15 Jan 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou side steped the question of you, your country, the UN, and Darfur. Show me even a small example of your ways of solving problems. Show me an example of how its done. Show me that your country is willing to get its hands dirty to fix a problem outside you own borders.
to all stupid americans who use the "romania is like togo" and "romania has problems so any romanians don't have the fundamental human rights because they are second rate humans" argument. start debating and stop using lame second grade excuses like "no,you're stupid ".
by stupid americans i mean those two who used such brilliant arguments to contradict ...[text shortened]... achine in the world, then it is everybody's concern. so think a little before spamming.
Its easy to criticize from the sidelines, isn't it!! But until you step into that arena, you have no right to even whisper! Until your country has stepped in to help another, you can not even stand in President Bush's shadow.
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by Dace Acethis stuff is dated 1999. i don't know if it is still up to date. and if it is, doesn't it demonstrate that the president doesn't know his own countries laws? "Giving the force of law to a concurrent resolution dealing with the circumstances specified in Section 5(c) allows Congress to exercise a legislative veto over military actions initiated by the President without a congressional war declaration or authorizing statute." this means that if the congress wants to, it has the power to stop the bush. but bush clearly states that no matter what will be discussed in the congress, the troops will be sent.
Read up, my friend.
http://www.geocities.com/way_leroy/ProConVolTwoIssueOnePage5.html
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by Dace Acelike i stated before, my country, like togo and the others, don't have the power to level the hole planet with nuclear bombs. my countries doesn't have tanks, and carriers and smart bombs. my country doesn't engage in wars of occupation of different countries. if my country is run by a maniac nobody will be very worked about it. who cares what romania does? if we get sick, nobody cares. if your country gets sick, or does a blunder, the whole planet is going to feel it. so don't use the "i have the right to be a bastard because you are also one" argument. it doesn't work pass the second grade
You side steped the question of you, your country, the UN, and Darfur. Show me even a small example of your ways of solving problems. Show me an example of how its done. Show me that your country is willing to get its hands dirty to fix a problem outside you own borders.
Its easy to criticize from the sidelines, isn't it!! But until you step into tha ...[text shortened]... our country has stepped in to help another, you can not even stand in President Bush's shadow.
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe President can send as many or as few troops as he wants to Iraq. He is the Commander in Chief of the military. That makes him in charge of all military actions. He's the top dog in the chain of command. Congress is not in the military chain of command at all, therefore they have no say in strategic decisions. Like I said earlier, their responsibility toward the military is budgetary. That's why they can effect the military through funding.
now to the issue at hand. in his own words: bush said that no matter what the congress or the main parties or the american people say, it has already been decided to go ahead. decided by whom? since when does a president from a democratic country starts making decisions on his own?
Think of it this way, the President has control over the military, but he has to get the money from Congress. So, he is right.Congress cannot order him to not send troops, but Congress can choose not to pay for it.
15 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Merkthis is not democratical at all. bush doesn't need funding from the congress, the oil companies and mcdonalds and coca-cola will provide all the funding he needs. if this is congress's only option to stoping the president, then your democracy is really really flawed. how can one man have the final say in directing the lives of your soldiers?
The President can send as many or as few troops as he wants to Iraq. He is the Commander in Chief of the military. That makes him in charge of all military actions. He's the top dog in the chain of command. Congress is not in the military chain of command at all, therefore they have no say in strategic decisions. Like I said earlier, their responsibility toward right.Congress cannot order him to not send troops, but Congress can choose not to pay for it.
of course, respectfully, i don't think you are correct. in this thread
http://www.geocities.com/way_leroy/ProConVolTwoIssueOnePage5.html
i think the congress can veto the president in any case the congress hasn't made a proper declaration of war. and even then, the congress can choose to end war. in any democratic state, on power cannot and shouldn't have absolute control over the other.
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe legislative veto was found unconstitutional in the early 80's.
this stuff is dated 1999. i don't know if it is still up to date. and if it is, doesn't it demonstrate that the president doesn't know his own countries laws? "Giving the force of law to a concurrent resolution dealing with the circumstances specified in Section 5(c) allows Congress to exercise a legislative veto over military actions initiated by the Pres ...[text shortened]... arly states that no matter what will be discussed in the congress, the troops will be sent.
Regardless of that, the passage quoted there is from the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The WPR is in regards to situations when American military is involved in hostilities without a formal Declaration of War.
Public Law 107-243 (I think that's the number) called "The Authorization of use of Force in Iraq" is a Declaration of War.
The WPR has no bearing on the military engagement in Iraq.
15 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Merklol that is tragic.
The legislative veto was found unconstitutional in the early 80's.
Regardless of that, the passage quoted there is from the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The WPR is in regards to situations when American military is involved in hostilities without a formal Declaration of War.
Public Law 107-243 (I think that's the number) called "The Authorization of u ...[text shortened]... Iraq" is a Declaration of War.
The WPR has no bearing on the military engagement in Iraq.
but when does a war ends? who decide when the war ends? shouldn't this be up to the congress? can it decide to end the war in irak and then can they veto the further deployment of troops?
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou can think I'm wrong all you want. You clearly don't know the US Constitution. That's fine, its not your job to know. However, it is mine.
this is not democratical at all. bush doesn't need funding from the congress, the oil companies and mcdonalds and coca-cola will provide all the funding he needs. if this is congress's only option to stoping the president, then your democracy is really really flawed. how can one man have the final say in directing the lives of your soldiers?
of course, ...[text shortened]... n any democratic state, on power cannot and shouldn't have absolute control over the other.
As for companies funding the military, that won't work either. Funding has to come through congress. (tax money)
And no, the President cannot just order the miltary to go to war, Congress has to authorize it also. Congress has to issue a declaration of war that authorizes the president to use the military for war.
15 Jan 07
yes, but in the thread dace ace supplied it says about times where a declaration of war is not needed for the president to order deployment of troops. (but the congress can veto such order)
my problem is that bush says that those troops will go to irak no matter what the congress say. and i thought that if this would be true, then it be quite horrible
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziAmerican involvement in a war ends when the commander of the military (president) decides its time end it. Be it through victory and subsequent treaties (which the senate also has to agree too. Treaties that is.) or for any other reason he decides to stop.
lol that is tragic.
but when does a war ends? who decide when the war ends? shouldn't this be up to the congress? can it decide to end the war in irak and then can they veto the further deployment of troops?
The reason only the president is the commander is because you can't possible manage a war with 535 people (congress) all making command decisions.
And I will say again, Congress can stop the war. They can stop paying for it. The President submits his annual budget request for the war in a few weeks. Congress can end it by not approving the Presidents budget request.
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe President is right about that. If he says they will go, they will go. He orders them, they follow his orders.
yes, but in the thread dace ace supplied it says about times where a declaration of war is not needed for the president to order deployment of troops. (but the congress can veto such order)
my problem is that bush says that those troops will go to irak no matter what the congress say. and i thought that if this would be true, then it be quite horrible
Paying for them will then be Congresses issue.
However, where this all gets muddy is if Congress decides to cut the funds, (this will never happen. Its political suicide for them.) this will then go to the Supreme Court. The case will likely be that cutting funding de facto usurps the constitutional responsibility of the executive branch (president) and places the power to command the military in the Congressional branch.
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by MerkDoes it say that the US declares war against Iraq? Or does it avoid this phrase?
The legislative veto was found unconstitutional in the early 80's.
Regardless of that, the passage quoted there is from the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The WPR is in regards to situations when American military is involved in hostilities without a formal Declaration of War.
Public Law 107-243 (I think that's the number) called "The Authorization of u ...[text shortened]... Iraq" is a Declaration of War.
The WPR has no bearing on the military engagement in Iraq.
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt does not say "declaration of war", it uses the euphimism "authorization of use of force in Iraq."
Does it say that the US declares war against Iraq? Or does it avoid this phrase?
This word game is irrelevant. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a declaration of war has to use those exact words. The specific sections regarding declaring wars says, "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rules concerning captures of land and water."
The donks can use that "depends on what your definition of is is crap all they want. It won't hold up in front of SCOTUS.
Also, I think the issue of whether or not it is a declaration of war has already gone to court and found to be a declaration of war, though I cannot cite at this time.
15 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkDid the US grant letters of marque? How about rules concerning captures of land and water?
It does not say "declaration of war", it uses the euphimism "authorization of use of force in Iraq."
This word game is irrelevant. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a declaration of war has to use those exact words. The specific sections regarding declaring wars says, "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rules concerning y gone to court and found to be a declaration of war, though I cannot cite at this time.
"Also, I think the issue of whether or not it is a declaration of war has already gone to court and found to be a declaration of war, though I cannot cite at this time."
Don't just make up "facts" please.