Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[Mercator]

All out war?

Congratulations, TSM, Hurkyl seems to agree, only he thinks it's not "all out war" , so maybe just half a war.

 

[Art]

Congratulations, TSM, Hurkyl seems to agree, only he thinks it's not "all out war" , so maybe just half a war.

I think it's his tunnel vision restricts his field of view so he can't see it 'all'

 

[The Smoking Man]

All out war?

Yes, I believe that even in America, when you launch missiles, invade with ground forces use deck guns from your navy, straff and bomb from the air plus declare war from the White House AND get Congress to agree ... Yes, this is All out war?

What do you define as All out war?

 

[The Smoking Man]

lol :rofl:

Nice rebuttal. Can I use that?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Nice rebuttal. Can I use that?

oh, that wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, i just thought your comment was funny.

 

[Hurkyl]

What do you define as All out war?

I'm not sure, it's still a nebulous concept in my head. I never got the impression from media reports that the US was throwing everything it had at anything that moved.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm not sure, it's still a nebulous concept in my head. I never got the impression from media reports that the US was throwing everything it had at anything that moved.

Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military
Heavy Demands Offset Combat Experience

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A01

Two years after the United States launched a war in Iraq with a crushing display of power, a guerrilla conflict is grinding away at the resources of the U.S. military and casting uncertainty over the fitness of the all-volunteer force, according to senior military leaders, lawmakers and defense experts.

The unexpectedly heavy demands of sustained ground combat are depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fully replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been broken apart or taxed by repeated deployments, particularly in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48306-2005Mar18.html

And many more sources on this topic if you care to research it...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

That is true but in the UK if the prime minister lied to parliament and was later found out he'd be out on his ear immediately. Is there a similar convention in the US if the president lies to congress?

If the president lies before congress while under oath than that would be perjury, a felony, and therefore an indictable+impeachable offense.

But if the president were to exaggerate a threat, it wouldn't necessarily be impeachable, and it wouldn't be the first time either. Take the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for instance: Johnson claimed that US ships were fired upon by N.Vietnamese (it turns out that it didn't really happen this way - the N.Vietnamese ships were purposefully provoked in order give the Johnson administration the moral highground for escalating the conflict, as later revealed in the Pentagon Papers).

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gives the president authority, as command in chief, to take any military actions that the president deems necessary at that time. Then at a later date the president has to justify it before congress. According to the US Constitution, only congress has the ability to make war - as an actual declared state - but the president has the right to unilaterally take military action, even if it is technically not a state of war.

I do not think that Bush lied, but perhaps exaggerated the situation - the reason stated was WMD, which i do not believe was a lie because that was a small part of it. The other parts (need for democracy in the middle east, a US military presence since we were kicked out of Saudi arabia, the ability to sandwich Iran between US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, control of oil, etc.) were not explained to the public. This WMD thing was not a far stretch, given that Clinton had laid the path of associating Iraq with WMD, as cited in my previous post, and also because Saddam had actually used chemical weapons in the past. In any case, as CIC he had the right to do so, and even if the story didn't hold water the way that it was presented to the public it is doubtful if congress would ever take adverse action against a president for doing so.

From wikipedia:

Thus, as time goes by, whether the original pretext for going to war was true or not is thus long forgotten. Even so, under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the American courts, the president is not ultra vires in so acting - because of the "political questions doctrine." The "political questions doctrine" developed in American courts provides that any issue which the courts deem "political" lie outside the jurisdiction of the American courts, and hence, outside the purview of the United States Constitution (since the courts, under the separation of powers, interpret the Constitution).

As a result, neither president Johnson in Vietnam, nor the current president George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq were ultra vires in terms of the United States Constitution, nor were they acting illegally. Whether waging war is moral or not is, of course, outside the purview of law.

 

[The Smoking Man]

oh, that wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, i just thought your comment was funny.

I'm sure the people of Iraq think it is hillarious too.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm not sure, it's still a nebulous concept in my head. I never got the impression from media reports that the US was throwing everything it had at anything that moved.

YOU RAN OUT OF BULLETS.

I am also sure that from watching most US news services taht any impression you were given was 'the truth' as far as they wanted you to know it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

As a result, neither president Johnson in Vietnam, nor the current president George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq were ultra vires in terms of the United States Constitution, nor were they acting illegally. Whether waging war is moral or not is, of course, outside the purview of law.

If you read the Kellogg-Bernier Pact of 1928, the act of waging war is a 'crime against peace' and the foundation of the charges against Class A War Criminals.

Defence is supposed to be the only excuse for waging a war ... ie. it is illegal to start a war but perfectly legal to finish one.

So yes ... as soon as Bush took a left outside of Afghanistan, he officially committed a crime against peace becasue he waged war without sanction of the United Nations.

Oh, and look who is responsible for Kellogg-Bernier and the fact that the thing is, according to article 3, administered from Washington, DC.

 

[Hurkyl]

YOU RAN OUT OF BULLETS.

Ah yes, a good example: the U.S. went in without even sending all possible supplies to the front.

I am also sure that from watching most US news services taht any impression you were given was 'the truth' as far as they wanted you to know it.

I wouldn't know: I'm pretty sure I never saw anything about it on US news channels.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

So yes ... as soon as Bush took a left outside of Afghanistan, he officially committed a crime against peace becasue he waged war without sanction of the United Nations

only according to you, my friend. US law is not superceded by UN law, and according to US law there was no such crime committed.

 

[Hurkyl]

Two years after the United States launched a war in Iraq with a crushing display of power

Making hundreds of precision strikes in rapid succession would be a crushing display of power. So would making hundreds of strip bombing runs in rapid succession.

I get the impression that the former was the typical mode of operation, while the latter would be something I'd think would be closer to an all-out war.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

If you read the Kellogg-Bernier Pact of 1928, the act of waging war is a 'crime against peace' and the foundation of the charges against Class A War Criminals.

then perhaps you can post the relevant parts yourself, because it cannot find any such thing called the "Kellogg-Bernier Pact".

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

oh, that wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, i just thought your comment was funny.

I'm sure the people of Iraq think it is hillarious too.

what? that "clinton told a porky about a bj?" i think that you may be confused.

 

[The Smoking Man]

what? that "clinton told a porky about a bj?" i think that you may be confused.

You're right ... apologies ... that was uncalled for on my part.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ah yes, a good example: the U.S. went in without even sending all possible supplies to the front.




I wouldn't know: I'm pretty sure I never saw anything about it on US news channels.

Ummm ... No they had to search for a supplier of bullets.

They even had a debate about if it was ethical to use bullets from Israel if you remember.

They actually used all their supplies.

 

[The Smoking Man]

only according to you, my friend. US law is not superceded by UN law, and according to US law there was no such crime committed.

That is because the USA has been disengenuous with everything they have signed as far as international treaties.

They are perfectly happy to submit the rest of the world to war crimes trials. They will, in fact drop everyone in front of a tribunal.

However, when it comes to themselves, they refuse to recognize the Geneva conventions, the authority of the world court and have even gone as far as applying for official exemption for all US citizens.

 

[The Smoking Man]

then perhaps you can post the relevant parts yourself, because it cannot find any such thing called the "Kellogg-Bernier Pact".

Damn, I am getting really bad posting these little posts between meetings what I meant was Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928

 

[Burnsys]

That is because the USA has been disengenuous with everything they have signed as far as international treaties.

They are perfectly happy to submit the rest of the world to war crimes trials. They will, in fact drop everyone in front of a tribunal.

However, when it comes to themselves, they refuse to recognize the Geneva conventions, the authority of the world court and have even gone as far as applying for official exemption for all US citizens.

Here in latin america US has asked to all the countries for inmunity for their troops, and that their troop will not be judged in the international court... of course lot of countrys gave america imunity for his troops...

No i ask, why does US look for imunity for his troops, are they planing to do somenthing ilegal?, and what is more... what the hell are they doing here? opening military bases in every country of latin america...

 

[2CentsWorth]

That is because the USA has been disengenuous with everything they have signed as far as international treaties.

They are perfectly happy to submit the rest of the world to war crimes trials. They will, in fact drop everyone in front of a tribunal.

However, when it comes to themselves, they refuse to recognize the Geneva conventions, the authority of the world court and have even gone as far as applying for official exemption for all US citizens.

Here in latin america US has asked to all the countries for inmunity for their troops, and that their troop will not be judged in the international court... of course lot of countrys gave america imunity for his troops...

No i ask, why does US look for imunity for his troops, are they planing to do somenthing ilegal?, and what is more... what the hell are they doing here? opening military bases in every country of latin america...

Hmm... These kinds of things couldn't be reasons for why people in other parts of the world dislike the US. Nah, it's just jealousy.