It’s absurd to think a President can launch an attack on another country without support.
Asking Congress changed nothing as far as the Constitution goes. Will you cite something of relevance to your bold claim that Obama backed himself into a corner by asking Congress for support? I don’t take your arguments and points seriously but when you wrote that the UNSC authorized the use of force in Iraq that left me no doubt that you are quite often wrong about many things. And you are wrong about this.
With a yes vote Obama would be attacking a country that didn’t attack us in any way? What is your point?
I am not aware that Mexico has used chemical weapons on any of its people. Is this something new?
Just what makes you think that a no vote in Congress would put any orders to strike by Obama to the Joint Chiefs of staff would not be carried out. You need to back that up with something other than your opinion.
Military allegiance is to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States and that includes following the orders of the Commander in Chief who is also defined in the Constitution. Does the Constitution allow for the United States Military to decide if they will follow orders from the Commander in Chief. If so, where?
I agree with this – that said, Obama’s announcement that he’ll “move forward with plan to arm Syrian rebels” is pretty fuckin’ stupid on its face.
How is that in any way to be interpreted as other than taking sides and wanting Assad out of the way? It was also reported that the president of the United States has the authority to waive the restrictions if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.” Yeah, OK, so what does arming Syrian rebels have to do with US “security?” Especially in light of the news of who, exactly the “rebels” are: Hundreds of Syria Rebels Pledge Loyalty to al-Qaeda – :rolleyes:
ETA: Nearly half Syria’s rebels are jihadists, report says
Give me some skin, Obama!
Yes, and hopefully the info in that article, which dates from late July btw, is no longer valid. When Obama was all about bombing Syria, he needed to throw the real GOP hawks a bone, but I think the game has changed now. If anyone has an update on what we are doing now, I’d love to see it.
you’re correct. Nothing changes in this process. According to the Constitution that power is held by Congress. To wage war a President must first go to Congress. There are historic examples of a President acting on a limited basis against an immediate threat to the United States.
you’re asking for a cite on opinion? OK, here is someone else making the same point from the Baltimore Sun. * The problem is that when it comes foreign policy, the president doesn’t have a clue. He has painted himself into a corner by stating that Syria could not cross the “red line” barring the use of chemical or biological weapons. Only he didn’t have a backup plan when he said it.*
I cited the exact wording of the UN resolution. I even colored it for you.
It’s self explanatory.
I’m not aware it’s the President’s job to police the world for injustices. Can you cite this power in the Constitution.
because it expressly states the action should not be taken. It makes any such order illegal and nobody in the military is obligated to carry out illegal orders.
yes.
no. The allegiance is to the Constitution. The job of POTUS does not include a personal army.
Yes, if you remember, First Lieutenant William Calley was court martialed for following illegal orders. Sent to prison for it.
I would say arming people who have threatened the United States in the past would be reasons for removal from office.
Trouble is the exact wording you cited clarifies that the UNSC DID NOTauthorize the use of force agsinst Iraq and I cited Kofi Annan when he said the Bush invasion of Iraq was illegal and in defiance of the UN Charter.
How can that be if the UNSC authorized the use of force?
again, not sure why you have problems using the quote system. figure it out, then print out what cited which was the exact wording of the resolution and I walk you through it. I have things to do and am not going to go back and forth requoting cites.
Here you go, let’s see you walk us through it:
Who is this R. Houck, Rosedale in the Baltimore Sun comments you are quoting? He can be as wrong as you.
“this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.”
maybe you’re too young to remember that this resolution was hammered out specifically to allow for military intervention.
Well so far you’ve got Francois Hollande on your side but even he doesn’t have public backing. 64% of the French citizenry do not want military intervention. Nobody else is drawing any red lines.
Do me a favor. Before you post in this thread, just pretend that in every instance of liberals talking about Obama, we’re talking about Reagan or Bush instead. In that case, yes, I am proud that Reagan was such a diplomatic wizard that he got the Evil Empire to agree to his terms without firing a shot. He’s a president for the ages, isn’t he?
Who cares?
You shouldn’t talk that way about Bush’s Fast & Furious scandal
yes, he’s a President for the ages. And Carter and Nixon aren’t. What’s your point?
Who cares what the resolution promoted by Obama consists of? Well the people defending it.
Fast and Furious started in October of 2009. You’re thinking of Operation Wide Receiver which took place between 2006-2008.
Why shouldn’t I talk about it?
I thought Operation Wide Receiver was about that Senator in the airport bathroom?
As far as I can tell the waiver was made this past Monday, John.
No you’re thinking of the prostitution ring that was operated out of Barney Frank’s house.
McCain posts article on pravda.ru (Senator John McCain: Russians deserve better than Putin). Presumable in response to Putin’s article in the New York Times. I wonder if McCain is so stuck in the Cold War that he doesn’t realize that pravda.ru has nothing to do with the Soviet era Prava, and that it best can be compared to The National Enquirer or The Sun or whatever. I think we can all agree that fine upstanding articles like for instance this: Cat rapes woman after performing oral sex on her is journalism at its best, but I personally would probably have send my op-ed to another place. But them I’m not a US senator.
In any case, if that is any indication to the US opposition that faces the Obama administration, then I can easily defend the Admin Syrian Drive as anything is better than a fucking idiot like McCain and his clueless advisers.
You said the UN authorized the use of force which the UNSC did not do in March 2003.
Not ‘constraining force’ is not ‘authorizing force’ it says write there in your cite the Council needed to convene to decide to authorize anything the Council would do.
You need to read the entire paragraph.
Likewise on Syria if the UNSC passes a resolution that contains no authorization to use force, it will be a fact that any member state including the US and France etc will not be constrained from taking military action on their own.