This isn't patriotism

[Alex+R 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...

And you think our enemies care about any us this political #######? No, they just want to win. Do you?

Who are our enemies and what are they going to win? Something behind door #3 perhaps?

Apparently you really don't know. Perhaps you think it's George W. Bush.

Do you know? Enlighten us.

[peezey 0]

Apparently you really don't know. Perhaps you think it's George W. Bush.

Apparently you have a clear idea. I hear this trash thrown around all the time, and because I question your rhetoric I am immediately cast as a Bush hater, but I'm not the one spewing 'us & them' ridiculousness. So, since you seem to know who THE enemy is, I'd like to know as well.

[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.

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.

Goodness, this is entertaining. First you insist that 'manipulated the congress into declaring war' is a title only for Bush, that must be an insult to Bush, following your assertion that because this is 'wartime' footing, we must not criticize, and now you're insisting that it isn't a war contrary to your earlier statements, because you've linked a Wikipedia article.

Police action and war are historically very different things, though with the expansion of the powers of the executive branch lately they're nearly indistinguishable practically and politically. Hence why I said it's largely moot; a police action was intended for limited engagements, not to mention a bit of creative legal footwork to avoid having to bother declaring war in order to authorize military force. That's really no longer the case, except that maybe if we'd formally declared war we'd have an exit strategy.

But then, I haven't been insisting we're at war! war! so we can't criticize the President. That's been you.So, if we're not at war, then we should be free, on your reasoning, to criticize.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Goodness, this is entertaining. First you insist that 'manipulated the congress into declaring war' is a title only for Bush, that must be an insult to Bush, following your assertion that because this is 'wartime' footing, we must not criticize, and now you're insisting that it isn't a war contrary to your earlier statements, because you've linked a Wikipedia article.

Police action and war are historically very different things, though with the expansion of the powers of the executive branch lately they're nearly indistinguishable practically and politically. Hence why I said it's largely moot; a police action was intended for limited engagements, not to mention a bit of creative legal footwork to avoid having to bother declaring war in order to authorize military force. That's really no longer the case, except that maybe if we'd formally declared war we'd have an exit strategy.

But then, I haven't been insisting we're at war! war! so we can't criticize the President. That's been you.So, if we're not at war, then we should be free, on your reasoning, to criticize.

what i was pointing out was someone attempting to lay such at the feet of bush. i've been quite entertained that no one figured out that not one president is guilty of what was said. i never said that title was reserved for bush, i was taking offense that someone was trying to insinuate it was his. carry on

[Caladan 19]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria. If we're splicing hairs over definitions (though I'm inclined to think you didn't get your case of the pedantic clevers until page four, else you wouldn't have cried Bush-bashing). If we allow in police actions/wars-that-are-only-wars when convenient, then it's pretty much every President since WWII.

All that aside....

Do you really believe what you say? Seriously? Forget Bush. If any President wishes to be immune from criticism, all he or she needs to do is start a war or police action, and then can take whatever steps necessary with those disgagreeing libelled as treasonous?

I realize you trust Bush... but would you be comfortable with Clinton having those powers? Presidential power is like toothpaste; once expanded, it doesn't go back in the tube.

[Alex+R 0]

Goodness, this is entertaining. First you insist that 'manipulated the congress into declaring war' is a title only for Bush, that must be an insult to Bush, following your assertion that because this is 'wartime' footing, we must not criticize, and now you're insisting that it isn't a war contrary to your earlier statements, because you've linked a Wikipedia article.

Police action and war are historically very different things, though with the expansion of the powers of the executive branch lately they're nearly indistinguishable practically and politically. Hence why I said it's largely moot; a police action was intended for limited engagements, not to mention a bit of creative legal footwork to avoid having to bother declaring war in order to authorize military force. That's really no longer the case, except that maybe if we'd formally declared war we'd have an exit strategy.

But then, I haven't been insisting we're at war! war! so we can't criticize the President. That's been you.So, if we're not at war, then we should be free, on your reasoning, to criticize.

what i was pointing out was someone attempting to lay such at the feet of bush. i've been quite entertained that no one figured out that not one president is guilty of what was said. i never said that title was reserved for bush, i was taking offense that someone was trying to insinuate it was his. carry on

Uh, the McKinley example, Charles? I know you've been quite amused, but too amused even to notice I provided an example of "such" (as you are so fond of saying) right away?

[pedroh 21]

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.

I am supportive to whoever does what is best for the country and people of the country I reside in, which is now America. This is what I learned in school overseas.

Democrat / republican / Alaskan whatever. It is quite evident in these forums alone of the failed immigration policy of the US. First rule of allowing anybody to migrate into a nation should be that they will love it and respect it as their own. Not someone who condemns it to death because apparently in 1937 the did bla bla bla. People always put the US's history in the spotlight for their past even though most other countries have much much worse histories..

Thank goodness you aren't in charge of who is a good American. Your ideas of such are completely against anything this country was founded on. It seems this is one time you need to go back to 1770s such and such and read up.

yea, he's confusing patriotism with fascism.. which historically hasn't been the best option..

[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".

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...

And you think our enemies care about any us this political #######? No, they just want to win. Do you?

Who are our enemies and what are they going to win? Something behind door #3 perhaps?

Apparently you really don't know. Perhaps you think it's George W. Bush.

Do you know? Enlighten us.

Perhaps you think we really don't have any enemies, and that we can just be very polite to everyone in the world and then they will play nice. By the looks of the quote in your sig that would appear to be the case.

[Alex+R 0]

Yes, war is inhuman, .:. I think all we need to do is be polite. Logical.

Anyway, you still haven't told me who the enemies that are laughing at liberals are and what they are hoping to win.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Uh, the McKinley example, Charles? I know you've been quite amused, but too amused even to notice I provided an example of "such" (as you are so fond of saying) right away?

so mckinley manipulated the people and congress to declare war? which war specifically? there was several.

[peezey 0]

Yes, war is inhuman, .:. I think all we need to do is be polite. Logical.

Anyway, you still haven't told me who the enemies that are laughing at liberals are and what they are hoping to win.

Everyone should suggest something from their state to put into the raffle.

[Alex+R 0]

Uh, the McKinley example, Charles? I know you've been quite amused, but too amused even to notice I provided an example of "such" (as you are so fond of saying) right away?

so mckinley manipulated the people and congress to declare war? which war specifically? there was several.

McKinley only had the Spanish-American war as a fully-declared war, Charles. And I already listed other conflicts entered into via propagandandizing.

The real issue is that these actions should have been questioned, and had questionable motives.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Don't you know that terrorists and Iraqi insurgents regularly tune into Fox News to hear Sean Hannity tear Nancy Pelosi a new one?

[Alex+R 0]

Yes, war is inhuman, .:. I think all we need to do is be polite. Logical.

Anyway, you still haven't told me who the enemies that are laughing at liberals are and what they are hoping to win.

Everyone should suggest something from their state to put into the raffle.

LOL We're donating the Mall of America.

[garya505 2]

Yes, war is inhuman, .:. I think all we need to do is be polite. Logical.

Anyway, you still haven't told me who the enemies that are laughing at liberals are and what they are hoping to win.

One of my New Year's resolutions is to stop pissing into the wind.