What war?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 18:06
VIEWED: 5092
PAGE 1 of 5
Love always kaneman
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I keep reading posts where people write "the war". Let's be factual here. There is no war going on. Just a neocon president fighting his "war" to make his friends in the CFR rich and powerfull. When my congress declares war....I'll support it or vote 'em out of office if I disagree.....So, let us use the word "conflict" from this day forward...thank you
Love always kaneman
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hell yes.
See, it's not that hard to express an opinion without using the word 'fuck'. Good on ya', Kaneman.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed.
Can we still call it a quagmire though? I like that word.
Nevermind..... I just looked up quagmire, and though I like the definition:
A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.
It also means:
a situation from which extrication is very difficult, as in "a quagmire of financial indebtedness."
We won't use that word either because we don't want to confuse the proles. By that definition, the only "quagmire" we're facing is here at home on Capitol Hill.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
When my congress declares war....I'll support it or vote 'em out of office if I disagree.....
And if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks...by god that's no duck until Ron Paul says its a duck. Until then lets just call it a duck-like-bird-that-swims.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Much as it pains me to agree with Hero on anything, he's got a point.
No sense calling it anything but what it is, a war - an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war, but a war all the same.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Much as it pains me to agree with Hero on anything, he's got a point.
No sense calling it anything but what it is, a war - an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war, but a war all the same.
Its undeclared. Illegal and unconstitutional are the same thing and in this case Congress passed an authorizing resolution. They are free to withdraw that authorization (I differ with the President on this point), but thus far have chosen not to do so.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No sense calling it anything but what it is, a war - an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war, but a war all the same.
Where's the war? 'Cause I'm not seeing it. If you're referring to our trouble in Iraq, that's an occupation. The war's over. We should leave or claim it as ours.
If you're referring to the "War on Terror", that's just doublespeak. But it's doublespeak designed to sell people insidious changes to our balance of power and justify the "neo"-imperialism of the "neo"-cons. Terrorism is politically inspired crime, not warfare.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More doublespeak.
A resolution is meaningless, it is not, and cannot possibly be construed by any logical, thinking person as a formal declaration of war.
And that is what is required for a war to be consitutional, period.
As far as illegal/unconstitutional, doing 70mph in a 55mph is illegal, but not unconstitutional, while violating someones fourth amendment rights may be "legal" but is still unconstitutional.
The UN's regulations about wars of aggression, and remember we ARE still part of the UN and have not withdrawn from it, nor have they kicked us out, although I can't imagine why one or the other hasn't occured by now.. make it illegal.
Violation of the Constitutions requirement for a formal declaration makes it unconstitutional, as does the geneva conventions rules, since the constitution makes any signed treaty equal to itself in authority.
And yes, I know it's more of an occupation, Sarge, but an occupation in and of itself is an act of warfare, and thus part of a war.
I think we should just bug out, but if they want the territory that damn bad, just fucking annex it - and then get ready for all of Asia to stomp our ass for it.
When I called it an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war - I meant *exactly* that, I am not some slimy doublespeaking combine lawyer, just a pissed off semi-retired cabbie.
Clear enough ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
