Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All military action taken by a country is not automatically a war.
Some actions are tactical extensions of foreign policy.
The only reason right wing conservatives are bringing up WPA is to hamstring President Obama in congress. Republicans won't say yes, they won't say no, they'll just obstruct whatever course of action he wants to take. It's all a political ploy. I think he understands the republican playbook well enough by now to just ignore them all together and rightfully so, IMO.
\
LOL! Translation "because we dont think we will get what we wont, Obama doesnt have to go to congress"
look if you are dropping bombs, you need congressional approval. period. end of story. Bush GOT approval and you guys were still screaming "warmongeringwarcrimiinal!!!!"
Bammer is just going around congress and what? He is supernicewonderlover and no we aint mad atcha!
news flash ALL military Action except in the case of the country being attacked, or in the event that an attack is imminent MUST be pre-approved by congress.
There is no such thing as "tactical extensions of foreign policy" that includes bombs and doesnt include congress.
the difference of course is Bush was a republican and therefore evil
Obama is a democrat and therefore can do no wrong.
That's pretty much it ferd. Obama has been using drones to kill people left and right yet he's the greatest president of all time according to the kool aid drinking moonbats.
LOL! Translation "because we dont think we will get what we wont, Obama doesnt have to go to congress"
look if you are dropping bombs, you need congressional approval. period. end of story. Bush GOT approval and you guys were still screaming "warmongeringwarcrimiinal!!!!"
Bammer is just going around congress and what? He is supernicewonderlover and no we aint mad atcha!
news flash ALL military Action except in the case of the country being attacked, or in the event that an attack is imminent MUST be pre-approved by congress.
There is no such thing as "tactical extensions of foreign policy" that includes bombs and doesnt include congress.
No we weren't. When Bush got approval it was almost unanimous and the people were quiet on the right and the left. Those who wanted to speak out against the bush war were afraid to, lest they be called weak kneed traitors.
Everything was peachy on all sides of the isle right up until shortly after the "Mission Acomplished" when the people realized that our military knew how to "Take" a country but didn't know how to "Hold" a country. And in the final analysis, the "Holding" is the most important part of the whole process.
Currently the right wing and the mainstream of the Republican party are strangely silent and I don't hear any grumbling or grousing from the republican politicians about what the President is about to unilaterally do. Except for Rand Paul, who doesn't believe in any foreign policy of any sort.
No we weren't. When Bush got approval it was almost unanimous and the people were quiet on the right and the left. Those who wanted to speak out against the bush war were afraid to, lest they be called weak kneed traitors.
Everything was peachy on all sides of the isle right up until shortly after the "Mission Acomplished" when the people realized that our military knew how to "Take" a country but didn't know how to "Hold" a country. And in the final analysis, the "Holding" is the most important part of the whole process.
Currently the right wing and the mainstream of the Republican party are strangely silent and I don't hear any grumbling or grousing from the republican politicians about what the President is about to unilaterally do. Except for Rand Paul, who doesn't believe in any foreign policy of any sort.
which begs the question. why isnt the president doing what he is supposed to do and go to congress for authorization?
I really don't understand the right-wing objections to drones.
Is it just because Obama is using them?
Let's see:
Bush fought a couple of wars using mainly conventional weapons.* Killed a lot of enemy, but also killed a lot of Americans.
Obama is fighting a war, lately mainly using drones.* Killing the enemy, but sparing many American lives.
If we can fight a war with fewer American soldiers dying, why do you consider that a bad thing?
Civilian casualties sometimes are mentioned by the RWNJ's (as if they really cared..lol).
There have always been civilian casualties in all wars.
Besides, they killed over 3,000 American civilians; too bad if they lose some, also. I figure 10 to 1 is a good ratio.
*from what I have heard. Could be incorrect.
There a number of factually inaccurate items in your post.
Contrary to your assertions, Americans are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan. It isn't all drones, all the time.
No one ever said sparing the lives of Americans is a bad thing, that is a pretty far conclusion to jump to in the interesting of scoring some ideological points. Bad form...
What happened to leftist mantra of "hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilians" killed by Bush? It was patently false, most of the civilian casualties in Iraq occurred due to sectarian Shi'a vs. Sunni violence. They continue to this day, just yesterday over 60 civilians were killed in and around Baghdad. We aren't there as a combat force any longer, but I am sure those numbers still count against Bush somehow. Compare that bit of logic to the present day. Bush was a criminal for his actions, Obama orders drone strikes that kill non-combatants and it gets written off as the cost of fighting a war. You can't have it both ways. Either collateral casualties are acceptable, or they are not. It shouldn't matter what letter the person with their butt parked in the chair behind the Resolute Desk has after their name.
I really don't understand the right-wing objections to drones.
Is it just because Obama is using them?
Let's see:
Bush fought a couple of wars using mainly conventional weapons.* Killed a lot of enemy, but also killed a lot of Americans.
Obama is fighting a war, lately mainly using drones.* Killing the enemy, but sparing many American lives.
If we can fight a war with fewer American soldiers dying, why do you consider that a bad thing?
Civilian casualties sometimes are mentioned by the RWNJ's (as if they really cared..lol).
There have always been civilian casualties in all wars.
Besides, they killed over 3,000 American civilians; too bad if they lose some, also. I figure 10 to 1 is a good ratio.
*from what I have heard. Could be incorrect.
Because I would rather we fight fewer wars, period.
Oh and let's get this straight. Both Bush & Obama are guilty of war crimes and will hopefully pay for what they have done in the next life if not in this one. I have no use for either man as they've both done grave damage to this nation. My criticism of Obama does not amount to an endorsement of Bush. Got that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
