Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on October 07, 2002, 11:46:33 PM
-
Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?
Excuse me, Mr. President, but no we do not "all agree" on this goal.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.
I'm certainly quivering in my boots just worrying about it.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.
Wasn't this the same people that we promised to help? Remember... Kurds? Let's see... invading Kuwait somehow equates to "dominating the Middle-East?"
As a former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
As would you if another country wiped out 40% of your army and then flew over your air space for eleven years.
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.
That's right and he can't wait to throw them at the U.S. just so we'll turn his pissant country into glass.
Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Careful with the legality Mr. Pres... I'm not so sure our occupation of Iraqi air space is legal either. Best just to skip past the whole legal argument and move on to the part where we get to drop bombs.
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
That's right boys and girls... Hussein has UAV's capable of transatlantic flight. Better start building those shelters. You know... the one's your grandparents used to hide in.
Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.
Isn't Nidal in Iraq but not what one could call a "guest." AFAIK, he's in the desert somewhere. You know... out there with the Kurds.
And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.
Of course they cheered. They don't like us. Remember that part about patrolling their skies for eleven years? As for the second part... right... If we can trace anything to Hussein, he knows his life is forfeit.
As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."
A Republican quoting a democrat is rich. Nevermind the fact that the threat was less than 100 miles away and not on the other side of the gawdamn planet.
The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
But the world has not seen if simply lifting the sanctions might have cleared up this mess.
The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.
Read: We don't need the U.N. We don't need sanction. We don't need consensus. We are now the baddest sob in the valley. Come get some.
Thank you, and good night.
Good riddance. I got out of the military because I disagreed with Desert Storm. Your daddy had a better case than this.
-
sandman , you talk an talk an talk , but you never say anything , just same old liberal trash talk
flower
-
I thought it was an awful speach.
Bush endlessly trying to justify an upcoming attack on Iraq.
-
I think you going to change your story once New York / Chicago gets turned into a lot of glass.
-
Let's see... who's in?
Bahrain... No
Egypt... Wants Israel and Palestine sorted out first.
Iran... No
Israel... Yes, sort of.
Jordan... See Egypt.
Kuwait... Yes
Oman... No
Qatar... No
Saudi Arabia... Yes (with U.N. approval)
Turkey... No.
One, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn...
-
"Good riddance. I got out of the military because I disagreed with Desert Storm."
WOW! Since you obviously support the idea of Iraq invading, conquering and annexing Kuwait, not to mention committing grave massacres and other deliberate war crimes upon her people, why do you now not support America at least invading Iraq and deposing its government? And yes, opposing Desert Storm does mean supporting the Iraqi invasion, or do you think they would have just left Kuwait after a few weeks of UN popsicle whining.... What kind of demented USA hater are you in supportig Iraq's invasion of Kuwait but opposing our possible attack plans to protect innocent people from WMD attack. What on earth is wrong with you Sandman?
-
You're an idiot, Grunherz.
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/iraq.poll/gallup-poll.gif)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Let's see... who's in?
Bahrain... No
Egypt... Wants Israel and Palestine sorted out first.
Iran... No
Israel... Yes, sort of.
Jordan... See Egypt.
Kuwait... Yes
Oman... No
Qatar... No
Saudi Arabia... Yes (with U.N. approval)
Turkey... No.
One, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn...
Is that what your buddies in Iraqi intelligence are telling you Sandman - who for the second time of major world crisis sides with Iraq over the USA...
-
I'm obviously an idiot because only somebody with your superior left wing intellect could seea connection with these nicely drawn circa 2002 pie charts and your bizzare support of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Why are you trying to change the subject sandman?
-
"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant,who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people"
I wonder what O'l George thinks about the British using mustard gas(killing thousands) on Iraqi's to quell an uprising to their puppet regime.(it was one of their "colonies" not too long ago)...Hmm..Better invade England too then.
-
The best was "Saddam and his "nuclear holy warriors". Great band. Caught them live a couple months ago but the show was cut short when the singer vomited on some 13 year old. Place went bananas.
-
lol Nash :D When are they doing a European tour?
Bush's speech was atrocious. Was that supposed to be definitive reasoning backing up any conflict? His arguments are weak and his evidence is flimsy. But somehow, I think there will be a war...
And to compare the Cuban Missile Crisis to this current jumped up payback crap is insane! You're no Kennedy, Mr. President. And I worry about the future with you and your cabal in power.
Here's hoping America has something better on the horizon... I wonder where Bush is going to take you (and very probably, us).
-
I wonder, if Kuwait had no oil fields, would we have spent all the $$(and good men) liberating them?
That being said,unfortunately, people seem to forget what happened 9/11.There is a threat out there, it took down the WTC.
-
I wonder, if Kuwait had no oil fields, would we have spent all the $$(and good men) liberating them?
Perhaps, but not so vigorously...
That being said,unfortunately, people seem to forget what happened 9/11.There is a threat out there, it took down the WTC.
Iraq, and WTC are very different subjects and should be treated so...even if it makes good politics to link them as best as possible.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Egypt... Wants Israel and Palestine sorted out first.
Am I the only one who sees humor in this?
(We're fighting because we have a ton of brand new, expensive, and un-used hardware that we now have an excuse to play with.)
-
Burn Baby Burn!!
-
If, say, US intelligence had proof that Iraq had already developed and possibly tested small nuclear dirty weapons, would it be in the US best interest to share this info with the news media? (inadvertently Saddam himself know what we know)
Does the thought of some sort of suitcase nuclear device detonating in NY or San Fran or somewhere scare the crap outa ya? It does me.
A year and a half ago if someone told you that people would hijack passenger airliners and crash them into the WTC towers collapsing them and killing thousands of US civilians, would it have been far fetched to you?
What's so far fetched about a nuclear device being detonated in manhattan? Our intelligence was not at all aware of the hijackers plans at that time. What makes us think we know the threat Iraq has for the US?
Maybe this Iraq stuff is just politics, but what if it's not? What if there's intelligence telling us that Iraq is close to or possibly already does have a nuclear device? Some of you guys seem really smug and overly confident.
-
you are right...and like the administration has been saying...why look for a smoking gun? once the gun is smoking, it has obviously already been fired.
then it is too late. . . . . .
Let there be WAR!!!!!
Muhahahahahahahaahh !
sorry...im just a bit of a warmonger and patriot this morning. . .
(http://www.ultimateflags.com/usahist/images/donttreadyellow.gif)
-
pay me now or pay me later
I say action not reaction
blow his arse away if/when our inspector gadgets can't inspect
nice poll by the way .. CNN/USA :rolleyes: and it is almost split at that :)
I find the fact the networks didn't even carry the speech treasonous. Guess a war is not as important as another "please end this boring sport" playoff baseball game or the "killer bees" episode of fear factor :rolleyes:
-
Lets assume for a moment that Iraq has a suitcased sized "dirty bomb". Remember, this is not a nuclear device, but a conventional bomb capable of dispersing nuclear material.
Then lets assume that we attack Iraq.
Would this attack reduce the possibility that this dirty bomb would be deployed? Why?
Not sure I agree with sandman regarding the Gulf War, but I am really sick of seeing some people in here call every dissenter to GWB a USA Hater. You few must have a sick and twisted idea of what America is all about.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lets assume for a moment that Iraq has a suitcased sized "dirty bomb". Remember, this is not a nuclear device, but a conventional bomb capable of dispersing nuclear material.
Then lets assume that we attack Iraq.
Would this attack reduce the possibility that this dirty bomb would be deployed? Why?
Not sure I agree with sandman regarding the Gulf War, but I am really sick of seeing some people in here call every dissenter to GWB a USA Hater. You few must have a sick and twisted idea of what America is all about.
Isn't it obvious that if Iraq (Sadaam Husein) has a dirty bomb destined of the USofA and then Iraq is either reformed or terraformed that said threat goes away?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lets assume for a moment that Iraq has a suitcased sized "dirty bomb". Remember, this is not a nuclear device, but a conventional bomb capable of dispersing nuclear material.
Then lets assume that we attack Iraq.
Would this attack reduce the possibility that this dirty bomb would be deployed? Why?
Not sure I agree with sandman regarding the Gulf War, but I am really sick of seeing some people in here call every dissenter to GWB a USA Hater. You few must have a sick and twisted idea of what America is all about.
Well, I for one am sick of watching you poo poo every decision of this current administration in the name of politics without consideration of the American public, that is so "Southern California" of you to be concerned only about you, your politics, and diddly everyone else.
Yes, we know the center of the universe revolves around you Midnight.:rolleyes:
-
lib's make the US soft... :mad:
-
Holy Rip just LOST it!!!
-
Ripsnort, are you calling Dick Armey a southern californian closet communist plant?
-
How many dozen UN resolutions has Saddam Hussein ignored?
If sanctions don't work, and a few more dozen resolutions don't work, unless the UN is going to be a more impotent organization than it is, the military option is all that is left.
Apparently only GWB and the right wing dittoheads that blindly follow him think that this is important. (me too)
I hate to invoke the ghost of Neville Chamberlain, but negotiating without the military recourse is not very effective, and when the negotiations have proven ineffective, then the option should be exercised.
And just an aside, if you believe that renewed weapons inspections limited by Iraq can be effective, I would like to play some three card monty with you.
-
Yikes!
I thought I was asking a legitimate question there Ripsnort. Where the heck did all that venom come from?
-
yeah, I lost it (When you see the F from me, I've lost it...) Apologies, I guess I was reading too much into the question.
Sitting at work with a cold, feeling miserable, and not feeling good about ANY war, no matter how necessary it is...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Is that what your buddies in Iraqi intelligence are telling you Sandman - who for the second time of major world crisis sides with Iraq over the USA...
Think it was Time or CNN...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm obviously an idiot because only somebody with your superior left wing intellect could seea connection with these nicely drawn circa 2002 pie charts and your bizzare support of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Why are you trying to change the subject sandman?
Not changing the subject at all... just not buying into your typical argument.
First... you draw a conclusion and then demand an explanation on why your conclusion is wrong. It's your conclusion. You can sort it out on your own, big boy.
I'm not playing.
-
People seem to forget History.
What comes around , goes around. And many a time U.S will switch sides when it suits them. It happened to the Romans, the Persians, the British, the Russians and it will happen to the U.S.
When U.S become a Super Power, it became a target. When it used nuclear bombs on Japan, it became a Target for Nuclear Warfare.
Iraq will develop nuclear bombs no matter how hard we try to stop it. Prior to 1991 they said it was 8 years into making nuclear weapons, it is 2002 and they are less than 6 months away. During the 10 years, in 1998 Coalition forces bombs the crap out Iraq and weapon inspectors did their job. Iraq should be 4 years away from developing nuclear weapons IF the inspectors did what they said they did.
Now it is obvious that Saddam is getting outside help.
Gentlemen, Saddam is not the worry. He is the puppet for all those US hatres. He is mad enough to use these weapons on US and he is getting backing from other countries. IMHO if we go against the U.N, the U.S will have alot more to worry about than Iraq.
CB
-
I wasn't inspired by his speech. I kept thinking "he looks like a monkey" I be there was a teleprompter tech holding a banana on a stick going...
"keep talking georgie and you can have this nice fat 'nanna, won't that be tastey?"
I think Iraq needs to be dealt with, but not with an all out invasion.
Snipers, lots and lots of snipers.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Let's see... who's in?
Bahrain... No
Egypt... Wants Israel and Palestine sorted out first.
Iran... No
Israel... Yes, sort of.
Jordan... See Egypt.
Kuwait... Yes
Oman... No
Qatar... No
Saudi Arabia... Yes (with U.N. approval)
Turkey... No.
One, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn...
ROFL!! Where are you getting your information?
-
Damn... trying to remember where I got that... Time or CNN...
Possibly BBC...
-
Saddam is going to be taken out from within. The threat of military pressure being currently applied is the right way to go. Just keep tightening the noose. Thats the right way to go.
As for Congressman McDermott and people like sandman, well.....what can you say. Nothing really.
Hope it all works out.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well, I for one am sick of watching you poo poo every decision of this current administration in the name of politics without consideration of the American public, that is so "Southern California" of you to be concerned only about you, your politics, and
Well over 1/3rd of all US Military R&D is done in Southern California, so this Iraq thing has been great for the economy of Los Angeles.
-
Never mind
-Sik
-
As for Congressman McDermott and people like sandman, well.....what can you say. Nothing really. - Yeager
Not true! I can!
Sandman, you're just an evil, rotton, treasonous no-good sumsqueak... and a danger to the security enjoyed by good hearted workin' folk the land over. This aint the 60's, you freak - *watch what you say!*
:p
-
Pie charts and polls, wonder how many were involved and from where?
-
Originally posted by Mr. Blonde
Pie charts and polls, wonder how many were involved and from where?
It's a valid point. Statistics are easily manipulated.
Still... when talking heads say things like, "Half of Americans are willing to go to war in Iraq," I hear the other part... half are not.
Either way, we're talking about millions of people on either side of the argument.
Oh... and Nash. Shut the hell up. :D
-
Fek it, get it over with.
Nuke 'em all.
muahahhahhahhBawAHaaahaa..
..hahahh..
hehhehehehahha..
*hic*
-
"I wonder, if Kuwait had no oil fields, would we have spent all the $$(and good men) liberating them?"
Perhaps, but not so vigorously... "
Perhaps? Fah. Most likely the UN wouldve just sat there and bargained like hell to get the iraqui troops out. Not a single bullet from UN forces wouldve been fired if Kuwait was the leading exporter of watermelons in the region instead of oil. No liberation either..and probably the people of Kuwait wouldve been occupied even now.
As far as the speech goes...
I personally dont give a rat's bellybutton WHY the US goes there and cleans the place out of Hussein and his cronies.
For that matter i wouldnt care if it was the vatican sending their army of molesting priests into Iraq, just as long as the end result is the same.
Hussein has to be removed from power. Preferably killed. Very slowly if possible.
Anyone using chemical weapons on ANYONE is guilty of crimes against humanity and must be eliminated ASAP. Hussein has used them repeatedly against his own people. Eliminate him. By any means neccessary.
But wait... the UN didnt give a rat's bellybutton about that happening did they? No oil there. Hmmm. Filing complaint after complaint is the easiest way out.
The Tao of Diplomacy. Thats what the UN is.
Its sickening.
-
I wonder, if Kuwait had no oil fields, would we have spent all the $$(and good men) liberating them?"
Not an chance on earth...
-
Dear Sandman,
-
How are you going to defend it, funked? Are you in the military? Are you on active service?
Or will you, like most people who point to that poster, be sitting at home on your fat arses, flicking between the 24 hour news stations with a beer in your hand, looking for who has the best action footage?
(That poster still makes me chuckle though :D - the Spitfire Type R from that site is on my desktop:))
-
I fly F-16's for the CIA.
-
Yeah? And I'm Kate Winslet's bikini line waxer. Everyone knows that the CIA only flies F-22s, you fraud!
-
I feel a brain tumor coming on.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Dear Sandman,
Yeah... it's a funny poster. Think I even posted it for Udie to enjoy.
There's just one flaw in it... the part about protecting America. A great number of the populace are unconvinced that Hussein can threaten America.
It's a fine poster to wave around at the timid before we dropped down and smashed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. They had it coming.
I do not trust Dubya's motives WRT Iraq. I am unconvinced of the threat. I am unconvinced that there is a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
-
That's probably just gas.
Originally posted by funkedup
I feel a brain tumor coming on.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I feel a brain tumor coming on.
Could be confused with the bite of a particular species of Arkansas scorpion.
-
I have yet to be convinced that Iraq has done anything that would justify a unilateral attack by the United States with the stated goal of removing their present government. In short, I have seen nothing that would be cause for "just war".
OTOH, I see Iraq as a very "clear and present danger" to the United States population, to use Tom Clancy's description. I see it as a training ground for terrorists (I have yet to see anyone come up with any other explanation for the civilian aircraft mockup at Salman Pak and the testimony of the Iraqi officer in charge of that operation). I see it as a probably supplier of C/B/N weaponry to Islamic terrorists that would (obviously) give more than their right nut to strike a major blow against the US. I think they are sheltering members of the Al-Qaeda organization.
Now, given those two "beliefs" what do I think?
Without specific UN authorization, the US has no business attacking Iraq with the goal of replacing its present government. Sorry, but if we did that without UN sanction, we'd be no different than any other tin-pot dictator taking a place like, say, Kuwait and removing its government.
So, I think we have to wait for a UN consensus to replace Hussein by force.
The ugly side of this is that I think it is inevitable that the US will be struck with a C/B/N weapon of mass destruction by Islamic terrorists. I am also nearly certain that Iraq will be the most likely supplier of such a weapon. But after that attack, it won't matter.
Because I think the American people will finally have had enough and there will be an overwhelming change in our world outlook.
From that Guardian article in the other thread:
But I wonder if the rest of the anti-Yank set have thought it through. When they squeak about America’s warmongering but think the UN’s the perfect vehicle to restrain it, you know they’re just posing, and that, though they may routinely say that ‘Bush frightens me’, they’re not frightened at all. America could project itself anywhere and blow up anything, but it doesn’t. It could tell the UN to go diddly itself, but it’s not that impolite. Imagine any previous power of the last thousand years with America’s unrivalled hegemony and unparalleled military superiority in a unipolar world with nothing to stand in its way but UN resolutions. Pick whoever you like: the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Vikings. That’s really ‘frightening’.
I personally believe that AFTER a C/B/N attack on the US, the American attitude and willingness to engage will be radically altered. Blood will cry out for blood, and not just Saddam's. I think our mindset will be that if we are finally forced to act, we'll act against ALL those we consider threats. We'll settle this once and be done with it. And it'll be done in the fastest most efficient manner, exposing our troops as little as possible. In short, I think we'll reply in kind.
As the writer of the Guardian article said, "That's really 'frightening'.
So would it be best to demonstrate our resolve and perhaps head this scenario off by attacking Iraq?
I just don't know. But I sure as heck don't like either option.
-
Midnight,
Arkansas does have scorpions but they are seldom a threat to anyone...they don't live long enough. The gnats eat 'em.
On the question of "What to do about Saddam?" : I am interested in hearing some of our more liberal cousins' ideas on how to handle that situation. Do they suggest that we follow the path of Chamberlain? Do they seriously deny that the man is a threat? Do they recommend anything other than the imposition of more sanctions? Do they think that we should simply wait until he actually uses one of them against us? He has already used biological weapons against the Kurds, what makes them think he wouldn't use them against us? Should we wait for another 9/11 before taking action against him? For those still critical of our actions during the Gulf War: Was it in our best interests to allow one of our worst enemies to control a major portion of the world's oil supply? Do you seriously believe he would have stopped with Kuwait? What would have been the impact on the U.S. economy if our Middle Eastern oil supplier was a hostile Saddam Hussein? Do we not have an obligation to stop hostile actions against our fellow men, whether they are Kuwaitis or not? Are we not our brothers' keepers?
What purpose is served by sitting on our hands and waiting?
Regards, Shuckins
-
all the euro criticism of US leaders hilarios.. especially coming from a bunch of pot bellied video game freaks (of which i am a card carrying member LOL) that could not even begin to do the job Bush or Rumsfeld do.
gosh...if you guys are so hip on politics and know how to run the world, do us all a favor and use your freedom (at the expense of the US taxpayer BTW) to run for office..
where would all you american hating euros be if the US had not spent billions defending your tulips from the USSR in the cold war. How about spending some of your own money on your OWN DEFENSE...and then maybe you will have military might enough to project YOUR will on the world...until then..
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! :( :( :( :( :(
these armchair politicians are comical....
-
I got no problem with squashing Hussein like the bug he is, just lets be sure this is necessary. (short version of what Toad said above).
OTOH, linking Al Quaida with Saddam seems to me like mixing oil and water. Saddam's version of Islam is completely at odds with Bin Laden's. They should be mortal enemies. Has there been any credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Quaida?
-
Has there been any credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Quaida?
I'll not present these as "irrefutable evidence", rather these are places to begin you own research in order to resolve that question for yourself.
*******
"Palestinian born Director of External Operations for Iraqi Intelligence, the new Ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, traveled to Kandahar, Afghanistan in December, 1998 and met with Osama Bin Laden.
"Terrorist cells belonging to the network organized by Osama bin Laden...are ready go into action in the countries of the Persian Gulf and Europe...The list of targets is ready. It was agreed in Kandahar 21 December by Osama himself and Farouk Hijazi... The new recruits, together with the veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Bosnia, form the secret army that is expected to use its weapons against all those who oppose the rais of Baghdad. In order to make them even more dangerous, traditional training has been supplemented with training in the use of chemical weapons, toxins and viruses." [Corriere della Sera, February 1, 1999 (Italia)]
************
"The Abu Nidal Organization (Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims) split from the PLO in 1974. carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. The leader, Abu Nidal, relocated to Baghdad in late 1998. Iraq had never admitted Abu Nidal was in the country until reports of his death in Baghdad emerged."
*********
"Iraq supports and supplies the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, known to be completely controlled by Iraqi intelligence within Iraq's borders. "
**********
"The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), led by Abu Abbas, is one of three factions of the original PFLP that split up in 1977. They reject the middle east peace process and use terrorism in their quest to establish an independent Palestinian. Following the attack against the Achille Lauro ship in October 1985, Abu Abbas was expelled by the Tunisian authorities and established his headquarters in Baghdad."
*************
"On October 14, 2000, A London-bound Saudi airliner was hijacked. They landed in Baghdad where the passengers were released. Saddam granted the hijackers asylum. The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudi hijackers. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and time on Iraqi television to vent their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme."
*************
Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the WTC bombing in 1993 entered the US on an Iraqi passport, originating his flight from Iraq. His intelligence file in Kuwait was altered by Iraqi officials during the occupation of Kuwait. Abdul Yasin, also involved in the bombing returned to Iraq and is living in Baghdad.
*************
In November 2001, two defectors from the Iraqi intelligence services said that Iraq had used Salman Pak, a camp south of Baghdad, to train Islamist radicals in the techniques of terrorism, including training on a Boeing 707 fuselage in the desert.
Salman Pak: An Iraqi Lt. general and Captain Sabah Khodada defected from Iraq and emigrated to the US in May, 2001. In separate New York Times interviews, they described Salman Pak, a highly secret terrorist training camp south of Baghdad. The trainees were Iraqi, and non-Iraqi Arabs.
*************
Saddam has openly and vigorously supported Palestinian suicide bombers, paying families of suicide bombers $25,000 and building a Baghdad memorial to the first woman suicide bomber.
***************
Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Islamic extremist group, has terrorized the northern Iraq Kurd safe-haven over the past fourteen months. The group has had al-Qaeda associations since 1989. The Iraqi government provided cash and training to Ansar, in a bid to destabilize the safe haven and weaken armed Kurdish opponents.
************
Qassem Hussein Mohamed who is being held in a Kurdish prison, was a Mukhabarat intelligence officer for 20 years. In an April interview by the Christian Science Monitor in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, he said that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has supported Ansar al-Islam for several years.
"Ansar and Al Qaeda groups were trained by graduates of the Mukhabarat's School 999 -- military intelligence," says Mr. Mohamed."
"My information is that the Iraqi government was directly supporting [Al Qaeda] with weapons and explosives," he says. "[Ansar] was part of Al Qaeda, and given support with training and money."
*********
Mohammed Atta, leader of the 911 terrorists, met with an Iraqi Intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic in early April, 2001.
The Czech's claim to have photos of this meeting.
**********
These items come from :
COMMON CAUSE (http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/W5CommonCause.htm)
I can't vouch for them but they are a good starting place to do a little research on your own. That's what I'm doing, anyway.
Does seem to me that there's an awful lot of smoke for there not to be some fire, though.
-
Sandman I'm just busting your balls.
Your skepticism about the war is understandable.
-
I prefer the simple words someone else from this forum said on the topic.
(America's) action today will be conventional. Tomorrow's reaction will be nuclear.
-
Kudos on yer straight up call, Toad.
"Without specific UN authorization, the US has no business attacking Iraq with the goal of replacing its present government. Sorry, but if we did that without UN sanction, we'd be no different than any other tin-pot dictator taking a place like, say, Kuwait and removing its government.
Let me paraphrase this, and let me know if I get this wrong... (though no, I don't think so).
"If Bush does attack Iraq without UN sanction, then Bush is a tin-pot dictator who is no different than Hussien and his attack on a foreign country."
That makes things interesting doesn't it, Toad?
I'm sure all of us would rather the people of Iraq rise up and deal with the problem of their tin-pot dictator, and spare everyone else the trouble. And death. And though it's understandable under the circumstances, it's still frustrating that they don't.
Given that....
If Bush attacks Iraq without UN sanction, Toad, what would you be willing to sacrifice.... what would you be willing to do... in dealing with your own tin-pot dictator? (you said that, not me).
Notable is the fact that y'all pride yerselves on your guns for this very situation. Hunting? Sure... ok whatever... but first and gawdamn foremost is your argument that the framers meant for folks to pack heat in the event of a government gone mad. It's in the constitution or something.
Yegads the irony of this, if anyone stops to notice, is rich beyond belief.
A "tin-pot dictator" slowly (nay quickly!) and methodically stripping y'all of yer rights, freedoms, and privacy... And you... Republicans.... supposed keepers of the faith... cheering him on at every step. Embracing it! Suckling on the hairy nipple of that which you profess to hate.
Somehow the bizzare toejam in history.... the things where you go "I can't fathom how that came to be... how'd they get duped like that... how'd they let that hapen to themselves?" seems a lot more... cripes... real.
-
Pick whoever you like: the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Vikings. That’s really ‘frightening’.
It's truly an article from the Guardian ... Great Britain is missing from the list ...
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
How are you going to defend it, funked? Are you in the military? Are you on active service?
Or will you, like most people who point to that poster, be sitting at home on your fat arses, flicking between the 24 hour news stations with a beer in your hand, looking for who has the best action footage?
(That poster still makes me chuckle though :D - the Spitfire Type R from that site is on my desktop:))
I'll take funked's spot here thankyou (dangit I looked for that pic for about 30min, never did find it!)
-
I'd like to know how you'd get him out of the chair, or prise the beer can from his hand...:p
-
*FARTS*
-
Well, you see Nash, it's like this.
We have this "Congress" thing that is supposedly a "check and balance" on the Presidency. That makes us a bit different from Hussein's tinpot dictatorship, I think.
However, at the present time, BOTH houses of Congress (one with a Republican majority and one with a Democratic majority < that "hairy nipple" gets around, doesn't it?>) that are supporting this Republican President by granting him "war powers". Instead of just doing their job and declaring war on Iraq if these "wise men" decide that is the best solution to the problem.
Now I don't think this makes us a "tin-pot dictatorship" because OBVIOUSLY, unlike say, Iraq, if even ONE house of the Congress refused to grant him "war powers" we wouldn't be going. I hold that to be as true an article of faith as the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
Therefore, there's no need for a Second American Revolution....... yet. So our framers can rest easy. The actual form of government is functioning as they intended. The spineless jellyfish in the offices probably aren't the quality of men they envisioned, though.
What I do see happening here though is BOTH sides in Congress abdicating their responsibility to truly investigate the threat and deal with it appropriately. Because this is an "election moment" with the voters going to the polls in about a month, they've just decided to not make an issue of it. (Although I doubt that, were it NOT an election year, they'd really do anything differently). So, Congress, instead of "checks and balances" has just decided to hide behind the President. If all goes well, they'll step up and say "We were right"; if it turns out to be a disaster, they'll step back and say "It's HIS fault!". Typical.
What would I sacrifice if we (and I feel "we" is the right word, because we, the citizenry, are just as responsible) invade Iraq and overthrow their government?
I'd sacrifice time and money to work for an opposition candidate for the President and any Kansas Senators and Representatives that voted for this move.
THAT'S what still makes us different from a tin-pot dictatorship in case you haven't noticed Nash. Politicians can, do and will always makes mistakes. Fortunately, here we can simply vote them out of office. Without resorting to Revolution. Too bad Iraq can't say the same thing, eh?
-
Toad
if we wait around and wait on the UN approval and Saddam or his closet terrorists attack - who will they hit? The UN or the US?
If the UN doesn't back itself up who will but us the US of A, the global robo cop for the world ...
If they do not let the inspectors inspect whenever - wherever - however they see fit ... the US needs to make that happen, by all and whatever means needed - no matter what the UN says/does or more likely doesn't do.
Concerning Iraq, the past 10 years have shown the UN to be nothing but a paper tiger. They need to step aside and let a tiger with teeth handle what they have shown they cannot or will not handle.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Toad
if we wait around and wait on the UN approval and Saddam or his closet terrorists attack - who will they hit? The UN or the US?
What makes you think he's going to hit something? It won't ease his sanctions. He can't possibly win. What's the point? Bloodlust?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What makes you think he's going to hit something? It won't ease his sanctions. He can't possibly win. What's the point? Bloodlust?
do you really think that is all it is?
do you think this is the motive our government is so strongly pushing for his removal and destruction of his weapons?
don't you think they have the resources to know/have insight of just a few more teeny weeny facts than you or I do and are acting in our best interest?
or is it all about oil, $$, bush & his buddies :rolleyes:
even dashole is on tv as we speak agreeing with this admin
-
Fair enough Toad. I don't think I'm gonna get much mileage outta painting Bush as a tin pot dictator in need of overthrow by an armed citizenry, anyway.
That doesn't mean I'm not gonna try! :D It's not Bush, it's about the Congress and Senate. It's not Bush, it's about the Supreme Court. Instead of Congress doing their job and declaring war themselves, they're giving Bush to "power" to go to war. What are they thinking?
Interesting logic at work, but I can't get a lock on it. You'd have it that because those three bodies of government are in agreement, the government is functioning as intended by the framers. And by extension this seperates Bush from a tin-pot dictator. How often do you see dissent within the ranks of the various bodies of government that make up tin-pot dictatorships? Is it your ability to vote them out that seperates you? The ability to vote someone else in? Are the two political parties there that far removed from the one party systems elswhere? Have they not become, instead of "Democrats" and "Republicans", mere "politicians"? So that dog aint gonna hunt. Not exactly, anyway. That's ok, my dog is just about out of steam... and was never really that fit in the first place. :D
No... I think the portrait you'd like to paint of Bush is more like that of a puppet or queen. Again, you hold it seems everyone else accountable, responsible... everyone but Bush. It's not Bush, it's those other guys that should be declaring war. Or not declaring war (still can't get a grip on your stance there). As if the very subject of war on Iraq rose up out of thin air and landed smack dab on the lap of the congress to do as they see fit. During "an election moment". I reckon to you, even the timing of all this bears no fingerprint of the Bush administration, does it?
I mean, it's just uncanny... mere coincidence or happenstance... the things that arise *despite* Bush...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Toad
if we wait around and wait on the UN approval and Saddam or his closet terrorists attack - who will they hit? The UN or the US?
either way we lose :(
-
Nash, based on our previous discussions, I'll make the assumption you're not just soup-stirring because you're bored.
First of all, with the exception of Congress apparently (IMO) abdicating its Constitutional role of being the sole entity capable of declaring war, the Government is operating as the Framer's intended.
It is still a democracy, with our elected officials in place. Don't forget, according to the polls a slight majority favor this course of action. A small majority in a democracy is enough, isn't it? The rest of us don't necessarily have to like it, but that's the deal we all agreed to, isn't it? If the situation were reversed, the minority favoring war would be expected to live with it and not start a Revolution.
Now, unlike some forms of government, ours doesn't have the provision of a "vote of no confidence" and instant elections. (Don't forget that majority in favor; a vote of "no confidence" might well fail now if we had that system.) We have a schedule, voting for Presidents every 4 years, Senators every 6 and Representatives every 2. All arranged in a 2 year rotation so there's some "experienced" folks left around while new guys are added. And yes, that's what makes us different. Don't like the timetable? Too bad; it's a Constitutional thing. :)
The timing? Is it political? There's no doubt there's some politics in it. However, there's also no doubt that this is an issue that must be dealt with. If they had quit talking about it now until after the November elections would it make any difference? No, because those making the "political" accusation would then simply switch and say Bush was trying to influence the next Presidential/Congressional elections. Two years isn't all that long anymore in the campaigning world.
It has to be talked about sooner or later.
This is how I look at it.
1. There's no doubt the world would be a better place without Saddam trying to get hold of WMD. He's proven he'll use them.
2. There's a more than likely chance (again IMO) that he's in cahoots with folks like Al-Qaida that would cheerfully die to strike a WMD blow against the US.
****Pay attention, here's where Bush comes in*********
3. Our President has determined/decided that Hussein poses a real threat to the population of the US. Now I'm not arguing the right/wrong of that decision, just that he obviously made it.
Now that sort of thing falls squarely into his job description. That's why NSA, CIA, FBI, the military, etc., report to him about what's going on.
Now, also squarely within his job description, he's proposed his solution; replacing Hussein by using military force (war, to my way of thinking) with a new Iraqi government. I'm not arguing the right/wrong of that either; it's his decision to make.
*******Here's where Congress comes in********
4. Congress, in accordance with the Constitution, should be reviewing Bush's determination of the problem and his proposed solution. This falls squarely within THEIR job description and THEY AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB. And that ticks me off. They've ducked this one just like they've ducked every military action in the past. There's no need for an "instant reaction" here, thus no need for blanket "war powers" for the President. They've got time to debate, time to vote whether or not this country is going to war with Iraq.
Because spin or no spin, when you talk about using military force to replace the government of another sovereign nation, that's war.
And spin or no spin, the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 .
Modern Commentators on the Constitution's War Power (http://warandlaw.homestead.com/files/modernco.html)
I pretty much agree with those comments.
Now you want to blame Bush for all this war talk? Yeah, so? It's his JOB to determine the threat and propose the reaction to the threat.
Gee, maybe if Hussein was in compliance with all the UN resolutions we wouldn't be bothering to talk about this? Oh, wait.. .no place for accountability/responsibility on THAT end is there?
Maybe if 9/11 hadn't been proven to be a terrorist attack on the US we wouldn't be bothering to talk about this? Oh, wait.. .no place for accountability/responsibility on THAT end is there?
After all, everyone knows those arrogant Yanks really deserved this right? Because they've tried to militarily conquer the known world right?
Sleep well tonight and reflect upon what a different world we'd have if the US actually had been like the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Mongol Horde, Darius' Persians, the Moors or the Vikings.
Instead of soldiers, we usually send food.
Go figure.
-
Eagler, they'd probably end up hitting both the US and the UN. After all NYC is still a prime US target and home to the UN. Double bonus for Hussein. A WMD would likely affect both and certainly could be planned that way.
It's lose/lose. As I've said before, I think we'll eventually suffer a WMD strike. A definite loss for the US there.
And a definite loss for the World. Because instead of the US they love to think of as "arrogant", there'll be a "new" US is that really is arrogant..... and determined........ and angry.
Wonder how they'll like a US with a " all classes of weapons free, targets of opportunity, cleared in hot" mindset? The "with us or against us" comment will take on a serious new meaning.
I think that WMD strike against us will really be the beginning of the end; twilight of the gods for the entire world. The start of Armageddon. The end of life as we know it. Whatever you wish to call it, it won't be a good thing for anyone anywhere.
Just my .02.
-
Well thought out posts, Toad. I agree.
Sabre
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Well thought out posts, Toad. I agree.
Sabre
yes I agree
and that is why we, as the most powerful nation on this earth, have been given -want it or not - the responsibility to make sure the animals of the world aren't allowed to build/buy/steal weapons they are not civilized enough to control
-
Eagler,
The trick to the whole thing is that we must not become what we oppose. There's the rub.
I say again: I see no good coming from this no matter how we proceed.
-
Nash, based on our previous discussions, I'll make the assumption you're not just soup-stirring because you're bored. - Toad
Dangerous assumption! :D
But nah...
Toad ... I can see that if I'm not careful, I'm gonna get entrenched in another of our... what's the word I'm looking for... Google debates... Just like old times. :D
Really... you can do a host of web searches and dig out nifty facts like "Article I, Section 8, Clause 11", but I aint gonna let myself be overwhelmed by that style. It's BBS thuggery!... and there's only so many hours in the day.
If you want to connect the dots a little further you'd know that Bush and his admin were fully prepared to blast "Article I, Section 8, Clause 11" outta the sky if need be. Where were you three weeks ago? He was all set to play a few cards on that front, namely:
- "I am the commander and chief, thus have the right". His lawyers all gave him the green on this, and he was prepared to go there.
- Was set to piggy back on the '91 gulf resolution by saying that Hussein hasn't lived up to his end, so the deal (congress' 91 resolution) still stands. That one makes a certain amount of sense to me, but still, it's an attempt to sidestep the congressional debate that you crave.
- Intended to make use of the '73 war powers resolution (or whatever it's called) that his dad used in mobilizing troops for the gulf. Basically, you can do whatever you want, without any oversight, for like, 90 days.... After 90 days, and if bullets are flying, you must discuss it with congress/senate.
- Intended to leverage all this off the resolutions passed in the senate and congress last year, endorsing a military response to the WTC attacks... but damn... that would require linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. So far no such luck but not for lack of trying.
So Toad, I envy your faith in the system and all its supposed checks and balances. But yer guy Bush wasn't going to have any of it, no matter *what* transpired this week.
Getting this congressional approval is nothing more than political. When (your) "tin-pot dictators" go toe to toe, congressional approval simply looks good on the resume.
I'm having a hard time believing that you actually think there's anything more material involved in this. Well, that is, unless you're an idealistic left wing happy thoughts liberal popsicle! :P j/k bud.
-
So what you are actually saying Toad is - "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."?
Hey, I haven't seen that phrase used without the usual "Poor old USA, the world is against us" self-pitying sentiment, on this board before. Well done. :D
-
Nash, again, all of your examples could easily be negated by either the Senate or the House simply saying "No". You can talk all you want about his statements but that's the simple truth of it.
No President is going to deploy troops and engage a sovereign nation solely on his own authority in that event.
In short, Congressional approval of his action is required. And they just gave it to him, albeit without a declaration of war which, IMO, is how they're supposed to do it.
And as far as "my guy" Bush is concerned, you've obviously made another mistake here. Remember the one about voting for Bush due to his probable Supreme Court choices? The one I went back and dug up a thread to show you I held and stated that position 4 months before the election? The one where you accused me of "backing away"? You're losing your edge, Nash.
-
Self-pity?
We learned that from the British Empire, I think. :p
-
"The House earlier Thursday passed the resolution 296-133 after three days of debate.
Under intense pressure from the White House, which wanted a big bipartisan majority in Congress to strengthen its hand in its confrontation with Iraq, the Democratic-led Senate passed the war powers resolution, 77-23"
didn't Bush Sr get something like 52 to 47 out of the Senate and 250-183 in the House for Desert Storm?
very political - elections - but proper action none the less
the Shelia Lee Jackson types voted No :)
Hope it bites her/them in the arse in Nov....
-
And what I'm saying Toad is that Bush was consulting with his people to find ways of going to war *despite* what you or the congress had to say on the matter. Whether it's political suicide, legal or even possible - he made clear his intentions. Why check into it at all otherwise?
As for you voting for Bush to get a republican sempreme court judge or because you dig the way he dances La Vida Loco matters not. You voted for him, he won, and like it or not, he's your guy.
And I'm not quite sure what to make of your claim that the congress is abdicating their duty. Like Eagler says, didn't they indeed have debate and vote on the matter? Is giving the Prez war powers such a rare thing to do? You actually think they'd overstep the Prez and start sending troops to Iraq on their own, despite now what the *president* thinks?
Maybe I am losing my edge, Toad. :) But you've become much more of a moving target... and it's taking a while to calibrate here cuz to be honest I'm having a helluhvah time trying to figure out where you really do stand on all of this.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And what I'm saying Toad is that Bush was consulting with his people to find ways of going to war *despite* what you or the congress had to say on the matter. Whether it's political suicide, legal or even possible - he made clear his intentions. Why check into it at all otherwise?
[/b]
I don't have any "real time" say in the matter. I have "election time" say in the matter.
Yes, he assessed the threat, decided on a course of action and explored all his options to pursue that course of action. So? What did you expect him to do? It's still the Congress that declares war, as I said.
Originally posted by Nash
As for you voting for Bush to get a republican sempreme court judge or because you dig the way he dances La Vida Loco matters not. You voted for him, he won, and like it or not, he's your guy.
[/b]
Really? I own him, or what? Or guilty by association for voting for him? What guilt? He's just doing his job: assessing the threat, proposing the solution. Exploring his options to implement his solution.
What am I guilty of? Helping elect a guy that takes his job seriously? Newsflash: I (and many others I suspect) have disagreed with some decisions made by several Presidents that I have voted for. In this particular case, I believe he made a correct assessment of the threat. Good job there. However, at this time I don't agree with the solution proposed by "my guy'. Here's another newsflash: If I had to decide right now in the current situation to vote for Bush or Gore to handle this (say we had some sort of Parliamentary "vote of confidence" thing where the citizens got to vote) I'd still take Bush over Gore. So maybe he is "my guy".. I still view him as the better of the two choices presented. :p
Originally posted by Nash
And I'm not quite sure what to make of your claim that the congress is abdicating their duty. Like Eagler says, didn't they indeed have debate and vote on the matter? Is giving the Prez war powers such a rare thing to do? You actually think they'd overstep the Prez and start sending troops to Iraq on their own, despite now what the *president* thinks?
[/b]
Do some research into the War Powers Resolution of 1973. To whit:
"(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
To me, before the Senate voted in favor, not a single one of the 3 conditions had been met.
There was no declaration of war.
There was no specific statutory authorization.
There was no national emergency created by an attack.
So, prior to the Senate vote, there was NO WAY Bush could have legally "introduced United States Armed Forces into hostilities".
Now, with the Senate vote, he's got his "specific statutory authorization" so it's all going to be legal.
Nonetheless, I think Congress took the chickenship way out. If the threat is serious enough to issue the specific statutory authorization, then just declare war. I think that'd get the attention of Saddam, Iraq and the rest of the world to a far greater degree than the specific statutory authorization. It might even remove the need to act at all. I'd give up if the US declared war against me and I'd give up before shots were fired and ask for "reconstruction aid".
Now, bottom line, it's not just Bush anymore. The Congress has signed on. So you'll have to include them in your diatribes in the future. Even the Democratic majority in the Senate is onboard now.
Originally posted by Nash
I'm having a helluhvah time trying to figure out where you really do stand on all of this.
Seems I've been pretty plain to me. See above for the rest of this clip:
Without specific UN authorization, the US has no business attacking Iraq with the goal of replacing its present government....
.....So, I think we have to wait for a UN consensus to replace Hussein by force.
-
Toad, you realize that the last time the Congress declared war was in WWII, right? There was none for Korea, Vietnam, YouNameIt. Even Bush Sr. didn't have a declaration of war by the congress in '91 (they just passed some resolution supporting his deployment of troops there... though Bush had already sent the troops in... and even he was dancing around the necessity of getting congressional support).
So now you really expect the congress to up and make a formal declaration of war for the 1st time in 60 years? Against Iraq under *these* of all circumstances?
You may hold congress accountable for not doing that, but I think granting Bush those war powers is more than adequate thank you very much. Bush wants to go to war - Congress is letting him do it if he wants.
By the way, I just said "your guy Bush". I said that because he is... Odd that you don't seem to want to take responsibility for the people you elect. Where is all this "guilt" stuff coming from? I don't recollect saying that you should feel guilty for electing him. Do you feel guilty for electing him? You say you don't but in a strange way your words indicate otherwise. :)
Is that where your unusual demand (because it is) of the Congress is coming from? Is it so we can all say "It is not Bush - EVERYONE wanted this... Congress, both Republican and Democrat even made history by declaring war!"
I think Bush is all nice and cozy with the idea of being personally accountable for HIS part in the events ahead... iffin' ya know what I'm saying. :)
-
For the record... I never felt quilty for voting for Clinton.
...in either election. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
For the record... I never felt quilty for voting for Clinton.
...in either election. :D
:rolleyes:
-
... and I'd do it again if he were allowed to run. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
... and I'd do it again if he were allowed to run. :D
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Clinton is still the best stinkbait around,
and the only President that I have ever actually voted for.
-
It's a good ploy really... rattle the sabres with talk of war... that way we can distract the general populace from such unpleasantries as Enron and Halliburton. :rolleyes:
-
A good ploy, maybe... But it's as old as the hills and strange that it's not more widely recognized as such.
-
Nash, money for war comes from Congress. By congress voting to allow money for war to continue is the same as declaring war. Not officially on paper, but the action is the same.
-
Don't confuse appropriation with authorization. WRT defense budget, Bush is the last word.
-
(edit d'oh!) Ripsnort (not Sandman :) ), I think Toad's angle is more about the *political* nuances of any congressional declaration... and not so much worried about where the cash is gonna come from.
-
Nash, in many threads I 've said I don't support the War Powers Act.
I think it just allows Congress to hide from their responsibility and accountability.
I'm probably more aware of its use than you are. :) Didn't support the way Congress ducked responsibility on VietNam. Wasn't around for Korea. Have not like its use in any of the action since.
If we're going to war... do your job and say so. Otherwise we're not going. Pretty simple to me.
Only in the "suprise attack" mode does the War Powers Act make any sense to me.
So, yeah, I expect them to do it right for the first time in 60 years. Ya gotta start somewhere.
Here's where you're lost in the woods on the "your guy/my guy" stuff. I voted for him. Would/will most likely vote for him again if the choice is again Gore or Bush. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says, does or tries to do.
I don't feel guilty about voting for him. He was the best choice for me at the time and I have no regrets given the choices I had. I'd vote for him again if we had a "vote of confidence". I've said that in a few posts in this thread already, I think.
But your use of "your guy" is just stinkbait and you know it. It adds nothing substantive to the discussion. I actually expect a bit better from you. As I said, I think you're losing your edge.
Lastly, if you do some research, you'll find I've mentioned/supported Congress doing it's job rather than ducking behind the War Powers Act in various threads that predate this crisis and indeed predate 9/11.
Just like when you accused me of suddenly backing away from Bush and using the Supreme Court issue as a red herring. But there it was in the archives, eh? 4 months BEFORE the election.
-
Has it occured to you that maybe the Congress doesn't WANT to declare war? And that it might be something other than simply wanting to duck their responsibility? That granting Bush the use of force under the war measures act makes Bush accountable to the congress in both his reporting, duration and in some sense his handling of the deployment? You think they're dropping the ball, and I think they're trying to hold on to it.
Has it occured to you that this ('73) war measures act was created in *response* to the unchecked bs that led up to the Vietnam "war"?
It just makes sense to me... it doesn't to you, and I'm ok with that.
By the way, I was fully aware of your position on Bush re the Supreme court. I read if not was involved in those threads. It just struck me as hedging your bets, in a way... and well done... you finally got to play that card. To me it's peculiar to elect a president solely on his ability to pick folks for the bench. There are other things at stake. War is one example. Again, we can disagree. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Don't confuse appropriation with authorization. WRT defense budget, Bush is the last word.
You must have spark to have fire.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Has it occured to you that maybe the Congress doesn't WANT to declare war? And that it might be something other than simply wanting to duck their responsibility? That granting Bush the use of force under the war measures act makes Bush accountable to the congress in both his reporting, duration and in some sense his handling of the deployment? You think they're dropping the ball, and I think they're trying to hold on to it.
Has it occured to you that this ('73) war measures act was created in *response* to the unchecked bs that led up to the Vietnam "war"?
It just makes sense to me... it doesn't to you, and I'm ok with that.
By the way, I was fully aware of your position on Bush re the Supreme court. I read if not was involved in those threads. It just struck me as hedging your bets, in a way... and well done... you finally got to play that card. To me it's peculiar to elect a president solely on his ability to pick folks for the bench. There are other things at stake. War is one example. Again, we can disagree. :)
Agree Nash, and don't forget, DEMOCRATS controlled the congress for 40 years up until 1994 ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Has it occured to you that maybe the Congress doesn't WANT to declare war?
Yes.
Originally posted by Nash
And that it might be something other than simply wanting to duck their responsibility?
[/b]
I don't think that's it. YOur implication is that once war is declared the Congress has no input into the prosecution. I definitely disagree.
Originally posted by Nash
Has it occured to you that this ('73) war measures act was created in *response* to the unchecked bs that led up to the Vietnam "war"?
[/b]
IMO, it stems from the foul-up that was the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. I'm sure you're aware of who/what made that one happen; and the inevitalbe result of sending a nation to war without the declaration of war. It tore our society apart.
Originally posted by Nash
By the way, I was fully aware of your position on Bush re the Supreme court.
[/b]
Sure didn't appear like that way in that thread. But I'm not going to go dig it up and get in a quote war.
Originally posted by Nash
To me it's peculiar to elect a president solely on his ability to pick folks for the bench. There are other things at stake. War is one example. Again, we can disagree. :)
Well, I once again refer you to the original thread. It's entitled Second Amendment.
In brief: The President proposes, The Congress disposes. The Supreme Court RULES.
Who really has the power?
Disagree if you like.
-
You're correct that I was refering to Tonkin. The remedy was not the mandating of a declaration of war. The remedy was the creation of the War Powers Act, which the Congress is employing.
So how much power (or "ruling" as it were) is the Supreme Court bringing to bear in all this, Toad?
-
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was August 7, 1964 .
"..the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress."
THAT was where we got away from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, IMO. That's the point. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. We didn't declare war in Viet Nam. You can view it any way you choose, but from my POV it was an incredible error.
We should have either been IN or OUT.
As it was we were neither.......we were in the preliminary "War Powers zone". And it tore the country apart eventually.
Had Congress done its Constitutional job right then we wouldn't have needed the WPA. We'd have been IN or OUT.
So, then we get the War Powers Act of 1973. "...the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States..."
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
And through the years it's been bent and twisted enough to allow some pretty involved military operations.
Were any declared wars? Is Iraq going to be a declared war? Nope.
Were any "national emergencies created by an attack upon the US"? Perhaps a few but certainly not all.
Specific statutory authorization? Well, this Iraq one is now. But tell me this: We're supposedly going to Iraq to replace the government of a sovereign nation. Isn't that "war"? Wouldn't it best be served by a declaration of same? What's with this "statutory authorization" stuff?
So, Nash, you're going to be OK with it if the US Congress just starts issuing "statutory authorization" to start whacking any country we don't like?
I think the framers were pretty smart guys. I think when we stray, we get all fouled up. The framers didn't put in no "steenkin' statutory authorization". It was either IN or OUT. The War Powers Act is straying big time, IMO.
You like it. I definitely do not.
The Supremes? Yes, they're always involved at some point.
"In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. President George H.W. Bush responded by sending American troops, without a Congressional declaration of war. As the President talked of escalating the battle, Congressman Ron Dellums, along with several colleagues, filed a lawsuit to enjoin the president from widening the war without a declaration of war by Congress.
But the judge that heard Dellums v. Bush, Judge Harold Greene of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, refused to become involved. He followed the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Goldwater v. Carter -- in which the Senator sued the President for breaking a treaty with Taiwan, and the Court held that the case was not "ripe" for review, meaning that the suit has been brought at the wrong time."
Looks like the Supremes were ultimately responsible for Dellums suit not being heard over Desert Storm to me.
"Campbell had previously forced votes in the House of Representatives under the War Powers Resolution denying Clinton authority to continue the air strikes. When the 60-day period under the War Powers Resolution expired, and the air strikes continued, he went to court.
Both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the case. They found that the members of Congress had no standing, basically for the same reason stated in Dellums -- no interbranch impasse had been reached. Congressman Campbell then sought U.S. Supreme Court review, but was turned down."
Hmm... looks like the Supremes again had the final say over "War Powers" in a way.
(and before you start, note that they haven't ruled on the War Powers Act itself. Take that for what you will.)
Still think they're not the most important?
Lets see if any of the politicians have the brass to challenge this one. My bet is they won't. If they do, I suspect the Court won't hear it.
-
Heh, wow. OK first this SC business:
You are trying to tell me that the Supreme Court is... hang on, here's what you said:
"The Supremes? Yes, they're always involved at some point."
Then you attempt to make that case by saying "Looks like the Supremes were ultimately responsible for Dellums suit not being heard over Desert Storm to me." Say what?
Sounds to me like "the Supremes were ultimately responsible" for, well, not being responsible. :p
I mean heck, that dude in your example, Dellums, tried to get the Supremes to do *exactly* the thing you're wanting... force a declaration of war... and they wouldn't even hear his argument! Maybe (in their words) his case wasn't "ripe" for review, but your use of this example sure is! :D
Alluhvasudden this other guy appears. Cambell? His case against Clinton for the same thing was also rejected. The guy previous to Dullums was also rejected.
These are people who wanted to force a declaration of war, this thing that you want....and these other guys, the Supreme Court, the folks who apparently "RULE"... decided not to rule.
Then you summarize by saying "Hmm... looks like the Supremes again had the final say over "War Powers" in a way." You may take that as final say, but I couldn't hear it.... the so-called "final say" was masked out by the sound of a pin dropping. If there is *anything* to take away from all of this, it is that the Supreme Court deems the War Powers Act adequate. Or to paraphrase: "We'd rather not get involved".
I wanna go back to that section of the War Powers Act (WPA here on out) that you keep quoting and bolding. My problem is that I can't understand what the hell that section is trying to say:
"exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war". I don't get that at all (and the key might be found in the actual meaning of "pursuant"). At a glance, it's saying "You need a formal declaration of war in order to introduce the far more limiting scope inherent in the granting of the WPA". Why in the world would anyone seek an additional WPA on top of a declaration of war? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and we're reading this wrong I think Toad. And it's also at odds with the actual *use* of the WPA; since its inception, nobody has required a declaration of war in order to enact the WPA. Again it makes zero sense to do so.
To answer your following questions, yes, going in and replacing the governments of sovereign nations is war. Should it be bolstered by an *act of war*? Not necessarily... read on.
"So, Nash, you're going to be OK with it if the US Congress just starts issuing "statutory authorization" to start whacking any country we don't like?
No, I'm certainly not. And I'm confident that the Congress would take issue with the idea of that as well. There is however *one* guy that would have no problem with that... And he's got no problem spelling that fact out. In fact he *did* spell that out in an alarming policy shift... and it's a major cause for concern.
That's why I like the WPA. It in effect says "Ok, there's something to this... do what you deem necessary but you better report back to us within 60 days and if we don't like what we hear, we're yankin' the plug." A sweeping declaration of war is a whole 'nuther ball of wax, and frankly the thought of Bush having that type of backing is frightening.
Look, it was plainly evident that Bush was prepared to circumvent even the limited WPA if need be. You want this guy to get the backing implicit in a declaration of war? Against a "country you don't like" but happens to pose no immediate threat? No, I don't want to see him get that. In fact, if he doesn't get UN backing yet goes in under the US WPA it's *still* utter roadkill but at least I'll know that the Congress still has some say in it.
Yeah... Let's have the Congress make a formal Declaration of War... on (that's it!) terrorism. The world would be knee deep in it for a good long time.
-
1. I don't agree with every Supreme Court decision handed down. Suprised?
I also am sometimes disappointed at the cases they choose not to hear.
Just part of our government, though. That's how it works. I doubt anyone likes everything in any government all the time, don't you?
Still doesn't change the fact that the SC is the final arbiter. IN fact, it underscores that. Doesn't change the fact, IMO, that they are far more important than the Congress or the President. Which, once again, explains my choice of Bush over Gore.
And it doesn't change the fact that the WPA is unnecessary and ill-advised. IMO.
2.
My problem is that I can't understand what the hell that section is trying to say:
Here, let me help (italics are the way I view what they are saying:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities...
< The President's Constitutional powers to "send in the troops"
...are exercised only pursuant to
< can only be used when>
(1) a declaration of war,
<Congress issues a declaration of war>
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
<Congress gives him specific statutory authorization to "send in the troops" or>
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
< the US itself or its territories or possessions, or its armed forces is/are attacked>
The WPA just says a declaration of war allows the President to use his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities.
So does Congressional "statutory authorization".
So does an attack upon the US.
That's all.
One and Three are pretty obvious. But this "statutory authorization" thing... when is a war not a war?
Congress just authorized Bush to use US forces against Iraq; to destroy his WMD and remove/replace Hussein.
That isn't war? What is it to you Nash, if it isn't war?
If it is war, why isn't it a declared war?
This just leads us down the same road as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It's not a REAL war, right? It's some kind of fake war, some "statutory authorization".
I don't think point two is necessary. If you're authorizing the President to remove the leader of a sovereign nation, that's war. So call it like it is. And put the entire nation behind the effort. This "statutory authorization" is merely a cover for the politicians in DC in case things go wrong.
I don't think the WPA limits the President's Constitutional Powers, under a declaration of war, as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities. It merely states this is a legitimate use.
The WPA restrictions kick in
"Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--"
when there's NO declaration of war. That was the whole point of the WPA if you recall. To limit the President's ability to use troops in the absence of a declaration of war.
You've agreed the Iraq situation is going to be a war. Am I to understand that you prefer it to be undeclared? Sorry, I can't agree with that.
BTW, I don't think it's 60 days, either, unless they amended the original WPA. I didn't check. But in the original, it's 6 months.
"Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) <absence of a declaration of war> of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
Look, it was plainly evident that Bush was prepared to circumvent even the limited WPA if need be.
I don't think he could have done that. Even now.
You want this guy to get the backing implicit in a declaration of war?
Well, if there's a legitimate reason, a cause for "just war", yes, I want him to have the backing implicit in a declaration of war.
It's Congress' job to determine if there is cause for war and then declare it.
Seems we sort of sidestepped that whole little thing didn't we? I'm not sure if you can see it, but that's why I don't like "statutory authorization". Congress really didn't debate to see if there was cause for just war, did they?
Against a "country you don't like" but happens to pose no immediate threat?
So you agree there's no cause for just war right now? Fine. Seems you'd be thinking "no war unless Congress can justify it". As it is now, we're getting a war, an undeclared war and Congress didn't even TRY to justify it. This is better?
Congress has a lot of say under a declaration of war. You seem to just ignore that. They have as much or MORE than they do under a "statutory authorization". Because bottom line is they provide the money for the fight in both cases.
That's how they exert control in both declared wars and undeclared "statutorily authorized non-wars".
You're getting a war either way but I'm sure you realize that. The idea that Congress somehow has MORE control using "statutory authorization" is incorrect, IMO.
All they've done is provide themselves the ability to wash their hands of responsiblity if it goes wrong. Which is why politicians pass things like the WPA.
I'll just take it the way the framers wrote it, thanks.
-
Oh, BTW..
I'm outta here.
Literally.
I'm off now to invade Saskatchewan with 3 labs, 2 shotguns and a son.
Don't worry, it's been "statutorily authorized" by my wife.
And we want nothing but legal limits of wild game. We're not going to try to replace your government or anything.
Ta-ta.
Back in a month or so.
-
Lol :D
Have fun. I think we agree on the broader aspects but are splitting hairs on the finer points. Or visa versa. Which is why it's fun to debate with you... I learn.
See ya inna month.