Phoenix.Michiiru said: »
especially with what he's done to things like cuts to education,
Obamas War Without Congress Approval |
||
Obamas war without congress approval
Phoenix.Michiiru said: » especially with what he's done to things like cuts to education, I see Obama's gone from power-drunk tyrant back to do-nothing empty suit. Does it just cycle between the two every day at midnight?
Jetackuu said: » lolwhat? Bahamut.Ravael said: » he's supposed to be, but one fortunate byproduct of not getting his proposals done on time or at all, is that he's not to blame at all for the congressional budgets. It is also relevant that congress hasn't actually passed a budget in at least 3 years. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I also want to see a source for the actual claim. Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » he's supposed to be, but one fortunate byproduct of not getting his proposals done on time or at all, is that he's not to blame at all for the congressional budgets. It is also relevant that congress hasn't actually passed a budget in at least 3 years. I guess so, but that doesn't mean he hasn't had an influence on appropriations bills passed by Congress. Also, Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I see Obama's gone from power-drunk tyrant back to do-nothing empty suit. Does it just cycle between the two every day at midnight? Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » he's supposed to be, but one fortunate byproduct of not getting his proposals done on time or at all, is that he's not to blame at all for the congressional budgets. It is also relevant that congress hasn't actually passed a budget in at least 3 years. I guess so, but that doesn't mean he hasn't had an influence on appropriations bills passed by Congress. Also, Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I see Obama's gone from power-drunk tyrant back to do-nothing empty suit. Does it just cycle between the two every day at midnight? It also doesn't mean he has, that's a red herring. When congress manages to pass a budget, we can talk about PotUS's role in it. Fair enough, but keep in mind that Obama doesn't have to directly affect the congressional budget to make cuts to education. He's already eliminated at least 16 programs in the Department of Education. Whether or not those were justified is another story. Quite frankly, I don't care. I'm just pointing out that Michiiru wasn't necessarily wrong.
Jetackuu said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Jetackuu said: » Phoenix.Michiiru said: » If there's another war and Congress doesn't approve it but Obama thinks he can, I'll personally get a march going and go to DC to protest a vote of no confidence on his ***. I refuse to pay my taxes to support a war that the people are against but their idiot of a president thinks he can do w/e the *** he wants. It's not war unless the congress approves it, but the President can and has engaged in "conflicts" numerous times without congressional approval, and they don't require it. He's the commander in chief of the armed forces, if there's a threat to the US he can deploy them as he sees fit. Now there's international agreements and stuff one has to deal with, and there's always consequences and the issues of funding, but yadayada. Basically: just because you don't like that he does something doesn't change the fact that he can do it, and is allowed to. US officials (I'll have to look) have come out and said ISIS poses no threat to the US. It's just Obama and McCain (few others too) once again trying to overthrown a government. And by doing so have decided to help terrorists by claiming other terrorist pose more of a threat. And now ISIS has taken the step of brokering a non agressive pact to not fight against any of the terrorist (aka moderate rebels) the US has backed and is trying to back again. Obama can't declare war on Syria because it hasn't done anything to warrant it. Last year he tried the whole WMD thing and failed. Obama can't declare war on Syria because he doesn't have the authority to declare war, that power rests with congress. Bahamut.Ravael said: » So, are you going to actually man up and defend the president's actions or just take shots at forum posters as usual? Yay, endless cycle of middle east violence. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I see Obama's gone from power-drunk tyrant back to do-nothing empty suit. Does it just cycle between the two every day at midnight? Why should he need to defend an action he may not agree with, just because? Frankly, there is a pretty prevailent problem of hating or liking something just because of the person who is doing it, regardless of the circumstances (from both sides). That's a pretty big issue. Quote: Hours before Barack Obama is to announce an expanded military campaign against Islamic State (Isis) militants, his senior homeland security official assessed that the organization poses no imminent danger to America at home. “At present, we have no credible information that [Isis] is planning to attack the homeland of the United States,” Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson told a Manhattan audience on Wednesday. Johnson is the latest in a string of top US officials to concede that the jihadist army currently in control of much of eastern Syria and northern and central Iraq is not targeting the US at present, despite beheading two captured American journalists. Last week, the head of the US National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, issued nearly the exact same phrase. Earlier on Wednesday, Olsen’s deputy told a congressional panel that al-Qaida’s affiliates pose the greatest threat of a domestic attack, with Isis threatening US interests primarily “inside Iraq right now.” Similarly, when the leaders of US intelligence agencies provided their annual threat assessments to congressional oversight committees in January and February, they stressed a domestic threat emanating from a rival jihadist group. The Nusra Front, al-Qaida’s preferred Syrian affiliate, “does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland,” director of national intelligence James Clapper said, weeks after Isis invaded the Iraqi city of Fallujah. He and his colleagues gave relatively scant focus to Isis, which has now upended the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The groups that Obama wants to arm fight along side the ones who pose the greatest threat to the U.S. according to the head of the US Counterterrorism Center and the director of national intelligence. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I see Obama's gone from power-drunk tyrant back to do-nothing empty suit. Does it just cycle between the two every day at midnight? Why should he need to defend an action he may not agree with, just because? Frankly, there is a pretty prevailent problem of hating or liking something just because of the person who is doing it, regardless of the circumstances (from both sides). That's a pretty big issue. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I see Obama's gone from power-drunk tyrant back to do-nothing empty suit. Does it just cycle between the two every day at midnight? Well those have been the cornerstones of his administration. If he hasn't been forcing increased healthcare costs on the middle class he's been incredibly passive in his actions against ISIS. Even Western-backed FSA doesn't seem to think ISIS is a concern atm.
Quote: US President Barack Obama delivers a live televised address to the nation on his plans for military action against the Islamic State, from the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington September 10, 2014. President Barack Obama would seek to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad if American planes were attacked upon entering Syrian air space, Peter Baker of The New York Times reports . If Assad's troops f ired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, "Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defense system," Baker reports. "He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account." On Wednesday, Obama announced that he had authorized US airstrikes in Syria while laying out a four-part strategy to "destroy" and "eradicate" radical ISIS militants who have captured roughly a third of Syria and a third of Iraq. Since August, US warplanes have backed Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish peshmerga fighters, and Iranian-backed Shia militiamen as they attempt to roll back ISIS gains in Iraq. Baker, who spoke with 10 people who spoke to the president leading up to his speech on Wednesday, writes that Obama " struck his guests as less certain about the endgame on the Syrian side, where he has called for Mr. Assad to step down and must now rely on the same moderate Syrian rebels he refused to arm in the past." Syrian rebels associated with the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) have scoffed at Obama's plan, saying that it rushes to target ISIS while ignoring Assad. "I don't really understand this sudden fuss about ISIS," one FSA fighter told The Guardian. "They killed people, but Bashar has been killing for the last three years. But nobody seems to be interested in that anymore." Opposition fighters note that simply bombing ISIS will not stop the criminal army and that a comprehensive plan is needed to deal with both ISIS and Assad. "Instead of bombing ISIS from the air, we need support inside Syria to fight. It's the only way," Mohammed Al Bakhour, 31, a senior commander of an Aleppo-based FSA battalion, told the Guardian . "Once Assad is gone, we'll deal with ISIS ourselves." I blame the Egyptian military.
Its all their fault. If they had allowed Morsi to hold power and not illegally overthrown the first democratically elected president in 4 decades, there would be a lot more stability within the region. The entire situation in Syria and Iraq is a direct consequence of that military coup. The powers that be that were backing the democratic revolution in the Arab world decided to fight back through funding 5th columns and arming them. On the opposite side, their rivals, also decided to fund other factions to settle the score with existing arab regimes, while also fighting popular revolutionists. The situation for as long as I can remember has been: -Israel is over there, they're coming if we don't keep them at bay. -Iran is on the other side, they're coming if we don't keep them at bay. -America sells us weapons and protects our borders as long as our currency is pegged to the dollar. Now its: - Al Qaeda are coming. - The Iranians are coming. - The houthies are coming. - The Revolutionists are coming. - Israel has started and its only a matter of time before we confront them at our borders. - The Muslim Brotherhood are everywhere - you could be one of them - Everyone thinks everyone is a muslim brotherhood member, be careful not to speak about Islam. - If they don't think you're a muslim brotherhood member, then you must be Al Qaeda or a Huzb El Tahrir member or a CIA or Mossad agent. - America is plotting against the region - Turkey wants it Ottoman empire back - Libya and Egypt are going to war - Libya wont exist in 5 years - The Kurds are going to make their own country. Turkey will attack no doubt. Its gotten pretty *** looney over here in the past year. Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: » - The Muslim Brotherhood are everywhere - you could be one of them Nevermind. *** it all.*
Sometimes I really wish I could believe in a God who would punish people for the actual horrible things they do. "Rape and pillage and murder, but believe in me? Welcome to heaven!" "Behave, help others, live your life in exemplary fashion, but don't believe in me? -- BURN FOR ETERNITY!" The world is ***. *had a reply posted regarding ISIS. Pointless I guess. World keeps on turning, bad people keep on being bad.
Congress is content to continue throwing President X (where X = whoever was dumb enough to run) under the bus whenever military action is taken to puff up their own political profiles. Considering what happened the last time Congress voted to pew pew Iraq, I doubt we'll be seeing anything more than the yelling from the sidelines that is commonplace in these such moments. BOMB EM! COWARD! LOSER! CALCULATING STRATEGIST! CHESSMASTER! Kudos to trying a military alliance against ISIS though I always laugh at how this would be the PERFECT time for a jihad to be declared by Muslims against these cretin. Sign up for the counter-Caliphate, dedicated to kicking ISIS *** and serving Allah cause if this ain't anti-Allah, I dunno what the *** is. What a flight of fancy that'd be. Offline
Posts: 4027
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Nevermind. *** it all.* Sometimes I really wish I could believe in a God who would punish people for the actual horrible things they do. "Rape and pillage and murder, but believe in me? Welcome to heaven!" "Behave, help others, live your life in exemplary fashion, but don't believe in me? -- BURN FOR ETERNITY!" The world is ***. *had a reply posted regarding ISIS. Pointless I guess. I don't know of any of the 3 abrahamic religions that preach that dude. About ISIS - again, its an organization with political ambitions. Religion mixed with politics has ALWAYS been the problem. There's nothing wrong with religion. Man, will use whatever advantage and resources he can to manipulate others towards their ambitions. Psychopaths hide behind religion, behind flags, behind position and professions to get what they want. You can't say religion is at the root of it. Mankind would be at war with itself regardless. Blazed1979 said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Nevermind. *** it all.* Sometimes I really wish I could believe in a God who would punish people for the actual horrible things they do. "Rape and pillage and murder, but believe in me? Welcome to heaven!" "Behave, help others, live your life in exemplary fashion, but don't believe in me? -- BURN FOR ETERNITY!" The world is ***. *had a reply posted regarding ISIS. Pointless I guess. I don't know of any of the 3 abrahamic religions that preach that dude. About ISIS - again, its an organization with political ambitions. Religion mixed with politics has ALWAYS been the problem. There's nothing wrong with religion. Man, will use whatever advantage and resources he can to manipulate others towards their ambitions. Psychopaths hide behind religion, behind flags, behind position and professions to get what they want. You can't say religion is at the root of it. Mankind would be at war with itself regardless. That's all religion is. It's man using an advantage/resource to manipulate others. That's all. That's. ***. All. The advantage is people's ignorance and willingness to suspend disbelief of utter fantasy. Whatever. Not getting into it with you again. Offline
Posts: 4027
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Blazed1979 said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Nevermind. *** it all.* Sometimes I really wish I could believe in a God who would punish people for the actual horrible things they do. "Rape and pillage and murder, but believe in me? Welcome to heaven!" "Behave, help others, live your life in exemplary fashion, but don't believe in me? -- BURN FOR ETERNITY!" The world is ***. *had a reply posted regarding ISIS. Pointless I guess. I don't know of any of the 3 abrahamic religions that preach that dude. About ISIS - again, its an organization with political ambitions. Religion mixed with politics has ALWAYS been the problem. There's nothing wrong with religion. Man, will use whatever advantage and resources he can to manipulate others towards their ambitions. Psychopaths hide behind religion, behind flags, behind position and professions to get what they want. You can't say religion is at the root of it. Mankind would be at war with itself regardless. All religion is is man using an advantage/resource to manipulate others. That's all. That's. ***. All. Whatever. Not getting into it with you again. Weak. Blazed1979 said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Nevermind. *** it all.* Sometimes I really wish I could believe in a God who would punish people for the actual horrible things they do. "Rape and pillage and murder, but believe in me? Welcome to heaven!" "Behave, help others, live your life in exemplary fashion, but don't believe in me? -- BURN FOR ETERNITY!" The world is ***. *had a reply posted regarding ISIS. Pointless I guess. I don't know of any of the 3 abrahamic religions that preach that dude. About ISIS - again, its an organization with political ambitions. Religion mixed with politics has ALWAYS been the problem. There's nothing wrong with religion. Man, will use whatever advantage and resources he can to manipulate others towards their ambitions. Psychopaths hide behind religion, behind flags, behind position and professions to get what they want. You can't say religion is at the root of it. Mankind would be at war with itself regardless. Just because I'm feeling a little salty, what's right with religion and when are religion and politics ever mutually exclusive? The religious certainly have their share of problems, but a lot of good is done in the name of religion that is ignored because people like to focus on the psychopaths. When atheists prove themselves to be the moral superiors of the world by their actions instead of their armchair philosophies, we can talk. As of now we have the same mixture of atheists that use it to do good as well as evil, just like the religious.
Most atheists don't think about complex morality in terms of right and wrong and I rarely see them claim the moral high ground the way religious people do. They aren't a collective with a common theme, they're just people who don't have a particular opinion about the intangible.
Bahamut.Ravael said: » The religious certainly have their share of problems, but a lot of good is done in the name of religion that is ignored because people like to focus on the psychopaths. When atheists prove themselves to be the moral superiors of the world by their actions instead of their armchair philosophies, we can talk. As of now we have the same mixture of atheists that use it to do good as well as evil, just like the religious. How is it even possible to do evil with atheism? You can't say "lack of God made me do this"; that's basically just admitting you're a sick ***. I have never denied the good religion has done the world; all I was really saying -- before Blaze piped up with his need to defend religions from their own extremists -- was that I wish there really was a God who would punish those same extremists. Yes I took a dig at religious doctrine in the process, but that's because religious doctrine is ridiculous and I have a hard time helping myself while sitting behind the safety of internet anonymity. Odin.Jassik said: » Most atheists don't think about complex morality in terms of right and wrong and I rarely see them claim the moral high ground the way religious people do. They aren't a collective with a common theme, they're just people who don't have a particular opinion about the intangible. Well, agree with you until the last part; obviously you have an opinion, as you're an atheist; not an uncaring agnostic. Blazed1979 said: » Weak. In case you've missed past threads, I've gone on several pages with this fellow about this topic. There's nothing new to be gained. If you agree with him that it's weak that I won't engage him yet again on this topic, just go track down some of the other threads. You already probably don't agree with me, so you can go ahead and re-enforce your position that way. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|