• Welcome, Guest. Please login.
September 23, 2021, 03:50:54 PM

Congress Should Declare War

Started by zewazir, December 04, 2015, 02:02:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

zewazir

Only Congress has the authority to declare war.  But somehow people seem to believe they need to be asked first.  Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor the congress did not act until FDR asked them to.  But I do not see anything in the constitution which says they have to wait fro the CinC to request an act of war.

We are faced with the situation wherein the sitting president is, for all intents and purposes, working with our enemies to bring about "hope and change". And, unlike earlier years of the "war on terror" wherein the enemy was nefarious and undefined, we now have a defined enemy: ISIS. They have defined themselves for us, so now we have someone to declare war against.

Let Congress pull up some level of intestinal fortitude and declare war against an enemy which has already declared war on us.  It is NOT something that can be vetoed.  THEN let the People watch how the CinC acts when he refuses to prosecute an actual declared war.

kalash

December 04, 2015, 04:40:39 AM #1 Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 04:48:36 AM by kalash
Quote from: zewazir on December 04, 2015, 02:02:39 AM
Let Congress pull up some level of intestinal fortitude and declare war against an enemy which has already declared war on us.
This will never happen. You know why? Cos' they have to stop calling them terrorists and have to call them the enemy. What is the difference? With calling them terrorists, you can do the war somewhere far away and inside the counrty pretend that life goes on, like nothing happend, like this is the peace time. If war declared the military state has to be declared. And all japanese, I am sorry, all muslim population has to be send to camps, or exile, or at least put under tight surveillance. Is it possible in present political conditions? Rhetorical question. Nazis bombed civilians, exterminate them on mass scale, and was it called terrorism? No - military crime, genocide, but not terrorism. With terrorism you don't have to act inside the country, if you do, you can lose many votes. So, you just blame the terrorists as savages, that act for no reason ( but they have reason - you are killing them over there) and basicaly do nothing inside the country.  If government declares war, it will has to do much, much more on the home front, than it doing now, when every terror act considered as something, that shouldn't happen and start accepting, that attack on civilians is expected on the daily basis, as it always happen during the war, and act accordingly. With political pygmies, we having now and their ostrich behavior, will it be possible?

zewazir

Quote from: kalash on December 04, 2015, 04:40:39 AM
This will never happen.
My idea has nothing to do with what the gutless twits in congress WILL do.  It is a statement of what they SHOULD do.

tac

Who should they declare war on? Muslims? Like that's ever going to happen. You are fighting a religious ideology that you cannot win short of total genocide.

supsalemgr

Quote from: tac on December 04, 2015, 07:05:47 AM
Who should they declare war on? Muslims? Like that's ever going to happen. You are fighting a religious ideology that you cannot win short of total genocide.

Congress could if they had the gonads to do it. ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq & Syria and they control territory in those countries so they area state by their own declaration. It would be interesting to watch Obama swing in the wind about whether to veto or not.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

tac

Declaring war on ISIS is as useless as picking fly shit out of pepper. We could bomb Iraq and Syria back to the stone age and it wouldn't make a dent in ISIS; they are everywhere - including the US. In fact it's as big a joke as Bush declaring war on terrorism.  :popcorn:

Solar

Quote from: tac on December 04, 2015, 07:05:47 AM
Who should they declare war on? Muslims? Like that's ever going to happen. You are fighting a religious ideology that you cannot win short of total genocide.
I can live with that.
Oh wait, that wasn't a suggestion, was it? :lol:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

zewazir

Quote from: tac on December 04, 2015, 07:05:47 AM
Who should they declare war on? Muslims? Like that's ever going to happen. You are fighting a religious ideology that you cannot win short of total genocide.
AND
Quote from: tac on December 04, 2015, 07:50:33 AM
Declaring war on ISIS is as useless as picking fly shit out of pepper. We could bomb Iraq and Syria back to the stone age and it wouldn't make a dent in ISIS; they are everywhere - including the US. In fact it's as big a joke as Bush declaring war on terrorism.  :popcorn:
As I said in the initial post, ISIS has self defined themselves as a state, and in fact boasts of controlling geographical territory.  And NO, we are not fighting a religious ideology. We are fighting a POLITICAL ideology of absolute tyranny which uses quasi-religion as a recruiting/indoctrination/control tool.

As for being "useless", which is MORE useless: declaring war on a self defined state which, while admittedly remains comparatively amorphous, has already declared war on us; or sitting around like a bunch of drooling morons waiting for the next attack so we can wail and moan helplessly while waiting for the NEXT one?

Declaring war would result in several things, not the least of which the authority of the president (Obama has just a touch over 12 more months and then it's our turn!) to deploy troops and military assets as needed without all the overwatch and anti-victory crap that goes on when we do NOT have a legally declared war. It would also let the rest of the world know we are deadly serious. To date the opposition, as well as many supposed allies, believe - with very good reason - we don't have what it takes to oppose ISIS. Declaring war would go a long way of disabusing them of the notion that they have already won.

We are SUPPOSED to be the last superpower. The world socio-political environment NEEDS a superpower to take the lead against this evil that has been allowed to spread. Do you think Russia or Red China would be the better leader?

kalash

December 04, 2015, 07:41:50 PM #8 Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 07:50:10 PM by kalash
Quote from: zewazir on December 04, 2015, 01:11:30 PM
Do you think Russia or Red China would be the better leader?
Russia - for sure. But Russia never had this goal - leader of the world. Mostly, through her history, was fighting countries, that wanted to achieve that status. I think it's very ill idea - try to become leader of the world.    "Nobody likes smart ass" (c)
-


SalemCat

Quote from: zewazir on December 04, 2015, 02:02:39 AM
Only Congress has the authority to declare war.  But somehow people seem to believe they need to be asked first.  Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor the congress did not act until FDR asked them to.  But I do not see anything in the constitution which says they have to wait fro the CinC to request an act of war.

We are faced with the situation wherein the sitting president is, for all intents and purposes, working with our enemies to bring about "hope and change". And, unlike earlier years of the "war on terror" wherein the enemy was nefarious and undefined, we now have a defined enemy: ISIS. They have defined themselves for us, so now we have someone to declare war against.

Let Congress pull up some level of intestinal fortitude and declare war against an enemy which has already declared war on us.  It is NOT something that can be vetoed.  THEN let the People watch how the CinC acts when he refuses to prosecute an actual declared war.

America has not declared WAR since 1942.

But we have BEEN in countless Wars since then.

This is very wrong, and cuts to the root of corruption.