Bush says he's going forward regardless!

[DJDIGGLER]

TweetBush says that regardless if congress on both sides now say they are not in favor of sending more troops to Iraq, that he will do it anyway! Not a big surprise, this is a dictatorship ya know bush!

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16624979/

[T-Man007]

TweetThat's going to be a tough one. The constitution states that if we are at war, he is in charge of those decisions. Which sucks basically. It will all come down to whether or not we offically declared war on Iraq. If we did not, then I don't see how that's going to fly. Without a declaration of war, he must have the approval of congress, but if they already gave him this power, they can't take it away until the war is over. Does anyone know if we ever declared war? Didn't the UN give permission to go over there? I think they did eventually because that's why there are other countries with troops over there. This guy is going to make it impossible for a Rep to get into office again.

[SMILEY FACE]

Tweethehhhhh

[solidground]

Tweetno the UN never gave him permission ( you dont need it if your being attacked, but we werent). Congress is supposed to pass things before they are final but that doestnt always happen anymore, like the patriot act, that was pushed right through congress- they were forced to sign..I dont think this is actually considered a war..i think technically not even vietnam was a war.

it depends whos running as a republican..if ron paul somehow gets the republican bid, im 100% voting for him

[T-Man007]

Tweet

no the UN never gave him permission ( you dont need it if your being attacked, but we werent). Congress is supposed to pass things before they are final but that doestnt always happen anymore, like the patriot act, that was pushed right through congress- they were forced to sign..I dont think this is actually considered a war..i think technically not even vietnam was a war.

it depends whos running as a republican..if ron paul somehow gets the republican bid, im 100% voting for him

But, the UN eventually gave permission because Canada, Austrailia, Japan and others all have troops there. Why would they go if the UN didn't give permission? Well, I know why Austrailia would, because they have our back, but Canada? Why would they go?

[solidground]

Tweetim really not sure about this--ill try looking it up..from what ive read you never really need the permission but your supposed to have it..if thats the case its kind of pointless

[DJDIGGLER]

TweetUN never gave permission. The only reason the other countries helped was because they are our allies and didn't want to be on our bad side. You've got to remember anytime our allies get in trouble who is the first they call?

Bush did declare war back in March of 2003. But then he also declared "Mission Accomplished" when he had the banner that bared that sign during his speach on that aircraft carrier. So being that he declared 'Mission Accomplished' I'd like to know where he thinks he gets the power to do that without approval?

If he claimed it was accomplished, than that means the war was over. The leftover troops were supposed to be there to clean things up. But it got worse than Bush thought. Looks like he shot himself in the foot trying to gain public approval with his little show, flying onto that aircraft carrier, being arrogant and saying something was finished when it wasn't close.

I hope they impeach him for stepping over his boundaries! (As if he hasn't many times over already!!!)

[T-Man007]

Tweet^^ there's a difference in 'mission accomplished' and 'end of war'. When we dropped the bombs in Japan, the mission was accomplished but the war wasn't over. There has to be an actualy declaration or treaty or something signifying the end of the war. In Japan's case, the war continued until the signed the peace treaty. I'm not sure how it's going to work in this issue because technically the war is still going on. IMO the misison accomplished was getting Sadaam out of power, they still haven't stabized the government. But, then again, if we are not at 'war' with Iraq, then who exactly are we at war with? That's something to make you go hmmm. I bet you like that one, huh? But, it's a logical question none the less. We are obviously working with the country we were at war with. Oh, wait, I see now....sneaky sneaky sneaky....Bush declared a 'war' on terror, so as long as there is terror, we are at war. Damn, that is one smart dude. If the declaration of war is against terror, then as long as there is terror, he's in control of the military. LOL You have to admit, that's a clever ass move. I bet someone in his military advisory came up with it, because if that's what he did, that is very clever.

[SpyWizard]

Tweet

But, the UN eventually gave permission because Canada, Austrailia, Japan and others all have troops there. Why would they go if the UN didn't give permission? Well, I know why Austrailia would, because they have our back, but Canada? Why would they go?

the UN... that's the group that was doing the food for weapons thing isn't it??

where do they get their funding from?? oh..

[DJDIGGLER]

Tweet

^^ there's a difference in 'mission accomplished' and 'end of war'. When we dropped the bombs in Japan, the mission was accomplished but the war wasn't over. There has to be an actualy declaration or treaty or something signifying the end of the war. In Japan's case, the war continued until the signed the peace treaty. I'm not sure how it's going to work in this issue because technically the war is still going on. IMO the misison accomplished was getting Sadaam out of power, they still haven't stabized the government. But, then again, if we are not at 'war' with Iraq, then who exactly are we at war with? That's something to make you go hmmm. I bet you like that one, huh? But, it's a logical question none the less. We are obviously working with the country we were at war with. Oh, wait, I see now....sneaky sneaky sneaky....Bush declared a 'war' on terror, so as long as there is terror, we are at war. Damn, that is one smart dude. If the declaration of war is against terror, then as long as there is terror, he's in control of the military. LOL You have to admit, that's a clever ass move. I bet someone in his military advisory came up with it, because if that's what he did, that is very clever.

Wow never thought of it that way with the "war on terror". And I do see what your saying on the end of war thing.

[T-Man007]

Tweet

the UN... that's the group that was doing the food for weapons thing isn't it??

where do they get their funding from?? oh..

UN = United Nations

I don't think they get 'funding' from any one place, it's from everyone that's a part of it.

[T-Man007]

Tweet

Wow never thought of it that way with the "war on terror". And I do see what your saying on the end of war thing.

Yeah, pretty damn sneaky isn't it? See, I can see things from both sides, he's not as dumb as people think. But, and I will be the first Bush supporter to admit this, he is sneaky. The emails, the mail, and other things. He deffinately has a way of working the system.

Now, you will love this, I heard a comedian talking and he said this:

"Bush and Cheney are just like the Dukes of hazard. Just when you think you got them, just when you think there's no way they can get out of this, as soon as you start to think, man, this is really it for them......the General Lee goes flying over a lake.....and those bastards get away again."

I'm paraphrasing but it was funny as hell, even to me.

[pigmeat]

Tweetbring em home i say!

[solidground]

Tweetwhere do they get their funding from?? oh..[/QUOTE]

?? from their individual country's

[SpyWizard]

Tweet

UN = United Nations

I don't think they get 'funding' from any one place, it's from everyone that's a part of it.

I was being sarcastic,

The Bush administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget request contains $1.26 billion to finance the United States’ assessed share of mandatory dues to 47 international organizations, including the UN and its specialized agencies.

https://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=...MPJpF&b=667579

According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, the Department of State and Department of Defense gave the U.N. $3.45 billion in direct contributions to conduct peacekeeping operations between 1996 and 2001.9 This figure is dwarfed by the estimated $24.2 billion in indirect contributions10 made by the U.S. government to help support 33 U.N. peacekeeping operations in 28 countries during that five-year period.