War With Russia? Why Truth Matters

[ZakCarter]

While Americans are calling Putin a dictator for his actions on Saturday, many of the same Americans are unaware that they live in a nation where wars are often dictated by their President.

As recently as 2011, President Obama committed troops to Libya without Congressional approval. At the time, Libya was not attacking or threatening the United States. Obama made the decision to send troops to Libya due to the pressure put on him from NATO and others.

Starting in July of last year, the war drums were beating on America mainstream media channels and even libertarian Glenn Beck was calling for a war in Syria. Ben Swann didn’t waste any time after the Season 1 Truth In Media project was funded to create a video titled, “What The Media Isn’t Telling You About Syria.” The video went viral and had over 500,000 views. It was about a month later....

Read the rest of the article at - http://benswann.com/war-with-russia-why-ben-swanns-truth-in-media-project-matters/

[Earfetish]

your raison d'etre is to encourage links to a conspiracy guy's website. Either participate or fuck off. :)

[orangebomb]

At 3/5/14 05:02 PM, ZakCarter wrote: While Americans are calling Putin a dictator for his actions on Saturday, many of the same Americans are unaware that they live in a nation where wars are often dictated by their President.

Well the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, which means he can do just about anything he wants, and they have this power for a long time. There is a reason why they don't declare war on other countries is because everything will have to go to the wartime effort, (World War I and II are the examples) and requires Congress to vote on it, and we all know they can't hardly agree on anything.

As recently as 2011, President Obama committed troops to Libya without Congressional approval. At the time, Libya was not attacking or threatening the United States. Obama made the decision to send troops to Libya due to the pressure put on him from NATO and others.

Wrong. The Delta Force were simple analysts to the rebel soldiers, and it was the French that aided far more than we did by dominating the Libyan Air Force. Plus, all we really did was provide some technical support and fired off some missiles, this is hardly considered an intervention at all. Do actual research instead of half-hearted claims that are easy to debunk.

Starting in July of last year, the war drums were beating on America mainstream media channels and even libertarian Glenn Beck was calling for a war in Syria. Ben Swann didn’t waste any time after the Season 1 Truth In Media project was funded to create a video titled, “What The Media Isn’t Telling You About Syria.” The video went viral and had over 500,000 views. It was about a month later....

1) What does this exactly have to do with Russia?

2) Ben Swann and Truth in Media aren't exactly the most reliable of sources, in fact, they are on par with Alex Jones and Mediawatch. Not exactly the most reliable source of news or any truth. Just because it has a half-million views on YouTube doesn't mean it's factual, especially when most of those views most likely came from like-minded conspiracy nuts, ignorant youth and curious on-lookers.

3) Trying to convince anyone of something that isn't true or has no logical merit is futile.

[Feoric]

At 3/5/14 05:55 PM, Earfetish wrote: your raison d'etre is to encourage links to a conspiracy guy's website. Either participate or fuck off. :)

Judging by his post history this account exists only to promote this random dude's Ron Paul blog.

[Warforger]

At 3/5/14 05:02 PM, ZakCarter wrote: While Americans are calling Putin a dictator for his actions on Saturday, many of the same Americans are unaware that they live in a nation where wars are often dictated by their President.

No one's calling him a dictator for invading Crimea, but they're calling Russia bad for invading Crimea. But you're changing the subject from the title, the title is about war with russia, not American intervention in other countries.

As recently as 2011, President Obama committed troops to Libya without Congressional approval. At the time, Libya was not attacking or threatening the United States. Obama made the decision to send troops to Libya due to the pressure put on him from NATO and others.

"Troops" because planes which supplied other planes and a little combat.

Starting in July of last year, the war drums were beating on America mainstream media channels and even libertarian Glenn Beck was calling for a war in Syria. Ben Swann didn’t waste any time after the Season 1 Truth In Media project was funded to create a video titled, “What The Media Isn’t Telling You About Syria.” The video went viral and had over 500,000 views. It was about a month later....

I guess it wasn't as much war as it was just to do something. We shouldn't really just sit back and let a major Middle Eastern nation kill itself, Iraq was bad enough.

Buuut tell me, why do you think it's ok for Russia to invade Ukraine?

[Pecheneg]

Hello there! I have to say that from the russian side we have problems that not everyone can understand. First problem is new cold war with USA . When i wathch your tv shows about russians i see that "There are living stuped comunistic barbarians who drink vodka from childhood and every one have got Kalashnikov assault rifle with underbarrel grenade launcher which shoting nucklear bombs and everyone love Putin. "
When i and other people see some shit like "Daily show" and other clowns poop we are forgeting that we are hate our goverment (they are mostly thiefs and criminal scums) and become frown to yours television/shows/goverment and people who beleive.
It is one of the reasons why people still don't trust to USGoverment.
Second reason -russia mostly asian Federation(not solid country) and wee have big problems in ties with west goverments.
:Buuut tell me, why do you think it's ok for Russia to invade Ukraine?
This time there are our Serbian brothers and they are wery frown . When you talking about serbians you taking about russians and this is right. Becouse we are all times together .

And you should remember that Put-in and Obama-mama are shity presidents/kasers. In war we are will dying becouse of this politicans, sorry if i hurt Obama's or Putin's lovers.

[Warforger]

At 3/6/14 09:10 AM, CEPbIU wrote: Hello there! I have to say that from the russian side we have problems that not everyone can understand. First problem is new cold war with USA .

I wouldn't say "new" just renewed. Essentially after the American advised economic plans in the 90's failed completely Russia stopped giving a shit about what the US thinks. Not even just under Putin, Yeltsin was the one who began the transition back to dictatorship especially after he used the military to put down a revolt by the Duma and permanetly assumed the expanded powers granted to him temporarily by the Duma in 1994. Even then he had the whole Chechen War going on where the West turned against Russia again. Putin has just been an expansion of that and a more successful implementation of the way of rule. The "Cold War" didn't really end.

When i wathch your tv shows about russians i see that "There are living stuped comunistic barbarians who drink vodka from childhood and every one have got Kalashnikov assault rifle with underbarrel grenade launcher which shoting nucklear bombs and everyone love Putin. "

To be fair I'm assuming Putin is more popular in his country (I'm not sure if he still retains the highest approval rating in the world though) than most dictators are in theirs. But I do agree, there's alot of condescending ideas towards Russians as though they're children with big guns.

When i and other people see some shit like "Daily show" and other clowns poop we are forgeting that we are hate our goverment (they are mostly thiefs and criminal scums) and become frown to yours television/shows/goverment and people who beleive.

Meh the Daily Show is good occasionally (although Jon Stewart would admit that it's not that good at times) especially when it explains complicated events through comedy.

This time there are our Serbian brothers and they are wery frown . When you talking about serbians you taking about russians and this is right. Becouse we are all times together .

Well the question was about Ukraine, but that's a scary thought. The Serbians were the ones fighting a war simply to add more territory to Serbia and using ethnic cleansing in an attempt to do so.

And you should remember that Put-in and Obama-mama are shity presidents/kasers. In war we are will dying becouse of this politicans, sorry if i hurt Obama's or Putin's lovers.

Well either way, they're at least better than their predecessors.

[Budgiekeet]

Sadly, we never had any sort of Congressional approval for wars since World War II. Since then, we've been in the Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, etc...

We needed to act fast, I suppose, and we got used to this sort of schedule. Perhaps we should just let the president use his new power inducted after 1945. We should just interfere when we determine that power is swaying towards the Executive side of things and try to balance everything out again. Until then, the president holds power to bring our nation to war in his fingertips, unless we protest, of course.

Then again, we just criticize these days. Protesting is mostly an online sort of thing and the entire political branches are getting used to lobbyists hounding them in every corridor. Everyone turns a blind eye...

[orangebomb]

At 3/9/14 11:31 AM, Budgiekeet wrote: Sadly, we never had any sort of Congressional approval for wars since World War II. Since then, we've been in the Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, etc...

I take it that you don't know jack shit about executive power, much less realize that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, which means he can do whatever he wants short of declaring war. Plus, if we declared war on any country, then every industry would be converted to help out the war effort, even if it isn't needed by today's standards.

I have no idea how politics works

Protesting doesn't do jack because the government isn't going to listen to career protesters who don't know what they want. Plus, you can't expect to curb executive power when the power itself has been around for decades if not longer without complaint before, especially if you're totally in the dark on how it actually works.

Then again, we just criticize these days.

It's easy to criticize because we are cynical when it comes to politics, and we are reactionary to any political news. You're really wet behind the ears when you're complaining about things that we already know about, much less on how it actually works. If I didn't know anything, I would guess that you're the OP's puppet.

[Budgiekeet]

Sorry if I offended you but the United States has been going into war for the past decades with approval from the Congress. The President does have supreme authority of the military (like you said, short of going to war), but Congress never officially declared war past 1945. You could check it online governmental archives and research it further but, on no point, did the United States wait long enough for approval from the Congress.

We needed to take fast action so the steps were ignored for immediate response. Like how a police officer doesn't need a search warrant if they have a reasonable cause for their actions (Such as arresting a man at a crime scene who was holding a gun).

Protesting does work to some extent due to pressure. It's sort of like peer pressure, threaten them with less funding from their respective interest group and politicians won't have enough money for their next campaign. Not only that, a political leader will always pick a side with more support in controversial decisions in the case of losing a massive amount of votes to the next office.

Criticizing is a human thing - like how you're criticizing me and I to you. Like how we criticize someone based on their looks or how good a movie or game is, I'm just restating such a fact to reaffirm my position on these matters and strengthen my monologue. Despite such things, we share different opinions but I hope to have a debate over such matters in peace and with less retorts and insults.

I really do love civilized political discussions and, knowing you will probably take chunks of my words and deign yourself upon them, I hope we could discuss over our opposing views and have persuasive battles of words. It is a request not out of hand, correct?

At 3/9/14 12:30 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/9/14 11:31 AM, Budgiekeet wrote: Sadly, we never had any sort of Congressional approval for wars since World War II. Since then, we've been in the Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, etc...

I take it that you don't know jack shit about executive power, much less realize that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, which means he can do whatever he wants short of declaring war. Plus, if we declared war on any country, then every industry would be converted to help out the war effort, even if it isn't needed by today's standards.

I have no idea how politics works

Protesting doesn't do jack because the government isn't going to listen to career protesters who don't know what they want. Plus, you can't expect to curb executive power when the power itself has been around for decades if not longer without complaint before, especially if you're totally in the dark on how it actually works.

Then again, we just criticize these days.

It's easy to criticize because we are cynical when it comes to politics, and we are reactionary to any political news. You're really wet behind the ears when you're complaining about things that we already know about, much less on how it actually works. If I didn't know anything, I would guess that you're the OP's puppet.

[Warforger]

At 3/9/14 01:57 PM, Budgiekeet wrote: Sorry if I offended you but the United States has been going into war for the past decades with approval from the Congress. The President does have supreme authority of the military (like you said, short of going to war), but Congress never officially declared war past 1945. You could check it online governmental archives and research it further but, on no point, did the United States wait long enough for approval from the Congress.

No that's not what he saying. You said that there was no Congressional approval of oversea's conflicts whatsoever since WWII. The problem is that you're confusing a Declaration of War with Congressional approval of oversea's conflicts. All of the major conflicts, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, the Afghanistan War, the wars in Yugoslavia, the Iraq Wars, even conflicts like the invasion of Grenada, had approval by Congress in the form of funding them and passing resolutions supporting them. Look up things like the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution or the Draft during the Vietnam War. In fact the reason the US didn't intervene in Syria was because Congress didn't approve of it. So yes there is in fact a process which it goes through, the problem is that the use of declarations of war is no longer done.

The President can do some things without Congressional approval or knowledge, but it doesn't amount to much and if he wanted more he has to go to them for it. The reason that Declarations of War haven't really been issued is the massive amount of power it entitles the President given the massive number of precedents. During the Civil War the President was able to suspend Habeus Corpus and jail Confederate Sympathizers, during WWI and WWII the government took over private enterprises relevant to the military like steel mills and railways. Congress is more easily able to curtail the powers of the President if there wasn't a declaration of war. The other problem is that declarations of war take too much time, in the world of today we often need to act right away, so allowing the President to deploy a limited number of troops is common. Congress willingly let the President have more leeway in foreign affairs given the importance of having a unified and quick foreign policy. It's had more consequences, like the fact that new treaties are completely irrelevant and agreements between the President and foreign governments cover more serious topics. But to say that there has been no Congressional Approval whatsoever of American oversea's conflicts is completely incorrect and according to orangebomb seems to imply that you don't know anything about Executive power.

[orangebomb]

At 3/9/14 01:57 PM, Budgiekeet wrote: Sorry if I offended you but the United States has been going into war for the past decades with approval from the Congress. The President does have supreme authority of the military (like you said, short of going to war), but Congress never officially declared war past 1945. You could check it online governmental archives and research it further but, on no point, did the United States wait long enough for approval from the Congress.

Warforger already mentioned why Congress doesn't officially declare war on other countries since 1941. But you must remember that while Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, they still had a say so in all of the conflicts since, and somehow you must've either forgotten about it, or simply don't know that. Plus, as I already mentioned before, when there is a official deceleration of war, every major industry gets converted from a primarily civilian service to a military service, though at the time, America's military wasn't as powerful as it is today, and we needed every last plane, tank, gun and what have you available, they weren't going to take any chances with production.

We needed to take fast action so the steps were ignored for immediate response. Like how a police officer doesn't need a search warrant if they have a reasonable cause for their actions (Such as arresting a man at a crime scene who was holding a gun).

That's the whole point why we don't officially declare war on other countries, since we are the sole superpower in the world, and having a huge bullseye on our back means we can't afford to sit on our asses and see how everything shakes out if our interest are threatened. It also didn't help that the Soviets were constantly on the proverbial warpath when it came to Communism.

Protesting does work to some extent due to pressure. It's sort of like peer pressure, threaten them with less funding from their respective interest group and politicians won't have enough money for their next campaign. Not only that, a political leader will always pick a side with more support in controversial decisions in the case of losing a massive amount of votes to the next office.

Here's the problem, the vast majority of protests are either ignored, or there is only gradual change after the protests, which generally defeated the whole purpose of the protest in the first place. Protests like Occupy Wall Street and the '99 WTO riot did little to nothing to inspire serious change because they lost their original meaning for a variety of reasons, and politicians viewed them as spoiled, ignorant children.

Now that doesn't mean that protests don't work, (Tea Party is a good example) but most politicians are savvy enough to either get with the times when it comes to certain issues, or rally other like-minded people to get what they want and spread the word from there.

Criticizing is a human thing - like how you're criticizing me and I to you. Like how we criticize someone based on their looks or how good a movie or game is, I'm just restating such a fact to reaffirm my position on these matters and strengthen my monologue.

I'm not criticizing you for the sake of criticism, I'm simply stating that there are general inaccuracies in your argument, and with that, I would assume that you were unknowingly ignorant on how executive powers work, much less politics in general. I'll chalk this up to simple naive ignorance on your part, and not a troll response.

I really do love civilized political discussions and, knowing you will probably take chunks of my words and deign yourself upon them, I hope we could discuss over our opposing views and have persuasive battles of words. It is a request not out of hand, correct?

I didn't mean to metaphorically beat you up like that, and because you obviously had no history of questionable posts, I'm sure that you didn't know any better. I've seen similar opinions like this in General turn into flame wars, and in politics, are generally shot down pretty harshly, so I'm giving you fair warning about all this. Opinions aren't about right and wrong, but the more educated and rational they are, the more that they are going to be respected.

[Feoric]

The last time Congress officially declared war was in 1942, not 1945. This is just a formality. Military action can be authorized by Congress, and/or UNSC resolutions. In any event Congress is responsible with funding. This is the way it has worked for a really long time -- since the founding of the country, basically. The earliest example of an actual war fought without Congressional approval was the Tripolitan War in 1801. The 1800s were ripe with military action taken under order of the CIC without any consultation with Congress - see the Indian Wars for a perfect example.

[Budgiekeet]

Ahh *Rubs my head* Thanks for clearing that all up! My grandpa always told me that you learn something new each day - it's nice to have a diplomatic conversation, right? Like you said, politics always end up on a heated debate and hurtful words thrown at each other, so I went to Newgrounds to have active conversations and learn more about these things with less verbal violence.

It was nice we could reach an understanding orangebomb, and I really appreciate you pointing out the facts for me! I wish you luck in this - you seem very knowledgeable about these political things. Are you a historian? Again, thank you :D

Maybe, one day, we could hold another discussion when I learn more in this field?

[Prinzy2]

Crimea seems screwed either way. Ukraine scrapes their constitution when they try to become and independent nation, and Russia undermines and oppresses them. Russia also has a history of slaughtering its own citizens on an unparallelled scale. Russia obviously wants its USSR land back, but there aren't any countries with the backbone to try and stop them and I imagine the USA is tired of being labelled as the world police.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/10/14 03:48 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: I imagine the USA is tired of being labelled as the world police.

Not to mention the cost benefit presents a massive lost for the US. Crimea and Ukraine as a whole present little to no strategic, economic, or political benefits. The only real win here is sticking it to Russia.

I have a hard time believing that even the most hawkish Americans would consider 1 lost American life worth that small of a goal.

[Pecheneg]

At 3/10/14 03:48 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: Crimea seems screwed either way. Ukraine scrapes their constitution when they try to become and independent nation, and Russia undermines and oppresses them. Russia also has a history of slaughtering its own citizens on an unparallelled scale. Russia obviously wants its USSR land back, but there aren't any countries with the backbone to try and stop them and I imagine the USA is tired of being labelled as the world police.

No, russia don't requare extra lands but we are realy need moar people.
:Not to mention the cost benefit presents a massive lost for the US. Crimea and Ukraine as a whole present little to no strategic, economic, or political benefits. The only real win here is sticking it to Russia.

But we have extra troubles here.
1) First trouble- main enemy of slavic people - other slavic people. West ukrainians call one part of russians "katsap" ( goat-head) and other part "moscal" (moscovian). And how we can like this people if they call us "katsap"?
In the west Ukraine living russian/half-russian people who don't provide agression and didn't join in military coup.
That main reason why ordinary people in russia and afraid of ukrain nazional forses. And that 's why our people support our goverment this time. We must help or many people will die from west ukrain right forses(mostly nazi and murders).
And now in crimea more than 3 active big military groupings, serbians, russians, militia, volunteer corps( unofficial military groups) and some extra courteous people(i du no who they are).
And watch youtube, i think that first fight will be in the next week. I realy hope that i fallacy in that...

[Pecheneg]

I try to explain: in Russia(all 2 of 3 parts), Belorussia, Serbia, Ukrain, Litva,Bulgaria and Bohemia have got one common ancestor. But many our/their rednecks think otherwise. Many politicians use it in their interests. Such as russians(east), germans(europian) and US(american :-) ) goverments.

[Warforger]

At 3/12/14 08:56 AM, CEPbIU wrote: I try to explain: in Russia(all 2 of 3 parts), Belorussia, Serbia, Ukrain, Litva,Bulgaria and Bohemia have got one common ancestor. But many our/their rednecks think otherwise. Many politicians use it in their interests. Such as russians(east), germans(europian) and US(american :-) ) goverments.

Well it's true they have similar ancestries, so does Northern India, Persia and Europe, but that doesn't really mean they should be united into one. First off I wouldn't say Bohemia, better to say Czech Republic, secondly I'm assuming you mean Latvia by Litva which you'd still be wrong because they're Baltic, not Slavic. Now I am myself Bulgarian and politicians themselves tried to align the country as a relative of Russia but in recent years historians have been researching the Bulgar Turks, the people who are the only reason why Bulgaria is called Bulgaria. This is more romantic and interesting because this provides links to China and Persia so I am pretty critical of it because after a certain point you're just a nationalist seeing what you want like the people who claim the first Shogun of Japan was of African ancestry because the word for warrior in Nigerian Yoruban is "Shegun". But the link with the Bulgar Turks is not unreasonable obviously since the Bulgar Turks quite clearly existed and did not speak a Slavic but rather a Turkic language and one group settled in the Danube founding Bulgaria. Another group settled on the Volga and created "Volga Bulgaria" whose inhabitance were partially incorporated into the Tatars, but the rest are now known as "Chuvash". Now obviously modern Bulgarian has more in common with Russian than with Chuvash, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while people have a common ancestor they don't have the same ancestors.

[Pecheneg]

At 3/12/14 11:58 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/12/14 08:56 AM, CEPbIU wrote: I try to explain: in Russia(all 2 of 3 parts), Belorussia, Serbia, Ukrain, Litva,Bulgaria and Bohemia have got one common ancestor. But many our/their rednecks think otherwise. Many politicians use it in their interests. Such as russians(east), germans(europian) and US(american :-) ) goverments.

Well it's true they have similar ancestries, so does Northern India, Persia and Europe, but that doesn't really mean they should be united into one. First off I wouldn't say Bohemia, better to say Czech Republic, secondly I'm assuming you mean Latvia by Litva which you'd still be wrong because they're Baltic, not Slavic. Now I am myself Bulgarian and politicians themselves tried to align the country as a relative of Russia but in recent years historians have been researching the Bulgar Turks, the people who are the only reason why Bulgaria is called Bulgaria. This is more romantic and interesting because this provides links to China and Persia so I am pretty critical of it because after a certain point you're just a nationalist seeing what you want like the people who claim the first Shogun of Japan was of African ancestry because the word for warrior in Nigerian Yoruban is "Shegun". But the link with the Bulgar Turks is not unreasonable obviously since the Bulgar Turks quite clearly existed and did not speak a Slavic but rather a Turkic language and one group settled in the Danube founding Bulgaria. Another group settled on the Volga and created "Volga Bulgaria" whose inhabitance were partially incorporated into the Tatars, but the rest are now known as "Chuvash". Now obviously modern Bulgarian has more in common with Russian than with Chuvash, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while people have a common ancestor they don't have the same ancestors.

Yeap, you absolutely right.
But you understand my opinion a bit wrong, my fault. I have trobles with self expression in english but i try again. I don't belive that "we all shall live together in peace". But i don't want look how people dying for " great justice and unation/separation". If no one die today that is not mean that people will not suffer tommorow/next week.
You shall know what i feel. If you don't i just remind you about أهل السنة & شيعة‎‎ they are both brothers too but kill each other for "great justice and Eden".

P.S. After unation of RF and Crimea wahhabists will make more troubles for crimeans and russians. And only muslims can solve this trouble. Sad but true, russians can't solve religional trobles. Sorry if i write something wrong.

[KatMaestro]

Estonia just put on a warning that Russia might invade East Ukraine. Russian troops already move in around Ukrainian borders. If they ever cross the borders, the Poles should be worry. This is a step closer to Russia vs NATO.

Salami tactics are well known for the Russians. In fact the way they try to annex Ukraine is every similar to how Nazi Germany annexed Austria.

[Pecheneg]

At 3/15/14 12:00 AM, Elitistinen wrote: Estonia just put on a warning that Russia might invade East Ukraine. Russian troops already move in around Ukrainian borders. If they ever cross the borders, the Poles should be worry. This is a step closer to Russia vs NATO.

Salami tactics are well known for the Russians. In fact the way they try to annex Ukraine is every similar to how Nazi Germany annexed Austria.

Dude, do you know that RF already have got military forses in Ukrain since 1783 year. Unexpected?
About NATO - i belive that this organization will be ruined in next ten years by itself. There are no next step, people( not piliticans) are proud that many europeans fill butthurt now.
About Poles- that people is the enemies of ukranian right sector ( nazis forses) as russians "katsap"s, jews and east people(chinese, korean, etc).
About "salami tactics"- thats is very usefull tactic, and as i write before all asians like only strong leaders, and that's why people support theirs leader.

Aphorism:
When liberal friend ask me -"why you hate Putin?"
I ansvered him: "I hate Putin is not becouse he is Putin, i hate him becouse he insufficiently Putin!".

About nazis... Problem that we got here is very old. You shoud read about ukranian hero stepan bandera . Right sector love people which help nazis make genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
American goverment(mostly goverment) and many european countries(goverments and people) support nazis. That is sad but true.

About Эstonia- yes we are fear of them, their commando have conqured America, Syberia and crushed nazis Germany and destroyed Sovetian Union. Moscow will voluntarily surrender to them this time before Эstonia will start war. ;-)

P.S. Enjoy aids my canadian/finland friend. Dude don't be so narrow minded!

[Pecheneg]

*Fill -mistake i mean feel. Whatever, I hope that all understandably.

[KatMaestro]

At 3/16/14 12:38 AM, CEPbIU wrote:
crap

First off, your writing format is terrible. I don't mind the grammar but at least reformat before you post. Secondly, you call me narrow-minded, while you're a warmongering piece of shit. You seem to very enjoy war and crushing other opinions. Typical Russian. If you want to claim Ukraine as 'your people' then at least you learn some basic history about Eastern Europe before shit comes out of your mouth.

[Ron-Geno]

Isn't this all for the natural gas anywho?

[TheMason]

At 3/9/14 12:30 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/9/14 11:31 AM, Budgiekeet wrote: Sadly, we never had any sort of Congressional approval for wars since World War II. Since then, we've been in the Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, etc...

I take it that you don't know jack shit about executive power, much less realize that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, which means he can do whatever he wants short of declaring war. Plus, if we declared war on any country, then every industry would be converted to help out the war effort, even if it isn't needed by today's standards.

You're both wrong.

There is this law called The War Powers Act which came about in response to the Vietnam War. It sought to define limits on presidential power as CiC regarding military action that does not require a formal declaration of war.

About the only time since WWII that a president has gone to war (ie: sending in the troops long term, not a rescue mission like Grenada) without getting support from congress was the Korean War. Truman relied upon a legal argument that the UN Participation Act of 1947 had given him authority (after all, it was passed by Congress) to commit troops in Korea. (Also, Congressional approval of different treaties that required our response).

In short: the Congress had given the president a blank check.

Fast forward to 'Nam. LBJ asked Congress for permission under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to send in combat troops to 'Nam. Realizing that they had lost control...Congress would pass the War Powers Act in 1973.

Since then the president MUST:
* Notify Congress w/in 48hrs of sending troops into action.
* Troops can only fight for 60 days (plus 30 additional days for withdrawl).
* Past this time, Congress must either declare war or authorize further military intervention.

Thus Lybia would not necessarily be a violation since it did not last 60 days...and Obama did let Congress know w/in 48hrs.

++++

As for Russia and the Crimea...I do not see us going to war with Russia.

* This president is very weak on the international stage, and Putin as judged him as so. Posturing by Obama is more than likely an amusement for Putin rather than a serious concern.
* The American people do not see it as effecting our national interest. We are a war weary country after 13 years of fighting the GWOT.
* We don't have the money for it.

What will be interesting is to see if Putin capitalizies on Obama's increasing popularity, probable Republican take-over of the Senate, and a lame-duck White House to expand Russia's sphere of influence between now and 2016.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/16/14 02:30 PM, TheMason wrote: There is this law called The War Powers Act which came about in response to the Vietnam War. It sought to define limits on presidential power as CiC regarding military action that does not require a formal declaration of war.

Technically you are wrong too. What you speak of is actually the War Powers Resolution. This is a key difference, as resolutions have no legal or binding effects whatsoever. As of yet Presidents give token credence to the resolution as to not alienate Congress. Regardless of this token patronage, the resolution is still entirely powerless.

[Warforger]

At 3/16/14 11:22 AM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 3/16/14 12:38 AM, CEPbIU wrote:
crap

First off, your writing format is terrible. I don't mind the grammar but at least reformat before you post. Secondly, you call me narrow-minded, while you're a warmongering piece of shit.

That statement is in itself narrow-minded. Can't you be a warmongering piece of shit AND be open-minded?

You seem to very enjoy war and crushing other opinions.

Not exactly what he's saying.

Typical Russian.

Yay racism!

If you want to claim Ukraine as 'your people' then at least you learn some basic history about Eastern Europe before shit comes out of your mouth.

You mean like how the Ukrainians and Russians were the same people until foreign invaders namely the Mongols and the Polish forcibly separated them for their own imperial purposes?

[TheMason]

At 3/16/14 03:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/16/14 02:30 PM, TheMason wrote: There is this law called The War Powers Act which came about in response to the Vietnam War. It sought to define limits on presidential power as CiC regarding military action that does not require a formal declaration of war.

Technically you are wrong too. What you speak of is actually the War Powers Resolution. This is a key difference, as resolutions have no legal or binding effects whatsoever. As of yet Presidents give token credence to the resolution as to not alienate Congress. Regardless of this token patronage, the resolution is still entirely powerless.

Not necessarily.

Going to war is not a power of the president. It is a power of the Congress. Therefore, in this case I'm not sure that it makes all that much of a difference it being a resolution instead of an act. After all, the Congress does have the power to withold spending on the action and force the president to recall the troops.

[Pecheneg]

At 3/16/14 07:13 PM, Warforger wrote:
That statement is in itself narrow-minded. Can't you be a warmongering piece of shit AND be open-minded?

I can agree with you only about writing format. That what i called "calque" - if you write something on foreign language it is summon grammar and lexical troubles.

You seem to very enjoy war and crushing other opinions.

Noway, maybe i use "strong words" to often, but i agree whith many opinions exept what you write here.
About warmongening - that is mistake. I only write my opinion and agree or disagree with interlocutors.
As i write before , i don't want war. But it is doesn't mean that i will acept right sector and people who support them.

:. Typical Russian
:If you want to claim Ukraine as 'your people' then at least you learn some basic history about Eastern Europe before shit :comes out of yourmouth.

Typical Russian - Yeees camaraden i drink two boutles of vodka everyday and write here from balalayka =) .Don't be so agressive and try to explain your thoughts without bias .
Seriosly, do you think that you know history of Ukraine better than post-Soviet people do? :-)