President Obama will 'bypass Congress' over war in Iraq

[lucaskf390]

To be honest I ask myself everyday why in 21st century people still want to make war, If US spends 10% of their defense money in research to create new technologies or fuelling, there would be no excuse to make war to steal oil.
And If The United States Constitution don't allow Obama to declare war by his own, then he's wrong and something need to be made.

[iBlueBox]

The Vietnam War was technically through the UN.

Also does Obama not have emergency powers?

[dbgtz]

Uh dummy, he's already sent troops back to Iraq - http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/editor...tatement-iraq/ He's a politician, and as for what the Republican leaders are saying - don't you understand they they SUPPORT him over Iraq? They're pushing for military action, and they won't expect him to go to Congress just as George W Bush didn't go to Congress (illegally).

He's looking at military action in Iraq and is not going to go to Congress if he decides so. So who is spewing bull? You, not me or the BBC.

Why do you support and trust the BBC when it suits you, but when it goes against what you think it's some kind of evil corporation biased in favour of the government?

[GommeInc]

Is it me or were both sources incredibly stupid? Obama doesn't appear to have said anything of the sort in the article and the sources referencing Nigel Farage (for no reason) by Chippiewill make claims he said something but never actually give any sources going so far as refusing to quote what he actually said. Furthermore, xenophobia still exists yet for some reason people opt to use racism (no surprise, the media picking the more exaggerated form) despite both being obviously different.

It's like the Guardian has become the new Sun newspaper in that post. Mixing up words, making a claim yet failing to support it and also misquoting actual quotes which are important. Farage was xenophobic/sexist when he made the comment that he feared Romanian males moving next door. Feared = xenophobic (fear of Romanians) and purposely pointing at males = sexism. Racism is about superiority, not a fear.

This thread is stupid.

The Vietnam War was technically through the UN.

Also does Obama not have emergency powers?

Usually. The executive tends to have the power to declare war as congress may take too long to decide to go to war and more damage, money and time will have to wasted to right the troubles. Same with our system where the PM can declare war, though we're not so strict and I believe we now wish for the commons to debate it.

[Kardan]

Is it me or were both sources incredibly stupid? Obama doesn't appear to have said anything of the sort in the article and the sources referencing Nigel Farage (for no reason) by Chippiewill make claims he said something but never actually give any sources going so far as refusing to quote what he actually said. Furthermore, xenophobia still exists yet for some reason people opt to use racism (no surprise, the media picking the more exaggerated form) despite both being obviously different.

It's like the Guardian has become the new Sun newspaper in that post. Mixing up words, making a claim yet failing to support it and also misquoting actual quotes which are important. Farage was xenophobic/sexist when he made the comment that he feared Romanian males moving next door. Feared = xenophobic (fear of Romanians) and purposely pointing at males = sexism. Racism is about superiority, not a fear.

This thread is stupid.


Usually. The executive tends to have the power to declare war as congress may take too long to decide to go to war and more damage, money and time will have to wasted to right the troubles. Same with our system where the PM can declare war, though we're not so strict and I believe we now wish for the commons to debate it.

I think that is his point - he's just doing what Undertaker does

[GommeInc]

I think that is his point - he's just doing what Undertaker does

So not really doing anything useful?

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Why do I need a direct quote when I'm making claims on what someone said"

Republican leaders have said it, and the BBC and CNN are reporting it. He's already sent troops too.

Nice climbdown though after I pointed out that he's ALREADY sent troops to Iraq bypassing the Congress, thus breaking the constitution.

To be honest I ask myself everyday why in 21st century people still want to make war, If US spends 10% of their defense money in research to create new technologies or fuelling, there would be no excuse to make war to steal oil.
And If The United States Constitution don't allow Obama to declare war by his own, then he's wrong and something need to be made.

Indeed, thank you for an intelligent reply as opposed to the rubbish that others have posted.

And I agree, personally I would vote to impeach him - it's a pretty serious breach of executive power.

The Vietnam War was technically through the UN.

Also does Obama not have emergency powers?

US Constitution is the ultimate law of America, not UN resolutions.

And he uses executive powers, but they cannot triumph constitutional amendments - executive powers are clarifying acts of law.

Why do you support and trust the BBC when it suits you, but when it goes against what you think it's some kind of evil corporation biased in favour of the government?

When I posted from the Daily Mail i'm criticised, and now when I post from the BBC i'm criticised.

All news sources are biased, my point against the Beeb is that people tend to believe it's an infallible and neutral source when it isn't.

Usually. The executive tends to have the power to declare war as congress may take too long to decide to go to war and more damage, money and time will have to wasted to right the troubles. Same with our system where the PM can declare war, though we're not so strict and I believe we now wish for the commons to debate it.

But it doesn't have that power, it simply subverts the constitution (as they did in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq) by claiming that it technically isn't a war but is a "limited targeted airstrike" or that the troops are "military advisors" yet we all know that sending troops or using drones/airstrikes is military action that constitutes an act of war. The executive, according to the constitution, doesn't have that power: only the Congress does.

And that's why I posted this, to warn over the abuse and centralisation of power as well as the danger of yet another Vietnam-style conflict.

[FlyingJesus]

Republican leaders have said it, and the BBC and CNN are reporting it. He's already sent troops too.

Nice climbdown though after I pointed out that he's ALREADY sent troops to Iraq bypassing the Congress, thus breaking the constitution.

So if two news sources and someone who wants a midfield position in the England squad say that Gerrard hates the Queen and wants to shoot her that would magically be true too.

And no, still not troops no matter how often you repeat it.

All news sources are biased, my point against the Beeb is that people tend to believe it's an infallible and neutral source when it isn't.

And his point was that you're now attempting to use it as one when it takes on the word of an opposition senator as gospel

[Chippiewill]

Technically it's not breaking the constitution anyway since I'm pretty certain America hasn't declared war since WW2.