Aw shit.... okay... who told?
I must point you to this rather disturbing passage from http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm an official government site.Kmarion wrote:
Honestly who really can say in the long run. But I can say anyone who believes that a mass sneak attack by the United States is going to happen really has no idea on how our government works. (I point to what is currently happening in Congress and war funding). Remember who ultimately sends us to war, who the majority in congress is, and what must happen to approve military force. I would hope after the last conflict Americans have a clearer understanding of what an immediate threat is.ATG wrote:
An attack on Iran by any other name then?Kmarion wrote:
ATG none of those have anything to do with "Operation Bite". We have already discussed the "Plans". It would take the Pentagon at least 3-4 months to develop any kind of real strategy for Iran. I'm pretty sure there are plans drawn up for even the most unlikely scenario already. Iran just had a major victory and have now come off as both compassionate and strong. The EU could have taken it to the next level and put a strain on the already hurting economy of Iran. Iran imports 40 percent of it's goods from the EU. Don't completely toss out the effectiveness of sanctions/trade restrictions. Ahmadinejad might think they can stay isolated from the world indefinitely, but his country's unemployment and inflation will eventually think differently.
That the Roosky would know even the name of the Operation, bah.
That the operation is planned, mmm hmmn.
The italics are mine.
Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. (8) As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, "the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse." The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law. A declaration served to fully transform the international legal relationship between two states from one of peace to one of war. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *249-50. Given this context, it is clear that Congress's power to declare war does not constrain the President's independent and plenary constitutional authority over the use of military force.
Read this and be afraid; Bush can deploy troops or attack anybody anywhere in the world at anytime if he feels a threat. The only power congress has is to cut funding. Lol. Hillary will be president when we are about one year into our war with Iran.
God.
Russians don't know shit about our "information". This is all bullshit and anyone who believes it is a moron. Even the idea that the US would attack Iran in any way is crap... Thanks ATG! You rule!
Well hopefully Obama will be president out of the two (hillary and obama, I haven't really researched the candidates yet. Besides I can't vote b/c I was born in England). But yeah, I've heard about that no declaration thing before but never saw it in concrete words.
lol, I think you also called me an idiot in your post.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
Thanks ATG! You rule!
Oh well.
russia will not attack KTHNXMason4Assassin444 wrote:
Russia is better friends with Iran than they are with us.
Start stocking your canned goods and water.
Who said they won't? Are you under the Bush illusion that we're friends w/ Putin just b/c they shook hands? KTHNXBYEI.M.I Militant wrote:
russia will not attack KTHNXMason4Assassin444 wrote:
Russia is better friends with Iran than they are with us.
Start stocking your canned goods and water.
That's no surprise. The President is in fact after all the Commander in Chief and it is his duty to best protect Americans. You must understand that he is still limited in his actions by the most important factor in mobilizing troops and that is funding. Do you not remember how hard it was for him to sell just adding additional troops to Iraq?ATG wrote:
Read this and be afraid; Bush can deploy troops or attack anybody anywhere in the world at anytime if he feels a threat. The only power congress has is to cut funding. Lol. Hillary will be president when we are about one year into our war with Iran.
God.
Your link
Second, the Constitution makes clear that the process used for conducting military hostilities is different from other government decisionmaking. In the area of domestic legislation, the Constitution creates a detailed, finely wrought procedure in which Congress plays the central role. In foreign affairs, however, the Constitution does not establish a mandatory, detailed, Congress-driven procedure for taking action. Rather, the Constitution vests the two branches with different powers - the President as Commander in Chief, Congress with control over funding and declaring war - without requiring that they follow a specific process in making war. By establishing this framework, the Framers expected that the process for warmaking would be far more flexible, and capable of quicker, more decisive action, than the legislative process. Thus, the President may use his Commander-in-Chief and executive powers to use military force to protect the Nation, subject to congressional appropriations and control over domestic legislation.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-04 21:57:10)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This is interesting as well..
In a Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters, 1 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 940 (1993), the President referred to the failed assassination attempt and stated that "[t]he evidence of the Government of Iraq's violence and terrorism demonstrates that Iraq poses a continuing threat to United States nationals." He based his authority to order a strike against the Iraqi government's intelligence command center on "my constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and as Commander in Chief," as well as on the Nation's inherent right of self-defense. Id.
President Clinton's order was designed in part to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States - and most particularly future assassination attempts on former President Bush. Although the assassination attempt had been frustrated by the arrest of sixteen suspects before any harm was done, "nothing prevented Iraq from directing a second - possibly successful - attempt on Bush's life. Thus, the possibility of another assassination plot was 'hanging threateningly over [Bush's] head' and was therefore imminent. By attacking the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the United States hoped to prevent and deter future attempts to kill Bush."
In a Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters, 1 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 940 (1993), the President referred to the failed assassination attempt and stated that "[t]he evidence of the Government of Iraq's violence and terrorism demonstrates that Iraq poses a continuing threat to United States nationals." He based his authority to order a strike against the Iraqi government's intelligence command center on "my constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and as Commander in Chief," as well as on the Nation's inherent right of self-defense. Id.
President Clinton's order was designed in part to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States - and most particularly future assassination attempts on former President Bush. Although the assassination attempt had been frustrated by the arrest of sixteen suspects before any harm was done, "nothing prevented Iraq from directing a second - possibly successful - attempt on Bush's life. Thus, the possibility of another assassination plot was 'hanging threateningly over [Bush's] head' and was therefore imminent. By attacking the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the United States hoped to prevent and deter future attempts to kill Bush."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Geez that's confusing. So Bush was about to be assassinated so by going to Iraq it stopped future attempts? It's so late and I'm confused now.
That is Clinton's response when he attacked Iraq. If you remember there was an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. It is my understanding that the President does not need statutory authorization (approval from congress) if he is fighting off an invading enemy, a belligerent attack, or retaliating. Mostly due to the speed at which a reaction must happen.xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
Geez that's confusing. So Bush was about to be assassinated so by going to Iraq it stopped future attempts? It's so late and I'm confused now.
Clinton used retaliation as his reasoning to respond without congressional approval.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-04 22:18:27)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You got it.xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
Geez that's confusing. So Bush was about to be assassinated so by going to Iraq it stopped future attempts? It's so late and I'm confused now.
Goodnight!
ATG wrote:
You got it.xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
Geez that's confusing. So Bush was about to be assassinated so by going to Iraq it stopped future attempts? It's so late and I'm confused now.
Goodnight!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
its crap bad grammar towards the bottom of the page.
Well i'm sure your Soldiers posted on either side of Iran don't want that. Spare a thought for the guys actually doing the hard work who probably don't want it to get a million times harder due to stupid reasons, please.thareaper254 wrote:
I hope they bomb them.
It's translated off of RussianRidir wrote:
its crap bad grammar towards the bottom of the page.
Well its the 6th, wheres the bombing?
wait for it.. waaaaaiiittt for it.SgtHeihn wrote:
Well its the 6th, wheres the bombing?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm sad.
KiL
KiL
If this was true, I woulda heard about it by now. It's 2AM the next freaking day over there.
It's now April 7th 2007, hmmmmmmmmmm?
Well I guess Bush pussied out again. Anyone wanna go over there and do it ourselves?
Perhaps they'll settle with just bombing the oil refineries, drive the price of gas up even higher.xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
Well I guess Bush pussied out again. Anyone wanna go over there and do it ourselves?
At least it isn't up to the price of milk yet, that's when I'll be bitching.
Geez what does milk cost in your area, it's hard enough to eat my mini wheaties here.TrollmeaT wrote:
At least it isn't up to the price of milk yet, that's when I'll be bitching.