Bush's speech

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Could they not pass legislation that says something along the lines of "No more than 5000 American troops can be sent into combat on foreign territory with a formal declaration of war approved by Congress"? Or couldn't they simply repeal the "authorization to use force" or whatever it was called...the non-declaration of war thing that let GWB send in our troops in the first place?

For Congress to do that, they might end up re-writing the Constitution. That's my understanding. So, it's probably not going to happen.

I haven't done my homework on the subject, but I thought the power to declare war already rested with Congress, per the Constitution.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,998]

>For Congress to do that, they might end up re-writing the Constitution.

Right. You'd have to add a section that says:

----------------------------
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
---------------------------

[Enrique 0]

Quote

20,000 more troops means more targets for the insurgents to hit. Also means lower morale for ALL the soldiers, highdeficit for all of us.

I can hardly begin to imagine what a soldier going on his/her 2nd or 3rd tour of duty would feel like...

Again, it is understandable that a soldier must follow orders, but I guess it would be way more encouraging if such orders were practical, logical, and objective.

Hope all goes well for the people putting their life on the line.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Could they not pass legislation that says something along the lines of "No more than 5000 American troops can be sent into combat on foreign territory with a formal declaration of war approved by Congress"? Or couldn't they simply repeal the "authorization to use force" or whatever it was called...the non-declaration of war thing that let GWB send in our troops in the first place?

For Congress to do that, they might end up re-writing the Constitution. That's my understanding. So, it's probably not going to happen.

I haven't done my homework on the subject, but I thought the power to declare war already rested with Congress, per the Constitution.

They have the power to declare war. But the power to deploy the military rests solely with the executive branch.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,998]

>But the power to deploy the military rests solely with the executive branch.

Right. But the power to make rules concerning the use of the military lies with the legislature. The president can decide how to deploy the military; the legislature passes laws that determine _when_ to deploy the military. (Going strictly by the constitution, that is.)

[usedtajump 1]

Quote

>But the power to deploy the military rests solely with the executive branch.

Right. But the power to make rules concerning the use of the military lies with the legislature. The president can decide how to deploy the military; the legislature passes laws that determine _when_ to deploy the military. (Going strictly by the constitution, that is.)

Well that's just f'n great. That damn thing has so many footprints from being walked over by our corrupt government (and not just this administration), that nobody knows, or apparently, cares WTF it says anymore.

The older I get the less I care who I piss off.

[matthewcline 0]

If I may jump in here Max,

If Congress is to with hold funds for me or my fellow Soldiers and Marines then, yes as far as we are concerned, Congress has stabbed us in the back and failed to support us.

If they act prior to the movement (and stop taking fucking days off for a NIGHT TIME football game) and pass a constructive law blocking the movement and mandating the rerurn of troops (or a better plan involving regional diplomacy and strategic threat over mass numbers of US troops), in language like billvon suggests, then sure they still support the troops.

Other wise, troops will have to spread thin assets and munitions to make some available for the 20K+ arriving and that will cost more lives, in my opinion, cost more lives than sending over 20K+ that are fully funded and able to defend them selves.

But as I say below, what do I know? After all I am but a student.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[orribolollie 0]

Id say 20 odd thousand troops will be just about the perfect number required, to protect your pipelines and business interests in Iraq

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Id say 20 odd thousand troops will be just about the perfect number required, to protect your pipelines and business interests in Iraq

Yeah, all those refineries in Tikrit, Falujah and Bagdad that we're garrisoning...

That's ok, mate... keep sipping that kool-aid...it'll all be better soon.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706