[Show all top banners]

iLLumination
Replies to this thread:

More by iLLumination
What people are reading
Subscribers
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Refresh page to view new replies
 Britain votes against war, where is the voting in US?

[Please view other pages to see the rest of the postings. Total posts: 52]
PAGE: <<  1 2 3 NEXT PAGE
[VIEWED 22779 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
The postings in this thread span 3 pages, View Last 20 replies.
Posted on 08-30-13 7:22 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Britain has shown that it is more democratic than the US by allowing parliament to vote for or against Syria war. The outcome of the voting was against war and they are going to respect this decision.

Whereas in the US, there is no sign of any voting, it is more or less a unilateral decision by the President's office. What is the point of having Senate and Congress if they cannot make any important decisions that could change the face of the earth.

The rhetorics of war has always  been one sided towards the aggressor. The aggressor justifies attack because Syria supposedly killed 1000 people, but the imposed war could kill 100,000 people or more like was the case in Iraq/ Afganisthan.

So ultimately the US rhetorics of war is this. You are not democratic, you killed 1000 of your citizens, now we will bomb you to depose your government even if 100,000 are killed.



 
Posted on 09-02-13 7:04 AM     [Snapshot: 800]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Giordana it's clear that you congratulate yourself on your own assumptions. Well, whatever makes you happy but here's the thing

I am not rid. Is it beyond your mental capacity to realize that there are many people who can think differently than you?
I don't watch alex jones.
I don't watch glen beck. Just saw the video shared in facebook and thought it was contextual.

It seems like you have a difficult time understanding english, re-read the extract from the constitution. The President cannot declare war without national emergency or attack on US or it's possessions.

The 60 day thing is only valid if, as the constitution says, it was national emergency or attack on US. Obviously if someone attacked the US, they do not have time to get congressional approval, they need to retaliate. But when they do, they need to get congressional approval within 60 days or withdraw the troops.

Are you saying that the internal conflict in Syria is a National emergency in the US? Or are you saying that Syria is US possession?

So much for your understanding of the constitution or english for that matter.

 
Posted on 09-02-13 11:53 AM     [Snapshot: 820]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Under U.S. law, Obama doesn't have to get Congress' approval to launch military action. The 1973 War Powers Resolution authorizes a president to initiate an attack as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours.

Get your facts right guys.

P.S. I do not support military action against Syria w/o the approval of congress. But that does't change the law. 
Last edited: 02-Sep-13 11:54 AM

 
Posted on 09-02-13 1:29 PM     [Snapshot: 844]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

For those who are still debating if President Obama has the authority to decide any attack on Syria, on his own, please listen carefully the speech given by President Obama ( the Chief of US Military at present) on Syria. For your convenience, 
1:45 - I have decided...
2:43 - I am prepared to give that order...
4:40 - I believe I have the authority...

Video Source: Youtube
- Jangali Maanab



 
Posted on 09-02-13 1:41 PM     [Snapshot: 848]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

 @illumnation,

I hope u understood other now when u fail to understand me....I am still saying Obama doesnt need congress approval to go to war. If congress votes no, he still has executive power to go to war.

one example - Libya. 

if u still dont get my point, may god help u

 
Posted on 09-03-13 10:06 AM     [Snapshot: 950]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Giordano,

The fact that you are ignorantly restating is due to your Libya example. You need to understand that Obama's attack on Libya was unconstitutional but the politics of it all has kept it contained.

That is why, this time he has tried to follow the constitution and get congressional approval first. If you don't believe me, check the news which clearly says Obama wants to get congressional approval.

If you support unconstitutional moves, then may god help your ignorant soul.

In 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama told the Boston Globe in an interview that no president could authorize military action without Congress unless the U.S. was in imminent danger.

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama had said.

But now, obviously, like a sinister politician, he is going back on his own words like his strike in Libya but now he is getting some sense after seeing opposition in Britain.



Last edited: 03-Sep-13 10:12 AM

 
Posted on 09-03-13 5:57 PM     [Snapshot: 1010]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

 @illumnation,

No matter how much you cry in here, Obama has the executive power to go to war. The 1973 War Powers Resolution gives him that power. now get a life. and FYI that news was for u not me.

 
Posted on 09-04-13 9:44 AM     [Snapshot: 1052]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Giordano, the problem with you and people like you is that you believe everyone has to think like you. Do you not know even the US is divided into two big political ideologies the democrats and the republicans? It is not necessary for everyone to accept your way of thinking. Take it easy there!

I am only pointing out the inconsistencies here regarding what is thought to be a derivative of the constitution. Even Obama had taken an anti war stand before his election but now he seems to be all for unilateral war decisions, which is what I have personal issue with. It is pretty stupid of you to try to change my personal issue!!  Learn to agree to disagree without becoming an imbecile.

I have even quoted where Obama said before his election "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Just answer one question if you want to continue being an imbecile, do you agree that Obama is changing his stance on the above statement he made? Has the constitution changed since he became the president?

 
Posted on 09-04-13 9:46 AM     [Snapshot: 1054]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Ok, Guys here is the answer for your debate.

President Barack Obama bluntly told lawmakers Wednesday that he does not need their permission to strike Syria, but challenged Congress to do more than “sit on the sidelines (and) snipe.”

“As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress,” Obama said during a visit to Stockholm, Sweden.

“But I did not take this to Congress just because it’s an empty exercise; I think it’s important to have Congress’s support on it,” Obama said at a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The president expressed confidence that Congress will ultimately give him its green light for military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces, whom Washington accuses of massacring civilians with chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

“I believe Congress will approve it,” he said.

“We can send a very clear strong message in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again,” Obama said.

“What I’m talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use of those weapons again,” the president said.

And Obama said that Congress must be more invested in the use of American military force abroad — at least when American national security, or that of an ally, is not directly and imminently threatened.

“It’s important for us to get out of the habit of just saying ‘well, we’ll let the president kind of stretch the boundaries of his authority as far as he can. Congress will sit on the sidelines, snipe. If it works, the sniping will be a little less. If it doesn’t, a little more. But either way, the American people and their representatives are not fully invested in what are tough choices,” Obama said.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-reserves-right-to-buck-congress-on-syria-strike-140227751.html

 
Posted on 09-04-13 10:09 AM     [Snapshot: 1056]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

All the way,

There is not going to be a clear cut answer to this debate. What is clear cut is that Obama has changed his understanding of the constitution in the last 6 years he was in office.

Note how he plays with the national pride of Americans by saying I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security., but he fails to explain how Syrian domestic issue is America's national security.

He sugarcoats lies as American national security so that he can reward his lobbyists who profit from war. One of the important reason he was voted as president was because he promised to finish off the iraq invasion and bring home the troops in afganistan and iraq. But once he got into office his actions have not matched up with his pre-election rhetorics. Chances are he has probably met his "higher powers" who he has to please.

Even when you consider air strikes in Syria, it is a simple logistics to note that there will be heavy civilian casualties. How many casualties will be acceptable? Can this be guaranteed? 

Since, Syrian govt is being punished for killing hundreds of people by using chemical weapon, you would assume that not more than hundreds of civillians should be accepted as casualties of war, but there is no way to guarantee that, and it just seems like one is going way over their heads when they claim to do this for justice.

Most of the Syrian rebels have pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda so at this point, the US intervention in Syria to assist the rebels, just spells Hypocrite.

 
Posted on 09-04-13 7:46 PM     [Snapshot: 1131]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

@illumnation

I don't care what Obama said or not thats his personal statement but the 1973 war power resolution gives him complete right to go to war. many of us here has already pointed out that obama has the executive power to go to war but u keep on crying like a lil baby. and yes obama doesn't need congress vote if he brings his troops back with in 60 days. 
 
Posted on 09-04-13 8:44 PM     [Snapshot: 1151]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Getting tired of seeing yet another form of Freedom2012 here.

I'm no expert on the constitution but if what Giordano quoted is accurate ie "The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops."

It clearly says that the president is only allowed to deploy troops when there is national emergency. Since there is no national emergency at the present, the 1973 War Powers Resolution does not allow the president to deploy troops. Period.

In my opinion the legality of Obama's move is not the big issue here. The bottom line is that the circumstances surrounding the chemical weapons used is not clear enough to warrant the deployment of missiles and air strikes.

The state owned media has pretty much suppressed Assad's statement regarding chemical weapon use.

“How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located?” Assad asked in the interview with Izvestia, according to a translation provided by Syria’s official news agency and published by the Los Angeles Times. “This is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicized and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.”

Without having 100% accurate proof, it is illegal, unwarranted and a war crime to attack another country based on assumptions and accusations.


 
Posted on 09-04-13 9:04 PM     [Snapshot: 1161]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

 @rethink

As US being the greater great, use of chemical weapon is not only the national issue to US but it broke the international norm too. Now regarding illumnation point of comparing britain to US i made a point where US doesn't need voting and that president can act alone without the congress vote. As a commander in chief he has that executive power and he proved that in Libya war, the drone attacks in yemen. 

 
Posted on 09-05-13 8:44 AM     [Snapshot: 1213]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Giordano, instead of parroting the same ignorant foregone conclusion, why don't you agree to disagree? unless you are the epitomy of all knowledge and you are always right

Rething, I agree with you. This forceful war makes American government's bullying tactics very clear to the whole world and it will gain more enemies. I hope Obama is stopped by congress from this insane war.

 
Posted on 09-05-13 7:41 PM     [Snapshot: 1249]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

 @illumnation.....obama won't stop now. if congress fails he will attack the syria as he has that power
 
Posted on 09-05-13 8:56 PM     [Snapshot: 1264]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Giordana, ok so your lord OBAMA is all powerful god for you. We get it.

Here's top 5 reasons why Obama should not attack Syria

1. The “Credibility” Argument — “America cannot be seen as weak,” as the pundits and war hawks put it, is a lousy reason to go to war, to paraphrase MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. We should never go to war because we are worried about the opinions of dictators and tyrants.

2. The “Future Tyrant” Argument — “If America doesn’t send a strong message that you cannot use chemical weapons, future dictators will use these weapons of mass destruction at will.” There’s not much evidence to support this argument. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons and we did nothing, and then no one else used chemical weapons for two decades.

3. The “Humanitarian” Argument — “1500 people died a horrible death by chemical weapons. We must do something about that.” Well, I got news for you — 98,500 additional Syrians have also died a horrible death, by conventional weapons. If we could prove that military action would stop the death toll (from all weapons), maybe, just maybe, it could be justified. I have not heard anyone posit such an argument, because even though we have plenty of wrongheaded arguments for military action in Syria, nobody is so deluded to think the Syrian conflict will end because of American intervention.

 

4. The Assad “Change Course” Argument — “If we send a strong message to President Bashar al-Assad, he will stop using chemical weapons.” We would have to make sure we wipe out his entire chemical weapons capability to make such an assurance because someone desperate enough to use chemical weapons in the first place is not likely to learn a lesson from the West.

5. The “Geneva Protocol” Argument — “In 1925, nearly every country decided the use of chemical weapons was abhorrent and banned their use.” Sure, chemical weapons are horrible, but so are conventional weapons. You don’t have to marginalize your morals by establishing an arbitrary standard for how to conduct a war. There should be no war. Sending a message attached to the side of a cruise missile stating that killing people with chemical weapons is wrong, is also wrong. Any humanitarian should see the moral compromise we make by deeming one weapon of war unacceptable, leaving the remaining weapons as viable options.


 
Posted on 09-06-13 9:44 AM     [Snapshot: 1300]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Giordano, since you are so sure your most powerful Obama will attack Syria no matter what, this might be interesting for you. Let's hope you won't have to hide in a hole once you see that the collective power of right versus wrong will prevail.

President Obama could lose big on Syria in House

If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose — and lose big.

That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.

If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week — which is no sure thing — the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it. That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.

(VIDEO: VandeHei, Allen analysis on Syria situation)

Several Republican leadership aides, who are counting votes but not encouraging a position, say that there are roughly one to two dozen “yes” votes in favor of military action at this time. The stunningly low number is expected to grow a bit.

But senior aides say they expect, at most, between 50 and 60 Republicans to vote with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who support the president’s plan to bomb Syria to stop Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons on his people. That would amount to less than one-third of the House Republican Conference.

That would mean the vast majority of the 200 House Democrats will need to vote with Obama for the resolution to pass. But Democrats privately say that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) can only round up between 115 and 130 “yes” votes.

(Also on POLITICO: Pelosi enforcers wobble on Syria)

High-level congressional sources believe there is some time — but not much — for Obama, Boehner and Pelosi to turn things around. But any vote to authorize an attack on Syria will be extraordinarily close, according to people in both parties with direct knowledge of the political dynamics in the House Republican Conference and Democratic Caucus.

Boehner and Cantor back the president’s plan for “limited, proportional” strikes in Syria. Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is not convinced it’s the right decision. McCarthy’s calculus seems to be more in line with many House Republicans — he has spoken to many of his allies in the last week, and the support for a U.S. strike on Syria is incredibly low, sources familiar with those discussions says say.

House leaders plan to takes up the Syria resolution only if it passes the Senate first.

(PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)

The political climate, of course, can change. Pelosi is a legendary whip and has an uncanny ability to move her members. Since Congress is not in session, many lawmakers haven’t been lobbied by the Obama administration or attended its classified briefings. Obama hasn’t taken to the Oval Office to address the nation about Syria — many hope he’ll do that when he returns from the G-20 in Russia. The White House has already canceled a planned presidential trip to Los Angeles on Monday so the president can lobby lawmakers.

And rank-and-file House Republicans — especially some key members — are holding back their positions, waiting to see what happens next week when Congress returns.

“Republicans have traditionally tended to break toward the president” on national security and defense issues, noted a senior GOP aide. But this aide estimated that the resolution to bomb Syria has only a “30 to 40 percent chance of passing right now.”

(Also on POLITICO: So far, President Obama’s political arm sits out Syria push)

POLITICO reported on Thursday that Obama administration officials have reached out directly to one-third of Congress in the last two weeks — at least 60 senators and 125 House members — with more contacts to come, according to a White House aide.

And AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, is poised to mount a major blitz next week in support of the Syria resolution, officials with the group said. AIPAC lobbyists and their supporters have been speaking directly to a number of lawmakers, especially senators, said House and Senate aides.

(Also on POLITICO: AIPAC to go all-out on Syria)

“At the end of the day, a lot of these Democrats are going to be with the president,” said a House Democratic aide close to the issue. “Because the choice is to vote against [the Syria resolution] and turn the president into a lame duck and destroy his credibility, or swallow it and vote for something that you’re not wild about. When you’re faced with that kind of decision, most of these fence-sitters are going to come aboard.”


 
Posted on 09-06-13 10:38 AM     [Snapshot: 1310]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Few of his wellwishers are worried about Obama's move against Syria, which could stain his popularity and may miserably fail him but House seems like "Go" for war. Pres. Obama seems like backing off going to war, so it seems he is seeking partners in crime I mean consent of other folks in the house. Conservatives want him to be stigmatized, so this war is imminent. Sept 9 onwards, news will be filled with destruction and chaos in Syria.


 
Posted on 09-06-13 10:43 AM     [Snapshot: 1313]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

We are on the brink of WWIII

Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

As Congress debates whether to support President Obama’s call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad’s regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that “[w]e will support Syria to the end.”

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama’s daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/#ixzz2e7yYWXPn

 
Posted on 09-06-13 11:29 AM     [Snapshot: 1330]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

How stupid are these US lawmakers who are willing to start a world war III and risk the lives of their own citizens, because of their own personal greed?

 
Posted on 09-06-13 7:19 PM     [Snapshot: 1364]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

 @ illumnation,

collective power of right versus wrong will prevail re. LOL . So you saying Ashad is right? hmmmm......He is a dictator and has killed so many people. I am against the war too but wat I am only trying to say here is Obama has the executive power to go to war without the congress voting and that has been proven already in Libya. thats were our debate began. now if u r relating my things with other than god bless u again.

 



PAGE: <<  1 2 3 NEXT PAGE
Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 90 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
डीभी परेन भने खुसि हुनु होस् ! अमेरिकामाधेरै का श्रीमती अर्कैसँग पोइला गएका छन् !
शीर्षक जे पनि हुन सक्छ।
What are your first memories of when Nepal Television Began?
Sajha Poll: नेपालका सबैभन्दा आकर्षक महिला को हुन्?
NRN card pros and cons?
Basnet or Basnyat ??
निगुरो थाहा छ ??
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
TPS Re-registration
अमेरिकामा छोरा हराएको सूचना
Breathe in. Breathe out.
Drawback for applying NRN card
nrn citizenship
Democrats are so sure Trump will win
My facebook archive (for sale)
Top 10 Anti-vaxxers Who Got Owned by COVID
Doctors dying suddenly or unexpectedly since the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines
ढ्याउ गर्दा दसैँको खसी गनाउच
Sajha has turned into MAGATs nest
Send Parcels from USA to Nepal & Worldwide.
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters