JAG...
JAG is wrong.
JAG...
Possibly but the countless amount of Lawyers that work for the NSA and the POTUS say that JAG is right?!JAG is wrong.
Aaaannnnddddd.....................Possibly but the countless amount of Lawyers that work for the NSA and the POTUS say that JAG is right?!
Point taken...Aaaannnnddddd.....................
Lawyers have never been wrong before????
Probably that in real life you may have some serious mental issues and this forum is where you come to feel your life has meaning.you're waiting for a train, a train that will take you far away.
You know where you hope this train will take you, but you don't know for sure.
But it doesn't matter.
How can it not matter to you where that train will take you?
Tell me WHY in 1 sentence or less!
Not really....JAG is wrong.
Not really....
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
Oddly enough since 1973 the only 2 POTUS that have acted against the Resolution are Presidents Clinton and Obama. Clinton in 1999 in the Bombings of Kosovo, and Obama in 2011 in Libya...
With all due respect, what you just offered contradicts your claim.
Furthermore, a lawyer's opinion without the supporting evidence doesn't mean much. On the one hand, I have at my disposal a duly enacted piece of legislation saying 60 days. On the other, an internet stranger who offers only "JAG" as his source. I'm not at the point of calling BS, but you've got to give me something more to go on.
Using that logic, should we then invade North Korea and Iran?
No, based on history. Based on facts about the hundreds of different terrorists groups out their, their motivations, their alliances, their history. It's really not that hard. What if Saddam was supporting a terrorist group who were enemies with Al Queda? If nothing else, at least Saddam was keeping his own borders secure from terrorists getting in and out, finding sanctuaries, places to train. The borders are less secure now than they were 10 years ago.
I'm not the one who came into a thread about campaign platforms to rant about my childhood and to deliver personal attacks to other members.Probably that in real life you may have some serious mental issues and this forum is where you come to feel your life has meaning.
See that's the real reason why GW did the whole Iraq thing is to clear up the unfinished business that pops took all the heat for not doing. That and for oil.It's too bad we can never see alternative versions of history.
Imagine this scenario:
Bush declares that since we know that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, we're not looking at regime change there.
A reporter asks why he's not worried that Saddam will provide WMD to a terrorist group. Bush replies that we don't even think they have WMD, and even if they do, we don't think they'll help any terrorists.
I'm imaging all the attacks he'd get from the left for being such an idiot as to make those assumptions.
Let's take it a step farther. Let's say that after that, Iraq, did provide terrorists with a WMD, let's say the very last of the gas they had in stock. The terrorist group kills a few hundred Americans with it.
It's nice to know that all you guys would be defending Bush right now. And I'm sure the left wing press would have stood up behind him.
In this alternate World, I'd be criticizing Bush for being an irresponsible idiot, and rambone and turnandshoot would be standing up for him, trying to explain that any reasonable person would have left Iraq alone, and there's no way Bush could have realized that Iraq even had any gas left and that it was unthinkable that Saddam would give it to terrorists.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would have gone.
We know the answer because we can look at all the criticism the first Bush got FROM THE LEFT for honoring his original scope in Desert Storm and stopping short of Baghdad. Anyone remember that? The left beat him up for that for a decade.
Puh-lease.
See that's the real reason why GW did the whole Iraq thing is to clear up the unfinished business that pops took all the heat for not doing. That and for oil.
I don't know. Ask the people that claimed it as one of the reasons along with the other one I posted.How much oil did we garner out of that deal? I'm really curious to know how much American Oil Companies turned a profit on Iraqi oil after we ousted Sadaam.
How much oil did we garner out of that deal? I'm really curious to know how much American Oil Companies turned a profit on Iraqi oil after we ousted Sadaam.
I don't know. Ask the people that claimed it as one of the reasons along with the other one I posted.
I got your sarcasm.
Oooooo . I love this game.It's too bad we can never see alternative versions of history.
Imagine this scenario:
Bush declares that since we know that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, we're not looking at regime change there.
A reporter asks why he's not worried that Saddam will provide WMD to a terrorist group. Bush replies that we don't even think they have WMD, and even if they do, we don't think they'll help any terrorists.
I'm imaging all the attacks he'd get from the left for being such an idiot as to make those assumptions.
Let's take it a step farther. Let's say that after that, Iraq, did provide terrorists with a WMD, let's say the very last of the gas they had in stock. The terrorist group kills a few hundred Americans with it.
It's nice to know that all you guys would be defending Bush right now. And I'm sure the left wing press would have stood up behind him.
In this alternate World, I'd be criticizing Bush for being an irresponsible idiot, and rambone and turnandshoot would be standing up for him, trying to explain that any reasonable person would have left Iraq alone, and there's no way Bush could have realized that Iraq even had any gas left and that it was unthinkable that Saddam would give it to terrorists.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would have gone.
We know the answer because we can look at all the criticism the first Bush got FROM THE LEFT for honoring his original scope in Desert Storm and stopping short of Baghdad. Anyone remember that? The left beat him up for that for a decade.
Puh-lease.