Steve Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 CS, The War Powers Act Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. That act has been around a while and I alluded to it in a previous post. Bush had a stronger incentive to go after Saddam than he did Iran. A personal one (Saddam attempted to kill his father). He had 911 fresh in everyone's mind. So, why did he go to Congress first instead of using this act? Why did he go Congress before going into Afghanistan? Why would he avoid doing it now with Iran? Bush may be a bad President, even an evil one in some minds (I just think he's misguided, naive but I think its a HUGE stretch to think he will arbitrarily invade or nuke Iran without Congress' say so. There is NOTHING to suggest that he would do otherwise, given that he's invaded 2 prior countries but first got congressional approval. On anohter note, when ever there is any law or statute that adds powers to the President I ALWAYS think in terms of the lowest common denominator. I look at what can be done by a bad President with this act, not what good can be done with a good one. At some point there will be another bad one and that is the worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unit731 Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 The Yanks saved the whole free world more than once ! You'd all be speaking German or Japanese if it wasn't for the Yanks. And if it wasn't for the Yanks, the Germans would be speaking Russian now! Oh, and thank the Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc. I am tired of all this bashing crap. Too many armchair generals and pacifist wimps whining like little children. Get a life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Interesting thing is it takes a few people to send a nuke to Iran. He has authorization codes, the head of the Joint Chiefs has them and has to comply, there are at least 2 guys in the bunker or if its by air, sometimes two in the plane and they have to reconfirm. I don't see any general sending one out just because Bush said so. I don't think it would happen like that. It would be a gradual escalation. A US ship hits a mine, Iran gets the blame, some targets get bombed, Iran retaliates....you get the idea. I think some people are just itching to nuke Iran and Bush will be put in a position where he has to go along with it or appear weak. He won't need any authorization. Anybody who complains will be a pacifist wimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spirit_of_town_hall Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 I think bush et al would like to. I dont think the US will though. I am fairly confident Israel will launch a military strike inside Iran before this time next year. Iran is to powerful to try and invade like happened in Iraq. STH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 I doubt if one strike...or even a dozen strikes, would be enough. They want to set Iran back 20 years at least. The US will get sucked in somehow. I think the only thing that would stop it happening would be a serious warning from China or Russia or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 As I said, rumor is, China sent us that warning. As for CS's comments about GW not being a king or a dictator, I honestly believe he is trying his best to be just that. As for Unit731's comments...soft wimps, neo cons what ever, GW is fucked up. Just because the U.S. did play a major hand in "saving the world many times" does not excuse us now. Bashing? or telling the truth? depends I guess...but bottom line is GW has gone too far, and needs a wake up/the brakes put on. We have 2 wars we aren't winning, why start a third? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 << He's not a king or dictator. >> Wait until Hellery gets in ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 Sounds like Viet Nam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 You've probably never heard of the US Navy ship that FDR ordered into Japanese claimed waters in late 1941, presumably expecting her to be attacked so he could declare war. Instead, the Nipponese gents attacked Pearl first and the Navy ship was quickly ordered to return to safety at top speed. I'll have to google and see if I can find the name of the ship. It's mentioned in a number of books on WWII in the Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagogato Posted October 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 Which is called a false flag attempt. There have been several other false flag operations carried out by the US which did meet their objectives however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.