Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Our leader

mhughes0021 said:
tycobb420 said:
For a short term op (ex: Grenada), Congressional approval is not necessary. However, the Libya campaign is in a grey area because of its length. He should have sought a use of force authorization.

If youre crucifying Obama for Lybia...then George bush should be stoned in the middle of an iraqi square for war crimes since he started a 10 year war and killed a ton of people over weapons that werent there.

Not crucifying anyone. Bush had a use of force authorization.
Obama did not. I am questioning a president's ability to wage war without congressional authorization. It is not a partisan or ideological position. It is a legitimate question.
 
MI_Thumb said:
tycobb420 said:
There appears to already be covert military action taking place in Iran.


Covert being the operative word.

Not really the same as airstrikes.

I see tsmith has a lil' buddy to sit on the fence with.

As if the Iranians don't know the U.S. and Israel are in country assassinating nuclear scientists and sabotaging nuclear sites...

and one of the options was to send in a team to retrieve the drone....
 
tycobb420 said:
mhughes0021 said:
If youre crucifying Obama for Lybia...then George bush should be stoned in the middle of an iraqi square for war crimes since he started a 10 year war and killed a ton of people over weapons that werent there.

Not crucifying anyone. Bush had a use of force authorization.
Obama did not. I am questioning a president's ability to wage war without congressional authorization. It is not a partisan or ideological position. It is a legitimate question.

write your congressman....get an answer.

like I said Presidents have danced around the War Powers act for decades.
 
SLICK said:
tycobb420 said:
Not crucifying anyone. Bush had a use of force authorization.
Obama did not. I am questioning a president's ability to wage war without congressional authorization. It is not a partisan or ideological position. It is a legitimate question.

write your congressman....get an answer.

like I said Presidents have danced around the War Powers act for decades.

They don't have an answer. Period. Technically, he is allowed 60 days and then has to start a withdrawal or get congressional authorization.
 
tycobb420 said:
SLICK said:
write your congressman....get an answer.

like I said Presidents have danced around the War Powers act for decades.

They don't have an answer. Period. Technically, he is allowed 60 days and then has to start a withdrawal or get congressional authorization.


It
 
tycobb420 said:
SLICK said:
write your congressman....get an answer.

like I said Presidents have danced around the War Powers act for decades.

They don't have an answer. Period. Technically, he is allowed 60 days and then has to start a withdrawal or get congressional authorization.


withdrawl ?? of what ??

there wasn't one American Soldier on the ground in Libya.
 
SLICK said:
tycobb420 said:
They don't have an answer. Period. Technically, he is allowed 60 days and then has to start a withdrawal or get congressional authorization.


withdrawl ?? of what ??

there wasn't one American Soldier on the ground in Libya.

The War Powers Act is probably unconstutional. However, that does not mean a president can wage war without congressional approval.

There were a few boots on the ground. However, I meant cessation of activities.
 
SLICK said:
[quote="tycobb420":tbmklims]

They don't have an answer. Period. Technically, he is allowed 60 days and then has to start a withdrawal or get congressional authorization.


It
 
SLICK said:
[color=#FF6103 said:
Monster [/color]]Throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks?

The Republican Slogan since 2008.

He's a radical christian terrorist that hates white people! No? He's a muslim! No? He's an illegal alien? No? He's a socialist? No? He didn't get permission to use lethal force against a man who was about to slaughter his own people! No? He thinks america is lazy! No?
 
[color=#FF6103 said:
Monster [/color]]
SLICK said:
The Republican Slogan since 2008.

He's a radical christian terrorist that hates white people! No? He's a muslim! No? He's an illegal alien? No? He's a socialist? No? He didn't get permission to use lethal force against a man who was about to slaughter his own people! No? He thinks america is lazy! No?


Im still waiting for Trump's and that wacked out Sherriffs in Arizona's Private Investigators to out that "hidden" shit about the birth certificate they found.
 
tycobb420 said:
MI_Thumb said:
How does one determine the length of an OP beforehand, and when is the point of time in which it's no longer considered short term?

Longer than what Reagan did, but shorter than what Obama does, gotcha.

That is the question. How long does a president have? Congress was willing to give him an authorization, but he declined.

Cause he didnt need it. We sent no one there!
 
tycobb420 said:
mhughes0021 said:
If youre crucifying Obama for Lybia...then George bush should be stoned in the middle of an iraqi square for war crimes since he started a 10 year war and killed a ton of people over weapons that werent there.

Not crucifying anyone. Bush had a use of force authorization.
Obama did not. I am questioning a president's ability to wage war without congressional authorization. It is not a partisan or ideological position. It is a legitimate question.

then stone all of congress too...
 
mhughes0021 said:
tycobb420 said:
That is the question. How long does a president have? Congress was willing to give him an authorization, but he declined.

Cause he didnt need it. We sent no one there!

Not true. There was a contigent on the ground and don't forget the pilots.
 
tycobb420 said:
mhughes0021 said:
Cause he didnt need it. We sent no one there!

Not true. There was a contigent on the ground and don't forget the pilots.

a total of 4 US Military personel hit the ground in Lybia....4.

and that was to help advise rebuilding the Embassy.

so if 4 is a contingent..you got us Rush.
 
SLICK said:
tycobb420 said:
Not true. There was a contigent on the ground and don't forget the pilots.

a total of 4 US Military personel hit the ground in Lybia....4.

and that was to help advise rebuilding the Embassy.

so if 4 is a contingent..you got us Rush.

Look up the word "uninformed" and then check out the closest mirror.

The U.S. sent in troops to help "neutralize" the Libyan Air Force in March. The troops were classified "advisors" for PR purposes. The Pentagon acknowledged in Sept only 4 at the embassy plus they sent an additional 12 to help at the embassy. We don't know how many "advisors" were or are in country. Check out the NY Times or Wash Post sometime. Also, may want to consider taking some courses in research and learn how to formulate coherent arguments.
 
tycobb420 said:
SLICK said:
a total of 4 US Military personel hit the ground in Lybia....4.

and that was to help advise rebuilding the Embassy.

so if 4 is a contingent..you got us Rush.

Look up the word "uninformed" and then check out the closest mirror.

The U.S. sent in troops to help "neutralize" the Libyan Air Force in March. The troops were classified "advisors" for PR purposes. The Pentagon acknowledged in Sept only 4 at the embassy plus they sent an additional 12 to help at the embassy. We don't know how many "advisors" were or are in country. Check out the NY Times or Wash Post sometime. Also, may want to consider taking some courses in research and learn how to formulate coherent arguments.

ok...so were up to 4 + 12 = 16. Sounds like a fucking war to me! Theres gang fights in the streets of LA bigger than that....
 
mhughes0021 said:
tycobb420 said:
Look up the word "uninformed" and then check out the closest mirror.

The U.S. sent in troops to help "neutralize" the Libyan Air Force in March. The troops were classified "advisors" for PR purposes. The Pentagon acknowledged in Sept only 4 at the embassy plus they sent an additional 12 to help at the embassy. We don't know how many "advisors" were or are in country. Check out the NY Times or Wash Post sometime. Also, may want to consider taking some courses in research and learn how to formulate coherent arguments.

ok...so were up to 4 + 12 = 16. Sounds like a fucking war to me! Theres gang fights in the streets of LA bigger than that....

Not including the so-called advisors, which they won't divulge the number of or whether they are in country still or not.
 
Back
Top