Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Its all about the oil. If the USA were interested in humanitarian issues, we would have intervened in Sudan 10 years ago. Oil rules all.


This is true, but it's a bit of a catch-22. People say that in order for us to intervene in a foreign country we must first have some stake or vested interest in the intervention, otherwise we are nation-building and imposing our will on sovereign nations.

OK, but let's be realistic - the only real stake, or if not "only" then definitely the overwhelming primary stake that we have in that region of the world is our dependence on their oil. So when we have a vested interest, and that "stake" is oil, the very same people scream "IT'S JUST ABOUT THE OIL!!!!".

So if it's not about the oil, that's bad and we are imposing our morality through force and/or we are nation-building imperialists. But if it is about the oil, then that's bad too b/c we are greedy, selfish and generally immoral consumers who want to rape and pillage the earth for more resources that we can exploit.

It seems there is no way to satisfy the crowd who are simply opposed to the US military, and/or the US in general.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

ONO, if you don't stop the right winger stuff, I'm going to call you a loony liberal. LOL

Obama is finding out just how much fun being the man in charge really is. You can't win.
Congress if fussing because he didn't get approval from them, Bush did get approval in Afghan and Iraq and they still fussed.

If it was the OIL, we would be beating the crap out of Saudi Arabia, they are the fools with the oil.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
...Congress if fussing because he didn't get approval from them, Bush did get approval in Afghan and Iraq and they still fussed...



Congress is the only body authorized under the Constitution to declare war. They have not done that in this case or in Afghan or Iraq.

The Congress was delegated that power by the sovereign people of the individual states...they can NOT constitutionally "pass the buck" to the president by some "resolution" and the president cannot assume that power.

Well obviously they did and can...but it's not constitutional...both congress and presidents of the past 60 some odd years have acted unconstitutionally when it comes to the war making power...a power that was "delegated" to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
...Congress if fussing because he didn't get approval from them, Bush did get approval in Afghan and Iraq and they still fussed...



Congress is the only body authorized under the Constitution to declare war. They have not done that in this case or in Afghan or Iraq.

The Congress was delegated that power by the sovereign people of the individual states...they can NOT constitutionally "pass the buck" to the president by some "resolution" and the president cannot assume that power.

Well obviously they did and can...but it's not constitutional...both congress and presidents of the past 60 some odd years have acted unconstitutionally when it comes to the war making power...a power that was "delegated" to them.


Yes and there are rumblings among some democrats about impeaching Obama.
quote:
Well obviously they did and can...but it's not constitutional...both congress and presidents of the past 60 some odd years have acted unconstitutionally when it comes to the war making power...a power that was "delegated" to them.


You can easily go further back more than 60 years:

quote:
Under Wilson, the United States intervenied in Latin American than in any other time in our history. We landed troops in Mexico in 1914, Haiti in 1915, the Dominican Republic in 1916, Mexico again in 1916 (and nine more times before the end of Wilson's presidency), Cuba in 1917, and Panama in 1918. Throughout his administration, Wilson maintained forces in Nicaragua, using them to determine Nicaragua's president and enforce passage of a treaty preferential to the United States.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson took on a major power when he started sending secret aid to the "White" side of the Russian civil war. In the summer of 1918 he authorized a naval blocade of the Soviet Union and sent expeditionary forces to Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok to help overthrow the Russian Revolution. With the blessing of Britian and France, and in a joint command with Japanese soliders, American forces penetrated westward from Vladivostok to Lake Baikal, supporting Czech and White Russian forces that had declared an anticommunist government headquarted at Omsk. After briefly maintaining front lines as far west as the Volga, the White Russian disintegrated by the end of 1919, and our troops finally left Vladivostok on April 1, 1920.
http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000445.html

I suspect that the reason congress chooses to ignore its constitutional duties regarding wars is because wartime presidents such as Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR behaved as dictators. A defined resolution short of a declared war might be seen as less of a threat to the country than a full declared war.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×