All you've got are lying hypocritical politicians who mouthed off about congressional approval for political expediency. There will be no impeachment attempt lol
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be watching the FIFA World Cup Final?
The Syrian Conflict Thread
All you've got are lying hypocritical politicians who mouthed off about congressional approval for political expediency. There will be no impeachment attempt lol
killadoob
Honorary Master
Yes there will be, 140 lawmakers have said they will vote and that is pretty close to having enough to impeach him but alan i was waiting for you to arrive as you seem clued up on the issue.
There are 200+ congress members demanding he gets approval. What does that mean?
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...ack-on-syrian-schoolkids-was-apocalyptic?lite
If this is true the best get back to the UN and get a resolution in place, alan obama said in 2007 along with biden you need congress approval to go to war. This isn't like obama isn't sure or doesn't know both the president and the vice president stated no president can go start a war without congress. By attacking syria he has declared war essentially and even bush got congress approval for afghan war and iraq, granted he had 911 backing him up. Alan why hasn't obama called congress back early? The law was put in for this exact reason, to stop one man being able to attack whoever he likes whenever he likes. Again you are far more clued up on this situation than me so i await your reply
.Grant we are involved in congo, permission by government and by the UN to engage the rebels or whoever they are fighting. It isn't like 1000 SA's rocked up and started waging war. Not even close to the same situation, it is all legal.
Last edited:
We did it by mistake, the rebels say...
http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/
http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/
i hope those countries who are on the ready to attack are sitting up and taking note of this. too much adrenalin power slapping men sitting in their arm chairs waiting to attack without having the full details of this attack.
Grant
Honorary Master
Perhaps this may help in clarifying what I painstakingly tried to explain regards congress & constitution.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../what-law-and-past-say-about-attacking-syria/
Last edited:
@ Killa
That was 'candidate' Obama not 'president' Obama. A completely different fictional character then pandering to his naive voter base. No president recognizes the constitutionality of the war powers act anyway. He is not going to entangle himself in a debate with congress over this and risk getting voted down. Especially since he will be up against his base and isolationist GOP who will be more than happy to use the opportunity to dig up the all the BS he based his election campaign on. Not to mention congress if it voted against action would be representing the vast majority of U.S public opinion which would fly in the face of the narrative that he represents their interests in his struggle with congress.
So rather just ignore the law and call the bluff of those that threaten impeachment proceedings. Dems would never support it against their president, Clinton remember committed perjury and no Dems voted to impeach him. Many Reps support action so they won't support it. That just leaves the fringe extremes of both parties who certainly wouldn't gain any support from the moderate majority if they plunged the country into a political crises over this.
That was 'candidate' Obama not 'president' Obama. A completely different fictional character then pandering to his naive voter base. No president recognizes the constitutionality of the war powers act anyway. He is not going to entangle himself in a debate with congress over this and risk getting voted down. Especially since he will be up against his base and isolationist GOP who will be more than happy to use the opportunity to dig up the all the BS he based his election campaign on. Not to mention congress if it voted against action would be representing the vast majority of U.S public opinion which would fly in the face of the narrative that he represents their interests in his struggle with congress.
So rather just ignore the law and call the bluff of those that threaten impeachment proceedings. Dems would never support it against their president, Clinton remember committed perjury and no Dems voted to impeach him. Many Reps support action so they won't support it. That just leaves the fringe extremes of both parties who certainly wouldn't gain any support from the moderate majority if they plunged the country into a political crises over this.
Grant
Honorary Master
Quoting the queen of conspiracy theories ?
I am assuming you know nothing of alex jones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
I always chuckle about this:
One line in the article was worthy of attention:
If accurate ??
And of course, the claimed "rush to attack syria".
Rush ??
To be fair the source is Dale Gavlak.
Not that those are particularly credible networks themselves.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
UN Experts leave Damascus hotel at end of probe
A team of UN inspectors left their Damascus hoptel in a convoy of cars Saturday following the conclusion of their probe into the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime.
The 13 inspectors, led by Ake Sellstrom, were seen loading their luggage into seven UN vehicles before setting off from their hotel , an AFP correspondent said.
Source : Sapa-AFP /kn
Date : 31 Aug 2013 05:52
A team of UN inspectors left their Damascus hoptel in a convoy of cars Saturday following the conclusion of their probe into the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime.
The 13 inspectors, led by Ake Sellstrom, were seen loading their luggage into seven UN vehicles before setting off from their hotel , an AFP correspondent said.
Source : Sapa-AFP /kn
Date : 31 Aug 2013 05:52
killadoob
Honorary Master
Grant you don't explain it like alan you just give me links, he seems to have an understanding more than just a bunch of links, no offense intended it just means he comes across better than the articles and sums it up in a post. I am a conspiracy lover but don't take much on infowars seriously. Most of the time it is just conspiracy with very little truth and they manipulate the story. I love reading infowars i also know they are not a reliable source of anything though.
Alan why did bush pain painstakingly go through the correct channels for both afghan and iraq wars? He got congress approval for both of those, if he didn't need to why did he, politcally i guess it helps? Another question, with mid term elections how many senators want dirty hands if syria goes wrong which it will? Bush for all his short comings had a plan for afghanistan and iraq, he never claimed it would be a two day limited strike and it would be over in a couple days while knowing that is not the case.
He went and declared war, knowing the US could be sucked into the war for an extended period, obama doesn't have a plan, bomb syria is his plan. He has no strategy by the look of it and he also seems more determined to prove he will act on his words, so basically strike syria and save face, then face criticism back home. Don't strike and he looks weak. No win situation.
Alan why did bush pain painstakingly go through the correct channels for both afghan and iraq wars? He got congress approval for both of those, if he didn't need to why did he, politcally i guess it helps? Another question, with mid term elections how many senators want dirty hands if syria goes wrong which it will? Bush for all his short comings had a plan for afghanistan and iraq, he never claimed it would be a two day limited strike and it would be over in a couple days while knowing that is not the case.
He went and declared war, knowing the US could be sucked into the war for an extended period, obama doesn't have a plan, bomb syria is his plan. He has no strategy by the look of it and he also seems more determined to prove he will act on his words, so basically strike syria and save face, then face criticism back home. Don't strike and he looks weak. No win situation.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to be an *******, but you seem to be either overlooking previous explanations on purpose, or you aren't bright enough to understand.
There is a difference between a declaration of war and military action.
Thanks for that. As long as they're Muslim, let's not give a **** about the kids dying. What a wonderful way to look at things.
1) they were far larger commitments. I've seen no evidence Obama intends to do anything more than lob a few cruise missile as a token gesture. Although granted it is tantamount to a declaration of war. 2) Bush had a GOP congress and had the support of Dems for the wars. Remember Obama's appointments to prominent FP positions voted FOR the Iraq war despite his rhetoric about it. After the Dems developed amnesia and did a 180 on the war for political expediency to win the 2006 midterms, they threatened to cut funds for the troops to undermine the surge and plunge the country in civil war Bush called their bluff.
True he has no plan at all for FP except empty lofty rhetoric for which he won a Nobel Peace Prize. It was just circumstances at the time that FP was prominent during his candidacy that he took advantage of. Seems the state department serves solely to placate powerful/influential Dem rivals hence the appointments of Clinton, Kerry and for VP Biden.
Last edited:
and how are we going to stop that from happening? its the same as - how are we going to stop the killings of innocent children and women in this country. the rapes of innocent children and women as well. we can't stop it, it's going to continue happening because there are MF's out there who will continue to do it no matter what. that's life ok and the sooner we learn to deal with it the sooner we get on with our own life. what's the point in sending so called "saviors" out to that country to try and save people if the "saviors" are going to loose their own lives.
So let's just ignore things hey? I especially love how you first say we should ignore the Muslim war and their suicide vest makers, then do a complete 180 and compare them to the innocents getting killed and raped in our country.
"the end." Lol.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Randhir i think you are either not very bright like myself as you mentioned because celine has not said what you claim and you are making out like she is fine with children dying, children are a good way to gain public sympathy more so than adults, so attacks against them will see more of a response, reality dude. Maybe brighten up and understand what celine is saying. So if you want something to make news kill children that is how it works, if you are not bright enough to grasp that concept then stop saying other people are not very bright. I have not ignored any previous comments regarding bush, i was talking to alan, if you have nothing interesting to say bud then stop talking. Go LOL is another thread or contribute to the debate.
So lobbying a few missiles at syria is a declaration of war which i know, is it just a matter of the constitution and how people see it? I have read so many articles saying it is fine for him to lob a few missiles and some that say it is unconstitutional to start a war and as you say lobbing a missile at syria is a declaration of war, intervention with no UN resolution is a declaration of war and not intervention or am i mistaken? Libya you could say it was an intervention due to the UN resolution but this is a different story, no plan, no UN security authorization, he has yet to convince the american people or congress. So alan what do you think he will do, regardless of my opinion i am not arguing with you, you have explained it nicely but do you see obama striking syria within the next couple days?
So lobbying a few missiles at syria is a declaration of war which i know, is it just a matter of the constitution and how people see it? I have read so many articles saying it is fine for him to lob a few missiles and some that say it is unconstitutional to start a war and as you say lobbing a missile at syria is a declaration of war, intervention with no UN resolution is a declaration of war and not intervention or am i mistaken? Libya you could say it was an intervention due to the UN resolution but this is a different story, no plan, no UN security authorization, he has yet to convince the american people or congress. So alan what do you think he will do, regardless of my opinion i am not arguing with you, you have explained it nicely but do you see obama striking syria within the next couple days?
Last edited:
Grant
Honorary Master
I tried as best I could, in the most simplest of terms, the difference between war, and military action.
I also explained as best I could, declaration of war needing congress approval, and presidential powers in terms of the constitution regards military action.
You either failed or refused to comprehend.
I then added in south africa's involvement in the congo as an example of military involvement, as opposed to south africa declaring war on congo. To that end, you went on to insist it was a "legal" action bla bla bla, totally missing the example I was trying to provide regards a country declaring war & military action.
The link was added so you could then examine for yourself what requires congressional approval, as well as the very recent history of the usa's military involvement in other countries - with specific reference to presidents requesting / requiring congressional approval.
So, in all, no offense taken.
I do however feel like the child who was tricked into buying a ticket for the merry-go-round that never stops - and from it I could see all my friends having fun on the big dipper.
As a result, I am jumping off.
However, i will leave you the ticket so that you can shove it in the grubby paw of the next unwitting victim who veers off course & strays in this direction.
**PS**
I have a good mind to set humberto on you.