An Experiment...... (1 Viewer)

[tecoyah]

I have noted something in my many wanderings thru Politics discussion. And in here.....I just want to run a little experiment, as a means of confirming a hypothesis I have formed. Please discuss the following statement:

It has become painfully obvious that the Current Administration decieved the American Public, and continues to do so, as a means to justify going to War. I will refrain from posting individual Data, as there is more than enough evidence available to back this statement up.

 

[FinnMacCool]

It makes sense to me though I would not imagine too many of the pro war lot to agree.

does that help any?

 

[Alastor]

It has become painfully obvious that the Current Administration decieved the American Public, and continues to do so, as a means to justify going to War. I will refrain from posting individual Data, as there is more than enough evidence available to back this statement up.

I think you'd be hard pressed to actually prove that the administration intentionally deceived the United States populace prior to the war on Iraq. I think there's ample evidence to support a statement of incompetence and error, but intended deception is another animal entirely.

Once the mistake had been made, however... well yes, I tend to think the White House overdid it on trying to continue to support and sell their position. Admitting mistakes is not a strong suit for this President or his administration. It's something many politicians do though; cling to a wrong statement because it's better to appear wrong than stupid. The White House went a tad too far in this case though, and now has very much laid the ground-work for people to make the argument that they intentionally lied.

I don't think we can say the White House out and out lied to us. I do think we can say that we were misled and that the White House tried to manipulate information though. I also think they clearly tried to assert (repeatedly) and support claims that were blatantly not true through their rhetoric.

I think they did that because they ultimately thought they were right and thus would be vindicated when WoMD were found, when terror cells were found, etc...

Turns out however that none of that stuff has or is going to happen... so they are deemed "liars."

In my book, that counts as a lie - but I don't think they intended to lie. I think they intended to be vindicated and were certain they would be... and it never happened. I think this was a miscalculation and mis-handling of the situation more than a pre-conceived attempt to lie.

 

[cnredd]

I think they intended to be vindicated and were certain they would be... and it never happened. I think this was a miscalculation and mis-handling of the situation more than a pre-conceived attempt to lie.

Sounds about right...

Saddam had everyone fooled...even his own generals and scientists...

But what isn't taken into account here is what WOULD'VE happened if we didn't go in...

Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and the inspections to end so he could reconstitute his weapons' programs...

If Bush didn't go in, there's only one way to find out if this would be true or not...and that's if an attack with these weapons occured...2000+ dead now?...Compare that with 80000+ 5-15 years from now...

Knowing Saddam's background, I wouldn't be willing to take that chance...Neither did GWB...

 

[Alastor]

Sounds about right...

Saddam had everyone fooled...even his own generals and scientists...

Not really. He didn't fool the French, Russians, Germans, etc.

They're the ones that told us to chill out, remember?

But what isn't taken into account here is what WOULD'VE happened if we didn't go in...

Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and the inspections to end so he could reconstitute his weapons' programs...

Yeah, but those sanctions weren't going to be lifted any time soon. And let's not forget that despite opposing a unilateral invasion of Iraq, our allies and most of the world did support tougher enforcement of the UN regs and were applying increasing pressure on Saddam's regime.

If Bush didn't go in, there's only one way to find out if this would be true or not...and that's if an attack with these weapons occured...2000+ dead now?...Compare that with 80000+ 5-15 years from now...

That's not true. Other alternatives exist, and are more likely.

Knowing Saddam's background, I wouldn't be willing to take that chance...Neither did GWB...

I wouldn't have taken that chance either. Then again I wouldn't have acted the same way our leadership did either before or after the invasion.

It's not what we did that has cost us so much political capital... It's how we did it.

 

[cnredd]

Not really. He didn't fool the French, Russians, Germans, etc.

They're the ones that told us to chill out, remember?

Disagree...

The people you mentioned were opposed to the war...for what we've found out to be nefarious reasons...BUT...

At least German & Russian intelligence agreed with the US intelligence...I don't know about France(who ever does?)...BTW - The UN agreed also...

And "No"...they weren't all going by what the US said...

Saddam fooled everyone...Could you find me a whole bunch of sources...BEFORE the war started mind you...from countries that stated, "There are no WMDs in Iraq."...not op-ed pieces from appeasers and apologists...I'm talking about official positions...I doubt you could find 5...

Most countries, if not all, AGREED Saddam had them...what you're referring to is how we go about resolving the issue...That's where the difference lies...

Yeah, but those sanctions weren't going to be lifted any time soon. And let's not forget that despite opposing a unilateral invasion of Iraq, our allies and most of the world did support tougher enforcement of the UN regs and were applying increasing pressure on Saddam's regime.

Oh really?...12 years of breaking resolutions and scoffing at full inspections and NOW the UN says, "This time we mean it!"?...Sorry...No offense to you, but that's laughable...especially when the "allies" you speak of were in Saddam's pocket...

And why is the term "unilateral" still being used?...I guess you think so low of Britain, Australia, Poland and others as "so meaningless" that you can't even acknowedge their existance?...:roll:

Could you please give an example of "increasing pressure"?...

That's not true. Other alternatives exist, and are more likely.

Possible to probable...Here's the key...we ELECT people to make those decisions...even if I don't like it, "I'' stand by the office and the person elected to make those decisions...with the consent of Congress, which is exactly what happened...And no BS about the Administration misleading Congress...If Clinton was able to sign The Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 with the same info, then GWB would be correct in using that same information...if not more...He was implementing the previous Administration's policy...they didn't have the nads to do so...

I wouldn't have taken that chance either. Then again I wouldn't have acted the same way our leadership did either before or after the invasion.

It's not what we did that has cost us so much political capital... It's how we did it.

No one is stopping you from becoming a member of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club...

If we had the same media, resources, pundits, and partisan hacks during the American Revolution, would there be a horde of talking heads saying, "I wouldn't have acted the same way our leadership did either before or after the invasion(war)?"...How about WWI & II?...You betchya!....

Imagine FoxNews and CNN during the Civil War...And you think it's bad NOW...

 

[ngdawg]

I've always been of the sneaking suspicion that Prez, Jr has had a bug up his ass since his daddy's failed attempt at bringing Sadam down in 1991. Yes, the man was a tyrant, etc., but so are many others who seem to have free reign of terror.
Wars, police actions, etc. seem to have one thing in common with the real estate market: location, location, location.

 

[Canuck]

It is without a shadow of a doubt that I say that Bush lied along with all his staff
they used trumped up lies to deceive Americans into going to war with an already defanged IRAQ and have continued to brutally kill civilians
in order to try and bring hostilities to and end but it has backfired and has been a catalyst for creating more terrorists then ever before

here are the images of what America has done
photo op 1 is the torture op2 is through 4 is the crimes against humanity
photo op 5 is the beast of harlots
and a reminder of how well America loved Sadam at the height of his crimes against his people

 

[ngdawg]

Besides the fact that a) the last one is quite old and I'm in doubt the man shaking his hand is American, where's the caption that would say what it is?
b) Anyone could take any picture and say what they want about it, the only one even remotely known is the first one and the personnel involved have been punished and or court martialed.
You'd make a decent propagandist, but you need more practice, ie: some good phoney captions or something.

 

[cnredd]

Besides the fact that a) the last one is quite old and I'm in doubt the man shaking his hand is American, where's the caption that would say what it is?
b) Anyone could take any picture and say what they want about it, the only one even remotely known is the first one and the personnel involved have been punished and or court martialed.
You'd make a decent propagandist, but you need more practice, ie: some good phoney captions or something.

It's a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983...

He's TRYING to equate that we we're good friends with him then...

Of course, if you believe such ignorance, you'll probably believe there was no Cold War because of this picture...:roll:

 

[ngdawg]

Had to be a cold war...look at the hats!!!:mrgreen:
See, now, a decent propagandist would take that picture and caption it:
US President Gerald Ford admires Soviet Premier's Brezhnev's eyebrow warmers.

 

[Alastor]

Disagree...

The people you mentioned were opposed to the war...for what we've found out to be nefarious reasons...BUT...

I see you suffer from the media frenzy... bad news... just as many U.S. companies were involved (roughly speaking) in that kind of behavior as in those nations. No... I remain fairly certain that those nations knew there was no credible evidence to support the notion of a live WoMD program in Iraq just as they claimed at the time, and just as has turned out to be the case.

At least German & Russian intelligence agreed with the US intelligence...I don't know about France(who ever does?)...BTW - The UN agreed also...

If by "agreed" you mean they agreed that the photos we had were legit. The interpretation of those photos (and other information) is what we differed on if I recall right.

And "No"...they weren't all going by what the US said...

Saddam fooled everyone...Could you find me a whole bunch of sources...BEFORE the war started mind you...from countries that stated, "There are no WMDs in Iraq."...not op-ed pieces from appeasers and apologists...I'm talking about official positions...I doubt you could find 5...

Our allies made it painfully clear (though they hedged their words carefully) that they did not support an invasion of Iraq, and didn't feel he was an imediate threat. And no... I'm not going to dig through piles of web sites to find you quotes of it. It was common knowledge and appeared daily in a great many newspapers and on web sites for the better part of a year.

Most countries, if not all, AGREED Saddam had them

Absolutely false. No. A great many nations agreed he was a threat, but I don't recall a single nation (other than the US's closest allies) that said they believe Saddam had WMD.

Oh really?...12 years of breaking resolutions and scoffing at full inspections and NOW the UN says, "This time we mean it!"?...Sorry...No offense to you, but that's laughable...especially when the "allies" you speak of were in Saddam's pocket...

Well.. I definitely see your point here. However, the UN member nations were indeed taking actions, and there's evidence to support that they were actually serious about enforcing the sanctions this time around. You make a valid point of course - and this is one reason I feel the UN is in a great deal of danger of making itself irrelevant... but in this case I disagree. I think the actions of the member nations does suggest that they were rather serious this time if for no other reason than to avert a war.

And why is the term "unilateral" still being used?...I guess you think so low of Britain, Australia, Poland and others as "so meaningless" that you can't even acknowedge their existance?...:roll:

Uh.... because 95% of the casualties are our. Because we constitute something like 80% (or more) of the forces in the nation, because we're putting up something like 80+% of the costs...

The fact that Britain has ... what is it... ten thousand guys? And Polland has 2,000 compared to our 100,000... and their guys aren't in the hot-zones nearly as often makes us a "coalition?"

Come on now. Let's be honest with each other. This is a bone our allies threw us so we could sell the notion that we didn't go it alone. But let's get beyond spin and just acknowledge this as what it is, a VERY unilateral war.

Could you please give an example of "increasing pressure"?...

The UN passed two measures shortly before we invaded Iraq. One that laid out tougher rules for Iraq, and one that increased their penalties and threatened use of force for non-compliance. Again, this was common knowledge for months before we invaded.

....

And... so on and so forth. I think your view is pretty biased, and it harms your ability to sell an otherwise credible argument on the points you made that might be legitimate.

 

[jamesrage]

I have noted something in my many wanderings thru Politics discussion. And in here.....I just want to run a little experiment, as a means of confirming a hypothesis I have formed. Please discuss the following statement:

It has become painfully obvious that the Current Administration decieved the American Public, and continues to do so, as a means to justify going to War. I will refrain from posting individual Data, as there is more than enough evidence available to back this statement up.

I really do not give two shits about the Iraqis, Iraq war and so on,But our troops are there and we should support them.We should be demanding that the rats in th media should be showing our troops in a positive light.We should demand the media be on our troop's side and that of our country's instead of the sides of our eneimeis and the Anti-Americans Americans.The job our troops are doing in Iraq should be finished first before they leave.If they leave early then our eneimeis will think we are weak,the innocent Iraqis will suffer under the hands of our enemies if our troops pull out early.

 

[cnredd]

I see you suffer from the media frenzy... bad news... just as many U.S. companies were involved (roughly speaking) in that kind of behavior as in those nations. No... I remain fairly certain that those nations knew there was no credible evidence to support the notion of a live WoMD program in Iraq just as they claimed at the time, and just as has turned out to be the case.

False...

Sunday September 15, 2002

The German intelligence agency, the BND, has already made public its assessment. For all the opposition to war on Iraq by the German political classes, the BND in February said it had gathered hard evidence that Baghdad was stepping up its efforts to produce chemical weapons and had increased buying abroad of the material needed to make biological weapons.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,792518,00.html

David Kay's testimony before Congress...

Let me begin by saying we were almost all wrong. And I certainly include myself here. Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war. That my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support
this war -- certainly the French -- President Chirac, as I recall, in April of
last year referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The Germans, certainly the
intelligence service believed that there were WMD. It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/kaytestimony.pdf

Right or wrong is not the issue here...what IS the issue is that it wasn't JUST the US (& Britain) that believed Saddam had WMD...Even the ones that were against the war believed it also...

Also may I throw THIS tidbit for your consumption?

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country...

..."After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency. "American President George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he regarded as very important," the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html

If by "agreed" you mean they agreed that the photos we had were legit. The interpretation of those photos (and other information) is what we differed on if I recall right.

You're under the assumption that only US Intelligence was used and dissected...you would be wrong...

Our allies made it painfully clear (though they hedged their words carefully) that they did not support an invasion of Iraq, and didn't feel he was an imediate threat. And no... I'm not going to dig through piles of web sites to find you quotes of it. It was common knowledge and appeared daily in a great many newspapers and on web sites for the better part of a year.

I have already alluded to this statement in an earlier post...

The people you mentioned were opposed to the war...for what we've found out to be nefarious reasons...BUT...

At least German & Russian intelligence agreed with the US intelligence...I don't know about France(who ever does?)...BTW - The UN agreed also...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=133074&postcount=6

So we have countries that had their own intelligence agencies that have said they have information that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction...BUT THEN said he wasn't an "immediate threat"...And that doesn't sound fishy to you?...

Maybe they had alterior motives for saying that...Oh yeah...We found out THEY DID...

Absolutely false. No. A great many nations agreed he was a threat, but I don't recall a single nation (other than the US's closest allies) that said they believe Saddam had WMD.

And name one country that isn't a "close US ally" that would be best served to make that claim...

Would you expect a country like Syria or Iran to stand up and say, "We hate the US, but Hey!...They're right this time!...We'll help them out by publicly declaring what they assert"...:roll:

Well.. I definitely see your point here. However, the UN member nations were indeed taking actions, and there's evidence to support that they were actually serious about enforcing the sanctions this time around. You make a valid point of course - and this is one reason I feel the UN is in a great deal of danger of making itself irrelevant... but in this case I disagree. I think the actions of the member nations does suggest that they were rather serious this time if for no other reason than to avert a war.

And if you want to believe that the "658th time's a charm", you go right ahead and think that...

Uh.... because 95% of the casualties are our. Because we constitute something like 80% (or more) of the forces in the nation, because we're putting up something like 80+% of the costs...

Country Total(Military Deaths...Not counting US & UK)
Bulgaria 13
Denmark 2
El Salvador 2
Estonia 2
Hungary 1
Italy 27
Kazakhstan 1
Latvia 1
Netherlands 2
Poland 17
Slovakia 3
Spain 11
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
http://icasualties.org/oif/

You know all of those people that whine how one death is too many?...I guess these countries don't agree...:shrug:

The fact that Britain has ... what is it... ten thousand guys? And Polland has 2,000 compared to our 100,000... and their guys aren't in the hot-zones nearly as often makes us a "coalition?"

The fact that Britain has...what is it...60 million people?...We have 300 million...They are one-fifth our size in population...They have 12,000 troops there right now...That would be equivilant to having 60,000 troops if their country was our size...so what their bringing in relation to their population ain't chump change...

And the other counties are even smaller...with smaller militaries...

Do you know how may combined troops we have in the world?...Over 2 million...How many relating to Iraq?...less than 200,000...>10%...

If another country has only 2000 troops AVAILABLE, and they send them ALL, I'd consider that significant even if you don't...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Come on now. Let's be honest with each other. This is a bone our allies threw us so we could sell the notion that we didn't go it alone. But let's get beyond spin and just acknowledge this as what it is, a VERY unilateral war.

Wow...You really know how to insult our own allies...I suggest you don't go into public relations anytime soon...You'd make Bush look like the appeaser the last President was...:roll:

The UN passed two measures shortly before we invaded Iraq. One that laid out tougher rules for Iraq, and one that increased their penalties and threatened use of force for non-compliance. Again, this was common knowledge for months before we invaded.

oooohhhh....Tougher rules....going to bed without desert?...won't let him play any reindeer games?...Saddam's been wiping his butt with UN resolutions for over a decade...You think more resolutions would change that?...

And... so on and so forth. I think your view is pretty biased, and it harms your ability to sell an otherwise credible argument on the points you made that might be legitimate.

Because I correctly pointed out the hypocracy of the other nations, I become biased?...I guess from here on out, I should keep quiet and continue to pretend nothing happened...

I'm sorry...I don't even LOOK like Kofi Annan...

 

[iamjack]

cnredd has illustrated the moderate rationale for the war rather well, but if I may compound the logic I think I can contribute greater understanding and consensus.


guys on leashes with underwear on their heads > rape rooms

 

[cnredd]

cnredd has illustrated the moderate rationale for the war rather well, but if I may compound the logic I think I can contribute greater understanding and consensus.


guys on leashes with underwear on their heads > rape rooms

Simplistic...but gets the point across rather well...:yes:

If I may be so bold to try?

30000 dead in a country's fight for democracy > 500000+ dead in a slaughtering dictatorship

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Please discuss the following statement:

It has become painfully obvious that the Current Administration decieved the American Public, and continues to do so, as a means to justify going to War. I will refrain from posting individual Data, as there is more than enough evidence available to back this statement up.

To explicitly post that one would not provide sources and details for assertions destroys the debatability. It's then mere contrariness, contradiction and denial.

If there's really "more than enough evidence available to back this statement up," then, assumedly, one wouldn't have much trouble assembling a case from the multitude of materials at hand.

... additionally, the appropriate implications of the above.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If Bush didn't go in, there's only one way to find out if this would be true or not...and that's if an attack with these weapons occured...2000+ dead now?...Compare that with 80000+ 5-15 years from now...

Are you saying that GWB had grounds for believing that we had 5yrs?

 

[tecoyah]

To explicitly post that one would not provide sources and details for assertions destroys the debatability. It's then mere contrariness, contradiction and denial.

If there's really "more than enough evidence available to back this statement up," then, assumedly, one wouldn't have much trouble assembling a case from the multitude of materials at hand.

... additionally, the appropriate implications of the above.

And thus...we have the experiment. In many respects we all do this to each other in here....we place a statement on this board, and then watch as it morphs into some debate or another. My initial experiment involved watching to see how long it took for the subject to change from the OP...to what it has become.
My intent was to point out a deficiency in the debate technique used by some members here, and the inability to note it by those who take the bait. I am as guilty of this as any, but that (much like politics in general) should not keep one from attmpting to fix it where possible.
My apologies if this was out of line....I will not attempt such things in the future.

 

[aps]

Sounds about right...

Saddam had everyone fooled...even his own generals and scientists...

But what isn't taken into account here is what WOULD'VE happened if we didn't go in...

Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and the inspections to end so he could reconstitute his weapons' programs...

Speculation

If Bush didn't go in, there's only one way to find out if this would be true or not...and that's if an attack with these weapons occured...2000+ dead now?...Compare that with 80000+ 5-15 years from now...

Speculation

Knowing Saddam's background, I wouldn't be willing to take that chance...Neither did GWB...

Speculation

You have no idea what would have happened had we not invaded, so speculating all the horrible stuff that would have happened is a waste of time.

 

[Alastor]

False...

Sunday September 15, 2002

the BND in February said it had gathered hard evidence that Baghdad was stepping up its efforts to produce chemical weapons and had increased buying abroad of the material needed to make biological weapons.

"Stepping up" does not a WMD program make. Of course he was stepping it up - he was always trying to step up his WMD program. I still see no evidence that Germany also felt he already had a working WMD program.



Right or wrong is not the issue here...what IS the issue is that it wasn't JUST the US (& Britain) that believed Saddam had WMD...Even the ones that were against the war believed it also...

Also may I throw THIS tidbit for your consumption?

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says ....

Uh huh... Putin said that after the fact at a time it served him politically to do so. Sorry if I don't trust his motives or his statements.

And we could go on... If you want to.

 

[cnredd]

Speculation

Speculation

Speculation

You have no idea what would have happened had we not invaded, so speculating all the horrible stuff that would have happened is a waste of time.

Funny...

Let me see if I can be like you...

Dropping bombs on Hirosima because more would've died in an invasion?...speculation...

If the Russians didn't take their missiles out of Cuba, Kennedy was going to take military action?...speculation...

You're right...:roll:

Heaven forbid people act upon what may happen in the future...

I guess that rules out every single person on earth who saves for their kids' college education...are they going to college?...speculation...:roll:

BTW - Should we allow nuclear technology into Iran...After all, using that technology for weapons is just...what's that word again?....:2wave:

 

[tecoyah]

Funny...

Let me see if I can be like you...

Dropping bombs on Hirosima because more would've died in an invasion?...speculation...

If the Russians didn't take their missiles out of Cuba, Kennedy was going to take military action?...speculation...

You're right...:roll:

Heaven forbid people act upon what may happen in the future...

I guess that rules out every single person on earth who saves for their kids' college education...are they going to college?...speculation...:roll:

BTW - Should we allow nuclear technology into Iran...After all, using that technology for weapons is just...what's that word again?....:2wave:

....uh... I hate to say it but, I think you just made her case for her.....heh

 

[cnredd]

....uh... I hate to say it but, I think you just made her case for her.....heh

No...

The only way a case could be made would be to turn back the clock, try again using a different mathod, and see if the result was what the "speculation" was...

Example...If we didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the Japanese would not have surrendered and there would be a US land invasion which would have killed possibly 6-figure soldiers...speculation...

They only way to know different is to NOT drop the bombs, watch to see if there is an invasion, and count the bodies...I doubt that will happen anytime soon...

I'm not saying speculation is wrong...I'm saying that it's wrong to not justify speculations when there is evidence that something would be likely to happen.

Man on second & third...first base open...2 outs...Barry Bonds is due up...

Will the opposing team walk him?...Nomatter what the answer, its speculation until it actually happens...

But using the past history, Bonds' stats and other evidence dealing with this, the speculation, "Yes, he will be intentionally walked"...is a very good speculation...

With the case of Iraq, any negative speculation gets "tut-tutted" off by the Left... much the same way people would've said, "Yeah right!...Flying planes into buildings will never happen" if they were asked that on September 10th...

"Those who don't learn from history are bound to be Kerry voters"

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If Clinton was able to sign The Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 with the same info, then GWB would be correct in using that same information...if not more...He was implementing the previous Administration's policy...they didn't have the nads to do so...

The ILA specifically did not involve the use of US troops.
IMHO, the invasion of Iraq with US troops seems to be a completely different policy that specifically prohibits the use of US troops rather than the same policy. YMMV.

Here's a better link to the actual thing: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
​