Carl Levin Thinks WW3 is the Only Legitamate Time For Congressional Approval.

Laws can be repealed and or challenged. You know this, right.

If that is true, the Republic is dead. Long live the King!

In truth, the introduction of nuclear missiles spelled the end of American congressional authority over wars.

When the president effectively alone has the unrestrained power and authority to begin a military operation in which more firepower is unleashed in seconds than in all of history and more die in an hour than in all history's wars combined..........then the matter of Congressional approval pretty much has sunk into irrelevance

No one man should ever have that much power, period.

As of 9:15 pm EST, WW3 has begun.

There is no way to avoid it. Not when the Soviet Union could've launched an attack that completely disabled the U.S. (and destroyed half of it) if the president was forced to await some kind of special congressional approval to begin a counter attack.

Even a special standing Congressional Committee would've not been quick enough.

Sure, but what's the alternative? NORAD monitors a launch, we don't have time to pull Congress together for a vote. So what would you recommend?

I don't have answer for that, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. One wrong assumption, one wrong guess and we're all dead. This is of course an extreme scenerio. What I'm talking about is everything else but a direct nuclear strike. If the President wants to take unilateral action towards an enemy that involves air strikes or boots on the ground, Congress should be involved. I don't understand why having a public discussion and having Congress deliberate over the rescission and decision is a bad thing? ISIS isn't going anywhere and waiting a few weeks to talk it out isn't going to change much. Despite what the President said tonight, this engagement will be long and will eventually lead to boots on the ground. In fact there are already boots on the ground. If you don't agree with me, go back and read up on the Vietnam war. It too started with advisors.

The problem is that is completely ass backwards and I figure you would get the same reaction from the Supreme Court.

"When thousands of lives are involved, Congress should deliberate and have input"

"But when a billion lives are at risk, we're okay with a one man decision."

Not everything is the next Vietnam, just because it's fashionable to make that claim. We'll see on this, but the differences seem significant:

• ISIS, unlike the VC, is a small force without a natural base of support.
• ISIS, unlike the VC, lacks a powerful external patron.
• Iraq, unlike Vietnam, has several sympathetic militias that can ally with the United States for this particular engagement.
• Iraq, unlike Vietnam, is surrounded by countries favorable to international action against ISIS.

There are obviously many other differences, but this list is sufficient to illustrate the point.

So, @Federal Farmer, have you decided to rejoin the Union again? It's so hard to keep track.

That may be true, but knowing politicians and politics in this country and observing the past thirteen years, we will get stuck there. Once we go back in ( not that we ever left), there will be people on both sides of the isle demanding we do more. Democrats will say we need to stay to rebuild and help the humanitarian efford, Republicans will say we didn't do enough, we need another surge and the next President (whoever that may be), will follow popular sentiment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the mid-east is a shithole, it will never get better. Those countries need to decide for themselves if they want to join the civilized world or remain at war for another 2,00 years. We cannot do it for them and I'm tired of us baby sitting the region. If we really care about our "national security interests", then we need to get off of the teet of foreign oil and let them duke it out themselves.

Don't get me wrong, ISIS is a threat and killing Americans shouldn't fly, but how long should we continue to fight idealogs who will never agree with our way of life? How many Americans should die before we finally realize the reality that it's a lost cause?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to engage in your straw man antics anymore. Goodbye.

Good. We all sort of knew your "The South Shall Rise Again" song a few weeks back was pretty silly.

You really have no idea where U.S. personnel are involved globally, do you? You just heard the word "advisers" and jumped to a baseless conclusion. I don't recall your making any objections to the other missions. Why this one?

I stand corrected. You are right.

Are there advisors in Iraq, yes or no? Hint, the President has already said there were. Since that is a fact, I doubt they have floaty boots like Spock at the beginning of Star Trek5.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, WW3 has begun.

Just like it did in Syria this time last year. Or more recently in Ukraine. Oh, wait. Or when your boy Bush created a war out of whole cloth in '03. Oh, wait. Or when The Great God Reagan invaded Panama or Grenada, added 50,000 warheads to the existing arsenal, and started off his administration with these loving words: "the day of Armageddon isn't far off. ... Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained down upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean that they'll be destroyed by nuclear weapons."

Oh, wait. We're still here. You even got to be born despite Reagan's desire to immolate the planet.

You lack both proportion and perspective.

Because he's an idiot.

Uh Garamet.

1) Reagan didn't invade Panama.
2) Reagan didn't add 50,000 warheads to the existing U.S. arsenal.
3) Reagan never desired to "immolate the planet". In fact he
A) Actually proposed at a summit meeting ELIMINATING ALL nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Soviet arsenals.
B) Signed the first treaty in world history that actually ELIMINATED a class of nuclear weapons delivery devices (INF Treaty).

Tell me, are the advisors in Iraq wearing floaty boots or are they in hover craft or do they have a magic carpet? How are they staying off the ground?

Now you wouldn't be calling President Obama a liar would you?

Therefore he never started off his administration with that quote. Gotcha.

No, he's calling you an idiot for hyperfocusing on "advisers." Oh, and "boots."

You probably own at least one pair of boots. That doesn't make you an adviser, any more than calling yourself an historian makes you one.

How's your "world war" look this morning?

So you agree, there are boots on the ground in Iraq?

Is it your claim that no one in Iraq wears boots?

Not relevant to your hyperbolic claims.