Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 15, 2005.
What "powers" would those be? The power to invade, occupy, wage war on and devastate any country he fancies? Is this what your Founding Fathers had in mind?
not at all. technically, only congress can declare war. but it seems they've abdicated that power. i hear that WWII was congress' last formal declaration of war. (have i got that right?). they certainly didn't declare war on iraq.
I truly hoe that that was the last boarder conflict and nothing else happens as I don't want to see another conflict. I really just don't. In High School Civics class when I learned that the president had power to use military action w/o approval from congress I always found that a bit unsettling.
When I travel to Europe next year I am putting a Canadian flag on my backpack.
The only reason you would want to do that is if you're a blind supporter of American neo-imperialist policies. If you're not, and willing to listen to other people's viewpoints and ignore the blatantly ignorant then it should be no problem.
On topic, isn't there a small problem of not having enough troops to invade Syria?
We didn't really have enough troops to invade Iraq, but did that stop anybody?
naah, even this administration is not dumb enough to try something like that now
but it's effectively a new administration, and one that's not nearly as savvy as the last. rove, cheney, and libby (others, too, i'll warrant, perhaps hadley) seem to be too busy with "other things". i can imagine this new administration (bush/card/mcclellan) making some rash decisions on what they think will still work.
egads -- is bush actually making his own decisions now?!?!?
Not deliberately. They surely know better by now. What I'm afraid of is that they may end up in a position where they feel they have no choice.
What happens if one of these recon teams gets caught? What if Americans go in to Syria, get ambushed, and lose a half-dozen or dozen troops? What if some Syrian villagers burn and desecrate some American bodies?
I'm not confident that Bush could resist the urge to get revenge despite the huge risks.
Nail, meet hammer.
Yes, it is true. Historically, most wars, except those started explicitly for conquest, are not planned. They are a result of blunders, usually a series of blunders, that make it inevitable.
Somewhere today I read that gw stated that due to "distractions" he was being kept from the job that the American people elected him to do. We could of course argue who is to blame for these distractions but the worrying thing to me is that gw might actually be making his own decisions. Somehow that seems a lot scarier than his cabal egging him on.
Vietnam? Shhh... Don't want to talk about that.
I imagine any 'officials' using that analogy on the record would be soon looking for alternative employment.
Most likely. But if you want a promotion, compare it to WWII.
depends to which side you compare it doesn't it
Always good to have a choice of historical perspectives on this board...
Just a touch of irony in the occupiers of a neighbouring country pontificating on interference in another country's affairs.
Syria needs a arse wooping big time. Why dont we let Israel do it. Then they can give a bunch of land to the palastinians and everyones happy but Syria
Good plan, DHM! Don't call us...