PhillyKev 0 #76 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteThen the war has to be illegal, since no official declaration of war took place. 1991. And he never complied with the resolutions. Can you link me to the war declaration in 1991? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #77 January 4, 2005 QuoteCan you link me to the war declaration in 1991? Did you forget that whole UN supported party in the sand? Sad."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #78 January 4, 2005 Your response to "no declaration of war took place" was "1991". No, I didn't forget anything about 1991. What I asked was for the link to the formal declaration of war that took place. Let me try once again. War was NOT declared in 1991. War was NOT declared in 2003. The UN did NOT vote to use force in 2003. Congress did NOT vote to invade Iraq in 2003. You consistently claim the opposite of the above statements. Link me to one of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #79 January 4, 2005 Nicely put Dex - and it applies to a lot more than just this issue. And to both sides of most of the arguments ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #80 January 4, 2005 QuoteWar was NOT declared in 1991. War was NOT declared in 2003. What do you call people killing each other? Quote WAR n. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The period of such conflict. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. Sounds to me that Iraq fits that. QuoteThe UN did NOT vote to use force in 2003. Yeah, the pussies said "serious consequences". Well after 12 years of sanctions what do you think that meant? If they didn't mean fighting, then the idiots should have said so. But they did mean it, but were to spineless to back up the talk. QuoteCongress did NOT vote to invade Iraq in 2003. No, they gave the Prez the right to use force...And as I said before the time for them to say no to it was then, not AFTER the Prez did what they allowed him to do. But that might have hurt their chances for re-election."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #81 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteEdit 2: And this was the "best" we could get out of Congress at the time (9/11, world support, public support). Isn't that sad? Or it shows that Congress specifically did not want to go to war, but did not publicly want to state that since it would show dissent to SH. So if I hear you correctly - the dems just didn't want to show the world their dissent to SH?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #82 January 4, 2005 Spin it any way you want. They still remain factual statements that you state the opposite of consistently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #83 January 4, 2005 Spin it anyway you want. The UN and the US Congress did vote to use force."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #84 January 4, 2005 QuoteSpin it anyway you want. The UN and the US Congress did vote to use force. Where are the links? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #85 January 4, 2005 And now - as we pass on the left - that mound of furr you see is a horse - not any ordinary horse - but that is a horse that has been beaten to death so many times that it is now an afghan rug. Move along.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #86 January 4, 2005 QuoteHussein had many chances to back down during the lengthy diplomatic phase of our campaign, but declined them all. That does not appear to be the case. What further backing down should he have done in order to avoid the invasion? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #87 January 4, 2005 QuoteMove along. Sorry, but when incorrect information is posted, I'll dispute it. When claims about things are made that never happened, I'll point it out. The best way to move along is if people would not post misinformation. There's a difference between posting opinions and posting factually incorrect information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #88 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteHussein had many chances to back down during the lengthy diplomatic phase of our campaign, but declined them all. That does not appear to be the case. What further backing down should he have done in order to avoid the invasion? Blues, Dave To be fair, we did make a demand that he didn't comply with. We demanded that he and his family relenquish power and leave Iraq. Of course if he did that, I'm sure we would have drawn a new line in the sand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #89 January 4, 2005 QuoteSo if I hear you correctly - the dems just didn't want to show the world their dissent to SH? All I am saying that on both sides of the aisle there may have been strong reluctance to agree to war. However, they could not openly say that, since it would take away from the threat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #90 January 4, 2005 QuoteWhat do you call people killing each other? A tragedy. And until there has been a declaration of war, it is not a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #91 January 4, 2005 Quote And until there has been a declaration of war, it is not a war. ____________________________ Get a dictionary. QuoteWAR n. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The period of such conflict. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #92 January 4, 2005 QuoteWhere are the links? Why provide them...Do you not admit that the UN voted for serious consequences? What do you consider serious consequences? Do you not admit that the US Congress voted to allow GWB to use force? Just because the UN did what it always does and backed down and that the Congress played politics and didn't do their job...Don't blame me. Please tell me what you consdier serious consequences?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #93 January 4, 2005 You're completely right, Ron. Now tell me when Congress declared war? Or are you finally admitting that the administrations actions are illegal? Since it is a violation of the constitution to wage war without a formal declaration by Congress. Presidential power is limited in scope to repelling a sudden attack. This president took our nation to war without a congressional act of war. It is illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #94 January 4, 2005 QuoteWhy provide them...Do you not admit that the UN voted for serious consequences? Yep. QuoteWhat do you consider serious consequences? Doesn't matter. Since I'm not in the UN, didn't draft that resolution, and didn't vote on it. Serious consequences could be war, as you interpret it, or it could be renewed and more encompassing sanctions. You claim your interpretation as fact, while the actions of those who made that statement clearly shows they don't support that. QuoteDo you not admit that the US Congress voted to allow GWB to use force? Yes, they authorized the use of force if diplomacy failed. Diplomacy did not fail. They also didn't specify what level of force, but I would assume that they meant within constitutional limits, repelling an attack, possibly even pre-emptive air strikes. Not full scale invasion. occupation, and nation building. That's a little more than force. That's war, as you've pointed out above, and that's NOT what they voted for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #95 January 4, 2005 QuoteYou're completely right, Ron. Now tell me when Congress declared war? They never did declare war. They instead used bullshit word games to act like they supported the situation while it was popular, but gave them a way out if it turned unpopular later. We don't have to "Declare War" to be at war. QuoteOr are you finally admitting that the administrations actions are illegal? Since it is a violation of the constitution to wage war without a formal declaration by Congress. Again Congress gave him the right to use force. He used force. You can call it what you want, but the situation we are in is legal since the Congress gave him the power to use force. QuotePresidential power is limited in scope to repelling a sudden attack. This president took our nation to war without a congressional act of war. It is illegal. If you think so press charges. He went to combat with approval of Congress. Get over that. If he didn't have approval, he would not have been able to do it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #96 January 4, 2005 The constitution clearly states that Congress must make an official declaration of war. They didn't. You state that we are at war. We are. So tell me. How is it not illegal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #97 January 4, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why provide them...Do you not admit that the UN voted for serious consequences? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep. Well there is a start. QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you consider serious consequences? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doesn't matter. Since I'm not in the UN, didn't draft that resolution, and didn't vote on it. That is the lamest back peddle ever. QuoteSerious consequences could be war, as you interpret it, or it could be renewed and more encompassing sanctions. Sanctions that didn't work for 12 years? If the UN didn't mean war, then they should have said that BEFORE it was popular. If the UN didn't mean to use force, but wrote it so that it could mean it...Then they are even more stupid than I think. QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you not admit that the US Congress voted to allow GWB to use force? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes So they DID? Quote they authorized the use of force if diplomacy failed. Diplomacy did not fail That is your opinion. QuoteThey also didn't specify what level of force, Then they are stupid. Or more likely they wrote it so they could later back peddle if something didn't work out. Bush should ahve made them say EXACTLY what they would allow...His fault for not making them make a real choice. Quotebut I would assume that they meant within constitutional limits You can't say what the UN meant, but you can assume what the Congress meant? It is really simple. The US Congress voted to use force. If they didn't want the use of force they should have voted against it. If they wanted to temper the amunt of force...They should have done it then. Not write a blank check and then bitch about what was filled out. They gave GWB the right to use force...It is as simple as that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #98 January 4, 2005 QuoteThe constitution clearly states that Congress must make an official declaration of war. They didn't. You state that we are at war. We are. So tell me. How is it not illegal? Neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War were "declared" wars... not to mention Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda... so it's only ok if a Democratic President does it, but not a Republican President?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #99 January 4, 2005 QuoteThat is the lamest back peddle ever. What did I backpeddle from? I've never claimed to know what the UN meant by serious consequences. You appear to be the one claiming clairvoyance. By their actions (or inaction) it sure doesn't appear that they meant war. QuoteSanctions that didn't work for 12 years? They didn't? I thought they were in place to keep SH from developing WMD. Well guess what, he didn't. Seems they worked pretty damn well to me. Quotethe UN didn't mean to use force, but wrote it so that it could mean it... The UN never said anything about using force. Just because you're taking every stretch of the english language to make it seem like they did, doesn't mean they were ambiguous. It means you are reaching. QuoteYou can't say what the UN meant, but you can assume what the Congress meant? Yes, I assume they didn't mean to circumvent the Constitution. QuoteIt is really simple. The US Congress voted to use force This is so frustrating. NO THEY DIDN'T!!!! Cripes, how many times are you going to spew this lie? Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- they authorized the use of force if diplomacy failed. Diplomacy did not fail -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is your opinion. No, that's fact. Where are the WMD? QuoteThey gave GWB the right to use force...It is as simple as that. Ahhh, finally, a factual statement. Although incomplete. They put their trust in the president that if they gave him the power to show down Hussein, that he wouldn't go overboard. They were betrayed and have said so. You call that flip flopping. I call that getting screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #100 January 4, 2005 QuoteThe constitution clearly states that Congress must make an official declaration of war. They didn't. You state that we are at war. We are. So tell me. How is it not illegal? #1. Me saying we are at war is about as law making as me saying Chocolate Milkshakes are the drink of The US. I do like how you base US policy on what I personally think. #2. My saying we are at war is based on the fact that we have two factions killing each other...To be honest we are no longer at war. We were at war till Saddam was grabbed. We are now in a state of support for the new nation that will be in Saddams vacancy. And you just can't get over the fact that we are fighting there due to Congress allowing it. Like it or not Congress gave the Prez that power."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
