Good god, we are screwed out of our minds (maybe) [Archive]

wasteofo2

Aug22-04, 11:56 PM

"NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - A senior commander of Shi'ite militants holed up inside a Najaf shrine said the wall of the mosque was hit by U.S. fire on Sunday night.

Sheikh Ahmed al-Sheibani, who is also a top adviser to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said it was hit during fighting.

It was not immediately possible to confirm the accusation independently. Serious damage to the shrine would enrage millions of Shi'ites around the world and give Sadr political ammunition in his rebellion against U.S. troops."

The shrine they're talking about is that Imam Ali one, god I hope this is wrong or not as bad as it seems...

God ****it **** George Bush, how many more radical anti-american muslims does he want to spawn...

4newton

Aug23-04, 03:15 AM

"NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - A senior commander of Shi'ite militants holed up inside a Najaf shrine said the wall of the mosque was hit by U.S. fire on Sunday night.
It was not immediately possible to confirm the accusation independently. Serious damage to the shrine would enrage millions of Shi'ites around the world and give Sadr political ammunition in his rebellion against U.S. troops."
Can anyone detect the mindset of the Middle East? Where is the logic?

You try to hold the US responsible for damage to the shrine.

There would be no possible damage to the shrine if shi’ite militants in rebellion against their new government did not use it as a fort.

How sacred is the shrine to the militants if they put the shrine in danger. It does not seem to be more important than there desire for power.

Adam

Aug23-04, 03:17 AM

George Bush, how many more radical anti-american muslims does he want to spawn...

As many as he can. The more hatred he generates, the more people he can force to act against the USA, the more he can use those acts as justifications for whatever he wants to do.

JohnDubYa

Aug23-04, 03:36 AM

As many as he can. The more hatred he generates, the more people he can force to act against the USA, the more he can use those acts as justifications for whatever he wants to do.

Your statement is stupid and indefensible. And I don't mean partly stupid. I mean s-t-u-p-i-d.

4newton

Aug23-04, 03:55 AM

As many as he can. The more hatred he generates, the more people he can force to act against the USA, the more he can use those acts as justifications for whatever he wants to do.
You have either lost all reason or have been reading the newspapers.

If you can control your hate you would be able to see that Iraq is going very well. Does that disturb you?

There is no basic principal involved with the militants. It is a simple reach for power. As in any country you can not let a small group control everyone else. If they had the people behind them they would join the political process.

Adam

Aug23-04, 04:22 AM

I have no hatred.

studentx

Aug23-04, 09:23 AM

As many as he can. The more hatred he generates, the more people he can force to act against the USA, the more he can use those acts as justifications for whatever he wants to do.

its getting a bit childish now Adam.

Adam

Aug23-04, 09:25 AM

Ad hominems? Yay. I'll come back when/if someone manages to post something relevent and supported.

studentx

Aug23-04, 09:27 AM

slap your parents for me. I have suggested before you stay out of these conversations untill you are old enough to discuss here. Your ad hominems against Bush are getting tiresome

Artman

Aug23-04, 10:29 AM

For all we know they bombed the place themselves. It's propaganda until there is proof.

Adam

Aug23-04, 10:33 AM

studentx

Aug23-04, 11:50 AM

Adam you must have missed the news a few days ago. They had rigged the mosque with explosives and threatened to blow themselves up if the Americans or Iraqis attack it.

russ_watters

Aug23-04, 12:11 PM

It is so disturbing that the Shiite population (apparently - unless the media is distorting that) doesn't see these terrorists for what they are. This is almost exactly like using human shields and should be considered a crime against Islam.

Ivan Seeking

Aug23-04, 01:00 PM

God ****it **** George Bush, how many more radical anti-american muslims does he want to spawn...

The Bush war on terror. This is why we need someone smarter than a C student at the helm.

Artman

Aug23-04, 03:05 PM

So, Artman... Are they:
Religious fanatics who kill to get into heaven, and would never even consider blowing up their own holy sites?
Basic thugs who are quite happy to blow up their religious sites, and have no religious zealotry at all?
Something else?

I think I have to go with "Something else". They are people involved in a war, Adam. If they thought it would gather them support to blow up the wall of a religious shrine and blame the americans, they may do it. To allow a building to be a martyr is a cheap sacrifice compared to human deaths.

It's just propaganda until there is proof. I approach news from both sides of the war this way.

devil-fire

Aug23-04, 07:02 PM

is there any actual damage to the structure? how bad is it? where is this damge on the structure its self? any large bang or quake could seem like damage to someone inside even though they did not actualy see it. as stated above, the guys inside would have a lot to gain if the building was damaged but it would just make things ahrder for american forces, so the guys inside might jump the gun

maybe this is the subject for another topic but why can the coaliltion forces not full the building with tear gas or use some other form of non-lethal attack? still sacrilage?

4newton

Aug23-04, 08:22 PM

>The Bush war on terror. This is why we need someone smarter than a C student at the helm.<

That C student has the foresight to see what you are unable to comprehend.

The key to terror is the stability of the Middle East. Only the US has the will and the ability.

You can not allow a society that is living in the dark ages to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. You criticize Bush for taking action but without someone taking action Saddum would have had nuclear weapons in 1998.

If the UN made resolutions and they were not enforced the UN would be out of business today. GW saved the UN.

If the nations of the world are not able to enforce keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands in the Middle East every country in the ME would be developing NW. The next test is Iran lets hear how you plan to solve that one. Why don’t you just ask them nicely not to make NW? Thank God for GW and thank God he understands Geopolitics.

username

Aug23-04, 08:34 PM

The world is a bad place, but I have to agree with adam that australia, usa, and uk are especially bad in the past and present. I think usa gets the prize though. I don't even watch television anymore.

wasteofo2

Aug23-04, 08:52 PM

>The Bush war on terror. This is why we need someone smarter than a C student at the helm.<

That C student has the foresight to see what you are unable to comprehend.

The key to terror is the stability of the Middle East. Only the US has the will and the ability.

You can not allow a society that is living in the dark ages to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. You criticize Bush for taking action but without someone taking action Saddum would have had nuclear weapons in 1998.

If the nations of the world are not able to enforce keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands in the Middle East every country in the ME would be developing NW. The next test is Iran lets hear how you plan to solve that one. Why don’t you just ask them nicely not to make NW? Thank God for GW and thank God he understands Geopolitics.

Actually, I believe Ivan was saying that we needed someone smarter than GWB to effectively fight the war on terror, but I could be wrong.

How do you think GWB would deal with Iran? We're already digging very deep into our military reserves, how would you propose we fight a war in three countries at a time when 2 is already a huge stretch, and we don't have nearly enough troops in the 2 current ones?

Gokul43201

Aug23-04, 08:55 PM

Thank God for GW and thank God he understands Geopolitics.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Damn Newton, now I've got to wipe all this Coke off my monitor !!

4newton

Aug23-04, 08:55 PM

>The world is a bad place, but I have to agree with adam that australia, usa, and uk are especially bad in the past and present. I think usa gets the prize though. I don't even watch television anymore.<

Go hide your head and everything will be fine.

If you don’t like the people with the will and the power meeting their responsibilities why don’t you get out there and solve some of the problems.

It is easy to criticize when you don’t do the work. Do you want us to wait for another Hitler? Have you no knowledge of history.

You do realize that there is no barrier of distance or the sea to protect you and give you time to get ready for war. Even if you are not the target the whole world will suffer from a nuclear exchange.

Prevention is the only safe guard. Wake up. Lets hear some better solutions everyone is open to good ideas.

username

Aug23-04, 08:58 PM

gene therapy :)

EDIT: the nuke situation really does scare me, yes maybe I should do more, then again ever heard of MAD no way back.

Gokul43201

Aug23-04, 09:07 PM

How do you think GWB would deal with Iran?

Right now the military option is out of the question, and Iran knows that only too well. Damn ! If only we'd known that the nukes were over in IraN ...

We're already digging very deep into our military reserves, how would you propose we fight a war in three countries at a time when 2 is already a huge stretch, and we don't have nearly enough troops in the 2 current ones?

2 countries ? There's about as many troops in Afghanistan as there will be cops in NYC for the convention ! And there's not nearly enough troops in Iraq, either !

Adam

Aug23-04, 11:36 PM

Adam you must have missed the news a few days ago. They had rigged the mosque with explosives and threatened to blow themselves up if the Americans or Iraqis attack it.

I watch a heck of a lot of news. I was after Artman's personal opinion of the subjects.

Adam

Aug23-04, 11:40 PM

The key to terror is the stability of the Middle East. Only the US has the will and the ability.

Question for you: Is the Middle East more stable today than it was prior to the USA's invasion of Iraq?

You can not allow a society that is living in the dark ages to be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Dark Ages? Do you know anything at all about Iraq?

Even better: Who can we expect to be safer with nukes; Iraq, which you seem to consider is living in a Dark Age, or the USA, which has nuked civilian cities?

JohnDubYa

Aug23-04, 11:58 PM

Question for you: Is the Middle East more stable today than it was prior to the USA's invasion of Iraq?

We are discussing TOMORROW, not today.

Who can we expect to be safer with nukes; Iraq, which you seem to consider is living in a Dark Age, or the USA, which has nuked civilian cities?

The USA.

Adam

Aug24-04, 12:08 AM

We are discussing TOMORROW, not today.

Tomorrow is built on today.

The USA.
Why?

JohnDubYa

Aug24-04, 12:38 AM

Tomorrow is built on today.

EXACTLY!!!!

Adam

Aug24-04, 02:13 AM

Exactly. War, profit, more than 10,000 innocent civilians dead. Should be a nifty red sunrise.

JohnDubYa

Aug24-04, 02:54 AM

Whatever, Adam. Whatever.

Adam

Aug24-04, 06:11 AM

There are more than 10,000 innocent civilians who can no longer afford the luxury of being so non-chalant about their deaths and the state of things in the Middle East. Enjoy it.

studentx

Aug24-04, 12:03 PM

Many hundreds of thousands have given their lifes to get rid of Saddam. It is sickening to see you pretend to voice the opinion of the dead iraqis and raping their cause.

russ_watters

Aug24-04, 12:03 PM

There are more than 10,000 innocent civilians who can no longer afford the luxury of being so non-chalant about their deaths and the state of things in the Middle East. Enjoy it. And there are half a million who can thanks to us. Are you saying you'd have preferred it if we had let Saddam kill half a million?

Ya know, we killed a lot of civilians stopping Hitler too...

Adam

Aug24-04, 06:49 PM

And there are half a million who can thanks to us.

Well, that makes it ok then... :uhh:

Are you saying you'd have preferred it if we had let Saddam kill half a million?

Did I?

Ya know, we killed a lot of civilians stopping Hitler too...
And those responsible should have been before the courts for war crimes.

Artman

Aug24-04, 07:38 PM

Ya know, we killed a lot of civilians stopping Hitler too...

And those responsible should have been before the courts for war crimes.

The USA waited a long time before entering that war. We were chastised for that too. All that is required for evil to win is for good people to sit around and do nothing. That goes for the civilians in Hitler's country that allowed him to rise and stay in power as well.

russ_watters

Aug24-04, 08:19 PM

The USA waited a long time before entering that war. We were chastised for that too. All that is required for evil to win is for good people to sit around and do nothing. That goes for the civilians in Hitler's country that allowed him to rise and stay in power as well. Agreed. That's called the "Moral Imperative" and it applies here to.

No, Adam, that doesn't make it "ok," it makes it an obligation.

Greg Bernhardt

Aug24-04, 08:36 PM

As many as he can. The more hatred he generates, the more people he can force to act against the USA, the more he can use those acts as justifications for whatever he wants to do.

Bush acted on terrorism intelligence. Whether or not it was credible is hard for him to determine which is why he is supported by experts. I'm sure any president in the seat would have gone to war with what he saw in his hands. Did you forget congress read the intelligence too, agreed and gave bush the ability to goto war. Why is this all on bush's head?

Dissident Dan

Aug24-04, 09:12 PM

Most of the analysts were scratching their heads at many things that he bush admin said, including the things that colin powell said at the UN presentation. cheney put a lot of pressure on the CIA to come up with stuff.

wasteofo2

Aug24-04, 09:21 PM

Bush acted on terrorism intelligence. Whether or not it was credible is hard for him to determine which is why he is supported by experts. I'm sure any president in the seat would have gone to war with what he saw in his hands. Did you forget congress read the intelligence too, agreed and gave bush the ability to goto war. Why is this all on bush's head?

The intelligence is becoming more and more sketchy, most of their human intelligence was from a guy called "Agent Curveball", who turned out to just be making stuff up. Those pictures we saw of "mobile chemical labs" etc. were just pictures of random stuff, and we didn't know what was inside, some were actually firetrucks.

And Congress didn't give Bush the ability to just go to war, the resolution they passed had many conditions he was required to follow, and he broke many of those conditions. One condition was he go to the UN for a second vote on going to war with Iraq, Bush didn't do that. One condition was that he exhaust ALL possible diplomatic venues, exactly how many weeks was it between the passing of the resolution and the war starting? One condition was to build a large coalition, I don't know if you consider a force where the USA is 90% of the troops a large coalition, I don't. One condition was that preferrably before, but no later than within 48 hours of Bush declaring war that he give an adress to congress detailing the exact reasons why he felt diplomacy had failed and why war was the only possible option, he didn't do that either. Hell, Bush didn't even have any sort of like formal vote from his cabinet members before declaring war...

And that's why this is on Bush's shoulders.

kat

Aug24-04, 10:24 PM

The intelligence is becoming more and more sketchy, most of their human intelligence was from a guy called "Agent Curveball", who turned out to just be making stuff up. Those pictures we saw of "mobile chemical labs" etc. were just pictures of random stuff, and we didn't know what was inside, some were actually firetrucks.

And Congress didn't give Bush the ability to just go to war, the resolution they passed had many conditions he was required to follow, and he broke many of those conditions. One condition was he go to the UN for a second vote on going to war with Iraq, Bush didn't do that. One condition was that he exhaust ALL possible diplomatic venues, exactly how many weeks was it between the passing of the resolution and the war starting? One condition was to build a large coalition, I don't know if you consider a force where the USA is 90% of the troops a large coalition, I don't. One condition was that preferrably before, but no later than within 48 hours of Bush declaring war that he give an adress to congress detailing the exact reasons why he felt diplomacy had failed and why war was the only possible option, he didn't do that either. Hell, Bush didn't even have any sort of like formal vote from his cabinet members before declaring war...

And that's why this is on Bush's shoulders.

You know, it's really important (at least to me, I'm sure others) that we are able to see references/links when people make statements like this. Do you have any references or links?

Adam

Aug24-04, 11:01 PM

Even Powell knew it was rubbish, and was reluctant to give that speech at the UN.

wasteofo2

Aug24-04, 11:55 PM

You know, it's really important (at least to me, I'm sure others) that we are able to see references/links when people make statements like this. Do you have any references or links?

Alright, here's the full resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

The real meat of it is towards the bottom.

I based my original statement on things I'd heard, and I should learn that what you hear isn't always right, the president was required to give that report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore, not all of congress, but I'd be willing to bet that the speaker and president pro tempore would have shared the reports with all of congress. Also, Bush wasn't required to build a large coalition, but instead seek action through the UN, meaning get the UN to send troops, which would have been a coalition of different nations.

Specific quotes about each point I made:

Going to the UN for a second vote/build a large coalition:

"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

It doesn't specifically say "go for a second vote", but there had already been one vote, and the only way to actually get the Security Council to take action was by going for a second vote.

Exhaust all possible diplomatic means of solving the problem/give a report why war was necessary to speaker of house and president pro tempore:

Partially shown above, where he was required to get action from the UN Security Council, also shown in the following quote:

"(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"

However, right now, I can't find something proving the President didn't do it, perhaps you could find something showing he did? That report would have probabally been big news and the text of it would be easy to find online.

russ_watters

Aug25-04, 10:22 AM

However, right now, I can't find something proving the President didn't do it, perhaps you could find something showing he did? That report would have probabally been big news and the text of it would be easy to find online. Well, I dunno - he made a speech. Is that a report? That's the beauty of such resolutions. They are weak by design. That way if the President ignores them (which he can do according to the Constitution), they don't have to challenge him (because they know they would lose - and for a politician, losing is worse than being a hypocrite). That's also the reason why people like Kerry speak against such acts and then vote for them. Yes, Kerry is two-faced, but there is more to it than that: by just asking for a resolution supporting a war, a President has Congress backed into a corner.

Regarding Bush's justifications, I'm not sure of the veracity of his belief about WMD. I'm not sure they even mattered to him. What I am sure of is that legally, they are utterly irrelevant and morally, a lie (if there was one) is wrong, but the war was still right.

wasteofo2

Aug25-04, 11:40 PM

Well, I dunno - he made a speech. Is that a report? That's the beauty of such resolutions. They are weak by design. That way if the President ignores them (which he can do according to the Constitution), they don't have to challenge him (because they know they would lose - and for a politician, losing is worse than being a hypocrite). That's also the reason why people like Kerry speak against such acts and then vote for them. Yes, Kerry is two-faced, but there is more to it than that: by just asking for a resolution supporting a war, a President has Congress backed into a corner.

Regarding Bush's justifications, I'm not sure of the veracity of his belief about WMD. I'm not sure they even mattered to him. What I am sure of is that legally, they are utterly irrelevant and morally, a lie (if there was one) is wrong, but the war was still right.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if the President gets congressional approval to take action against another nation so long as he does certain things that he can just ignore the things he's required to do?

This war, as I implied in my first post, is being carried out so poorly that we're creating more and more terrorists and pissing off people who already hate us. This could easily turn into WWIII, how could you say that it was alright that he lied and gave reasons for war that were totally false and he may not have even believed?

Prometheus

Aug25-04, 11:58 PM

I'm sure any president in the seat would have gone to war with what he saw in his hands.
Why are you so sure about this? Are you sure that any president would have been so driven to move into Iraq, and to move in at this point in time and not perhaps later, even though so many of our allies were unconvinced and against it?

I am not as sure as you are.

Adam

Aug26-04, 12:08 AM

I'm reminded of the Britney Speares interview in Farenheit 9/11.

Gokul43201

Aug26-04, 12:12 AM

Yes, Kerry is two-faced, but there is more to it than that

Since were into this kind of thing...

Yes, Bush is a moron, but there's more to it than that.

Prometheus

Aug26-04, 12:17 AM

Bush is a moron, but there's more to it than that.
I don't know. That just about says it all.

wasteofo2

Aug26-04, 12:37 AM

Why are you so sure about this? Are you sure that any president would have been so driven to move into Iraq, and to move in at this point in time and not perhaps later, even though so many of our allies were unconvinced and against it?

I am not as sure as you are.
Apparently, according to the Bush people at least, the intelligence GWB saw, and the conclusion that Saddam had WMD was all the fault of the Clinton administration, and good ol' Bill never went to war with Iraq...

Bombed 'em to show who was boss, but never lost almost 1,000 US lives in Iraq.

Prometheus

Aug26-04, 01:52 AM

... was all the fault of the Clinton administration,

Thank goodness. I was worried for a moment that Bush did not know who was "really" at fault.

That old "the buck stops here" foolishness would never bother Bush, since he can't read and has no knowledge of history. The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions. The blame lies with all of us. Bush is the last person that should ever be considered at fault for anything that goes wrong.

wasteofo2

Aug26-04, 08:46 AM

The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions. The blame lies with all of us.
Hey man, speak for yourself, I was 12 when GW was (s)elected.

Adam

Aug26-04, 08:54 AM

I'm reminded of Pa Kettle: "I will never apologise for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are." ~ George W Bush.

Prometheus

Aug26-04, 12:34 PM

Hey man, speak for yourself, I was 12 when GW was (s)elected.
I am sorry, but the rules are that we cannot blame Bush for being an idiot. We must all share in his blame. This includes you. You seem to be attempting to shirk your responsibility. I think that you might have a good future in politicas ahead of you.

selfAdjoint

Aug26-04, 02:20 PM

The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions.

No they didn't. Gore won the popular vote, narrowly but definitely. It was the electoral college, plus skulduggery, that put Bush in the White House.

I personally voted for Gore, and I then lived in a state that was screwed by the Electoral College setup - Illiinois. Notice that the E.C. unfairness is not just due to the constitution, but to the refusal to enlarge the House of Representatives to allow for population increases. This means that Wyoming can never lose its one congressman, but Illinois can lose one of its, if another state increases its population faster.

Bottom line, I refuse to accept any responsibility for Idiot Child and his gang of incompetent clowns.

Prometheus

Aug26-04, 02:28 PM

No they didn't.
I quite agree with you. I was being facetious.

Greg Bernhardt

Aug26-04, 02:28 PM

Bottom line, I refuse to accept any responsibility for Idiot Child and his gang of incompetent clowns.

The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do. They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better. This is why I hate politics. I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes. I'm definately not voting for John, 'Kill Small Buisness' Kerry.

Prometheus

Aug26-04, 02:32 PM

The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do.
Perhaps. If so, perhaps with good reason.

They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better.
I believe Bush screwed up more than any president in the last 50 years.

I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes.
You have the right to your opinion.

I think Bush is an evil person and an idiot. When you say "a good person", do you mean good as in "not an idiot" or as in "not incredibly evil"?

wasteofo2

Aug26-04, 02:50 PM

The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do. They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better. This is why I hate politics. I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes. I'm definately not voting for John, 'Kill Small Buisness' Kerry.
I believe that Kerry can do a much better job than Bush, and that doesn't just mean not fuking up as bad as him, but actually improving things alot. For instance, I believe he'll make medicare etc. more affordable, raise the minimum wage, lower the defecit, restore alliances, actually create jobs, protect the environment better than Bush, and fight a smarter war on terror.

Even if Bush is a good person, he'll be the only president since hoover to have lost jobs, he's quite possibly the only person ever in the history of the world to think that cutting taxes twice while at war is a good idea, most of the world hates him and because of that 90% of the troops dying in Iraq are ours and more people are likely to want to harm us than hurt us.

How do you figure John Kerry will kill small buisness?

russ_watters

Aug26-04, 02:53 PM

No they didn't. Gore won the popular vote, narrowly but definitely. That isn't now and never has been what decides a Presidential election in the US.

Greg - you may be further to the right than me! I had no idea. :surprise:

russ_watters

Aug26-04, 02:56 PM

Where in the Constitution does it say that if the President gets congressional approval to take action against another nation so long as he does certain things that he can just ignore the things he's required to do? The Constitution says two things: that the President is commander in chief of the miliary and that Congress has the power to declare war. It goes no further than that to define the powers of the President and Congress. After Vietnam, the War Powers Act was passed to better define and delineate the powers: it has never been invoked because it is likely an unconstitutional limit on the President's authority.

Either way, I do think the war powers of the President need to be clarified - with an amendment if necessary. But it won't happen because Congress wants to preserve their illusion of power.

....how could you say that it was alright that he lied and gave reasons for war that were totally false and he may not have even believed? I do think he honestly believed, even with thin evidence he had, that we'd find some WMD in Iraq. Whether that was his primary reason for the war, I don't know, but I suspect not.

Prometheus

Aug26-04, 03:16 PM

That isn't now and never has been what decides a Presidential election in the US.

Greg - you may be further to the right than me! I had no idea. :surprise:
Excellent interpretation. You only had to put a couple of words into his mouth and change his meaning just a little bit to obtain such an interpreation. Nice work.

kat

Aug26-04, 05:04 PM

Either way, I do think the war powers of the President need to be clarified - with an amendment if necessary. But it won't happen because Congress wants to preserve their illusion of power. There's no need for an amendment to clarify the war powers of the President. Congress approves a war when it grants the money to pay for it. That is it's quite but powerful manner of enacting its' congressional right to commit to war...without taking the flack for declaring war. Once congress decided it no longer wanted to commit to the Vietnam war, it cut funding..the war ended. It was really just as simple as that.

selfAdjoint

Aug26-04, 09:36 PM

Quite right. All it would have taken to stop the war on Iraq would have been a majority to say no. Getting such a minority is another problem. But it wasn't any constitutional failing; you can't expect a law or constitution to take positive action when legislators won't.

Artman

Aug27-04, 07:27 AM

Adam

Aug27-04, 08:14 AM

USA Constitution:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to...

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

USA War Powers Act:

Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

United Nations Charter:

United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Wouldn't it be nice if they followed the law?

kat

Aug27-04, 08:38 AM

This doesn't stop the President from sending troops. It just takes away much of their support.
Actually, I've posted the case in one of these threads so a search would find it for you..I'm not going to dig it up and I can't remember it off the top of my head (we'll blame it on being pre-menopausal :surprise: ) BUT..according to caselaw....when congress votes to pay for a war it has in effect approved that conflict...which allows it to be a legal conflict. If congress did not approve that conflict by paying for it..or by any other means..then it would in all probability be an illegal conflict (in regards to presidential powers) after the initial time limit had lapsed.