Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Nuclear war against Iran

457 posts in this topic

Here is the problem, you don't know what the f@*k you are talking about. The US Constitution only allows Congress to authorize war. The War Powers Act, that you so confidently cite to, is an act of congress that allows the president to use force for 60 or maybe 90 days, without congressional approval. This was passed to let the president handle emergencies, instead of requiring 600+ people to fly to Washington and vote on the issue. It does not give the President to right to declare war. So congress basically extended the length of the President's war powers indefinitely, with respect to Iraq.

 

This is a really easy issue to understand,

 

1) ONLY Congress can declare war

2) Congress DID NOT declare war

3) the US invaded Iraq

4) Congress still DID NOT declare war

 

add it up and

5) This is not a war, or if you prefer a different verbage it is an illegal war.

 

If you like I can send you a copy of our constitution and one of my reference books that go into great detail explaining it.

 

Ok you can't have the books, but if like I can point you in the right direction if you wish to buy one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't know why you lot are still arguing.

 

Mission was accomplished ages and ages ago...

 

...wasn't it? :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dolfan: my first point: de facto the US have been at war many times since the second world war contarry to what you claim...

Hmmm seeing as I got invited to go along on that last little excursion I can safely say it was not a war, a fact proven by the fact that I along with all other Bitish soldiers involved carried on paying income tax on all wages earned in that little fracas. <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I remind everyone that the Iraq Liberation Act was signed into law by Clinton and that after 9/11 Congress voted (twice) and agreed to give Bush more power?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... erm... about time those Iraqi's got themselves liberated then, wouldn't you say?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No differently than the Germans, Japanese or South Koreans...

 

Or maybe you think that uncle saddam was better? Rolls eyes...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could be sayin', "And over here I present for you... Janet Jackson's right tit!".

 

Personally, I'm thinkin' molehills and mountains. Are you tryin' to breed an enemy on which to use all those loverly expensive tax paid weapons? I wonder what would happen if you didn't go around stirrin' up hornets nests at every opportunity? Why isn't the whole Islamic world jumpin' up and down and screamin', "NUTTER" about this geezer? Just because some highly dubious MSM's are going on and on about something only makes it sound more and more like bullshit.

 

BTW: If you're interested, I found Saddam's WMD at the back of my fridge. Can somebody call the IAEA and ask them to bring Domestos?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About time some chickenhawks read what their own backroom boys are saying:

 

War-Gaming the Mullahs - 18 month old piece.

Tehran has been taking advantage of loopholes in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is now within a year of mastering key weapons-production technology.
...the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome.

 

The NPT has never banned uranium enrichment.

Experts Speak: No Good Military Options in Iran

 

...and is now within a year of mastering key weapons-production technology. September 27th 2004

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sin, these guys in your link are "ney-sayers" and believe that Bush has no military option. Once again they are totally focused on Bush.

 

But in these days of "collalition warfre" a viable military option is there. The West, not the US, the West would have to go into Iran with overwhelming military force like at the outset like Gulf War I.

 

Here's a story that shows how stupid things are getting. "Jewish Bullets"

 

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/41128...%7Creuters.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect BadBob II. I happen to trust the opinions of that list of, as you so elloquently put it, "ney-sayers" (I think you actually mean naysayers) far more than I could ever trust the opinions of a group of men with zero active military service, and with a litany of disasterous military planning decisions strewn about in their wake.

 

Your 'Jewish Bullets' link is irrelevant and of no significance, apart from the fact that it further proves certain military analyists views correct regarding use and supply requirements.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise profusely BadBob II.

 

Obviously, as per usual, you are correct, and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company is wrong.

 

I am sorry for casting aspersions on your flawless knowledge of The English Language.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed "warfre" instead of "warfare" in the post too. Hey, "Spellcheckers," please consolidate your defication.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0