PhillyKev 0 #101 January 4, 2005 QuoteNeither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War were "declared" wars... not to mention Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda... You're right. Quoteso it's only ok if a Democratic President does it, but not a Republican President? Nope, you don't see me defending those wars either, do you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #102 January 4, 2005 QuoteAnd 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. Congress gave the ok to use force if necessary. That's true. Doesn't make it legal. I agree many of them were big pussies afraid to say no. But that doesn't make it right. And some of them have come out and said they don't think it was necessary. They have said that they believed giving the president the right to use it IF NECESSARY was the right thing to do. What they don't agree with is that it was necessary. They screwed up. They trusted Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #103 January 4, 2005 QuoteWhat did I backpeddle from? I've never claimed to know what the UN meant by serious consequences Yes but in the same post you claim to know what the US Congress meant. Like I said Lame. Quote 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. How many times do we have to show you that he had plans for WMD programs that were against the very UN resolution that you claim worked? Or how he kicked out the inspectors in 98? He never complied and that alone is reason enough to remove him. QuoteThe 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. Just as you are claiming they did not mean force. If they did not mean force then they are stupid to write it so it could be read that way. QuoteYes, I assume they didn't mean to circumvent the Constitution. Well they voted for the use of force. Read that as you want, but they DID VOTE TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO USE FORCE....It is written clear as day. QuoteThis is so frustrating. NO THEY DIDN'T!!!! Cripes, how many times are you going to spew this lie? Until you can see the truth behind the lefts spin. They allowed the use of Force...Clear and simple. Even you can admit it: QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They gave GWB the right to use force...It is as simple as that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ahhh, finally, a factual statement You can buy the spina ll you want. they gave him the right to use force...They allowed the use of force. He used it. If they didn't want him to use force then they should have ricked their jobs at the next election to vote against it. They didn't they gave him the right to use force.... get over it, it is that simple."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
rehmwa 2 #104 January 4, 2005 QuoteThey screwed up. They trusted Bush. {{walks in and kicks the dead semantic horse. it's kind of squishy}} They didn't screw up, they did exactly what they intended. They hid from making any type of definitive statement and passed the buck. They played politics. Too bad, it shouldn't be a game. ... 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
mr2mk1g 10 #105 January 4, 2005 In an effort to whittle down the points of contention: 1) Do you both agree that the US Constitution requires a Declaration of War before US troops may be deployed? 2) Do you both agree that at some point (irrespective of its paper status) a defacto state of war existed between the US and Iraq? If above are agreed... then you have left to argue over: A) Whether or not "use force if necessary" [paraphrase] amounts to a "Declaration of War". B) Whose is at fault for the apparent omission of a Declaration of War if "use force" does not amount to such a declaration: The POTUS for going to war without a Declaration of War, or Congress for authorising the use of force without issuing a Declaration of War? Either act could be seen as damning IMO if the above is correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #106 January 4, 2005 Quote1) Do you both agree that the US Constitution requires a Declaration of War before US troops may be deployed? Yes, except when repelling an attack Quote2) Do you both agree that at some point (irrespective of its paper status) a defacto state of war existed between the US and Iraq? Yes QuoteA) Whether or not "use force if necessary" [paraphrase] amounts to a "Declaration of War". No. It means what they and Bush all said it meant. That they feared and imminent attack from Hussein. And congress was reaffirming their support of the president to take action to repel an attack. QuoteB) Whose is at fault for the apparent omission of a Declaration of War if "use force" does not amount to such a declaration: The POTUS for going to war without a Declaration of War, or Congress for authorising the use of force without issuing a Declaration of War? Either act could be seen as damning IMO if the above is correct. The president is at fault for overstepping his authority and claiming that there was a threat of imminent attack from Iraq so that he could justify his use of force, even though there wasn't. Congress is at fault for not reigning him in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #107 January 4, 2005 QuoteYou think you're smarter than President Bush. Clearly you're not. The fact that you're not in power provides me with 50% of the evidence I need. By such logic, you must have 50% of the evidence you need to deduce that Bush is the smartest man in the world. QuoteYou sit there and make a mockery of a decision that was made by someone who was willing to put themselves on the line, yet you're unwilling to risk yourselves. Yeah, he really put himself on the line there in Texas and later in Arkansas. What leads you to believe we're all unwilling to risk ourselves? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #108 January 4, 2005 there hasn't been a declaration fo war since WW2, so does that mean every war since then has been illegal, grenada, panama, iraq the first time, vietnam, and all the smaller operations, somalia, bosnia, kosovo, djibouti. by those standards since we didn't declare war on the taliban we are there illegally too huh.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #109 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteHere's a pretty impeccable source: Here's a better one: The Blix report Here's an even better one, which came 6 weeks later: www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm In which Blix states "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found." and "There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of WMD. During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far. " And then after that came Kay and Duelfer. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #110 January 4, 2005 Quotethere hasn't been a declaration fo war since WW2, so does that mean every war since then has been illegal, grenada, panama, iraq the first time, vietnam, and all the smaller operations, somalia, bosnia, kosovo, djibouti. by those standards since we didn't declare war on the taliban we are there illegally too huh. IMO, only Afghanistan was legal and just. That was in response to an attack from an organization under the protection of that countries government. The rest were not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #111 January 4, 2005 QuoteNo. It means what they and Bush all said it meant. No - At the time it meant War. Now it means whatever is politically expedient/popular. Quote That they feared an imminent attack from Hussein. And congress was reaffirming their support of the president to take action to repel an attack. No - no one ever used imminent, specifically they said we can't wait for it to be imminent. As far as repelling an attack, you already said POTUS does not need Congress to REPEL an attack, so going to congress was for the power to wage war, not permission for something already allowed without Congress. This issue is the modifier you keep bringing up "if negotiations fail". As far as when does diplomacy fail, that's subjective and was exactly what Congress needed to backpedal if the conflict became 'unpopular'. ... 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 #112 January 4, 2005 QuoteCongress gave the ok to use force if necessary. That's true. OK so where is my statement that Congress Voted to use force not true? They gave the President the power to use force. QuoteDoesn't make it legal Makes it legal in the as far as the US in concerned. Congress gave the President the right to use force...And he used force. You can play word games about the word "War" all you like. 1. Congress voted to allow the President to use force. 2. He used it. 3. We are now in an armed Conflict that the definition of "War" fits. Korea, Vietnam were not declared, but I bet that anyone there calls them that and my history book calls them wars as well. Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda ect were not declared either. But I know several folks that call them wars. QuoteI agree many of them were big pussies afraid to say no. But that doesn't make it right. Well then they are to blame for not doing the right thing. Bush did what he thought was the right thing. If you disagree fine, but to blame him when Congress allowed it is silly. Congress is supposed to keep the Prez in check. Instead the wussed out prefering to get re-elected. They failed. QuoteAnd some of them have come out and said they don't think it was necessary. They have said that they believed giving the president the right to use it IF NECESSARY was the right thing to do. What they don't agree with is that it was necessary. Then they should have said so...Then, not now. QuoteThey screwed up. They trusted Bush. They did screw up....They voted to do something without the fortitude to satnd behind it out of fear of losing their job. Their job I might add is to keep the Prez in check. If they failed to do that in favor of a paycheck then they are stupid and greedy."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
peregrinerose 0 #113 January 4, 2005 Although I am not jumping for joy with this thing in Iraq, this was extremely well written. QuoteYou know nothing of what it takes to run a country. Not everything in this world is black and white, in fact hardly anything is. You don't know what it's like to weigh the price of decisions that will affect the entire world. You don't understand that there is compromise that needs to occur. Not everything going on behind the scenes is pretty and clear-cut. QuoteYou all sit there behing the wall and criticize the decisions made by men under extreme pressure and danger. You judge decisions that have to be made without all the facts. You get to sit back in safety long after the explosions, gunfire, and cries of pain have faded, leisurely picking apart conversations and reports. You sit there and make a mockery of a decision that was made by someone who was willing to put themselves on the line, yet you're unwilling to risk yourselves. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #114 January 4, 2005 QuoteGet a dictionary. Get a copy of your constitution. Funny how you are the first guy to wave the constitution around when it comes to your right to keep your guns. I guess a simple thing like a war with tens of thousands of innocent people killed is pretty insignificant compared to your right to pull a trigger yourself. Ron, seems like rules only need to be followed when they are benificial to you or your line of thinking. Either that, or you just don't understand your constitution beyond that it allows you to carry a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #115 January 4, 2005 QuoteAlthough I am not jumping for joy with this thing in Iraq, this was extremely well written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know nothing of what it takes to run a country. Not everything in this world is black and white, in fact hardly anything is. You don't know what it's like to weigh the price of decisions that will affect the entire world. You don't understand that there is compromise that needs to occur. Not everything going on behind the scenes is pretty and clear-cut. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You all sit there behing the wall and criticize the decisions made by men under extreme pressure and danger. You judge decisions that have to be made without all the facts. You get to sit back in safety long after the explosions, gunfire, and cries of pain have faded, leisurely picking apart conversations and reports. You sit there and make a mockery of a decision that was made by someone who was willing to put themselves on the line, yet you're unwilling to risk yourselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- true, what he however fails to understand is that is exactly how people are suppose to learn from history. A concept that seems to be absolutely foreign to most nations in the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #116 January 4, 2005 QuoteNo - no one ever used imminent, specifically they said we can't wait for it to be imminent. "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States." • White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03 "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." • President Bush, 7/17/03 Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03 "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now." • President Bush, 7/2/03 "Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03 "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended." • President Bush 4/24/03 "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03 "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended." • Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03 "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." • President Bush, 3/19/03 "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations." • President Bush, 3/16/03 "This is about imminent threat." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03 Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03 Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03 Iraq "threatens the United States of America." • Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03 "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03 "Well, of course he is.” • White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03 "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03 "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." • President Bush, 1/3/03 "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." • President Bush, 11/23/02 "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02 "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." • President Bush, 11/3/02 "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." • President Bush, 11/1/02 "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein." • President Bush, 10/28/02 "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." • President Bush, 10/16/02 "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. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." • President Bush, 10/7/02 "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." • President Bush, 10/2/02 "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." • President Bush, 10/2/02 "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." • President Bush, 9/26/02 "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02 "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness." • Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02 QuoteAs far as when does diplomacy fail, that's subjective and was exactly what Congress needed to backpedal if the conflict became 'unpopular'. Or it was a condition on their authorization to use force, one which he did not meet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #117 January 4, 2005 I think he understands it just fine. He's just pointing out that informed debate is a lot different than just childish and partisan griping and 20/20 hindsight. (I'm attributing this to both parties, so please don't get bunched up on me for that one) Monday Morning Quarterbacking is another nice term for what we do here. But it's fun and amongst friends, so why not? ... 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
SkyDekker 1,465 #118 January 4, 2005 QuoteI think he understands it just fine. He's just pointing out that informed debate is a lot different than just childish and partisan griping and 20/20 hindsight. (I'm attributing this to both parties, so please don't get bunched up on me for that one) Monday Morning Quarterbacking is another nice term for what we do here. But it's fun and amongst friends, so why not? Exactly, so there is nothing wrong with saying that indeed there has been no declaration of war and hence if you claim to be at war it has to be an illegal war. No Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on. No need for a dictionary, just a basic understanding of your own constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #119 January 4, 2005 The Monday morning QB thing is thrown around a lot. However if you go back to Friday night and read what I and many others on here have said in the past, you'll find that a lot of us said... -There's no proof of WMD -The UN needs more time to complete the job -War is not necessary to stop SH from attacking the US Then after we went to war we said things like... -This will be a long drawn out war -We'll be there for years -It's going to get worse the longer we are there -We can't impose democracy on another nation It's not monday morning quarterbacking when your predictions turn out to be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #120 January 4, 2005 QuoteI dissent, which is, in the current political climate, a very good thing for the country. Quote sitting around bitching about what the government does is always a great way to help out!!! when i am finished wasting my time in the military not really doing anything good, i am going to sit around all day long and complain about everything, it'll make the world so much better!! Obviously, based on job performance, Shrub knows hardly anything about running a country either. The world is a far more dangerous place, thanks to him.Quote so because his decisions don't agree with your own that implies bad job performance I'm still laughing that you are defending the guy's intelligence. He can't consistently complete sentences, and constantly makes poor decisions. Call me old fashioned, but that is not what I consider highly intelligent.Quote so all you need to be intelligent is articulate when you speek? and make decisions all the time that agree with your beliefs. do i have that right ***One thing about leading that Shrub does not seem to get is that inaction is often more productive than action. And we are all the worse for this lack of understanding. sitting by with our thumbs up our asses is always my favorite way to make things happen.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #121 January 4, 2005 QuoteAlthough I am not jumping for joy with this thing in Iraq, this was extremely well written. Hardly. His main two points are: 1. You are not clever enough or informed enough to question decisions made by your elected policians so don't bother. 2. You are very lucky that 'heros' enlisted and fought in Iraq so that you can be free to criticize them. Both points are, IMO, a bunch of arse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #122 January 4, 2005 QuoteGet a copy of your constitution I have a copy thanks...And we followed it. You still need a dictonary. QuoteFunny how you are the first guy to wave the constitution around when it comes to your right to keep your guns. I guess a simple thing like a war with tens of thousands of innocent people killed is pretty insignificant compared to your right to pull a trigger yourself. Congress approved the use of force. That makes it legal. You may not like it, but get over it. QuoteRon, seems like rules only need to be followed when they are benificial to you or your line of thinking. Either that, or you just don't understand your constitution beyond that it allows you to carry a gun I understand the Constituition better than you do. Congress is supposed to be in place to check the powers of the President (The Supreme Court also checks both Executive and Congress and they it.). In this case Congress gave the power to use force to the President and he used it. The Supreme Court has also not stepped in. So it is legal, you may not like it, but you not liking it does not mean it was illegal. Get over 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
GQ_jumper 4 #123 January 4, 2005 disregard what i said if you read it all ready, but don't worry i'll be here all week to make smartass commments!!History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #124 January 4, 2005 QuoteThe Monday morning QB thing is thrown around a lot. However if you go back to Friday night and read what I and many others on here have said in the past, you'll find that a lot of us said... -There's no proof of WMD -The UN needs more time to complete the job -War is not necessary to stop SH from attacking the US It's not monday morning quarterbacking when your predictions turn out to be true. Anyone that doesn't believe PK should take a look at this thread from 2 years ago. Just every one of those was stated (by the usual suspects). www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382451#382451 Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #125 January 4, 2005 QuoteWas this the same Powell that told the UN Security Council all about Iraq's WMDs? The very same man.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
