I don't see where I was wrong on that 'argument'. As you pointed out, it's very easy to look up although what became clear when doing that is that the answer is not very clear or black-and-white at all, and US Presidents have a habit of ignoring rules. It's also painfully obvious that you can attack and destroy a country without the formality of bothering to declare war on it. Besides, that would look silly and cowardly when it's a military giant attacking an essentially defenceless country. Much easier just to pretend it's about 'liberating and helping' its people.FlashDangerpants wrote:I stepped into that little flame war because I am heedless of Danger! I was really just pointing out that you have your style and it probably can take people by surprise. And that the truth of the matter at hand seemed to be about half way between the pair of you. I'm fairly certain you've called me PC and neoliberal and stuff, but I'm not going to put up a big fight for accusations which are largely true. Although you did accidentally call me an American once, which hurt me very deeply in the buttvegetariantaxidermy wrote: Not liking what someone says or how they say it doesn't alter the accuracy of what they say. I've never claimed to be an expert on American constitutional law and Presidential powers, but I still manage to be more accurate than that know-all. I don't recall ever interacting with you, and I certainly don't recall you ever disproving my accuracy on anything.
Btw, I would never call anyone PC and 'neoliberal'. Neither of those is liberal, but they are still polar opposites.