So they let the President do whatever the hell he wants REGARDLESS of the law? Um, hello... there's his "Defense" against bombing Iraq before the war. Fuck.
Tired...
So they let the President do whatever the hell he wants REGARDLESS of the law? Um, hello... there's his "Defense" against bombing Iraq before the war. Fuck.
Tired...
The question on the table then is... should one person have that authority?
Yeah, and it's been that way for a very long time. All of the notable wars and "police actions" are started by our Commander-In-Chief... Even if Congress disagrees with action against other evil countries, they can be easily shamed into it by "pubilc" opinion polls about fighting enemies.... (think John Kerry voting for war before voting against it)
A resounding FUCK NO!Originally Posted by Gold9472
Tired...
In my opinion, no one man/woman should have that authority. This is a "Democracy" supposedly... everything should be decided "Democratically".
Yes, I know it's a "Republic/Fascist" state...
Tired...
I think in regards to the military, there is a "Chain Of Command". I think it belongs there. It serves a purpose. You are given an order, and you follow it. No "Democracy".
However, in "Civilian Life", Democracy is everything. In this country anyway... at least it used to be.
I think the President's title of "Commander In Chief" should be taken away, and that MAYBE he be consulted about military action. If he thinks it's a good idea, then the people should vote on it.
I dunno... it's a complicated topic.
I think the big problem is Congress as a whole are too chicken to go against the grain. The goal of most politicians (Senators, Representatives) is to stay in office as long as possible. Be lifetime politicians. Therefore, whatever choice is popular, or thought so, that's the choice that will be made, regardless of Democrat or Republican (both the same essentially).....
Tired...
Yep... it's always about the next election...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote