Posted on 06/24/2011 2:29:09 PM PDT by dead
“No, Bush had ‘congressional approval’ for war, whatever the hell that is.”
It didn’t say “We hereby declare war,” but it was a de facto declaration, and everyone knows it. To say otherwise is pointless nitpicking. As for Libya, there was no declaration whatsoever. Not explicitly, nor by wink-wink, nudg-nudge. Congress has yet to say it’s okay, and that’s a big, big, big difference.
“either authorize it completely or demand that the president terminate our military engagement”
Is this sort of sophistry what passes for Constitutional wisdom? He’s wiggled himself into the net of a stupid false choice.
its YOU that do not understand
resolved that bush had no declaration of war
me: here it is
you: that is not a declaration of war
me: yes it is - until you prove it is not, i win the point
you: well you suck
me: yes i do - but won the debate unless you can show me why the document is not a declaration of war
Show me the document.
they seem eager to accept the premise of the libtard attacks on bush
post 38
“even our founders used force in at least three actions before the first true War”
No one ever said the founders didn’t turn their backs on the Constitution as soon as they could. Or some of them, at least.
“would effectively force the U.S. government — from a political standpoint as well as a military standpoint — to wage a full-scale war against a foreign nation, obliterate its infrastructure, kill many people, etc”
No, it wouldn’t. War does not necessarily mean total war. It’s not all about unconditional surrender.
Was that so difficult?
I will tell you what that document is. It is:
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Does Congress have the constitutional power to authorize the use of military force? Or does Congress have the constitutional power to declare war? Choose.
“Nowadays, we fight colonial wars whose sole purpose is to topple one regime, support another governing faction, and spend many years in what often ends up being a useless ‘nation-building’ campaign.”
You think we wouldn’t be doing that if we had to declare war like in the old days? Seriously? No, I mean it, really, seriously? Is it really, honestly, seriously possible anyone thinks that?
LOL! Take them to school Sloop! Nice to see a FReeper that maintains a sense of humor. I agree with you, Bush had the closet thing to a Declaration of War that is going to come from the weasels in Congress these days......
use of military force IS war
It's called a Kinetic Military Action now Grace, and apparently congress has no say under this administration....
just amazing that people are so eager to accept the libtard premise so quickly
lecturing me about debating when they make up requirements out of thin air - you ask them to prove it - they can't
mark levin made the point that ‘it could be argued that bush did have a declaration’ - ima go with him
Answer the question. Choose.
“In this kind of scenario, destroying a foreign enemy’s infrastructure and laying waste to large pieces of real estate is completely counterproductive”
If that doesn’t describe what we did in Korea, Vietnam, and are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s only because they had no significant infrastructure or valued real estate in the first place. But that’s neither here nor there, unless you think not having to declare war in the traditional manner freed us up to fight Vietnam in the first place. Which is to say, as if had we to declare war explicitly we’d never fight anyone so backwards as the Vietnamese.
Of course you don’t think that, since you’re crazy. I just want to point out that though Vietnam did not possess 20th century civilization and we deliberately went out of our way not to target civilian centers and not to extend the war to unpopular extremes which would have been perfectly acceptable in other wars, we dropped more ordnance in Vietnam than in both WWII theaters and Vietnamese deaths were in the millions. To you that may be “just pick[ing] sides in the internal affairs of foreign countries,” but to me that’s pretty much a full scale war.
“Of course you don’t think that, since you’re crazy”
Oops, I meant since you’re NOT crazy.
Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.
And Congress has explicitly refused to declare war, or even authorize "use of force" ... so Zero's war against Libya is unconstitutional.
“I guess that the Congress still remembered the Soviet Union’s attack on Finland in November of 1939.”
Good for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.