Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on February 14, 2003, 01:27:04 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/13/anti.war.lawsuit.ap/index.html
-
your honour, when i joined the army , i had no idea that one day i might actualy have to go to war. so like a true american i'm going to sue.
-
Nice red herring, John. Either that or you can't read. That's not their point at all - they are objecting to deviation from your constitution. Last time I heard, that was quite important to true Americans.
I'm for one sick of the lack of a declaration of war when our armed forces are in action. If, before any hostilities, Parliament had to ratify a proposal of war, people might take things a little more seriously. As it is we have had RAF crews getting shot at all the time over Iraq and no one gives a damn.
-
So some whacko leftist Democrat Congressmen were against the first gulf war, and now some more are against the second. In the mean time we have Democrat congressmen going to Baghdad and having tea and making propaganda with Saddam - who's side are the democrats on again? They really seem to go for broke when their buddy hussein is threatened by the evil USA.
Imagine 54 of these Democrats wanted to stop the fitst Gulf war after iraq openly invaded and conquered a significant US oil source and threatened to do so to another even bigger one.
After such acts why should anyone care what they say now?
-
Go Hawaii!!
Go Maine!!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/sprj.irq.lawmakers.protest.ap/
Detuschland vorwarts fur Frieden!
Allez la France pour la Paix!
Abajo Aznar, lameculos del Emperador sin Sesos!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So some whacko leftist Democrat Congressmen were against the first gulf war, and now some more are against the second. In the mean time we have Democrat congressmen going to Baghdad and having tea and making propaganda with Saddam - who's side are the democrats on again?
I think they're on the same side as the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by takeda
Go Hawaii!!
Go Maine!!
I've never been so embarrassed...
-
very embarrassed
-
State Rep. Tom Watson, a Democrat from Maine, spoke about his experience in Vietnam: "No matter how surgically a war is fought ... war is still a bloody, brutal business that must be avoided at all costs."
When I was 15, I heard a song by a prominent Swedish artist. He sung 'is it really peace that we want - at any cost?'. It wasn't about US aggression or somesuch, but up to that date I had always thought that peace always was preferrable to war.
Now this state representative is saying war...must be avoided at all costs. Since I've studied comp. sci. I am a little sensitive to syntax and semantics. His statement would, by my mind compiler, compile this statement:
If Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein came over here and raped, tortured and murdered my daughters and son, and the same for my wife, and then killed ever other American before finally forcing me to have oral sex with him, I would still think appeasing him and peace would be the best alternative for the American people'.
An objectionable little piece of text, and I understand that some puritans will have issues with me mentioning sex and rape in it. But, semantically, it would be in compliance with that representatives stance.
War should not be avoided at all costs. Avoided, yes, but sometimes, a period of war followed by real peace is preferrable to a peace of opression, torture and death.
-
Cowards and disgruntled Democreeps... nothing more.
-
That's not their point at all - they are objecting to deviation from your constitution. Last time I heard, that was quite important to true Americans.
Military action doesn't require a declaration of war. Congress can authorize military action, and the War Powers Act gives the president some autonomy in certain circumstances. The last time the US declared war was WWII.
And Conyers is an 'ex' communist, so his interpretation of the Constitution is meaningless, as he once sought to throw it out. He is not a 'true American'.
ra
-
I'd love to see a Congressional vote on this, as soon as possible.
It isn't like they haven't seen the conflict coming down the road for a long time. No need for a long debate.
Let's just have them vote now.
If a Declaration passes, that alone will clear the air in both Iraq and the UN.
If it fails, the Representatives of the people have spoken. Their wisdom will be revealed most likely before the next elections and adjustments can be made accordingly.
-
If you think this has ANYTHING to do with the constitution then you are sadly naive.
It's disgraceful to see people who volunteer for service sue to get out of their duty. They knew BEFORE they signed up that there is always a chance they will have to fight but these losers want to get all they can out of our military without fulfilling their obligation to it.
The Democrats are doing what they always do....lie..cheat .....manipulate to get their way.
-
The Democrats are doing what they always do....lie..cheat .....manipulate to get their way.
...and sue.
BTW, this same kind of thing happened during Gulf War I.
ra
-
Originally posted by StSanta
War should not be avoided at all costs. Avoided, yes, but sometimes, a period of war followed by real peace is preferrable to a peace of opression, torture and death. [/B]
It's a nonsensical statement anyway.
If it must be avoided at all costs, then it must be avoided even if it means war. In which case it won't have been avoided.
So it means (by popular usage) War must be avoided at all costs, except .
Which is obvious really. And both sides can play, the costs are just different.
Which leaves those who believe war should not be avoided at all costs except
see?
-
so where is your indignation with "screwing with the consitution" when someone wants to touch the 2nd ammenment ?
Constitution is constitution is consitition. Republicans have a majority anyway, so it will pass anyway. Why are they not following the path that founding fathers drew ?
Then again, once Ashkroft has his way we might as well throw away whole Bill of Rights.
-
Then again, once Ashkroft has his way we might as well throw away whole Bill of Rights.
What does Ashcroft have to do with this war? And what is the conflict with the constitution? Just because you disagree with something an administration is doing doesn't make it unconstitutional.
ra
-
Some of them aren't standing up but rather hiding in a hole I hope they someday have the courage to climb out of.
"Other plaintiffs include a member of the Massachusetts National Guard who was recently activated, an Air Force Reservist from Massachusetts, and a U.S. Marine stationed in the Persian Gulf, Bonifaz said. Their identities are not being made public, Bonifaz said."
-
Yaknow...it's funny reading all the ritious indgnation expressed here about some soldiers silly lawsuit...hell, they should just leave their post for a year like Dubya did and hope the problem and their actions get sweeped under the rug....think they could get away with that?
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Yaknow...it's funny reading all the ritious indgnation expressed here about some soldiers silly lawsuit...hell, they should just leave their post for a year like Dubya did and hope the problem and their actions get sweeped under the rug....think they could get away with that?
In today's society of "what's in it for me?" and accept no responsibility, I'd say yeah, they probably could get away with it. At least with the right lawyers and media attention.
-
Doesn't the president have the power to use the military for like 90 days without an official declaration of war is passed by congress.
The president in the commander and chief, it's not like the republicans are the only ones who have used this power. Vietnam, Bosnia, and Somalia come to mind.
Just seems that these people don't know the laws of our land.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
In today's society of "what's in it for me?" and accept no responsibility, I'd say yeah, they probably could get away with it. At least with the right lawyers and media attention.
Oh, you mean by trying to get out of their duty by using the legal system instead of using their families power and influence to shirk their duty? Yeah, that's a step backwards in the area of personal responsibility.
-
As I said upthread, I favor a Congressional Vote on a Declaration of War against Iraq before we put US troops in combat there.
I have my reasons, but that really isn't the subject of this thread.
However to add a little basis for debate here's two things:
Text of the Joint Resolution on the Use of Force Against Iraq (http://hnn.us/articles/1037.html)
Text of the Joint Resolution on the Use of Force Against Iraq
Text: Joint Congressional Resolution
October 11, 2002
Text of a resolution passed by the House and Senate.
Passed by the House 296 to 133.
Passed by the Senate77 to 23.
I think we should bear this in mind when discussing:
Can President Bush Send Troops to Iraq without Congress's Approval? (http://hnn.us/articles/992.html)
by By Mark Holzer ; Mr. Holzer is Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School.
While Holzer may or may not be the best ever Constitutional scholar, I'm guessing he knows a bit more about it than 99.99% of the posters in this thread. So, it's worth reading his thoughts. Particularly with respect to:
the current debate over the roles of President Bush and Congress in the forthcoming attack on Iraq. The statute is the one law that slightly ties the Commander-in-Chief's hands: the War Powers Resolution (WPR) [Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1541-1548]
-
So Lars
Does that mean if johnny down the street does it then it's ok for everyone to do it?
-
I seem to remember a use of force resolution being passed late last year, for use of force against iraq. Maybe comrad conyers doesn't remember the vote.
I'm like toad though, I would much prefer the congress declare war. Or at least have the debate and vote. But they haven't seemed to be able to fufill their constitutional duties for quite a few number of years now, so I don't expect they will now.
Bottom line is that the congress already gave the president the authority to do this......
-
The 90 day War Time act allowing the prez to act essentially alone to wage war, must be looked at again. In this techno age, a 90 day war is becoming the norm and might be considered a prolonged egagement. A tighter reign is needed now and Congress should step up and rethink the War Powers Act.
-
It's been previously stated but hasent congress already given the president authority to use force on Iraq some time ago?
-
Originally posted by ra
And Conyers is an 'ex' communist, so his interpretation of the Constitution is meaningless, as he once sought to throw it out. He is not a 'true American'.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
BURN HIM ! (with his familly ?)
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Oh, you mean by trying to get out of their duty by using the legal system instead of using their families power and influence to shirk their duty? Yeah, that's a step backwards in the area of personal responsibility.
Either is reprehensible. Can I assume that you served your country in the military?
-
Straffo,
Read back to see where I got the 'true American' reference.
ra
-
Sorry Ra I don't understand :(
-
And Conyers is an 'ex' communist, so his interpretation of the Constitution is meaningless, as he once sought to throw it out.
Tail-Gunner Joe would be proud of you Ra.
-
Just a thought from a Democrat:
'Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.'
John F Kennedy, October 1962
-
LOL!! Only a Democrat would consider hiring a lawyer "stepping-up"..............
Cabby
-
MT, maybe you believe someone can want to flush the Constitution one day, and decide it's OK to keep it the next, but I can't. I can despise communists without being McCarthy, thank you. They are scum like Nazis.
ra
-
Conyers is the left wing equivalent of a Republican "David Duke".
Bush isnt "screwing with the Constitution", neither is Conyers. The Court will decide that. Its clear from everyone in the "know" that Conyers little group of commies have no real case. They know it as well. Its just a stunt to get attention, for whatever reason.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Yaknow...it's funny reading all the ritious indgnation expressed here about some soldiers silly lawsuit...hell, they should just leave their post for a year like Dubya did and hope the problem and their actions get sweeped under the rug....think they could get away with that?
(swept)
808. ART. 8. APPREHENSION OF DESERTERS
Any civil officer having authority to apprehend offenders under the laws of the United States or of a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession, or the District of Columbia may summarily apprehend a deserter from the armed forces and deliver him into the custody of those forces.
Ok... I know there's a few "civil officer" democrat whiner types around here. So... who's gonna get all brave and start throwing his/her badge around the Whitehouse?? ;) C'MON!!... gotta be THOUSANDS of ya!! You can do it.. rush the whitehouse and hornswaggle that thar ciminal!!