# President Obama makes war on Muslim country



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

Just on the radio news, an American ship has launched a cruise missle into libya, if this is true, President Obama has just made war on a muslim country.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Just on the radio news, an American ship has launched a cruise missle into libya, if this is true, President Obama has just made war on a muslim country.



So much for Hope and Change.  Obama is the new Bush!


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> So much for Hope and Change.  Obama is the new Bush!




<snork>


----------



## K-man (Mar 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Just on the radio news, an American ship has launched a cruise missle into libya, if this is true, President Obama has just made war on a muslim country.


 Remember Bosnia?  They were protecting the Muslims there!  

If Obama has just made war on a Muslim country (which he hasn't), who is he supporting?  I would have thought the demonstators might have been Muslim too.  Isn't that the side the free world is supporting?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Just on the radio news, an American ship has launched a cruise missle into libya, if this is true, President Obama has just made war on a muslim country.


I can only imagine how happy you must be.
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

Should I be happy that President Obama, under orders from Haliburton, is continuing the policy of Blood for Oil.  Should I be Happy that Obama has joined the other war mongers, Britain, Canada and France in waging war on another muslim country.  He might as well start pronouncing nuclear, nucular, and reading books about goats.


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

The drudge report is saying 110 tomahawk missles were launched.  If this is confirmed, we have started a second, not third (Iraq and afghanistan are two theaters in the same war) war.  I don't think you could say that this is simply a hashing out of different points of view.  How's that hope and change working for you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2011)

In order for people on the Right to sound sincere when they criticize this, they have to reconsider their stance on the War on Terror.  Otherwise, there is simply no logical reason NOT to bomb Libya for not doing what we want.  The premises in the WoT and this new theater of war is exactly the same.  
*
The US will use the military industrial complex to overthrow any government that it wishes.  *

When someone on the Right attacks that premise, that's when I can throw some high fives and shake hands.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 19, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> When someone on the Right attacks that premise, that's when I can throw some high fives and shake hands.



Sadly, this standard leaves us with Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, and basically no one else.


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

Kaddafi called his attackers Crusaders.  I wonder if Barak ever thought he would be part of a crusader army.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2011)

Remember when it was WRONG to commit troops and weapons without the blessings of Congress?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Sadly, this standard leaves us with Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, and basically no one else.



Consider the fact that Ron Paul keeps winning the CPAC poll.  The number of conservatives that oppose empire and interventionism is larger then you think (at least I hope).  Basically, any conservative who trends toward Libertarianism is going to be against the unconstitutional wars.  

That said, when neocons chime in and criticize Obama for bombing Libya, it's just a bunch of silly Obama hating with no real philosophy behind their words.  If these people applied one ounce of rational/critical thought to the echo chamber statements reverberating their vocal cords and keyboards, it might just result in a moment of quiet reflection.  

Is it too much to hope for?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Remember when it was WRONG to commit troops and weapons without the blessings of Congress?


Aren't you the guy that kept saying what a loser he was for doing nothing. Now you are in a position to ***** because he did do something. There is no pleasing you.:mst:
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Aren't you the guy that kept saying what a loser he was for doing nothing. Now you are in a position to ***** because he did do something. There is no pleasing you.:mst:
> Sean


I said he isn't leading, and, he isn't. Does the fact that he ordered missile strikes on a nation that has no concrete way of threatening the continental US without benefit of a formal declaration of war from Congress make him different from Bush somehow? Because I seem to remember a whole bunch of people on this forum whining about Bush not having Congressional approval to wage war in Iraq.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2011)

Can the great Gawd Bob create a seppuku smiley?


----------



## billc (Mar 20, 2011)

Big Don, you are so right.  Where is the declaration of war?  Obama didn't even get the use of force paper work submitted before he started lobbing missles willy nilly.  Congress, smongress, who needs their approval.  Oh yeah, republicans do.  Democrats can just attack soveriegn nations with no accountability, except for approval from the U.N.

What was the favorite questions the democrat prattled on about at the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign...oh yeah, is it a quagmire yet?  

****How many terrorists is this raw use of force going to create?  Add to the fact that Obama is not closing Gitmo, another terrorist recruiting tool, and that he is going to use military tribunals, another terrorist recruiting tool, it would seem that Obama is actually worse than Bush.  Bush at least was reacting to a direct attack on the country and trying to deter a future threat from Iraq.  Why is Obama launching missles into a country that didn't directly attack us.  Isn't that what he preached about all during the campaign.  How about America's image around the world.  Attacking a new muslim country for oil isn't going to help our image much is it.

I used to go to my Iaido class on Saturday's and during the intitial stages of the war there were always anti-war joksters protesting at this one intersection.  With Barak the crusader attacking a muslim country, do you think they will come back?

Where is Cindy Sheehan when you need her.


----------



## billc (Mar 20, 2011)

John Nolte over at bighollywood.com just reminded me, you guys on the left, remember that nobel peace prize thing Obama recieved for doing nothing.  Well, it looks like he is doing a lot less than nothing to justify the nobel PEACE PRIZE for freakings sake.  Just thought I would pass that around after Mr. Nolte brought it up.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2011)

Lets turn the boat...

Qadaffi is a known terrorist supporter.  He is surrounded by a bunch of muslim extremists who have shown they were dangerous in the past.  Why does the Commander In Chief need to beg permission to take out America's enemies?  These dirty people are finally getting a chance at the American Dream and you are attacking the only person who can give them liberty?

Obama is a crusader of good, wielding Americas sword of Justice!  Sure, we all thought he was a socialist, but damn, I thought we could all gather around and watch the fireworks as the terrorists who caused 9/11 get theirs.  They're all muslim extremists and deserve it!

Or maybe you just don't support the troops enough.  Is that it?  It's America and we're awesome!  You can love it or leave it!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 20, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> In order for people on the Right to sound sincere when they criticize this, they have to reconsider their stance on the War on Terror.  Otherwise, there is simply no logical reason NOT to bomb Libya for not doing what we want.  The premises in the WoT and this new theater of war is exactly the same.
> *
> The US will use the military industrial complex to overthrow any government that it wishes.  *
> 
> When someone on the Right attacks that premise, that's when I can throw some high fives and shake hands.



Thanks.
Unless the US changes its ways, I see no reason for the right wingers to start complaining about this. Sovereignity didn't mean **** when invading Iraq, nor did it when the CIA abducted people and sent them to gitmo, syria and Egypt.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 20, 2011)

nevermind. See my next post.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 20, 2011)

billcihak said:


> John Nolte over at bighollywood.com just reminded me, you guys on the left, remember that nobel peace prize thing Obama recieved for doing nothing.  Well, it looks like he is doing a lot less than nothing to justify the nobel PEACE PRIZE for freakings sake.  Just thought I would pass that around after Mr. Nolte brought it up.



You are right. He should probably stand aside while kadhaffi is slaughtering the entire population of benghazi. That would be much better than using military action to prevent that from happening.  On a more serious note, you are right that the US has no bone here. However, I would appreciate it if you also make that argument over the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror, where the US has shown it will do just whatever the heck it wants, with or without a good justification.


That said, France and several neighbboring countries have a good reason to intervene, and that is that kadhaffi is causing such mayhem that hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing into neighboring countries, threatening to overwhelm them by numbers. This is already happening, and this is what has raised the conflict from national to international status, and what has allowed the UN to intervene
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6408

Even without taking the planned genocide into account, the situation for neighboring countries has gotten so bad that they either have to take action or risk getting destabilized themselves by the sheer number of refugees. None of the neigboring countries is eager to invite foreign countries to intervene locally, but at this point they pretty much have to if they don't want the problem to spill over and become theirs


----------



## Senjojutsu (Mar 20, 2011)

Perhaps Barry should take the advice of a trusted outside senior advisor?

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html 

*"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?"* - heh even a broken clock is correct twice a day. 

...and as another exhibit of living in Bizzaro world - Blessed are the Rooskie hippie peaceniks - for they are the children of Gawd:

_"In that respect we call on countries involved to stop the non-selective use of force,"_ Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-russia-libya-statement-idUSTRE72J27320110320

:BSmeter:

When I think of Russian military doctrine, I always think first of the restrained & selective use of military forces.


----------



## Scott T (Mar 20, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Lets turn the boat...
> 
> Qadaffi is a known terrorist supporter.  He is surrounded by a bunch of muslim extremists who have shown they were dangerous in the past.  Why does the Commander In Chief need to beg permission to take out America's enemies?  These dirty people are finally getting a chance at the American Dream and you are attacking the only person who can give them liberty?
> 
> ...


Nice turnaround on the Right-wing/Bush/Iraq fiasco!


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Nice turnaround on the Right-wing/Bush/Iraq fiasco!



I'm glad someone got it.


----------



## billc (Mar 20, 2011)

Well, if Europe would only follow the American left's immigration policy, they should take all of those refugees and make them citizens of France, Britain and Canada  Problem solved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 20, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Can the great Gawd Bob create a seppuku smiley?


:seppuku:


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> :seppuku:



All hale the great Gawd Bob for his gift of thread closure.  Sometimes politics drives us to this.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> That said, France and several neighbboring countries have a good reason to intervene, and that is that kadhaffi is causing such mayhem that hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing into neighboring countries, threatening to overwhelm them by numbers. This is already happening,


 
It's ok man, they are just trying to make better lives for themselves and will do the jobs that no French or their neighboring countrymen want to do for themselves.  Hell, if you stop it, how will the french ever afford lettuce... *rolls eyes*


----------



## Scott T (Mar 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> :seppuku:


Jesus, Bob! Never, ever do that while I'm taking a drink... (Had to grab a spare keyboard while my regular one dries out...)


----------



## billc (Mar 20, 2011)

I have to say I am perplexed as to why Obama decided to use missle strikes.  It alienates almost everyone of his core groups, the peaceniks, the hollywood types.  I am going to take a risk and make a prediction, is it possible that there is a major scandal about to break, and this is a preemptive attempt to divert the focus off of whatever this scandal might be?  Time will tell, but if it does happen, you read it here first.


----------



## teekin (Mar 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Should I be happy that President Obama, under orders from Haliburton, is continuing the policy of Blood for Oil. Should I be Happy that Obama has joined the *other war mongers, Britain, Canada and France* in *waging war on another muslim country. *He might as well start pronouncing nuclear, nucular, and *reading books about goats.*


 
So OK I've been gone a while. I know that things kind of change, people come and go, but uhhhhhhh????? when did Canada and France become warmongers? and what in Zues' name does stopping women and children from being slaughtered by a Psychotic Despot willing to kill his own people in all consuming bid to hang onto absolute power by ANY means nessessary have ANYTHING to do with Goats? Who is this person? Why is this person? Is he related to rdonnavon? Does he think he is a Ninja?

Lori


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 21, 2011)

Grendel308 said:


> So OK I've been gone a while. I know that things kind of change, people come and go, but uhhhhhhh????? when did Canada and France become warmongers? and what in Zues' name does stopping women and children from being slaughtered by a Psychotic Despot willing to kill his own people in all consuming bid to hang onto absolute power by ANY means nessessary have ANYTHING to do with Goats? Who is this person? Why is this person? Is he related to rdonnavon? Does he think he is a Ninja?
> 
> Lori



Hello Lori dear. I should have warned you. This is all my fault. Bob needed more traffic on this site. So I thought I'd use my software skills to create a forum bot which would impersonate an actual human person. I put in some limited turing capabilities to give it the ability to post and respond in a more or less normal conversational manner, though I admit it is not perfect. I created the account billcihak to post under.

What it does is register to various feeds, extract keywords, look up those keywords in wikipedia and google, and then put that information together in a semi coherent manner. I first tested it in the sword forum though I had to admit that it was not a tremendous success. In fact I could not get it to post sensible things so I relegated it to the study where people would not really notice the incoherency.

These days it is just registerd to various RSS feeds of newssites, it extracts names from stories about current world news, then matches the names to political affiliation. Based on that information, it makes wild extrapolations, some would say extremely polarized, and makes posts with that information.

At one time it came up with a bizarre explanation that racial segregation in the US was to blame on the left. That was quite some convoluted reasoning. At that point I thought people would surely figure it out at last, but to my amazement, most people still think those posts are the result of actual human thought processes. These days it seems to be stuck in a loop, posting things like 'XYZ is a socialist / communist' but since Bob can use the site traffic, I thought I'd just leave it running as is, for laughs. 

.
.
.

Sorry Bill


----------



## teekin (Mar 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Hello Lori dear. I should have warned you. This is all my fault. Bob needed more traffic on this site. So I thought I'd use my software skills to create a forum bot which would impersonate an actual human person. I put in some limited turing capabilities to give it the ability to post and respond in a more or less normal conversational manner, though I admit it is not perfect. I created the account billcihak to post under.
> 
> What it does is register to various feeds, extract keywords, look up those keywords in wikipedia and google, and then put that information together in a semi coherent manner. *I first tested it in the sword forum though *I had to admit that it was not a tremendous success.In fact I could not get it to post sensible things so I relegated it to the study where people would not really notice the incoherency.
> 
> ...


 
See this right *here* pretty much says it all. Goats huh? I think billi-goat ( as I now call him) has been snorting the Kool-Aid in his mom's basement while watching Coppala and Scorsese films in endless loops.  " You talking to me? . . . .you talking to....ME? cause I don't see anyone else here." :EG:

 Don't be sorry Bill my dear, this should prove to be highly entertaining. I'll even keep it fairly G , well OK let's be honest, 17+ rated. 

Lori


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 21, 2011)

:cofeespit:

Be nice.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 21, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> In order for people on the Right to sound sincere when they criticize this, they have to reconsider their stance on the War on Terror. Otherwise, there is simply no logical reason NOT to bomb Libya for not doing what we want. The premises in the WoT and this new theater of war is exactly the same.
> 
> *The US will use the military industrial complex to overthrow any government that it wishes. *
> 
> When someone on the Right attacks that premise, that's when I can throw some high fives and shake hands.


 
By the same token, in order for people on the Left to sound sincere, they need to protest our actions in Libya with the same vehemence that they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.  Otherwise, it looks like unprincipled, politically-expedient grandstanding.  

For my part, I'm opposed to involvement because Libya poses no threat to us at this time.*  Imposing a no-fly zone and bombing government buildings boils down to choosing sides in a civil war.  And now I'm reading stories that one of Qaddafi's sons was killed when a rebel pilot crashed his jet into the barracks in which he was staying.  Terrific, we're supporting *******s who are using the same tactics as the ****ing 9/11 terrorists.


* I predict someone will respond with "But, but, but, Iraq".  I've already explained my views about Iraq's connection to the WoT ad nauseum and won't get into that again.


----------



## billc (Mar 21, 2011)

the goat reference goes to the left's attack on Bush when 9/11 happened.  It refers to the book, "My Pet Goat," the book bush was reading.  So, since Obama the warmonger is doing all of the things he condemned bush for, he should also start reading "My Pet Goat."


----------



## teekin (Mar 21, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> :cofeespit:
> 
> Be nice.


 
Bob dear, I know I have a rather naughty tendency to break my toys ( I don't do it on purpose, it just seems to _happen:waah:_ ) but I promise to be more careful from here on in. OK? 

Lori


----------



## teekin (Mar 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> the goat reference goes to the left's attack on Bush when 9/11 happened. It refers to the book, "My Pet Goat," the book bush was reading. So, since Obama the warmonger is doing all of the things he condemned bush for,* he should also start reading "My Pet Goat.*"


 
Why? Is it full of good military advice on how to deal with sociopathic despots? 

Lori


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> By the same token, in order for people on the Left to sound sincere, they need to protest our actions in Libya with the same vehemence that they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.  Otherwise, it looks like unprincipled, politically-expedient grandstanding.



QFT

Warmongering is warmongering and I think we need to look at the underlying philosophy of it all.  We've got ordinance flying in six theaters around the world and maybe it's time for people on the left and right to take a step back and look at whether or not we want to continue this pattern.  We all know where it goes.  The lessons of history are there for us.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 21, 2011)

In addition to the above reasons, there's the simple practical concern of :WITH WHAT?

Our guys are stretched too thin in Hell's Sandbox as it is. What does Obama figure he's gonna do to Gadafi Duck?

Yell "Chuck Norris" at him? :idunno:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 21, 2011)

We still have a **** economy to think of, lots of unemployed people, and that immigration issue.

Well, poor and hopefuls = lots of grunts to toss at the grinder and they'll need uniforms, and bullets and guns, drugs and body bags.  That's all good for the economy.
Boosts production, moves the money around, and removes unproductive surplus population from the pool.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2011)

Aside from Constitutional or procedural issues with this action, the Arab League buy in, which Hillary called "crucial," has been a bit of a play on their part: they don't like Qaddafi anyway, and now we won't pay attention to what they're doing in Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Yemen.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Aside from Constitutional or procedural issues with this action, the Arab League buy in, which Hillary called "crucial," has been a bit of a play on their part: they don't like Qaddafi anyway, and now we won't pay attention to what they're doing in Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Yemen.



In addition to that, the Arab League began criticizing and backing away the minute actual force became involved...


----------



## K831 (Mar 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> the goat reference goes to the left's attack on Bush when 9/11 happened.  It refers to the book, "My Pet Goat," the book bush was reading.  So, since Obama the warmonger is doing all of the things he condemned bush for, he should also start reading "My Pet Goat."



Come now... don't confuse the masses with nuance or references that would require more than a 30 day memory.... it's just too much. 

You didn't ACTUALLY think most of those folks crying about Bush's war were sincere, did you?


----------



## teekin (Mar 21, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> We still have a **** economy to think of, lots of unemployed people, and that immigration issue.
> 
> Well, poor and hopefuls = lots of grunts to toss at the grinder and they'll need uniforms, and bullets and guns, drugs and body bags.* That's all good for the economy.*
> *Boosts production, moves the money around, and removes unproductive surplus population from the pool*.


 
Well, war is good buisness. Not when a Bush is in charge perhaps, but as a general rule. I know it won't hurt our economy, it won't hurt Boeing's pocket book, or GM, or Merc Benz, or anyone with a military contract. Production ramps up, plants reopen, jobs are to be had once again. From what I understand, there is a firm exit stratagy from Iraq. I agree that Afghanistan is a quagmire inside a pool of quicksand. 
 But I think going into Libya was the right thing to do. This guy only understands *Force.:ak47:*

Lori


----------



## teekin (Mar 22, 2011)

K831 said:


> Come now... *don't confuse the masses with nuance or references that would require more than a 30 day memory.*... it's just too much.
> 
> You didn't ACTUALLY think most of those folks crying about Bush's war were sincere, did you?


 
Ohhh come on now! If your going to insult me get it right. 
 30 _Minute _memory, minute not day, minute. Geez! Some peoples kids.

Lori


----------



## K831 (Mar 22, 2011)

Grendel308 said:


> Ohhh come on now! If your going to insult me get it right.
> 30 _Minute _memory, minute not day, minute. Geez! Some peoples kids.
> 
> Lori



Not and insult... just a little cheeky.  I figured at the very least you could have googled the reference before berating him! Ha.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 22, 2011)

Jolting Joe Biden in 2007:


> The Constitution is clear:  except in response to an attack or the  imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use  of force.


Yeah, he was wrong, but, still...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2011)

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of the US Constitution States



> _[Congress shall have Power...] *To declare War*, grant Letters of  Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and  Water_



Bush, Obama, and every president back to FDR has basically sold out the Constitution with a complicit Congress.  

Please, a moment of reflection on this...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 24, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of the US Constitution States
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I would suggest that you look at the context of this section a bit more.

This section states that Congress shall have the power to *declare *war.  But it says nothing about the ability to *make* war.  You seem to be using them synonymously.

The President actually has unlimited war *making* ability.  This is his perview as Commander-in-Chief.  The Congress, except for certain provisions accounted for in the Constitution, has no power over the military.  For instance, according to your theory, if the U.S. were invaded, or if the Soviet Union had launched a nuclear attack upon the U.S., the President would be unable to respond until Congress had declared war.  Well, what if the time frame alloted for a Congressional response was insufficient to the threat, or the theat actually did not allow Congress to assemble.  Now, you might say that the Constitution makes allowances for such exigencies, but then I would ask you where does it do so.

If you look at the Constitution as a whole, or even simply the whole of Article 1, Section 8, this is one of the very reason that the Continental Congress limited the ability to budget for the army to two years.  This is also one of the reasons why the House, as being closer to the will of the people then the Senate or President, was given the sole ability to generate expenditure bills.  If the House, by virtue of the will of the people, does not approve of the President's use of the military, then it could eliminate the budget for the military, even to the point of simply not providing a bill for their funding.  They could literally do nothing, then the army would go away.  They could even make a budget law stating that the military could not utilize any money for a given action, such as attack Libya.  

The fact of the matter is, Joe Biden is wrong.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would suggest that you look at the context of this section a bit more.
> 
> This section states that Congress shall have the power to *declare *war.  But it says nothing about the ability to *make* war.  You seem to be using them synonymously.
> 
> ...



We had this discussion and the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is unclear on this point.  IMO, I believe that the Framers thought this clause would limit the President's war making ability.  Plenty of Constitutional scholars have also made convincing arguments based on the writings of the Framers supporting this point of view.

It's a tragic loophole actually.  This clause was something the Framers worked harder and longer at then any other clause and it's this clause that will probably be the undoing the undoing of our nation in the end.  The Military Industrial Complex will eat us alive.

We needed a way to check a President before taking major military action and we didn't get it with the kind of language that was truly necessary to forecast into the future.  Perhaps the Framers believed that this would be enough and that Congresses role was clear?  IMO, it's a flaw in our system.  

A fatal flaw.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 24, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> We had this discussion and the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is unclear on this point.  IMO, I believe that the Framers thought this clause would limit the President's war making ability.  Plenty of Constitutional scholars have also made convincing arguments based on the writings of the Framers supporting this point of view.
> 
> It's a tragic loophole actually.  This clause was something the Framers worked harder and longer at then any other clause and it's this clause that will probably be the undoing the undoing of our nation in the end.  The Military Industrial Complex will eat us alive.
> 
> ...



There's actually a relatively easy fix.  It's called a Constitutional Amendment.  We've passed them before, we can do it again.

I will say, though, that I will do more research on the subject.  I am a very big believer in context, so if I am wrong, especially in this case, I will readily admit so.

In any case, what is also interesting, is Obama's own words when it comes to the President's ability to use military force without Congressional approval, when asked by Charlie Savage, at the time from the Boston Globe:



> Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
> 
> *OBAMA:  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.
> *


So by doing what he is doing, according to his own understanding, he is violating the Constitution.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 24, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> There's actually a relatively easy fix.  It's called a Constitutional Amendment.  We've passed them before, we can do it again.
> 
> I will say, though, that I will do more research on the subject.  I am a very big believer in context, so if I am wrong, especially in this case, I will readily admit so.
> 
> ...


Remember, they told us Obama is a Constitutional Scholar.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> There's actually a relatively easy fix.  It's called a Constitutional Amendment.  We've passed them before, we can do it again.
> 
> I will say, though, that I will do more research on the subject.  I am a very big believer in context, so if I am wrong, especially in this case, I will readily admit so.



I think an amendment regarding the President's war making ability is a good idea.  However, I also think that the kind of political change this would require is more massive then most people realize.  When the Pentagon can spend over a trillion dollars a year, that creates a lot of dependent classes of people.  And these dependent classes can wave the flag in their support!  

An amendment would require the whole zeitgeist to undergo a paradigm shift and would probably change the fundamental nature of the we think about military force.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> In any case, what is also interesting, is Obama's own words when it comes to the President's ability to use military force without Congressional approval, when asked by Charlie Savage, at the time from the Boston Globe:
> 
> 
> So by doing what he is doing, according to his own understanding, he is violating the Constitution.





Big Don said:


> Remember, they told us Obama is a Constitutional Scholar.



I question how much freedom a President actually has in office because of this contradiction.  People want to think of Obama or Bush as pieces of slime, but in the end, they put on pants one leg at a time just like the rest of us.  It feels like the military can force it's way into foreign policy no matter what the President believes.  It's a force that is so large and so ubiquitous in our government that there is no resisting it.  

This is why the Framers told us that there was nothing more dangerous to our liberty then a standing army.  



> Over grown military  establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty,  and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.  George Washington


----------

