Granting Obama war powers, WTH?

[Robert]

Grant him war powers to do something he couldn't get done before? Anyone smell a rat? Not to mention I don't trust him to have that much power either. Have they lost their freaking minds? He has abused every bit of authority given to him showed disregard of the peoples wishes and been a lousy president, scorned the military and has no experience leading a military involvement. I can understand if congress authorizes a war but not this, not done unilaterally and the justification is Bush did it on 911 so he should do it. Has anyone heard this?

Washington: Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress will face some resistance in a vote to authorise President Barack Obama’s war against Daesh militants despite international outrage over video of militants beheading their captives and burning one alive.

War authorisations are among the most difficult issues confronting members of Congress. Several Democrats will be reluctant to approve new war powers unless there is a clear deadline or some way to pay for the military operation. Some Republicans, strong foes of the president, will object to giving Obama the authority.

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/usa/lawmakers-expect-resistance-to-granting-obama-war-powers-1.1452527

Obama is poised in coming days to ask Congress for new authority to use US military force against Daesh, the White House said on Thursday. But the top House Republican warned it won’t be easy to pass the measure. Speaker John Boehner, (Ohio representative), said it will be up to the president to rally support from lawmakers and the public.

[Oss]

better question would be why Congress has not issued declaration of war as
it is set forth in our Constitution

Obama, like it or not, is the commander in chief of the armed forces and can either make us proud or screw it up, or both

Nowhere does it state the entity Congress declares War upon must be a defined country, it could for instance be barbary pirates, ISIS, you name it

[shortleg]

   Don,t know about power, what he needs is some GUTS!
I don,t thnk any in that area is worth one of our people.
  But when is the world going to stand up?
           shortleg

[DIGGER]

   Don,t know about power, what he needs is some GUTS!
I don,t thnk any in that area is worth one of our people.
  But when is the world going to stand up?
           shortleg

I agree.....and if he does send troops anywhere DON'T TIE THEIR HANDS.....let'em fight and get it over with!!!

[dreamaker]

better question would be why Congress has not issued declaration of war as
it is set forth in our Constitution

Obama, like it or not, is the commander in chief of the armed forces and can either make us proud or screw it up, or both

Nowhere does it state the entity Congress declares War upon must be a defined country, it could for instance be barbary pirates, ISIS, you name it

I am a bit rusty on gov., but isn't that the point of the three branches of gov., Judicial, Congressional and the Executive branches. So they don't blow up the world. Check and cross check.  If I recall correctly Roosevelt had to get approval from congress before declaring war.

[Moonshot_1]

Congress does in fact have the Constitutional authority to Declare War.

And yes, the Constitution does not specify that it be limited to only defined countries.

However, if Congress would declare War on the likes of Isis, then the Executive Branch would be the branch to prosecute that war.

The problem with this scenario is that Isis resides in many defined countries that we are NOT at war with until we cross their borders to attack Isis and their resources.

If we go into Syria (or name your appropriate Country here) to combat Isis with US troops, going into Syria would be an act of war against Syria.

At the end of the day we would only serve to give the countries in the region the reason to support Isis and other terrorist groups against our "invading" forces.

On another note, actually declaring war would only hold us to the "rules of war" not Isis.

So I'm not for "going to war" against the likes of Isis.

I am simply in favor of their total annihilation. No rules. No diplomacy. No mercy. No prisoners.

Work with our allies in the region. Work on ways to pit Isis against other Muslim organizations and foster armed clashes between them. Rush to support local opposition to Isis.

Find them Kill them Find them Kill them Find them Kill them.

[dreamaker]

Congress does in fact have the Constitutional authority to Declare War.

And yes, the Constitution does not specify that it be limited to only defined countries.

However, if Congress would declare War on the likes of Isis, then the Executive Branch would be the branch to prosecute that war.

The problem with this scenario is that Isis resides in many defined countries that we are NOT at war with until we cross their borders to attack Isis and their resources.

If we go into Syria (or name your appropriate Country here) to combat Isis with US troops, going into Syria would be an act of war against Syria.

At the end of the day we would only serve to give the countries in the region the reason to support Isis and other terrorist groups against our "invading" forces.

On another note, actually declaring war would only hold us to the "rules of war" not Isis.

So I'm not for "going to war" against the likes of Isis.

I am simply in favor of their total annihilation. No rules. No diplomacy. No mercy. No prisoners.

Work with our allies in the region. Work on ways to pit Isis against other Muslim organizations and foster armed clashes between them. Rush to support local opposition to Isis.

Find them Kill them Find them Kill them Find them Kill them.

Good info.!! I have a question that seems a bit dumb, but why would we be going to war, why should be in a war. Shouldn't we be clean up our own backyard before we try and cleanup someone else's.  Or am I missing the point, Didn't I just hear on TV we are 18 Trillion dollars in the hole.

[Moonshot_1]

The point is to kill them by the bunches over there. Not wait till they get a bunch of'em over here.

[HayHauler]

Congress does in fact have the Constitutional authority to Declare War.

And yes, the Constitution does not specify that it be limited to only defined countries.

However, if Congress would declare War on the likes of Isis, then the Executive Branch would be the branch to prosecute that war.

The problem with this scenario is that Isis resides in many defined countries that we are NOT at war with until we cross their borders to attack Isis and their resources.

If we go into Syria (or name your appropriate Country here) to combat Isis with US troops, going into Syria would be an act of war against Syria.

At the end of the day we would only serve to give the countries in the region the reason to support Isis and other terrorist groups against our "invading" forces.

On another note, actually declaring war would only hold us to the "rules of war" not Isis.

So I'm not for "going to war" against the likes of Isis.

I am simply in favor of their total annihilation. No rules. No diplomacy. No mercy. No prisoners.

Work with our allies in the region. Work on ways to pit Isis against other Muslim organizations and foster armed clashes between them. Rush to support local opposition to Isis.

Find them Kill them Find them Kill them Find them Kill them.

Good info.!! I have a question that seems a bit dumb, but why would we be going to war, why should be in a war. Shouldn't we be clean up our own backyard before we try and cleanup someone else's.  Or am I missing the point, Didn't I just hear on TV we are 18 Trillion dollars in the hole.

I agree.  BUT, don't let the media into the war zone!  PERIOD.  It's a war, not a popularity contest.  This has been the sole problem with all of the "desert" conflicts in the past 10 years.

Strictly my own opinion.
Get in, Kill those that deserve killin', get out.  
P.S.  DO NOT help them rebuild.

Hay  
Jimmyt

[Bonzo]

Congress does in fact have the Constitutional authority to Declare War.

And yes, the Constitution does not specify that it be limited to only defined countries.

However, if Congress would declare War on the likes of Isis, then the Executive Branch would be the branch to prosecute that war.

The problem with this scenario is that Isis resides in many defined countries that we are NOT at war with until we cross their borders to attack Isis and their resources.

If we go into Syria (or name your appropriate Country here) to combat Isis with US troops, going into Syria would be an act of war against Syria.

At the end of the day we would only serve to give the countries in the region the reason to support Isis and other terrorist groups against our "invading" forces.

On another note, actually declaring war would only hold us to the "rules of war" not Isis.

So I'm not for "going to war" against the likes of Isis.

I am simply in favor of their total annihilation. No rules. No diplomacy. No mercy. No prisoners.

Work with our allies in the region. Work on ways to pit Isis against other Muslim organizations and foster armed clashes between them. Rush to support local opposition to Isis.

Find them Kill them Find them Kill them Find them Kill them.

No Politics, However I agree with all you have said 100%.  Well stated.

[BF]

  Don,t know about power, what he needs is some GUTS!
I don,t thnk any in that area is worth one of our people.
  But when is the world going to stand up?
           shortleg

Seriously?    You expect the limp wristed community organizer mooslum president to grow a set?

You mean the guy that just went to the prayer breakfast and equated Christianity to isis and just insulted every Christian in this country?  That guy?  (But, but, but....Christians have done bad stuff too.   )

You mean the guy that has as his chief White House advisor Valerie Jarrett that was born in Iran, speaks Farsi and still has deep ties to Iran?  That guy?

They guy that went out of his way to declare that the United States of America IS NOT a Christian nation and immediately went on a world apology tour after being elected?  That guy?

The guy that can't bring himself to say the words islamic terrorism?  That guy?

They guy that has his lackeys go around the country and the globe declaring that "climate change" is the biggest threat to the world in our time?  That guy?  

Obama suddenly having guts is about as likely as his wife suddenly deciding that she's never gonna take another vacation.  

[RP#62]

Good Lord, don't give him war powers.  He'll invade Arizona.

-RP

[dreamaker]

Check out the last part of this video with Bill. I don't know if there is an issue with the volume on the video. See if you have the problem, any way I thought it was interesting what he had to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5INFAuM1xI

[Jess from VA]

He's already been making a war of subversion on the US for some time. 

[art]

Call ISIS by its real name DAESH . They don't like that name it's an insult. Isis is not a state

[BF]

Call ISIS by its real name DAESH . They don't like that name it's an insult. Isis is not a state

What does that mean or stand for?

[Chrisj CMA]

January 21 2017 when Obama has to leave the Whitehouse, on that very long awaited day will be the .............


END OF AN ERROR

if WE DONT IMPEACH HIM FIRST and hopefully send him to prison for 20 or 80 years

[Mobile Mayor]

I think we all know that the big O is a player and bullshit artist who grew up in an alternative and delusional world.   We should not, however, place all of the blame for what has happened to our country at his feet.  The entire cabal that enabled his rise to power as a tool of their ambitions must face accountability.  There really is a wish to enslave the world, held by numerous wealthy powers. (I will not exercise my opinions now.)  When economies can be destroyed by investor(s) who manipulate a nations financial standing in order to demonstrate their power, i.e. Soros and Greece,  the freedom of mankind is at ristk.

[Windrider]

Congress does in fact have the Constitutional authority to Declare War.

And yes, the Constitution does not specify that it be limited to only defined countries.

However, if Congress would declare War on the likes of Isis, then the Executive Branch would be the branch to prosecute that war.

The problem with this scenario is that Isis resides in many defined countries that we are NOT at war with until we cross their borders to attack Isis and their resources.

If we go into Syria (or name your appropriate Country here) to combat Isis with US troops, going into Syria would be an act of war against Syria.

At the end of the day we would only serve to give the countries in the region the reason to support Isis and other terrorist groups against our "invading" forces.

On another note, actually declaring war would only hold us to the "rules of war" not Isis.

So I'm not for "going to war" against the likes of Isis.

I am simply in favor of their total annihilation. No rules. No diplomacy. No mercy. No prisoners.

Work with our allies in the region. Work on ways to pit Isis against other Muslim organizations and foster armed clashes between them. Rush to support local opposition to Isis.

Find them Kill them Find them Kill them Find them Kill them.

Thanks for the excellent post!  Well stated as are several others in this thread as well.

There are many challenges resulting from what is basically a band of barbaric thugs becoming powerful enough to wage war.  The comments relating to national sovereignty issues are important.  If the US wants to go after Isis in a defined country we can ask permission or they may request our help.  If war or war-like actions are required we should take them.  If policing type actions will suffice, take them.  Whatever it takes Isis needs to destroyed.  Isis has done such a good job of alienating most everyone that, if I'm correct, Obama has something like 60 nations helping in some way.  More will surely follow.  I also like the comment about getting other muslims to fight Isis.  It is beginning in ernest now check Jordan's recent actions.

During the cold war years we could deal with the Russians because they were in pursuit of irrational goals by rational means.  Isis is more difficult because they are in pursuit of irrational goals by irrational means.