Quoted from rpforpres

BuckStrider I saw that video of Biden earlier on the news Im sure that came up in their talks lol.  

Quoted from Libertarian4life

George Bush mad up better concrete evidence than Obama.

It's just all wagging the dog.

Quoted from CICERO

A soldier's oath to defend the Constitution means the ability to file grievance
with the officers that were politically appointed by the person or party that is most
likely subverting the Constitution?

Quoted from CICERO

The president doesn't nominate Generals and Admirals appointments? Hmmmm.. Funny?

Quoted from Box A Rox

Again, I stand by my post.
The president doesn't "APPOINT", as you posted.
The president does "NOMINATE" as part of the process.
The two words are not interchangeable.


appoint:  
to name or assign to a position, an office, or the like; designate

nominate
to propose as a candidate, esp for an elective office

Quoted from CICERO

Without the President's nomination, there is no appointment.  The president nominates HIS people.  How can you be commander in chief and not have control over what officers you have?  The president also can relieve officers of their duty.

You can stand by your statement all you want, but the fact remains, officers looking to advance their career need the President's nomination.  So back to my original statement, a soldier filing grievance with an officer about the legality or constitutionality of military action, is filing with an officer either nominated by the President or will need the President's nomination to advance his career.  Either way, you are filing grievance with the same people whose conduct you are questioning.

Quoted from Box A Rox

It's the closest thing to "I WAS WRONG" that Cicero has ever posted!  

Quoted Text

Caveman Credibility and its Costs
By davidswanson - Posted on 02 September 2013

Sending a bunch of $3 million missiles into Syria to blow stuff up will kill a great many men, women, and children directly.  It will also kill a great many people indirectly, as violence escalates in response -- an established pattern recognized even by the war-promoting Washington Post.

Refugees are fleeing Syria in greater numbers as a result of the U.S. government's threat to send in missiles.  The refugees have all sorts of opinions of their government, but by many accounts they overwhelmingly oppose foreign missile strikes -- a position on which they agree with a large majority in the United States.

Not only is President Obama's proposal guaranteed to make things worse, but it risks making things dramatically worse, with threats of retaliation now coming from Syria, Iran, and Russia.  The U.S. media is already describing the proposed missile strikes as "retaliatory," even though the United States hasn't been attacked. Imagine what the pressure will be in Washington to actually retaliate if violence leads, as it so often does, to more violence.  Imagine the enthusiasm for a broader war, in Washington and Jerusalem, if Iran retaliates.  Risking a major war, no matter how slim you think the chance is, ought to be done only for some incredibly important reason.

The White House doesn't have one.  President Obama's draft resolution for Congress reads, in part:

"Whereas, the objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction;

"Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process;"

In other words, the missiles have nothing to do with ending the war.  The war will only end through peace negotiations.  All parties should "urgently" and "constructively" pursue that process.  And yet, here come the missiles!

http://warisacrime.org/content/caveman-credibility-and-its-costs

Quoted from bumblethru

she really nails it here................