Infidel

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

This is a strange battle cry: "NO IT IS ONLY MY PRESIDENT WHO LIES TO CONGRESS YOU CAN'T NAME ANOTHER ONE!!!!!"

here is your next thought to ponder. is the war in iraq a declared war by congress?

Just adding some info down here. The CIA, under JFK administration, planned and set up all the military dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile on the middle of the 20th century...

and was that a declared war?

I'm not sure what you're after here. Presidents have manipulated Congress to expand their own war powers (Korea, Vietnam, pick something with Reagan, pick a Clinton airstrike, this current mess). This one managed to use 9/11 to get himself a fully declared warlike thingy (the difference between a police action and a war at this point is moot). (And yes, McKinley, 1898, a declared war, fueled by Hearst & the young war hawks.)

You seem to want to claim that only Bush has lied to Congress to get us into a war, but I have to admit that I'm totally bewildered as to why you seem to think this is a badge of honor.

And, to your charge of Bush-bashing, in a thread about whether questioning a President is treasonous and unpatriotic, when someone brings up 'only in wartime', it isn't bashing to say, 'what if the guy lies to get you into that war? is it unpatriotic to point that out?' It's only bashing if it's irrelevant, false, or off-topic... that's just not the case here.

1. this is not a declared war in iraq

2. there is no president that this applies to: "...as long as the president can manipulate the ppl and congress to declare war..."

as for the difference between a police action and a declared war, there's plenty of difference.

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court, however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

link

Police action in military/security studies and international relations, is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.

link

it sure has been fun watching all of you fall over yourself. if you're not sure why a declaration of war is important, back to civics class.

[Reynaldo 0]

A link for all the Dems here:

http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf

The irony of that video is that they use the first amendment to say ####### like that yet hypocritically refuse to accept other people's differing beliefs and views..

It cracks me up when Democrats like George Clonney use the US Amendments to bag the ###### out of America yet chose to live in countries where they don't have half as many of these laws to use at their convenience. Ignorance and naiveness is a two way street.

I guess you watched the wrong video...

[garya505 2]

Reading some of these posts I can imagine our enemies sitting around laughing their azzes off planning their next attack. They're probably thinking, "what a bunch of clueless fcuking idiots, we can beat them easily".

[Reynaldo 0]

This is useless...

[Alex+R 0]

This is a strange battle cry: "NO IT IS ONLY MY PRESIDENT WHO LIES TO CONGRESS YOU CAN'T NAME ANOTHER ONE!!!!!"

here is your next thought to ponder. is the war in iraq a declared war by congress?

Just adding some info down here. The CIA, under JFK administration, planned and set up all the military dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile on the middle of the 20th century...

and was that a declared war?

I'm not sure what you're after here. Presidents have manipulated Congress to expand their own war powers (Korea, Vietnam, pick something with Reagan, pick a Clinton airstrike, this current mess). This one managed to use 9/11 to get himself a fully declared warlike thingy (the difference between a police action and a war at this point is moot). (And yes, McKinley, 1898, a declared war, fueled by Hearst & the young war hawks.)

You seem to want to claim that only Bush has lied to Congress to get us into a war, but I have to admit that I'm totally bewildered as to why you seem to think this is a badge of honor.

And, to your charge of Bush-bashing, in a thread about whether questioning a President is treasonous and unpatriotic, when someone brings up 'only in wartime', it isn't bashing to say, 'what if the guy lies to get you into that war? is it unpatriotic to point that out?' It's only bashing if it's irrelevant, false, or off-topic... that's just not the case here.

1. this is not a declared war in iraq

2. there is no president that this applies to: "...as long as the president can manipulate the ppl and congress to declare war..."

as for the difference between a police action and a declared war, there's plenty of difference.

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court, however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

link

Police action in military/security studies and international relations, is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.

link

it sure has been fun watching all of you fall over yourself. if you're not sure why a declaration of war is important, back to civics class.

What was your point? I just said there was a difference.

[Heracles 417]

Just adding some info down here. The CIA, under JFK administration, planned and set up all the military dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile on the middle of the 20th century...

So you are also against democrats?

[Reynaldo 0]

Reading some of these posts I can imagine our enemies sitting around laughing their azzes off planning their next attack. They're probably thinking, "what a bunch of clueless fcuking idiots, we can beat them easily".

Here:

http://www.amazon.com/1984-George-Orwell/d...TF8&s=books

Read it and see how much it looks like your gov't.

Now don't try to push that BS to us, because we can spend time on Charles because of semantics, but not on someone who actually believes on what they say...

So you are also against democrats?

I am just saying that GWB was not the first one...

And the fact that he was the first one, or not, will not change the fact that he is a liar...

[Alex+R 0]

Just adding some info down here. The CIA, under JFK administration, planned and set up all the military dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile on the middle of the 20th century...

So you are also against democrats?

He's from Brazil. Do you really think he's a loyal Democrat? Most people (with the exception of you) do not form party loyalties when they are not from the U.S. nor, in his case, have they ever been there.

[Reynaldo 0]

And I bet someone will say that Orwell was a liberal tree hugger...

If you are THAT alienated, then you are hopeless...

[Heracles 417]

In the NSA wiretapping hearings, Alberto Gonzales said:

So your against the war and also against any measures taken to prevent wars or terror attacks.

Newsflash: Every country in the world is looking after their own interests. The only thing is you do not hear about it because they are not stupid enough to allow a NYT equivalent to broadcast it to everyone else.

[Alex+R 0]

In the NSA wiretapping hearings, Alberto Gonzales said:

So your against the war and also against any measures taken to prevent wars or terror attacks.

Newsflash: Every country in the world is looking after their own interests. The only thing is you do not hear about it because they are not stupid enough to allow a NYT equivalent to broadcast it to everyone else.

LOL You saw the words "NSA wiretappings" and went off like a rabid dog.