Nobody can tell me...

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
By international acclaim, and by evidence of Kurdish and Iranian dead, WMD’s did exist in Iraq, the only question is whether they had been destroyed by the time the spring 2003 invasion happened.  UNSC Resolution 687 required the destruction of WMD’s “under international supervision”.  Iraq did not follow 687.

They obviosly did. The US would not allow that to be recognised.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by diezalot
#1 WHO declared a WAR? Not Congress!! And they are the only ones with the power to do so. Our Country is not at War with the Nation of Iraq, at least not legally at War. We are involved in a Military Action but not a War. This makes a huge difference in many ways, and to declare War on Terrorism? C'mon gimme a break here!!! Of course there's a war on terrorism!!!

[/b]

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

END

#3 IMHO Saddam was,and still is,someone who needed to be removed from power, eliminated, disposed of, or whatever term you would like to use but the entire International Community should have helped and we should stop all foreign aid and trade immediately with those who did not.

The entire international community refused to help. Except the allies of cource. So if he needed to be removed from power, and congress authorised the president to do it..why are you here, now whining?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
Anyone else notice the 9/11 qualifiers?

Stop trying to understand law you clown.

[Hortlund]

The problem with idiots like you trying to score points using a legal document is that they tend to focus on some part of some paragraph, and ignore completely other parts of some paragraph.


Did you for example notice this part

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons

Of cource you didnt. Or maybe you just choose to ignore it in your attempt to score some non-existent point.

I dont know how many times Ive tried to explain stuff like this to losers like you on message boards like this. And frankly Im getting pretty tired of it.

You dont know what you are talking about. Realize this fact and move on.

Experience tells me however, that soon you will be focusing on some other sentence in the document, or someone else will show up with some clever interpretation of some miniscule part of the document.

[lada]

Originally posted by NUKE
Toad I see where you are coming from, but what was the alternative?

I mostly was aiming my post at anti-American people with blinders on.

But there are not anti-americans here. There are a lot of people with diferent rational opinions. Some of them whitch doesnt agree with your are so called anti-americans....

keep blurring....

[Hortlund]

No, what Im saying is that congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq.

You are trying to find some qualifiers that infringes on that right, trying to interpret it to mean something more/less/whatever.

This is quite normal when a layman is trying to read a legal document, I cant tell you how many times guys like you show up at court thinking they are Perry Mason or whatever...but it doesnt make it any less annoying.

[SirLoin]

you guys are great..lol

[lada]

Originally posted by Sandman
Here's the biggest reason Iraq was a mistake.



He's still out there... planning the next wave...

actualy Bush said that Iraq is dangerous to freedom world with his WMD... he never ever spoke about Osama.

Osama were reason to invade Afghanistan.

Man i guess that reason to invade Syria could be fact, that US ambasador were not allowed to entry public toilets

[lada]

anyway i did read nice question last week.


When amrican's smart  bombs hit mostly military targets, what needs to be rebuilded for 90 bil.  ?

It must be kinda SMART bomb



Its nice to see that nobody care for 10.000 death civilians whitch didnt invite US to their country......and instead of normal people you pitty  horde of lala boys, whitch are supposed to kill for money. And in name  
of  " freedom is right given to all humans by God"

[Hortlund]

See I knew this would happen. Someone (in this case the norwegian freak) thinks he understands how the law works, and he starts to pull some retarded Perry Mason routine.

[lada]

Originally posted by Pongo
And people have been lieing to start premptive wars since the the pyramids were made as well.

No WMD
No ties to terror.
Mean while we announce success in the war on terror..but oops. that intel came from the same lick spittle ananlyst that provided the WMD intel.

oops.

actualy .. whole contemporary administration appear to be one big oooops

[CyranoAH]

Approaching critical mass... hold on tight

[Hortlund]

Why dont you look for the "real congressional document that authorized the war on Iraq" GS.

Kinda like OJ looking for the real killers...

[DoctorYO]

Iraq was gambit;  a gambit on the Arab World.  While its potential for redefining the Middle East for the better is a great prospect, our leadship dropped the ball on several occasions..  (im not a big fan of gambits unless pressured..  Mystery WMD is not pressure, not when you have real WMD in DPRK...)


First:
Money...
Give me 200 billion and watch how quickly  I would capture and put Osamas head on the top of the capitol as a war trophy.. (the expenditure in Iraq for the results we got is a travesty)


Second:
Logistics..  Do your history on the region from when the Mongols sacked Bagdad and Alexanders defeat of Darius and his later death in Bagdad.   Then the English (1917), Ottomans, and now present day Iraq..  Its a region known for its strife and unrest of its people to foriegn parties..  Why we choose to redefine our military to shock and awe and light forces is like General Zinni said "they are all screwed up". (I would have thrown the whole farm into the conflict to expedite progress and stability of the region..Not to mention having excessive manpower to rebuild the country... not half arse it the way Rumsfield did for political reasons. btw standard military doctrine "the stuff thats been working for years" concludes more troops when in a urban enviroment, not less)  Then again Rummy was a squid what does he know about ground warfare when confined to a ship.. go figure..  (Kind of like airforce telling airdefense how to operate..)

On top of that by expediting the situation in Iraq you would free up troops to hunt for the real face of terror Osama the Saudi (note the saudi part..  they were playing both sides thats pretty obvious and hence should have been repremanded accordingly..)(IMO we should watch them more closely in the future to determine if this was a fluke attack or a pattern..)

Third:
Torture....
Im not against torture or cohesion vs high value military targets if its going to save lives, But goat farmers, people caught up in family feuds, and petty criminals thats alittle overzealous dont you think..

Getting caught is as bad as the torture itself..  All nations torture in one form or another you would be naive to think otherwise.  Its just they are smart enough not to advertise it..  We in our arrogance did just the opposite, thinking blackmail of the prisoners would be a good thing..(im thinking evidence.) Utter incompetence is what comes to mind in this scenario..  Then the scapgoating of junior NCO's is even more pathetic..  In short order its a cluster ****....


In a nutshell:

1:  High expenditure little to show for it.. except world disenfranchisement.  This includes pilferage and mismanagement of funds..

2.  Pentagon / Rum/Wolfo logistical incompetence. (Troop strength etc..)

3: ******* Torture.. low priority targets  and having the gaul to get caught redhanded at it; then attempting a cover up in the age of communication (internet etc..) with junior enlisted soldiers as the fall guys.. "Be all you can Be"

Got plenty more but those three things are what most I despise with the Iraqi conflict.  

Its not too late we can rise out of this. We just need the current leadership to get smarter or new leadership to get smarter.

its just that simple:  "Get Smarter"




2 cents


DoctorYo

[oboe]

nevermind.   I decided not to get into this one.    Big to Toad though.