Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Obama Doesnt Want to Visit Wounded Soldiers Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post bassguitarplayer2010 Posted at 12:24 pm on July 25, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080725/pl_nm/usa_obama_germany_troops_dc and of yall want him to be president and he cant even visit those who fought for this country

Replies Forever Angel Posted at 6:39 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from whoisabs at 7:56 pm on July 27, 2008 The claim is that our being in Iraq is 'defending the Constitution'. Stating that the President is Commander in Chief has nothing to do with that. I've already said my piece on 'defending' the Constitution, that that particular phrase is not exactly correct. But now... Quote: from whoisabs at 9:46 pm on July 26, 2008 So you still refuse to explain what Iraq has to do with the Constitution? Quote: from whoisabs at 11:44 pm on July 26, 2008 Especially considering that it goes pretty much directly against Article 1 section 8? And from OC... How is invading a country that did not attack us complying with A2, S2? ... these are the points I'm responding to. Congress is not required to declare a 'state of war' to exist before the troops can comply with a Presidential order to engage in hostilities. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq (1990), Afghanistan... no Congressional "State of War" existed for those conflicts. And none of those countries invaded or attacked the US. whoisabs Posted at 5:56 pm on July 27, 2008 The claim is that our being in Iraq is 'defending the Constitution'. Stating that the President is Commander in Chief has nothing to do with that. Forever Angel Posted at 5:48 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 5:58 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 3:24 am on July 27, 2008 The C-in-C ordered the troops into Iraq. As per A2, S2, the military complied with that order. What is so hard to understand about that? That's not what we are talking about. Your argument has nothing to do with showing how the invasion of Iraq based on the argument that Bass gave on 9/11 has anything to do with complying with the Constitution. All you are saying is that the military complied with A2S2. You have not addressed the actual point. http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yabypyn-support-sn-x-02489681031122191.html#83 What is the 'actual point' that I'm supposed to be addressing? I'm just answering the question about the Constitutional reason there are US troops in Iraq. And abs' question about A1,S8. obvious child Posted at 3:58 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from bassguitarplayer2010 at 6:48 pm on July 26, 2008 Okay okay time to come back to reality, okay to tell you the truth this whole argument was a scam, see before school was let out I was to do a psychology report for confusive anger cause Im in AP classes and to test anger and Ive been doing this all summer long so this was basiclly a project you participated in, thankyou and I have all the info I need and have a good day lol. Sad attempt to back out of your bullshit. obvious child Posted at 3:58 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 3:24 am on July 27, 2008 The C-in-C ordered the troops into Iraq. As per A2, S2, the military complied with that order. What is so hard to understand about that? That's not what we are talking about. Your argument has nothing to do with showing how the invasion of Iraq based on the argument that Bass gave on 9/11 has anything to do with complying with the Constitution. All you are saying is that the military complied with A2S2. You have not addressed the actual point. bassguitarplayer2010 Posted at 10:11 am on July 27, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 11:11 pm on July 26, 2008 Quote: from bassguitarplayer2010 at 9:48 pm on July 26, 2008 Okay okay time to come back to reality, okay to tell you the truth this whole argument was a scam, So you ARE a troll. Ok now we agree. Yeah but not a troll, a Dead Rabbit Forever Angel Posted at 6:24 am on July 27, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 11:41 pm on July 26, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:32 pm on July 26, 2008 I wasn't defending what 'Bass' was arguing, I was responding to 'abs' post. It's not 'defending' the Constitution, it's simply complying with it. Article 2, Section 2 is what the Constitution has to do with Iraq. Huh? How is it complying with it? How is invading a country that did not attack us complying with A2, S2? The C-in-C ordered the troops into Iraq. As per A2, S2, the military complied with that order. What is so hard to understand about that? Forever Angel Posted at 6:15 am on July 27, 2008 Quote: from whoisabs at 11:44 pm on July 26, 2008 Especially considering that it goes pretty much directly against Article 1 section 8? http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a6.html   Q108. "Who has the power to declare war?" A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President. The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that. What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President. These two distinct roles, that of the Congress and that of the President, bring up the interesting and important questions: can the United States be "at war" without a declaration of war? If we can, then what is the point of a declaration? If not, then what do we call hostilities without a formal declaration? The question of the need for a declaration of war dates all the way back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson sent a squadron of warships to the Mediterranean to protect U.S. shipping against the forces of the Bey of Tripoli. Jefferson's instructions to the squadron were that they act in a defensive manner only, with a strictly defined order of battle. When a Tripolitan cruiser shot at a U.S. ship, the U.S. forces seized the ship, disarmed it, and released it. Jefferson's message to Congress on the incident indicated that he felt the acts to be within constitutional bounds. Alexander Hamilton wrote to Congress and espoused his belief that since the United States did not start the conflict, the United States was in a state of war, and no formal declaration was needed to conduct war actions. Congress authorized Jefferson's acts without declaring war on the Bey. Not all acts of war, however, need place the United States into a state of war. It is without doubt an act of war to fire upon a warship of another nation. In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence ship operating off the Sinai coast. But the United States did not react as though it were at war, even though many considered the attack deliberate (both Israel and the U.S. later determined the attack to have been a mistake caused by the cloud of war). It may be correct to say, then, that an act or war committed against the United States can place the United States into a state of war, if the United States wishes to see the act in that light. A declaration of war by the Congress places the Unites States at war without any doubt. Absent a declaration of war, the President can react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit. jakelong Posted at 11:11 pm on July 26, 2008 Quote: from bassguitarplayer2010 at 9:48 pm on July 26, 2008 Okay okay time to come back to reality, okay to tell you the truth this whole argument was a scam, So you ARE a troll. Ok now we agree. jakelong Posted at 11:10 pm on July 26, 2008 Quote: from bassguitarplayer2010 at 1:35 pm on July 26, 2008 Prove to the fact that Im brainwashed, prove it, PROVE IT! YOUR words are the Proof. You gave shit answers and NO thinking in NONE of your reply so far. bassguitarplayer2010 Posted at 9:48 pm on July 26, 2008 Okay okay time to come back to reality, okay to tell you the truth this whole argument was a scam, see before school was let out I was to do a psychology report for confusive anger cause Im in AP classes and to test anger and Ive been doing this all summer long so this was basiclly a project you participated in, thankyou and I have all the info I need and have a good day bassguitarplayer2010 Posted at 9:45 pm on July 26, 2008 Quote: from whoisabs at 9:33 pm on July 26, 2008 see, in texas these faggots can't speak english or spanish, just fail Wow very ockward 3/4 therapists stuudy to include the fact for those who call people a homosexual that they actually trying to consider the fact that they are a homosexual themselves, thanks for sharing, but awell whoisabs Posted at 9:44 pm on July 26, 2008 Especially considering that it goes pretty much directly against Article 1 section 8? obvious child Posted at 9:41 pm on July 26, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:32 pm on July 26, 2008 I wasn't defending what 'Bass' was arguing, I was responding to 'abs' post. It's not 'defending' the Constitution, it's simply complying with it. Article 2, Section 2 is what the Constitution has to do with Iraq. Huh? How is it complying with it? How is invading a country that did not attack us complying with A2, S2? Apotheosis Posted at 9:35 pm on July 26, 2008 he's very fluent in fail though it makes up for it Most recent 15 of 102 previous replies displayed.