Author Topic: What made me angry today... (Read 1923 times)

Toad · « **Reply #60 on:** May 22, 2003, 07:28:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What does this have to do with choosing a president?

The EC is used for nothing else.

Provides a system for President akin to the way we're all represented in Congress. It's pretty consistent, I think, throughout the Republic.

Of the three branches, the Legislative and Executive are both representative using different but similar systems. In fact, the Senate method and House method are sort of combined to create the Executive method.

Only the Judicial is not directly "representative" but BOTH the Legislative and Executive are necessary to create the Judicial.

I'm just in awe of this system. Sorry, I can't help it. The checks and balances are so kewl.

Toad · « **Reply #61 on:** May 22, 2003, 07:31:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
This spin ain't gonna fly Toad...

Well, go ahead and make the case that Hussein was not in violation of the '01 ceasefire then.

The argument is out there. You just don't agree with it in principle or concept and thus you brand it as a non-starter.

It's there. It's possible a case can be made. That's all I said.

Beyond that, the Congress undeniable gave Bush war powers. As the US is not subservient to the will of the UN, in the end the legality of the Iraq action IS in fact decided by our Congress.

So, the "illegal" charge was, is and remains either pointless or uninformed, your choice.

10Bears · « **Reply #62 on:** May 22, 2003, 08:32:49 PM »

Quote

Well, go ahead and make the case that Hussein was not in violation of the '01 ceasefire then.

Other way around. What was Hussein in violation of?.. WMD?.. not making full accounting of all WMD and delivery systems?.

Well it seems most of the dates and destruction locations are listed in the redacted 14,000 page report the Iraqis gave. The 8,000 pages the government won’t release. Even to the UN!

Quote

Beyond that, the Congress undeniable gave Bush war powers

Copy that!.. Congress gave Bush undeniable war powers to invade Canada!

Quote

As the US is not subservient to the will of the UN, in the end the legality of the Iraq action IS in fact decided by our Congress.

Yes and no Toad.. Yes Congress can cut off funding .. heck they can cut everything.. and no.. the whole thing with Iraq was a UN deal.... the first Gulf war.. this.. But this time the US stepped outta bounds.. We committed “Aggressive War”.. We got some co-conspirators Briton.. Spain.. 47 countries in all.. That just leaves 139 countries against.

I don’t know if you’ve seen these articles.. they’re from about a week or so ago.

Quote

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of
Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at
home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

[/i]

Ha-Ha-ha-ah-ha.. wouldn’t ya know it they took down the link already.. I got the rest of the article here if you hadn’t read it.

Quote

In explaining the gap between the prewar and postwar claims on Iraq's WMD, Dr Rice said the US was now seeing the programs in a different light. "The fact is that we are beginning to see a kind of pattern on how Iraq may have hidden its weapons of mass destruction from the outside world for all of
these years," she said this week.

According to Dr Rice, the weapons programs are "in bits and pieces" rather than assembled weapons. "You may find assembly lines, you may find pieces hidden here and there," she said. Ingredients or precursors, many non-lethal
by themselves, could be embedded in dual-use facilities

[/i]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/30/1051381997497.html

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** May 22, 2003, 08:43:42 PM »

America's Right to Fight Iraq

Quote

...The war ended not with a peace treaty but with a ceasefire. UN Resolution 686, passed on March 5 1991, demanded full compliance with all relevant resolutions as a condition of commencing the ceasefire. Iraq accepted this and there followed UN Resolution 687, passed on April 3 1991, that set out the full ceasefire terms and obligations to which Iraq had to adhere. This included a demand that Iraq unconditionally accept the destruction and elimi-nation of all of its WMD, and that it unconditionally undertake not to use, develop or acquire any items relevant to WMD.

Crucially, Resolution 687 was passed under UN "Chapter 7" authority dealing with threats to the peace. It does not in any way terminate the authorisation to use force in the earlier Resolution 678. That has to be seen as intentional.

...As recently as November 1998, the Security Council - in Resolution 1205 - ruled that Iraq was in "flagrant violation" of ceasefire Resolution 687. It continues to be. Iraq has behaved in a way that undermines the ceasefire terms and therefore the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678 can be revived....

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Quote

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

Like I said, the argument is definitely there and a case could be made. It'd take better legal minds than you and I to decide it, IMO.

Lastly, what part of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8,

Quote

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

and the bi-partisan vote giving Bush war powers still isn't clear?

Yeager · « **Reply #64 on:** May 22, 2003, 09:21:14 PM »

Nice work toad. Its a damned dirty thankless little job, but someone has to do it.

10Bears · « **Reply #65 on:** May 22, 2003, 09:42:36 PM »

Quote

Iraq is in breach of many of these terms and its continued possession of elements of WMD constitutes a particularly offensive breach that must be seen as a threat to international peace and security.

Continued possession of elements of WMD?... Naw.. I can’t sell that. How can you prove a negative? You can’t. That’s why in a court of Law it’s always up to the accuser to bear the burden of proof.

Looks like now Scott Ritter and the weapons inspectors back in the 90’s were right. Most of the stuff was destroyed soon after gulf1 and the last suspected locations were hit during Desert Fox back in 1998.

and the bi-partisan vote giving Bush war powers still isn't clear?

I read what Congress gave him soon after 911. I was appalled. Even demos I like like John Kerry.. and the evil one.. that Hittelary. even she voted for it... No.. I’m not happy w/ the demos in Congress right now at all.. Tom Dash-hole.. boy... what a limp wrist.. We need somebody with fire in the belly.. a James Carville type, or even the Big Dawg himself

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** May 22, 2003, 10:40:32 PM »

#1. Haven't they found two of the mobil bioweapons labs that match the description Powell gave at the SC? Either one of those is technically a violation.

Further, it's only been a month.

Of course, it depends a lot on your definition of "is", right?

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
I read what Congress gave him soon after 911. I was appalled.

The Congressional vote giving Bush war powers against Iraq was October 2002.

Soon after 9/11? It was 13 months.

Sandman · « **Reply #67 on:** May 22, 2003, 11:15:03 PM »

I think it's high time the Congress went back and re-evaluated the 1950 war powers act.

Toad · « **Reply #68 on:** May 23, 2003, 09:41:10 AM »

Basic problem is that Congress no longer has the brass to execute their Constitutional obligations with respect to warmaking.

I doubt that will change.

Sandman · « **Reply #69 on:** May 23, 2003, 12:17:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Basic problem is that Congress no longer has the brass to execute their Constitutional obligations with respect to warmaking.

I doubt that will change.

I do not doubt that you are correct.

Yeager · « **Reply #70 on:** May 23, 2003, 12:24:53 PM »

Having congress consume precious time to debate whether to declare war in the age of instant information is perhaps a hindrance to the security of the nation. Especially in this era of radical religious WMD threats.

Giving the President the power to make war was the appropriate measure to take.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #71 on:** May 23, 2003, 12:52:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
Continued possession of elements of WMD?... Naw.. I can’t sell that. How can you prove a negative? You can’t. That’s why in a court of Law it’s always up to the accuser to bear the burden of proof.

Never been audited by the IRS huh?

Auditor: "Show me that this deduction was not in violation."

Taxpayer: "uh yes sir, if you'll look at this column, you can see that..."

Folks do this everyday.

Sandman · « **Reply #72 on:** May 23, 2003, 12:59:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager

Giving the President the power to make war was the appropriate measure to take.

I disagree.

Toad · « **Reply #73 on:** May 23, 2003, 01:15:07 PM »

Congress had plenty of time to debate it and act though Yeager. In fact, I think the case could be made that Iraqi compliance might have been had without invasion.

Consider that while the UN SC machinations were going on, if Congress had gone ahead and actually declared war on Iraq (not just given him "war powers"), giving Bush the green light to engage Iraq when Bush felt that SC efforts had come to an impasse, then a very different atmosphere would have prevailed in the SC and in Baghdad.

Might have been able to get something done without invasion.

Might.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #74 on:** May 23, 2003, 05:55:23 PM »

i totaly agree. for what its worth.