Rawn Pawl is not a libertarian. He is a fascist vanguard.

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
I think I get it now. Abandon is trolling us. The guy he supports illegally went to war against Libya, yet calls the guy who wants out of all countries because of blowback, a fascist.

Yep, real funny stuff. You fooled me. Well played!
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
I think I get it now. Abandon is trolling us. The guy he supports illegally went to war against Libya, yet calls the guy who wants out of all countries because of blowback, a fascist.

Yep, real funny stuff. You fooled me. Well played!
Illegally went to war with Libya?

What war? We are bound by treaty to assist our allies in NATO

And I guess you forgot that Libya has been deemed a state sponsor of terror since Moaturd decided to kill almost 200 american men women and children over Scotland
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Illegally went to war with Libya?

What war? We are bound by treaty to assist our allies in NATO

And I guess you forgot that Libya has been deemed a state sponsor of terror since Moaturd decided to kill almost 200 american men women and children over Scotland
You can't bomb a country without congressional approval. Did you not get to that chapter in your high school Civics yet?
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Guess you missed the part of Civics where we are constitutionally bound to treaties

NATO is one of those
Treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. Otherwise it would be very easy to make the equivalent of a new amendment without actually making one. That's the whole reason the president has to be a born, not naturalized, citizen.

Treaty or not, any declaration of war must have congressional approval.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of
Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land
and Water;
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. Otherwise it would be very easy to make the equivalent of a new amendment without actually making one. That's the whole reason the president has to be a born, not naturalized, citizen.

Treaty or not, any declaration of war must have congressional approval.
What War??
By your triple standards
Reagan should of been impeached for bombing Libya in the 80s
 

echelon1k1

New Member
Illegally went to war with Libya?

What war? We are bound by treaty to assist our allies in NATO

And I guess you forgot that Libya has been deemed a state sponsor of terror since Moaturd decided to kill almost 200 american men women and children over Scotland
Not exactly the UN not NATO calls the shots... But again they pick and choose which resolutions to enforce

The Australian April 16, 2011 Mr Cameron, Mr Sarkozy and Mr Obama write: "It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal . . . Britain, France and the US will not rest until the UN Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people choose their own future."
Just because its a covert/proxy war doesn't make it any less of a war just means you don't get to watch it on CNN...
 
Top