Then and now

[Ron 10]

Quote

Actually, boards make that kind of judgement in nearly every shooting where an officer is involved. Most of the time they say the shooting was justified. Sometimes they say it wasn't.

Bad analogy.

If I tell a cop he may open fire in a situation....Then I can't bitch he did it.

The President asked for permission to use force and the Congress gave it to him. Plain and simple.

They worded it so they could later claim they never did such a thing.

But if you have a a problem with giving the gun to a cop since you don't trust his judgement, you don't vote to give him the gun.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,092]

>They voted to use force.

No, they didn't. Read the resolution.

>Bill, if I give a cop a gun and permission to use it ....I can't later
>say he had no right.

I agree. Now let's say he takes that gun and kills his partner because he's banging his wife. Can he say "hey, you said I could use it - it's your fault?"

Most reasonable people would hold the cop, and not you, to blame for the misuse of the power you gave him.

[billvon 3,092]

GWB, 4/9/99, concerning Clinton's action in Kosovo: "Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

GWB, 6/5/99: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

GWB, 6/24/05: “It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

[Ron 10]

Quote

>They voted to use force.

No, they didn't. Read the resolution.

They did. They wrote the resolution so they could later claim the BS they are now saying...

Simple fact of life Bill, you don't allow someone to use of force if you don't want them to do it.

Quote

>Bill, if I give a cop a gun and permission to use it ....I can't later
>say he had no right.

I agree. Now let's say he takes that gun and kills his partner because he's banging his wife. Can he say "hey, you said I could use it - it's your fault?"

Most reasonable people would hold the cop, and not you, to blame for the misuse of the power you gave him.

This case would be more along the lines of if I gave the cop the power to use his force against an criminal in a warehouse if the enemy does not come out. Then getting all bent out of shape if the cop actually does use force.

Now if I gave the cop to use force against the criminal in the warehouse, and he then kills his wifes boy toy instead...Then no, I didn't give him permission.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[slug 1]

Hi G

>>With the exception of Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Grenada, can anyone tell me where we've gone in, and left? >>

Viet nam


We're still in Croatia and the balkans, Germany, England, Japan, Korea, parts of central America, Guam, Saipan, Sri Lanka, parts of Africa, Kuwait

Engand and the U.S. have been allies for a long time.

Germany was a trip wire during the cold war and would have been a front line for the ground war.

Central america: drug war, kill commies.

Japan & Guam: FOB's for viet nam, china etc.

R.I.P.

[billvon 3,092]

>Simple fact of life Bill, you don't allow someone to use of force if
>you don't want them to do it.

I think cops should have guns. They should not use them unless they need to. If they do use force inappropriately they should be fired and brought up on charges, not supported.

Claiming that it's OK to shoot anyone you want because you were given a gun is silly.

>This case would be more along the lines of if I gave the cop the
> power to use his force against an criminal in a warehouse if the
> enemy does not come out. Then getting all bent out of shape if
>the cop actually does use force.

And if they open up the warehouse, and it turns out to be a Best Buy full of employees - is it OK to shoot them because you gave the cop authorization to shoot criminals?

Here's the text of the relevant parts of the resolution:
-----------------------------------
(a) Authorization: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:

(1) Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential determination: In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

(1) Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) Acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
----------------------------------------

In other words, he is authorized to use force to defend the US and, in concert with the UN, enforce UN resolutions. Nothing in there requiring him to use force; indeed, there are a bunch of provisions that say "you have to prove X Y and Z before you go to war." Still his decision and his responsibility.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Claiming that it's OK to shoot anyone you want because you were given a gun is silly.

You've been misrepresenting poster's positions quite a bit lately. What have you done with the real Billvon? We want him back - he argued his own merits without that junk.

Edit: The inference here in this example is you keep stating this in the context that this is Ron's position.

...
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

[Ron 10]

Quote

I think cops should have guns. They should not use them unless they need to.

Accodring to your own post:

Quote

(1) Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Point 1. At the time they thought the US was in danger...so they gave Bush the power to use force. He used force. Can't change your mind later. Its your kind that claim to want cops to have guns, then yell about them shooting a criminal.

Point 2. Well it says comply with UN resolutions

Quote

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Iraq didn't comply. Now is where you try to tell me that "Serious consequences" means "A nastily worded memo and revoking his blockbuster card."

Quote

In other words, he is authorized to use force to defend the US and, in concert with the UN, enforce UN resolutions. Nothing in there requiring him to use force; indeed, there are a bunch of provisions that say "you have to prove X Y and Z before you go to war." Still his decision and his responsibility.

Quote

They never complied. The Senators knew what they did. They gave him permission and a way to claim they didnt at the same time.

"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

[Gawain 0]

Quote

At least Germany had functional state governments only
two years after the end of the war and a functional federal
government after four years.

Iraq's new government is only 6 months old. Its sovereignty only a year old. How fast do you think the Iraqis need to be to get on their feet. They'll have a constitution by the end of this year. It took the US years to write ours.

Quote

The US could have easily pulled out 1948 or so if it had
been only about the stability and democracy Germany.

The only major reason US troops stayed in large numbers until
recently was the threat of the Sovient Union, Eastern Block, and
the "Cold War".
Secondary and closely related were thing like
the Marshall plan and other support to create also an economically
strong ally at the iron curtain front as well as a useful trade partner.

Germany was split into two countries. It was not "stable" if it were, it would have fallen to the DDR the way Czechoslovakia did in the 1960s. If US troops weren't there, Germany's political stability would have been shattered. In a way, you validated my point.

Quote

The situation in Japan was not very different - just replace "Soviet Union" with "Red China".

Finally, I don't think US troops are in England to suppress an insurgency (like when they close the pubs too early)

We were there to cotribute to the stability of Western Europe.

Quote

So if you spin this a little you can eventually make Stalin resposible for 9/11.

Very funny.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Quote

Iraq's new government is only 6 months old. Its sovereignty only a year old.

So, the country had sovereignty before it had a government. Heh, heh . . .

While I admit those are the definitions used by OUR government to describe the situation, I kinda gotta go with the ones used by Webster that kinda implies a country doesn't exist without being a sovereign body.

As for the Consitutional issue, they just blew passed the first deadline on writing it as was the agreement of the provisional government. While they -do- have a six month extention in doing that, my guess is that they'll either push that until the very last two weeks or let it lapse again.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Alias 0]

Quote

Why not try and do something constructive with all the brain power in this forum and look forward

Roger that!

The resolution required Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also had to certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

We invaded in the name of the UN although the UN said "Do not do it"! but anyway...

We've declared no WMD - one down
We removed SH - two down

Now the US has decided to continue the war, that was based on WMD and UN resolutions, in the name of creating a democracy and ridding Iraq of insurgencey....mmmm that's the hard part ..but included in the mission none the less

So, lets train the Iraqi's under the same training our troops get. I mean, we can take a kid from the middle class hood, who most likely has never fired a rifle or even been hit in the face and train him to be a order following combat ready soldier with-in months.

Lets set the number we need to train, train them to protect the freedom processe and get the fuck out already. And btw - when we leave all shiot will break loose and there's nothing we can do about it!

Concentrate on Afghanistan and all the other rat holes AQ occupy -

Mission accomplished three down
...at least the mission we've been told, this time around

Carpe Diem

[slug 1]

Hi Alias

We'll put a spin on it so it's suger coated but the end game will be as you described:

Train iraq army
Bug out
Civil war
3 seperate Iraq's

I hope I'm wrong and the iraq army can hold things together after "the foreign invaders" are gone,and the iraq's can live in peace & harmony
R.I.P.

[billvon 3,092]

>Bug out
>Civil war
>3 seperate Iraq's

Yep. And twenty years from now, when Islamistan attacks Kuwait with US weapons, we will wonder how this could have happened.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Yep. And twenty years from now, when Islamistan attacks Kuwait with US weapons, we will wonder how this could have happened.

Well, that pattern is a realistic one fer sure. Many examples inthe past.

My point is I'd rather see more intelligent discussion on idea's and challanges of exiting Iraq then the continual nit picking over the BS war!

IMHO The Bush Admin lost my trust through his deception process to get into Iraq. Now lets clean it up quickly!

I actually know more troops in rotation back and forth to Afghanistan (SF) and would like to see more effort placed on that issue. It is deteriorating while everyone bitches about Iraq.

Your point is proven too me. They lied, many including me believed at the time- but some still do ...towing the party line -not including me.

Carpe Diem

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Iraq's new government is only 6 months old. Its sovereignty only a year old.

So, the country had sovereignty before it had a government. Heh, heh . . .

Okay, let's delve into a little history...

Germany, 1945.
Read this and draw a parallel if you wish.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/may03/middleEast6.asp

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Germany was split into two countries. It was not "stable" if it were, it would have fallen to the DDR the way Czechoslovakia did in the 1960s. If US troops weren't there, Germany's political stability would have been shattered. In a way, you validated my point.

First off the DDR and CSSR were Soviet satellite states right from
the end of the war. They did not "fall" to the Soviet's in the 1960's.
What the Soviets did in 1953 and 1968 respectively was to use their
tanks to suppress popular uprisings against existing and well
established communist regimes. Those regimes came into power
shortly after the war through massive pressures and often violent
interventions of the Soviet occupational powers.

The anti-democratic movements in West Germany after the war
were minor and after the atrocities of the Nazis as well as the
brutal methods of the Soviets in the DDR became more apparent
to the public the political extremes were further marginalized.
There were no significant internal threats against a
democratic system, public order, or whatever you subsume under
domestic tranquility. There were no unending strings of
assassinations of politicians, and, other than "black market trading"
and "coal theft", no escalations of serious crime.

This can certainly not be said about Iraq. Even the preliminary
government has only half a cabinet, high politicians get blown up
at every corner, the full spectrum of radicals are having their input
legally or violently, common crime abounds, public safety is a mess.
All this despite the fact that this was supposedly a surgical war with
little impact on public infra structure.

The threats after WWII were from an external power, certainly not
limited to Germany, basically unrelated to any problems with the
west german democratic system or internal security, and would,
obviously, remain as long as the Soviet regime existed. The threat
was not that "Germany's stability would be shattered" but all
of Germany, and together with it much of western Europe.

There is no comparable external threat to Iraq.

The two situations and threats are very different ones. Equating
the two is, at best, a very sloppy (and, regrettably, very overused)
way of arguing.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Gawain 0]

Quote

There is no comparable external threat to Iraq.

Iran.

---

My intent is not to solely compare the two, but to compare the template we have to work with. We have not had an operation of this magnitude since the second world war.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Quote

There is no comparable external threat to Iraq.

Iran.

Hardly comparable to the war machine of the Warsaw Pact with the
USSR nuclear super power at its center. At best, or rather worst,
you could expect a reenactment of the eight year long aimless
slaughter with Iraq as in the 1980's ... but even that is very
unlikely. Iran has or should have its focus on developing its own
economy, and the 80's war drained the country badly for nothing.
Also sustaining an occupation of Iraq is entirely unthinkable for
Iran. Further, it is not in Iran's interest to reunite the UN against
itself with an openly aggressive action.

Finally, the Bush Admin really tried on all conceivable excuses or
"reasons" to invade Iraq - like a fashion chick would try on a gazillion
shoes in a shoe store before buying any. Yet, they never came up
with "protecting Iraq against an Iranian invasion" - that was to
outlandish even for those guys.

Quote

My intent is not to solely compare the two, but to compare the template we have to work with. We have not had an operation of this magnitude since the second world war.

And this is not the only example in which the Bush Admin takes a
historic "template" grossly out of context in oder to poorly immitate
past grandeur. False applications with superficial understanding
are a pretty good recipe for disaster.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no comparable external threat to Iraq.

Iran.

Hardly comparable to the war machine of the Warsaw Pact with the
USSR nuclear super power at its center. At best, or rather worst,
you could expect a reenactment of the eight year long aimless
slaughter with Iraq as in the 1980's ... but even that is very
unlikely. Iran has or should have its focus on developing its own
economy, and the 80's war drained the country badly for nothing.
Also sustaining an occupation of Iraq is entirely unthinkable for
Iran. Further, it is not in Iran's interest to reunite the UN against
itself with an openly aggressive action.

I disagree with you completely.

First off, Iran is in high-gear to become a nuclear power. Second, Iraq does not have a military to defend itself against Iran. Third, based on the recent elections in Iran, and their track record to date, Iran has no interest in advancing its economy or elevating their status in the world community. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been pointed out as a direct participant in the hostage crisis of 1979, and has openly stated that Iran will continue with its nuclear program. Persians are quite cohesive, with a long history, and a strong sense of identity and pride. If they could roll over Iraq, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Quote

Finally, the Bush Admin really tried on all conceivable excuses or
"reasons" to invade Iraq - like a fashion chick would try on a gazillion
shoes in a shoe store before buying any. Yet, they never came up
with "protecting Iraq against an Iranian invasion" - that was to
outlandish even for those guys.

I never said it was a reason for the invasion either, but it's certainly a reason why we're "staying" for the time being. It's an overt presence to thwart overt and covert Iranian interests that would like to see a weak neighbor to their south and west.

Quote

Quote

My intent is not to solely compare the two, but to compare the template we have to work with. We have not had an operation of this magnitude since the second world war.

And this is not the only example in which the Bush Admin takes a historic "template" grossly out of context in oder to poorly immitate past grandeur. False applications with superficial understanding
are a pretty good recipe for disaster.

You mean like how you took my meaning out of context and thought I was doing what you say the administration is doing?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!