It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kucinich Warns Obama on Libya War

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by StarLightStarBright2
 


The Constitution prohibits the President, or Congressional members, from working for 2 branches of Government at the same time. The UN is not part of that nor is it covered by the law you are talking about.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Oh well America sucks these days i couldnt care at all for the place, its why i got out of there.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Alkimyst
 


I'd like to go but I don't have enough money/friends to set up elsewhere, and I don't want an RFID'ed passport either.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by boondock-saint
lookie here O-Bummer,
if ya wanna be head of the UN,
I suggest you give up ur job
at the WH. It is against the
law to hold both positions at once.

Head of the UN? Say what?
On what planet is that the case?

please try to stay up with the current events bro.
It makes threads go a lot smoother




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Kucinich willl always have the Obamacare blunder on his rap sheet, although we all knew Kucinich leaned towards the socialism side but he knew it was a bailout to the insurance company so there's really no excuse, he just caved in by going on air force 1. Okay, old news, new news is Kucinich is hitting them out of the park first by defending Bradley Manning and now going against the Libyan war. I just hope he has some push with his opinions and doesn't just become a lone voice. Why can't America just wake up and pit Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich against each other for the 2012 presidency? It's American, a Republican vs a Democrat, nothing out of the ordinary, it's not like (gasp) a third party is involved.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by StarLightStarBright2
 


The Constitution prohibits the President, or Congressional members, from working for 2 branches of Government at the same time. The UN is not part of that nor is it covered by the law you are talking about.


Oh sh*t it shows you how much i know AND these others that are saying this....I gotta quit believing everything i hear!....Makes sense if the un is not part of the us government.Thanks!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by forklift

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss


Oh HELL no!


The U.S. is NOT governed by the U.N. Period.


Who is it governed by than?


Our own state and federal governments. The U.S. is a sovereign nation.

Sovereignty - The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.


No, I believe the Illuminati run the world, and therefore the U.N. and U.S. etc.
The Illuminati make policy or whatever it is they want to happen in the world, it becomes proposed in the U.N. and voted on by their puppets, then it trickles down the chain of command to large and powerful countries such as the U.S. You think world leaders have any actual say in what goes on in this world or even their own countries? Gimmie a break, it's all an illusion. They just follow orders from higher up.

World domination: It's not that hard to do since they control all these institutions already.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Topato because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
$#@$%@% morons

The lot of these assholes...

Let them figure out their own crap

Janky is Red



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Your exact words were he was "Head of the UN". Chairing a UN council is not "head of the UN", no matter how much you try and hurl insults.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konah
[

Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544).


If he had been granted approval by Congress first or the United States was attacked by Libyans, or given specific statutory authorization, then yes you would be correct.

However, he was not. Which means the initial attack was un-constitutional and that your argument is void.



the section you quoted doesn't say that - if it is somewhere else in the law by all means point it out tho.



Edit for Clarity: What you highlighted is in regards to the pulling out of military forces stationed in a hostile environment, not entering combat. Did you notice this?
edit on 3/20/2011 by Konah because: (no reason given)


I don't see that - it specifically mentions "engaged in hostilities" - to me that is combat, not merely being stationed somewhere regardless of the nature of location.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bonified Ween


If that is not an act of war, then what is? Your going to tell me bombarding a country with 120+ tomahawk's isn't declaring war? In your head it might be "clearing a path". But to the many - that is an act of war. Bombing another state in any form of perception / aggressive or defensive is war...plain and #in simple.


My statement was that this was a clearly-outlined plan and that anyone who thought 'no fly zone' meant the UN would wag it's finger and say "You can't fly" was/is woefully un-informed. The info has been out for nearly three weeks in the regular-ol every day MSM as to the extent of what enforcing a 'no fly zone' would entail. So those who claim to be surprised by the extent of this action were just not paying attention. IF you read the post you
are responding to, I have supplied several quotes and references supporting this.

I truly fail to see how your comment about it being an 'act of war' relates to that simple statement in any way.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Konah
 


The problem with that is you keep saying this is a US military action. It isn't I understand Americans are conditioned to think that the world revolves around them, but the UN is an international body. This action is being carried out by several disparate nations, from the US, to Qatar, and has the support of nations as diametrically opposed to the US as China and Russia. The entire UN council voted on this.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
For those participating, thought you might like to see this. Joe Biden saying without a doubt a President taking the country to war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense, and that he would have moved to impeach if we would have attacked Iran.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by BiGGz
 


I dunno why you even bother voting. All it is is an exercise in futility, just something to keep the public involved and thinking that their vote actually counts. We dont even get a whole day off of work for it. You want to make a change, stop voting, stop playing their game and watch they will still use and abuse us and the rest of the world.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Interesting but what does this mean for whats happening now?
edit on 22-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


opps!...sorry
edit on 22-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


sorry double post
edit on 22-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


opps!...sorry
edit on 22-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)


EDIT: lol you edited your post before I got done posting...But your question was whether we were at war or not because of no troops on the ground.

Well, let's see the US send over 100 Tomahawk missiles into Bejing or Moscow. We'll find out pretty quick whether that means we are at war or not. To me it's really not about the troops on the ground. We just cannot afford to be the world's police anymore. Not in blood or money.
edit on Tue Mar 22nd 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


LOL..Yes i edited it because there seems to be differing opinions as to whether we are at war....I agree tho we CANT afford this at all and it seems it will just drag on and on.....We just lost a airplane,thankfully the guys ejected and are safe....Thanks!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Anyone watch the Daily Show last night? Hilarious and sad... because it's true:

www.thedailyshow.com...

Here's the Colbert Report, also top-notch:

www.colbertnation.com...

If we're all gonna die, may as well laugh while doing it.







 
35
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join