|
Sinergy -> RE: Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide (7/20/2007 1:05:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
The solution is simple for all the bleeding heart liberals who believe it's RIGHT for the USA to use military force for humanitarian purposes.
As a tree-hugging, owl saving, granola eating, rainforest protecting, trail building, science funding, (BWL) bleeding heart liberal, I take offense to this.
Congress has allowed the military, in the past, to be sent on peacekeeping missions at the behest of the Commander In Chief. This has not been solely at liberal vs. conservative thing. While you are correct in your statement that the Constitution would need to be amended to allow it, my knowledge of the practice and interpretation of Constitutional law is relatively meager. Accordingly, I do not know whether there was a challenge to it's constitutionality for the US to be involved in UN peacekeeping.
To suggest that bleeding heart liberals have much, if anything to do the nonsense in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply idiotic. They (BHL) would never have voted for the AUMF if they had not been lied to by the Simian in chief. As I pointed out in a previous post, I have been in opposition of almost every war the United States has ever been involved in. The possible exception to this is World War 2, although I tend to be from the school of historians who think World War 1 and World War 2 were the same war with an intermission to rearm. Well, that and the addition of a few new participants.
I have also posted repeatedly that we have plenty of humanitarian things which need doing in this country, like rebuilding New Orleans, regaining our scientific supremacy, supplying our people with clean food and water, ending our dependance on fossil fuels, supplying our people with jobs, health care, etc.
The last thing Bleeding Heart Liberals want to do is promote the interests of the Corporatocracy.
Sinergy
|
|
|
|
