Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
U.S. poised to launch missle attack. >

U.S. poised to launch missle attack.

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

U.S. poised to launch missle attack.

Old 03-21-2011, 01:42 PM
  #31  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: On an Island in Vermont
Posts: 21,861
Default

Originally Posted by bergall View Post
FOX quoted the cruise missiles at 1.5 million each...so THAT total is
what....$165,000,000.00 ?
The amount of money I pay in taxes makes me sick and to know they are blowing it all away with ridiculous stuff like this makes me even sicker. I wish there was a way all of America could say enough of this and only send the percentage of taxes that account for all non military spending. There is no reason on earth we should be over there and wasting our valuable resources. Now we are at war with 3 countries. This has to stop.
.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 03:22 AM
  #32  
Boone & Crockett
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,383
Default

I wish there was a way all of America could say enough of this and only send the percentage of taxes that account for all non military spending.
But sir: That would impede the ability of presidents like Obama and Bush to fight their holy wars.
falcon is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 04:16 AM
  #33  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,814
Default

Originally Posted by falcon View Post
But sir: That would impede the ability of presidents like Obama and Bush to fight their holy wars.
You need to leave Bush out of this one. He first got congress to declare war unlike Clinton and Obama. They have the power to do whatever they feel like when no US interest in on the line.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 04:58 AM
  #34  
Boone & Crockett
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,383
Default

He first got congress to declare war unlike Clinton and Obama.
No war was ever declared. It was a "military engagement" authorized by congress.

http://wiki.lawguru.com/index.php/De..._United_States
falcon is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 05:24 AM
  #35  
Boone & Crockett
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 12,560
Default

Originally Posted by falcon View Post
No war was ever declared. It was a "military engagement" authorized by congress.

http://wiki.lawguru.com/index.php/De..._United_States

So are are still engaged.
The Rev is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 05:42 AM
  #36  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
emptyquiver2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 1,204
Default

Starting in 1998 and through the end of the Clinton Administration, Iraq’s refusal to permit U.N.
weapons inspection teams access to various Iraqi sites, and Iraqi threats to U.S. aircraft policing
the “no-fly zones” resulted in U.S. military action on numerous occasions against Iraqi military
forces and targets in the “no-fly zones.” President Clinton chose to report these actions under the
requirements of P.L. 102-1, rather than the War Powers Resolution. In early February 2001,
President George W. Bush authorized U.S. aircraft to attack Iraqi radar installations in Southern
Iraq believed to threaten allied forces enforcing the “no-fly zone.” Additional bombings of Iraqi
sites were authorized and took place from the summer of 2001 into March 2003. Such actions, in
the past, were reported under P.L. 102-1. Congress provided authorization for future military
action, under specified conditions, through passage of P.L. 107-243 signed into law on October
16, 2002. In a report to Congress on January 20, 2003, pursuant to P.L. 107-243, President Bush
stated that information required to be reported regarding actions taken against Iraq required by
section 3 of P.L. 102-1 would in the future be included in the reports required by P.L. 107-243.
On March 19, 2003, President Bush directed U.S. Armed Forces to commence combat operations
against Iraq to enforce its disarmament. Since he announced the end of major combat operations
against Iraq on May 1, 2003, the President has made periodic reports on the current situation in
Iraq “consistent with” P.L. 107-243, which have become the equivalent of reports to Congress
envisioned by the War Powers Resolution. For a recent example of these reports to Congress see
House Document 108-231, 108
th Congress, 2nd session, submitted November 4, 2004. (For related
information, see CRS Report RL31701,
Iraq: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman, and

CRS Report RL31339,
Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security, by Kenneth Katzman.)
emptyquiver2 is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 09:00 AM
  #37  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,814
Default

Originally Posted by falcon View Post
No war was ever declared. It was a "military engagement" authorized by congress.

http://wiki.lawguru.com/index.php/De..._United_States
so falcon, are you going to point to the actual verbage the Constitution requires congress to use when declaring war? Seems to me the authorizing the full use of the military to go an attack another country means war. They certainly weren't there to deliver the pizza.

This might help your failing memory:

war

1    /wɔr/ Show Spelled [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 10:03 AM
  #38  
Spike
 
jgarrett451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Glasgow, KY
Posts: 12
Default

The government just wants to get into war and create a big mess to get the people all hyped up. then when we dont know what to do we will have to look towards our government for wisdom and advice, therefor we are supporting them more than we are now. Shew its all shady times these days...
jgarrett451 is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 01:13 PM
  #39  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,872
Default

Originally Posted by emptyquiver2 View Post
Starting in 1998 and through the end of the Clinton Administration, Iraq’s refusal to permit U.N.
weapons inspection teams access to various Iraqi sites, and Iraqi threats to U.S. aircraft policing
the “no-fly zones” resulted in U.S. military action on numerous occasions against Iraqi military
forces and targets in the “no-fly zones.” President Clinton chose to report these actions under the
requirements of P.L. 102-1, rather than the War Powers Resolution. In early February 2001,
President George W. Bush authorized U.S. aircraft to attack Iraqi radar installations in Southern
Iraq believed to threaten allied forces enforcing the “no-fly zone.” Additional bombings of Iraqi
sites were authorized and took place from the summer of 2001 into March 2003. Such actions, in
the past, were reported under P.L. 102-1. Congress provided authorization for future military
action, under specified conditions, through passage of P.L. 107-243 signed into law on October
16, 2002. In a report to Congress on January 20, 2003, pursuant to P.L. 107-243, President Bush
stated that information required to be reported regarding actions taken against Iraq required by
section 3 of P.L. 102-1 would in the future be included in the reports required by P.L. 107-243.
On March 19, 2003, President Bush directed U.S. Armed Forces to commence combat operations
against Iraq to enforce its disarmament. Since he announced the end of major combat operations
against Iraq on May 1, 2003, the President has made periodic reports on the current situation in
Iraq “consistent with” P.L. 107-243, which have become the equivalent of reports to Congress
envisioned by the War Powers Resolution. For a recent example of these reports to Congress see
House Document 108-231, 108
th Congress, 2nd session, submitted November 4, 2004. (For related
information, see CRS Report RL31701,
Iraq: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman, and

CRS Report RL31339,
Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security, by Kenneth Katzman.)
That is the way it was and it wasn't that they had WMD's it was that they refused inspections and broke the terms they agreed too with full knowledge of the possible repercussions. It just amazed me how the lie that unless we found WMD's we had no authority to do what we did was started and preached every where. It was never about finding 1 missile, it was their refusal to allow inspections.

This is one of the few reports I've seen that has stated the truth of it all.
nodog is offline  
Old 03-22-2011, 02:45 PM
  #40  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

what time's tee time in Brazil ?
bergall is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.