Obama Requests AUMF for ISIS

Call me old school but I think we need to go back to congress declaring war.

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - Your logic is mistaken, but you don't like to hear that. The constitution does say that congress declares wars... but it doesn't say how. It's been determined that if Congress grants the president the authority to go to war and funds it, that's a declaration.

I think you want them to scream into a microphone "I declare war" which is both childish and unnecessary. Phone Post 3.0

My logic is based upon over 200 years of precedence and history. The President asks Congress for a declaration of war. Congress either agrees or they don't. All this bullshit with AUMF's started with Truman in the 50's. By not declaring war, Congress and the President are both shielded and can pass as many laws or acts to extend, expand or cover their illegal activities.

It "started" because there was no true procedure defined on how to do it.

Do you think only people in militias should own guns? Seems to be in line with your narrow thinking. Phone Post 3.0

Technically based upon the wording of the 2nd Amendment, that is what the intent was.

jzspanky - 
jzspanky -
attjack - Call me old school but I think we need to go back to congress declaring war.
How do you do that? How do you "declare war?" Like you do with thumb wars where you say it? Phone Post 3.0
That was a serious question... how do you declare war? Phone Post 3.0

I already answered this. The President requests and Congress issues a "Declaration Of War" not an AUMF.

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - Your logic is mistaken, but you don't like to hear that. The constitution does say that congress declares wars... but it doesn't say how. It's been determined that if Congress grants the president the authority to go to war and funds it, that's a declaration.

I think you want them to scream into a microphone "I declare war" which is both childish and unnecessary. Phone Post 3.0

My logic is based upon over 200 years of precedence and history. The President asks Congress for a declaration of war. Congress either agrees or they don't. All this bullshit with AUMF's started with Truman in the 50's. By not declaring war, Congress and the President are both shielded and can pass as many laws or acts to extend, expand or cover their illegal activities.

It "started" because there was no true procedure defined on how to do it.

Do you think only people in militias should own guns? Seems to be in line with your narrow thinking. Phone Post 3.0

Technically based upon the wording of the 2nd Amendment, that is what the intent was.
So every gun sale is unconstitutional in your eyes? Phone Post 3.0

We are not discussing the 2nd Amendment. We are discussing the difference between a formal declaration of war and an AUMF.

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - 
jzspanky -
attjack - Call me old school but I think we need to go back to congress declaring war.
How do you do that? How do you "declare war?" Like you do with thumb wars where you say it? Phone Post 3.0
That was a serious question... how do you declare war? Phone Post 3.0

I already answered this. The President requests and Congress issues a "Declaration Of War" not an AUMF.
What is a "declaration of war?"
A document that has the words "declaration of war" stamped at the top? Phone Post 3.0

This

The War Resolution

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

No, we are talking about your attempt of taking the constitutional literally and your narrow views.


I think the Constitution is most cases is pretty clearly written and worded. The only people who like to play word games are politicians and lawyers. So tell me what the definition of is, is?

I'm done jzspanky. You are being deliberately obtuse. Enjoy your word play, doublespeak/think and perpetual conflict. Remember

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

I've noticed Information increasingly plays the man rather than the issue since it's become increasingly clear that the Iraq war was a huge mistake on the US's part.

Information - 
banco - I've noticed Information increasingly plays the man rather than the issue since it's become increasingly clear that the Iraq war was a huge mistake on the US's part.

I've noticed that you follow me around like a fangirl eager for my attention.

Crazy, right?

...and here we go again. Just remember info thousands of dead american soliders, hundreds of billions spent to achieve diddly squat.

Information - 
disbeliever - Does anyone argue the Iraq war wasn't a huge mistake now in hind sight?

I do.

I don't think it was a mistake at all. It's certainly not a popular position, but I'm absolutely confident that the outcome of all of this will be a better Iraq and Middle East.

Better off like Somalia, Lebanon, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Philippines, Iran?

Countries that we fucked up royally and are still trying to recover, countries who we continue to meddle in?

So the loss of thousands of American lives and 10's if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives is OK, because in the long run American businesses will continue to profit and maybe the grandchildren of the people killed in the invasion will have a slightly better life? That 50 years of unrest, terrorism, death, destruction is all OK because in the end the people who had to live through it will be dead.

disbeliever - Does anyone argue the Iraq war wasn't a huge mistake now in hind sight?

On 10th Anniversary, 53% in U.S. See Iraq War as Mistake

Republicans most likely to say conflict was not a mistake

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx

" You only see what's directly in front of your face and that's it."

No dog in this fight but for some reason thought of this after reading the aforementioned....

Jimmy: Get out of my face.
Chazz: I'll get inside your face.

Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - 
disbeliever - Does anyone argue the Iraq war wasn't a huge mistake now in hind sight?

I do.

I don't think it was a mistake at all. It's certainly not a popular position, but I'm absolutely confident that the outcome of all of this will be a better Iraq and Middle East.

Better off like Somalia, Lebanon, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Philippines, Iran?

Countries that we fucked up royally and are still trying to recover, countries who we continue to meddle in?

So the loss of thousands of American lives and 10's if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives is OK, because in the long run American businesses will continue to profit and maybe the grandchildren of the people killed in the invasion will have a slightly better life? That 50 years of unrest, terrorism, death, destruction is all OK because in the end the people who had to live through it will be dead.

What do Somalia, Lebanon, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Philippines have to do with Iraq?

El Salvador = Iraq...because of the US!

Different places. Different factors. Different situations. Different countries.

Iran I'd love to get into. I've schooled you multiple times on what actually happened there and you still don't seem capable of processing it.

Beyond that, don't think I didn't notice you left South Korea, Japan, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Germany off the list.

Schooled me, my ass. What happened was the CIA overthrew the democratically elected prime minister and installed a dictator. The rest as they say is history, because everyone can see what has happened.

The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

School is over,

P.S. what do those paces have to do with Iraq? Are you really that fucking stupid? They are all places where the U.S. has meddled in their internal workings and fucked thing 3 ways from Sunday.

P.P.S: Left off South Korea, Japan, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Germany o because all of those were a result of WW2 and immediately following, not recent history. I notice you didn't mention Viet Nam? Why is that? How about Cambodia? or Laos? Maybe Myanmar (Burma)?

Information - 
disbeliever - Does anyone argue the Iraq war wasn't a huge mistake now in hind sight?

I do.

I don't think it was a mistake at all. It's certainly not a popular position, but I'm absolutely confident that the outcome of all of this will be a better Iraq and Middle East.

You've gotta be shittin me lol.

There's no way in hell there are people out there who truly still believe this.

Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - 
disbeliever - Does anyone argue the Iraq war wasn't a huge mistake now in hind sight?

I do.

I don't think it was a mistake at all. It's certainly not a popular position, but I'm absolutely confident that the outcome of all of this will be a better Iraq and Middle East.

Better off like Somalia, Lebanon, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Philippines, Iran?

Countries that we fucked up royally and are still trying to recover, countries who we continue to meddle in?

So the loss of thousands of American lives and 10's if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives is OK, because in the long run American businesses will continue to profit and maybe the grandchildren of the people killed in the invasion will have a slightly better life? That 50 years of unrest, terrorism, death, destruction is all OK because in the end the people who had to live through it will be dead.

What do Somalia, Lebanon, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Philippines have to do with Iraq?

El Salvador = Iraq...because of the US!

Different places. Different factors. Different situations. Different countries.

Iran I'd love to get into. I've schooled you multiple times on what actually happened there and you still don't seem capable of processing it.

Beyond that, don't think I didn't notice you left South Korea, Japan, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Germany off the list.

Schooled me, my ass. What happened was the CIA overthrew the democratically elected prime minister and installed a dictator. The rest as they say is history, because everyone can see what has happened.

The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

School is over,

No.

You're wrong now, just as you were wrong the last time we discussed this.

Let's unpack your errors one by one...

First, you claim that the CIA overthrew the "democratically elected" PM of Iran. That is demonstrably false on several fronts.

1. Mossadegh was elected to the Majlis. The Majlis were the ones who elected him PM. Further, per the Iranian Constitution no PM could be seated unless they were approved by the Shah. Even further, the PM served at the pleasure of the Shah- the Shah had every legal right to dismiss him. In fact, prior to their final confrontation, the Shah had dismissed Mossadegh from office- and he obeyed, thus validating the Shah's power. Do you want me to cite the articles of the Constitution referenced?

Second, you claim the US "installed" the Shah. This is demonstrably false. The Shah was the legal head of the Iranian executive per its Constitution. The Shah never abdicated- so tell me, how could he be "installed" by the US? The answer- he couldn't.

I think you're one of the people who still actually believe the Iranian Revolution was in response to the events surrounding Mossadegh, right?

Yes, I've definitely destroyed you on this in the past.

Keep trying to change history. You were schooled, but since you don't like reality you want to put your own narrative out there. CIA overthrew democratically elected PM and installed the Shah. that is the truth. those are the facts and all of your contentions otherwise do nothing but make you look like a bigger idiot.

"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.


Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

British documents show how senior officials in the 1970s tried to stop Washington from releasing documents that would be "very embarrassing" to the UK.


The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".

One document describes Mosaddeq as one of the "most mercurial, maddening, adroit and provocative leaders with whom they [the US and Britain] had ever dealt". The document says Mosaddeq "found the British evil, not incomprehensible" and "he and millions of Iranians believed that for centuries Britain had manipulated their country for British ends". Another document refers to conducting a "war of nerves" against Mossadeq.

The Iranian-Armenian historian Ervand Abrahamian, author of The Coup: 1953, the CIA and the Roots of Modern US-Iranian Relations, said in a recent interview that the coup was designed "to get rid of a nationalist figure who insisted that oil should be nationalised".

Unlike other nationalist leaders, including Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Mosaddeq epitomised a unique "anti-colonial" figure who was also committed to democratic values and human rights, Abrahamian argued.

TRUTH, history, fact. the CIA's own words. Not mine.

School is out. You failed.

Oh and a preemptive dismantling of any bullshit Information will spew about the invasion of Iraq.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-lies-we-believed-and-still-believe-about-iraq/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/24/14969/search-935-iraq-war-false-statements

Information - Oh, and Tidbits, here's Iran's Constitution of 1906:

IRAN'S 1906 CONSTITUTION AND ITS SUPPLEMENT

Pay particular attention to things like: "Art. 36. The constitutional monarchy of Persia is vested in the person of His Imperial Majesty Sultan Muhammad 'Ali Shah Qajar (may God prolong his sovereignty!) and in his heirs, generation after generation."

Just so I have your claim straight, is it you contention that the US went back in time and amended the Iranian Constitution to install the Shah of Iran?

No my contention is that the CIA overthrew a democratically elected prime minister via a military coup in order to put a western puppet back in power. So your contention is that because a despot and tyrant was given power by a Constitution (which was foisted in the Iranian people by the British, they sure as hell didn't vote for it) it was OK for the CIA to go against the will of the Iranian people and put the tyrant back in power?

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Great Britain began a new wave of imperialism, focusing on areas in the Middle East strategic to enhance their trade. Persia (which wasn’t known as Iran until 1935) was one of the countries in which Britain gained enormous power and influence. This power was derived from its control of Persia’s main export product, oil, through the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Iranian oil had become crucial to Great Britain during World War II, and Britain’s control over the oil in the postwar years was an essential source of revenue for the British. Not only did the company (and Britain by extension) make money from the sale of oil, but also from the taxes it levied on Iran. In 1950, AIOC made 170 million pounds from oil sale and an amount equal to 30% of the profits in taxes.

Of course this wealth was acquired at the expense of the Iranians, whom had no control over their largest export, were only receiving around 10% of the profits made from their resources and worked the oil fields for very little pay. It therefore should have come as little surprise when Mossadegh announced his plan to nationalize Iranian oil production when he became Prime Minister in 1951.

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/iranian_overthrow.asp

Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - Oh, and Tidbits, here's Iran's Constitution of 1906:

IRAN'S 1906 CONSTITUTION AND ITS SUPPLEMENT

Pay particular attention to things like: "Art. 36. The constitutional monarchy of Persia is vested in the person of His Imperial Majesty Sultan Muhammad 'Ali Shah Qajar (may God prolong his sovereignty!) and in his heirs, generation after generation."

Just so I have your claim straight, is it you contention that the US went back in time and amended the Iranian Constitution to install the Shah of Iran?

No my contention is that the CIA overthrew a democratically elected prime minister via a military coup in order to put a western puppet back in power. So your contention is that because a despot and tyrant was given power by a Constitution (which was foisted in the Iranian people by the British, they sure as hell didn't vote for it) it was OK for the CIA to go against the will of the Iranian people and put the tyrant back in power?

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Great Britain began a new wave of imperialism, focusing on areas in the Middle East strategic to enhance their trade. Persia (which wasn’t known as Iran until 1935) was one of the countries in which Britain gained enormous power and influence. This power was derived from its control of Persia’s main export product, oil, through the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Iranian oil had become crucial to Great Britain during World War II, and Britain’s control over the oil in the postwar years was an essential source of revenue for the British. Not only did the company (and Britain by extension) make money from the sale of oil, but also from the taxes it levied on Iran. In 1950, AIOC made 170 million pounds from oil sale and an amount equal to 30% of the profits in taxes.

Of course this wealth was acquired at the expense of the Iranians, whom had no control over their largest export, were only receiving around 10% of the profits made from their resources and worked the oil fields for very little pay. It therefore should have come as little surprise when Mossadegh announced his plan to nationalize Iranian oil production when he became Prime Minister in 1951.


Jesus you're dense.

You claim the US out the Shah back in power.

Question: How did the Shah lose power?

You claim that the British foisted the Constitution of 1906 on the Iranians.

Question: What support do you have for that claim?

You claim that Mossadegh was the democratically elected leader of Iran.

Question: Who actually voted Mossadegh PM? What did Mossadegh do that body at a later point in time?

You claim the people hated the Shah at the time of TPAJAX.

Question: What support do you have for that claim? How do you reconcile that with the popular support he received following Mossadegh's final dismissal? Including quotes from religious figures like Khomeini who said Mossadegh was not a real Muslim?

Answer those questions instead of copying and pasting from some left-wing website?

Yep TOTAL left wing site.

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/iranian_overthrow.asp

I am done even engaging your dumb right wing shill ass.

Anyone with a brain sees through your feeble attempts at historical revisionism.