|
Title: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 13, 2007, 06:29:33 PM I'm so disgusted that option 2 had to be an option, thanks to the low life warmongering Allen Boyds.
Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: NewFederalist on March 13, 2007, 06:34:06 PM Congressional "authorization" is NOT enough, jfern. No conflict should be allowed without a Congressional Declaration of War just like the U.S. Constitution sets forth.
Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: WalterMitty on March 13, 2007, 08:43:52 PM yes absolutely.
(im not saying he should, however) Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: Sam Spade on March 13, 2007, 09:11:39 PM What do you mean by "attack"? Do you mean drop a few bombs on some aspirin factories or full-scale ground assault?
Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: True Democrat on March 13, 2007, 09:56:51 PM yes absolutely. (im not saying he should, however) Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 13, 2007, 10:31:30 PM No. Certainly not. This President lacks the capability to be given a free-hand by Congress to do any thing
Dave Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 13, 2007, 11:05:37 PM No, this applies not only to this President, but to whoever may occupy the Oval Office. A Declaration of War from Congress is needed and should be required in any administration, not just this one.
Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: MaC on March 13, 2007, 11:24:15 PM no
btw, what the hell is an IINO? Don't make up words-the phrase sounds stupid. To be independent means you can sometimes take a pro-Bush standpoint, you know. Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: adam on March 14, 2007, 01:11:53 AM No.
And how can you be an independent in name only? Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: GOP = Terrorists on March 14, 2007, 01:30:45 AM And how can you be an independent in name only? You know... Like MODU... Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: MaC on March 14, 2007, 01:53:10 AM And how can you be an independent in name only? You know... Like MODU... he's a conservative-leaning independent but it doesn't mean he's not independent. He disliked the Republican congress of the 04-06 term. Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: CPT MikeyMike on March 14, 2007, 07:39:20 AM yes absolutely. (im not saying he should, however) We should have invaded Iran and not Iraq to begin with. Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2007, 01:44:29 PM yes absolutely. (im not saying he should, however) We should have invaded Iran and not Iraq to begin with. I've said this from the beginning of the war. Iraq is just a stepping stone/platform to launch attacks on Iran when the inevitable comes. Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: Richard on March 14, 2007, 01:53:35 PM No. Under no circumstance should the president be allowed to attack any country without a declaration of war from Congress.
Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: Silent Hunter on March 14, 2007, 03:35:48 PM Er, declarations of war can't be made. For the simple reason that the US is a signatory to the UN charter, which prohibits them.
Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: NewFederalist on March 14, 2007, 03:50:58 PM Er, declarations of war can't be made. For the simple reason that the US is a signatory to the UN charter, which prohibits them. Ask any American if the UN Charter trumps the US Constitution... the REAL Americans will tell you not only "no" but "HELL NO!" Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: MODU on March 14, 2007, 04:12:41 PM And how can you be an independent in name only? You know... Like MODU... he's a conservative-leaning independent but it doesn't mean he's not independent. He disliked the Republican congress of the 04-06 term. Lest we forget that I was a reformist too and champion the end of the two dinosaur parties. :) Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: Verily on March 14, 2007, 07:21:39 PM Congressional "authorization" is NOT enough, jfern. No conflict should be allowed without a Congressional Declaration of War just like the U.S. Constitution sets forth. We agree on something! (Unless you're just being sarcastic.) Title: Re: Should Bush be allowed to attack Iran w/o Congressional Authorization Post by: NewFederalist on March 15, 2007, 07:10:20 AM Congressional "authorization" is NOT enough, jfern. No conflict should be allowed without a Congressional Declaration of War just like the U.S. Constitution sets forth. We agree on something! (Unless you're just being sarcastic.) No sarcasm. My belief is don't go to war unless you intend to win. Any armed conflict worth pursuing should be backed by a Congressional Declaration of War as called for in the U.S. Constitution. A Congressional War Declaration does several things... clearly identifies the enemy... clearly sets forth the goals (how do you know when you've won otherwise)... allows, even forces, Congress to thoroughly debate the resolution and decide if the venture is worth the cost and the risk... mobilizes the entire nation for total victory. In view of the foregoing (which we did in World War II) if the conflict isn't woth it, DON'T do it. |