Eisenhower couldn't have been more right

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Yes, you don't/

Lame

True.

Know what a missle is? It's nothing but an unmaned vessel. Your argument was clearly that missles were WMD's. Why not just suck it up and admit you faulted on this one.

And because you have failed to educate yourself in this matter you don't know that in both the Kay reports and the Duelfer reports, the findings of our weapons inspectors, entire sections are devoted to discussing how Saddams missle program was in violation of the sanctions and how close he was to developing longer range ballistic missles which ARE CONSIDERED WMD.

You tell me all knowing one. The last UN inspector to Iraq clearly stated he found no evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq prior to the invasion.

He said no such thing and besides the subsequent ISG investigation showed over and over and over how Saddam had hidden key evidence from them so what he said has little bearing of reality.

Here from Charles Duelfer's latest statement:

"After revealing the existence of the secret Saddam tapes, the top weapons searcher emphasized that media reports claiming that he had concluded that Iraq didn't have WMDs before the war were wrong. "Some uncertainties remain and some information will continue to emerge about the WMD programs of the former Regime," Duelfer said. "Reports cited in the Comprehensive Report concerning the possible movement of WMD or WMD materials from Iraq prior to the war remain unresolved."



And of course you can go and read the complete reports of both Dr. Kay and Dr. Duelfer which catalog all the proscribed activities and materials he did have.

Mustard gas is not lethal. Again you have no credible evidence of Saddam's later acquisition of any such weapons.

Mustard gas is no lethal if the symptoms are treated but it did a good job of killing the Iranians Saddam unleased it on. And it is a WMD although that was not the primary chemical weapon we were worried about.

Eye's in the sky, you think their movement wouldn't be tracked?

It was and that was reported previously and conincides with what Dr. Duelfer stated above and what General Sada has recently disclosed.

The reports stated of research into the development and acquisition of WMD's however go check the dates on those reports.

What about the dates and which specific reports?

Just what documents have been uncovered?

Besides what I mentioned above, the ones Newsweek and the Weekly Standard have been reporting about the last few weeks.

That Iraq was looking for WMD's? Trying to obtain these weapons?

Yes and yes.

Wait a sec, that's a slight departure from the reason why we went to war isn't it?

No.

Referring again to Powell's breifing at the UN. Not only did the US know whether Iraq had such weapons, but also knew where.

And since they weren't imbedded in concrete and were easily moved.......

Much more then you would ever know. Simple widely used neuro pesticide that are unfortunately, also toxic to humans. Fortunately, OP contamination is also easily treatable, move away from the area, get rid of all clothing involved with the contamination and wash.

Also a precursor to more deadly nerve gas and in the concentrations found toxic and even deadly to humans. Now what would a reasonable intelligent person conclude from the fact that Saddam was hiding these highly concentrated in underground bunkers, camoflaged so we could not see them from the air, at his ammunition dumps along side the artillery shells needed to use them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
The only thing we didn't find were bubblin cauldrons of nerve gas ready to go.

Nor of any prepared nerve gas agents in canisters or aerosoulizable form

And as the scientist who was in charge of quality control over his chemical weapons program said long ago, the nerve gas they were able to produce was highly unstable and did not have a long shelve life so if is perfectly reasonable that they would not have produced and stocked large quantities but rather mix as needed. And in fact we did find that his Secret Intelligence agency was in fact working on small spray bottles which such chemical could have been put in and used in a terrorist attack. Bet you didn;t know that either.

Originally Posted by Stinger
And her too, they were engaged in an attempt to pass off fraudulent information on the public.

Bullshit and lies.

Is that the hieight of your intelligence? But the fact is Wilson and his wife tried to pull off a fast one and he got caught. He lied about who sent him on his trip, he lied about what he found, he lied about who he reported it too. The 9/11 commission completely debunked what he claimed to be. In fact he claimed that HE saw the socalled forged documents and determined they were false months before they even came to light and had to back off that claim.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Can you name a war in which we didn't get flawed intelligence?

Simple, the former Gulf war, the War in Afganistan, the removal of Panamanian dictator during Bush Sr.;the Cold War, WWII, WWI, the Korean War, Vietnam, Civil War, Revolutionary War.

You really don't know much about military history either do you. We had intelligence failures in every war we have ever engaged in, go to a military bookstore and you will find volume and volume on military and espionage failures, it's the nature of the game.

But there was only one possible intelligence failure in Iraq, and even that's not proven. And that was the AMOUNT or WMD, not whether he had them.

Originally Posted by t125eagle
besides, it wasnt just the cia saying he had wmd, but also the british, french, germans, russians, etc. all of that intelligence cant be wrong.

You>>

Neither French, German, nor Russian intelligence collected any such evidence. Your source for this information?

Originally Posted by Stinger
You're denying the intelligence services of those country's also believed he was in pocession of WMD?

I'm not denying,

Yes you did are you withdrawing that now?

I'm simply pointing out your lies.

You haven't point out a single one, but please be specific what are you claiming I said is a lie?

 

[jfuh]

If you have read the resolution then why do you ask why we went to war, it is spelled out in the specific points of that document and reiterated by the Bush administration over and over and over. Those reasons are still valid. And I note that you cannot discuss this in a civil manner which proves you don't feel your own position is on solid ground.

Why are you digging your own grave? From start till now you've been doing nothing but evasion and making lame excuses. The Resolution does not to any extent "spell" out why we went to war. That's not why at all. Do we need to start bring up archived news sources? Seriously dude, just suck it up and admit. You've got nothing on this issue at all.
All the arguments you've brought up this far are pointless and self contradictory. You jump from one argument to another, as in the words of those most supporting of this war, you're a flip-flopper.
Those former wars? We never went into those wars head on with bad intel that we weren't threatened by just that.
WWII Jap's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, that's why Congress with the exception of one vote voted to authorize war, has nothing to do with WMD's or other non-sense like that. So go pack your bags and suck it up, you've got nothing but partisan bickering on these matters.

 

[Stinger]

Why are you digging your own grave? From start till now you've been doing nothing but evasion and making lame excuses.

There is nothing to evade, since you admit you don't know why we went to war even though it was completely spelled out what is there to evade?

The Resolution does not to any extent "spell" out why we went to war.

It most certainly does and those points were repeated over and over by the administration. there are 19 specific reasons. AND the Iraqi Liberation Act was already the official policy of the United State and those points had already been spelled out there.

That's not why at all.

No that's why at all.

Do we need to start bring up archived news sources?

No I've already pointed you to where you can educate yourself in the matter.

Seriously dude, just suck it up and admit. You've got nothing on this issue at all.
All the arguments you've brought up this far are pointless and self contradictory. You jump from one argument to another, as in the words of those most supporting of this war, you're a flip-flopper.

All of which is a bunch on nonsense since you can't post anything of substance.


Let me know when you are up to speed and we can continue.

 

[jfuh]

There is nothing to evade, since you admit you don't know why we went to war even though it was completely spelled out what is there to evade?

I did? Please provide where I "admitted' I didn't know why?

It most certainly does and those points were repeated over and over by the administration. there are 19 specific reasons. AND the Iraqi Liberation Act was already the official policy of the United State and those points had already been spelled out there.

wrong, it says nothing that was the basis for invasion in 2003.

No I've already pointed you to where you can educate yourself in the matter.

Truth would just hurt too much wouldn't it? Fearful of feeling too much of the truthiness?

All of which is a bunch on nonsense since you can't post anything of substance.

Well you don't want to dig through archived news reports so I guess that means you don't like to face the facts.

Let me know when you are up to speed and we can continue.

What's the point? You're illiterate anytime it comes down to the facts. I'll tell you what, when you can actually respond properly to the topic of the thread and learn how to post credible facts to back up your claims, sure. Otherwise, you're just a troll, as demonstrated with your complete dismissal and evasion of that early reply post I gave.

 

[Stinger]

I did? Please provide where I "admitted' I didn't know why?

You had to ask didn't you.

wrong, it says nothing that was the basis for invasion in 2003.

:rofl the resolution authorizing the war and the Iraqi Liberation Act don't? What is exactly you think they are talking about then? They both spell it out quite clearly.

Truth would just hurt too much wouldn't it? Fearful of feeling too much of the truthiness?

I've already pointed you to the truth.

Well you don't want to dig through archived news reports so I guess that means you don't like to face the facts.

I don't need to dig through any news archives I was here when it was debated and voted on.

What's the point? You're illiterate anytime it comes down to the facts. I'll tell you what, when you can actually respond properly to the topic of the thread and learn how to post credible facts to back up your claims, sure. Otherwise, you're just a troll, as demonstrated with your complete dismissal and evasion of that early reply post I gave.

Tsk tsk tsk, name calling will get you nowhere. Try reading the historical documents and you will then know why we went to war in Iraq and you won't have to ask anymore.

 

[jfuh]

You had to ask didn't you.



:rofl the resolution authorizing the war and the Iraqi Liberation Act don't? What is exactly you think they are talking about then? They both spell it out quite clearly.



I've already pointed you to the truth.



I don't need to dig through any news archives I was here when it was debated and voted on.



Tsk tsk tsk, name calling will get you nowhere. Try reading the historical documents and you will then know why we went to war in Iraq and you won't have to ask anymore.

You were around during the debates, but only paid attention to what suits your interests and not the facts of reality. Your various posts since #4 has since clearly showed so.
Iraqi Liberation act does not say why we went. You clearly are arrogant of the situation.
Let's see Iraq Liberation act makes it the Policy of the US that Sadam be removed from power restoring Iraq to free loving nations.
Policy if you may understand, or just arrogantly dissmiss, is not a free ticket for the declaration of war.
So again I ask you, clearly so there's no confusion, Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? What caused congress to authorize war?
How about I tell you why? The administration was blinded by the lust for war against Iraq.


So again, time after time again you continue to avoid the topic of the thread which is IMC. I suppose you are so swapped up in your hawkish personal opinions that the arrogance has blinded you to objective facts.

 

[cnredd]

You were around during the debates, but only paid attention to what suits your interests and not the facts of reality. Your various posts since #4 has since clearly showed so.
Iraqi Liberation act does not say why we went. You clearly are arrogant of the situation.
Let's see Iraq Liberation act makes it the Policy of the US that Sadam be removed from power restoring Iraq to free loving nations.
Policy if you may understand, or just arrogantly dissmiss, is not a free ticket for the declaration of war.
So again I ask you, clearly so there's no confusion, Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? What caused congress to authorize war?
How about I tell you why? The administration was blinded by the lust for war against Iraq.


So again, time after time again you continue to avoid the topic of the thread which is IMC. I suppose you are so swapped up in your hawkish personal opinions that the arrogance has blinded you to objective facts.

I notice the irony in this debating tactic...

You ask for proof that you are wrong, but provide no evidence to your accusation that "The administration was blinded by the lust for war against Iraq." is correct...

This isn't how debate works...

If you throw out an accusation, then YOU need to prove yourself right, NOT having others prove you wrong...

If you have a case...By all means...make it...

But just spewing something out and making it the burden of others to provide evidence agreeable or disagreeable in weak...

YOU made the accusation...YOU provide your support...

I'll tie it up in a bow for you....Here's your accusation...

So again I ask you, clearly so there's no confusion, Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? What caused congress to authorize war?
How about I tell you why? The administration was blinded by the lust for war against Iraq.

Balls in your court...Show us proof positive why we should consider this fact...

No op-ed pieces...No bias websites...We're looking for concrete evidence...

 

[jfuh]

I notice the irony in this debating tactic...

You ask for proof that you are wrong, but provide no evidence to your accusation that "The administration was blinded by the lust for war against Iraq." is correct...

This isn't how debate works...

If you throw out an accusation, then YOU need to prove yourself right, NOT having others prove you wrong...

If you have a case...By all means...make it...

But just spewing something out and making it the burden of others to provide evidence agreeable or disagreeable in weak...

YOU made the accusation...YOU provide your support...

I'll tie it up in a bow for you....Here's your accusation...

So again I ask you, clearly so there's no confusion, Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? What caused congress to authorize war?
How about I tell you why? The administration was blinded by the lust for war against Iraq.

Balls in your court...Show us proof positive why we should consider this fact...

No op-ed pieces...No bias websites...We're looking for concrete evidence...

I notice that you too also like to avoid the topic of the thread.
Coming to the rescue of your fellow nonsense conservatives I see.
Since you state it out so clearly of "no bias websites" essentially there is nothing that I can provide you that you would be satisfied with. Everything that does not agree with you you will simply cast as "left wing biased media" and so on and so forth.
So let me just attempt and see what happens:
Scooter Libby in ousting a CIA operative
Vallery Plame Affair
Stephen C. Wilson's investigation
Just the fact of even the involvement of the administration responsible for Vallery Plame being ousted is an act of Treason against the state.
It's clear as crystal that the administration can not shake off it's connection with this case. For the purpose of what? I can only speculate from all the facts that they were attempting to discredit any information that did not agree with them.
Now, neither you nor your buddy stinger have provided any evidence that supports the claim to WMD's being present in Iraq to justify the invasion.
Unless you as well have difficulty in reading, I've clearly pointed out several times to the question of where the weapons are.
Check, your move.

 

[cnredd]

I notice that you too also like to avoid the topic of the thread.
Coming to the rescue of your fellow nonsense conservatives I see.
Since you state it out so clearly of "no bias websites" essentially there is nothing that I can provide you that you would be satisfied with. Everything that does not agree with you you will simply cast as "left wing biased media" and so on and so forth.
So let me just attempt and see what happens:
Scooter Libby in ousting a CIA operative
Vallery Plame Affair
Stephen C. Wilson's investigation
Just the fact of even the involvement of the administration responsible for Vallery Plame being ousted is an act of Treason against the state.
It's clear as crystal that the administration can not shake off it's connection with this case. For the purpose of what? I can only speculate from all the facts that they were attempting to discredit any information that did not agree with them.
Now, neither you nor your buddy stinger have provided any evidence that supports the claim to WMD's being present in Iraq to justify the invasion.
Unless you as well have difficulty in reading, I've clearly pointed out several times to the question of where the weapons are.
Check, your move.

Two points...

1) How you equate "outing a CIA agent" to the administration having "a lust for war" is beyond normal comprehension...Shaking off the case or not, the topic has nothing to do with your accusation...We're still waiting for proof of this "lust for war"...I'm not holding my breath....

2) You've only been here since December, so I can't really blame you for not understanding that this has already been discussed ad nauseum...

I will say that you coming to a forum and asking questions that are months old expecting this to be some sort of new question only works if you've been living under the proverbial rock..

Wouldn't you think this has already been addressed?...

Anyway...here ya go...It's been dissected intimately for public consumption...

Pay special attention to this part...it flips any accusations of "not finding any WMDs" on its ass...

Guess what the UN inspection team was there to do?...Any guesses???....To INSPECT!...not "look for"..not "hunt"....simply to INSPECT....

And what were they there to inspect? They were there to inspect the inventory and facilities that were ALREADY known through the 1998 team...So when they showed up and said "Where's the stuff the previous team saw?", Saddam said "Uhhhh...we don't know what you're talking about."

So the Inspection team said, "Yes you do...we have positive proof that you HAD them...what happened to them?"...Saddam's reply?..."uhhhhh...We destroyed them."

Now...as stated, the inspection team was NOT there to look for anything...they were only there to inspect...and this is VERY important...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

I will say it again because some of the forum members are not up to speed with this...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

A further assesment can be found further on in the thread here...

 

[jfuh]

Two points...

1) How you equate "outing a CIA agent" to the administration having "a lust for war" is beyond normal comprehension...Shaking off the case or not, the topic has nothing to do with your accusation...We're still waiting for proof of this "lust for war"...I'm not holding my breath....

As I point out, you simply fail to connect the dots, even though there are only two dots missing.
Again, this is not the topic of this thread. So perhaps being so senior as you are here, you could enlighten the rest of us with your higher standard and actually speak with accordance to the thread instead of going off on nonsense.
The campaign trail 2000, already hawks were looking for a way to get into Iraq.

2) You've only been here since December, so I can't really blame you for not understanding that this has already been discussed ad nauseum...

Wow, must be really different then. I don't think I've seen any thread thus far discussing Eisenhower and relating his last presidential broadcast with the actualities of todays news.
Is this how you debate? Discrediting as if those newly joined are highschool freshman? Perhaps you would like to initiate us? Oh wow you joined this site 5 months before I. Please, what is this non-sense, I expect better of you.

I will say that you coming to a forum and asking questions that are months old expecting this to be some sort of new question only works if you've been living under the proverbial rock..

Un huh.

Wouldn't you think this has already been addressed?...

Anyway...here ya go...It's been dissected intimately for public consumption...

Pay special attention to this part...it flips any accusations of "not finding any WMDs" on its ass...

A further assesment can be found further on in the thread here...

I really really have to hand it to you, quoting your own posts, not to mention posts that have been rebutted many times over. Yes indeed, 5 months makes a great difference.

 

[Stinger]

You were around during the debates, but only paid attention to what suits your interests and not the facts of reality.

:spin:I don't think you are in any position to know what I did or did not "pay attention to". Now I have pointed you to the reality, the two major bills OUR government passed detailing the reasons we removed Saddam, that's not even considering UN resolution 1441 or for that matter
(Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). Bet you never read those either.

Your various posts since #4 has since clearly showed so.
Iraqi Liberation act does not say why we went.

Oh yes it does, it set the stage. Try reading it.

You clearly are arrogant of the situation.

How is someone exactly arrogant of a situation?

Let's see Iraq Liberation act makes it the Policy of the US that Sadam be removed from power restoring Iraq to free loving nations.
Policy if you may understand, or just arrogantly dissmiss, is not a free ticket for the declaration of war.

But it did spell out the reasons and stated by force if necessary. That was the question you asked, why.

So again I ask you, clearly so there's no confusion, Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003?

I have already pointed you to the two documents where our government spelled it out and now added the UN documents.

So again, time after time again you continue to avoid the topic

I have given you very direct responses, it's up to you to educate yourself in the matter.

 

[jfuh]

:spin:I don't think you are in any position to know what I did or did not "pay attention to". Now I have pointed you to the reality, the two major bills OUR government passed detailing the reasons we removed Saddam, that's not even considering UN resolution 1441 or for that matter
(Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). Bet you never read those either.

Funny how I would be in no position to ridicule your arrogance, yet you would then come around and assume to know what I have and have not done.
Again, none of those resolutions are the reasons why we went in. I've provided links above in former posts but you ignore them.

Oh yes it does, it set the stage. Try reading it.

Un huh, oh yes it does, my momma told me so. Lame.

How is someone exactly arrogant of a situation?

Do I need to go over this time after time after time? You, like this administration, ignore facts that oppose your position.

But it did spell out the reasons and stated by force if necessary. That was the question you asked, why.

Lol, but that's not the basis for the authorization required by congress for war. You're simply scapegoating the issues spinning your own "truthiness".

I have already pointed you to the two documents where our government spelled it out and now added the UN documents.

Nope, zip nadda. Neither of those were bills for the authorization of war that congress passed.

I have given you very direct responses, it's up to you to educate yourself in the matter.

:2smile: You've been anything but direct, for the first 1/3 since post #4 you were evading the questions and issues at hand and now you're spinning around the issues onto matters that are clearly not what are being asked.

 

[Stinger]

Funny how I would be in no position to ridicule your arrogance, yet you would then come around and assume to know what I have and have not done.
Again, none of those resolutions are the reasons why we went in. I've provided links above in former posts but you ignore them.

Those are the ONLY reasons we went to war because the ONLY people who could send us to war are those who voted on those resolutions.

Un huh, oh yes it does, my momma told me so. Lame.

childish

Do I need to go over this time after time after time? You, like this administration, ignore facts that oppose your position.

My liking our not liking has nothing to do with it. The reasons we went to war are spelled out clearly the the documents that authorized it. Any black helicopter, baseless assertions have no bearing on it.

Lol, but that's not the basis for the authorization required by congress for war. You're simply scapegoating the issues spinning your own "truthiness".

Congress can authorized war for whatever reason it decides to go to war. The fact is we had Causus Beli.

Nope, zip nadda. Neither of those were bills for the authorization of war that congress passed.

I have cited the two from congress and many from the UN.

:2smile: You've been anything but direct, for the first 1/3 since post #4 you were evading the questions and issues at hand and now you're spinning around the issues onto matters that are clearly not what are being asked.

I have directly answered your question as to why we went to war by directing you to the documents which fully spell it out. And noted that if you have to ask it will be very hard to discuss it with you. That has borne itself out. Now if you want to debate those reasons them pick the ones you want to debate. If you choose to ignore them so be it. I don't need to read about it at some blog full of worthless assertions, the government was perfectly clear why we went opened hostilities again.

 

[jfuh]

Those are the ONLY reasons we went to war because the ONLY people who could send us to war are those who voted on those resolutions.

I wasn't aware that the UN had the ability to send the US to war.

My liking our not liking has nothing to do with it. The reasons we went to war are spelled out clearly the the documents that authorized it. Any black helicopter, baseless assertions have no bearing on it.

The documents you have cited did not authorize the US to invade Iraq. Only a congressional vote on a proclaimation of war authorizes such an act.

Congress can authorized war for whatever reason it decides to go to war. The fact is we had Causus Beli.

And those documents you provided were not authorizations or proclaimations of war.

I have cited the two from congress and many from the UN.

Those congressional policy articles are not declarations of war. The UN has no authority to send any nation's troops to war, especially not the US'.

I have directly answered your question as to why we went to war by directing you to the documents which fully spell it out. And noted that if you have to ask it will be very hard to discuss it with you. That has borne itself out. Now if you want to debate those reasons them pick the ones you want to debate. If you choose to ignore them so be it. I don't need to read about it at some blog full of worthless assertions, the government was perfectly clear why we went opened hostilities again.

All I have to answer to you is simply :spin:
You're answers are neither here nor there. Clearly anything I present to you you're going to simply rebuttle as left wing lies (ie Vallery Plame case).

 

[cnredd]

The documents you have cited did not authorize the US to invade Iraq. Only a congressional vote on a proclaimation of war authorizes such an act.

And those documents you provided were not authorizations or proclaimations of war.

Here is the alternative to the "Declaration of War", how it was used, and a link to the actual Resolution...

Frequently used as an alternative to a declaration of war, authorized use of force is often used to avoid traditional barriers to the initiation of combat. Typically a full declaration must be ratified by various legislative bodies, but 'authorized use of force' may allow an elected head of state to directly initiate forceful action without further consultation. In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration.

Authorized use of force is relatively common among democratic societies. The United States, for instance, has been directly involved in military activities in every decade of the latter half of the twentieth century yet has not declared war formally since World War II.

Military engagements authorized by Congress
Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

War or conflict - Iraq War Iraq
Enemy or enimies - Iraq
Initial authorization - H.J. Res. 114
Senate vote - 77-23
House vote - 296-133
Conclusion - ongoing

Wanna take a guess on what House Joint Resolution 114 is called?...

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

 

[jfuh]

Here is the alternative to the "Declaration of War", how it was used, and a link to the actual Resolution...

Wanna take a guess on what House Joint Resolution 114 is called?...

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

I suggest you look at this documentary.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whywefight/trailer/ "Why We Fight"
This is what the original intent of my post has been about.
now as for your house joint resolution 114. Much closer to the declaration of war, however what was that resolution based on? Faulty if not all together false intelligence.

 

[Stinger]

I wasn't aware that the UN had the ability to send the US to war.

It authorized any member state to enforce the mandates of the UN. You wouldn't want us to go to war without the UN saying OK would you.

The documents you have cited did not authorize the US to invade Iraq. Only a congressional vote on a proclaimation of war authorizes such an act.

Yes they did, that was their purpose.

And those documents you provided were not authorizations or proclaimations of war.

They authorized the President to use force to remove Saddam Hussien.

Those congressional policy articles are not declarations of war. The UN has no authority to send any nation's troops to war, especially not the US'.

The first made it our policy to remove Saddam, the second, altough not needed, restated the reasons and authorized by vote the use of force.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (b) 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (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 [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] 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 there after 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 [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (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 [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. -- [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1. [/FONT]

You're answers are neither here nor there. Clearly anything I present to you you're going to simply rebuttle as left wing lies (ie Vallery Plame case).

If you want to dicuss the facts then do so, you simple dismisalls are uninteresting and specious.

 

[jfuh]

It authorized any member state to enforce the mandates of the UN. You wouldn't want us to go to war without the UN saying OK would you.

UN authorization is irrlevant to any nation state declaring war on another.

Yes they did, that was their purpose.

Nope, they did not. It's only how you and other conservatives have interrpreted it to mean. But according to the constitution which clearly states that Congress must declare a state of war in order to allow for war with any other nation will there actully be such an authorization. Those "declarations" are not declarations of war.

They authorized the President to use force to remove Saddam Hussien.

Yes, but that's not a free pass for the US to go to war with Iraq, which in this case was what was required to remove Saddam. Sending funds to support a revolution and so such would also be removing Saddam from power.

The first made it our policy to remove Saddam, the second, altough not needed, restated the reasons and authorized by vote the use of force.

It is also the policy of the US to use force against drug trafficing, however you do not see any troops sent into Columbia. Why is that?

If you want to dicuss the facts then do so, you simple dismisalls are uninteresting and specious.

Because there has been no need to so far yet as your rationals are flawed and misinterrpretted or skewed by a very polarized rendering of what those "policies" mean.


You really don't like to stay on topic do you? Perhaps you would like to read the title of the thread again.

 

[Stinger]

UN authorization is irrlevant to any nation state declaring war on another.

No it is not, we are a signator of the documents and treaties which founded the UN and require any state to have the approval of the UN before engaging in military action against another government. Now if you want to make the case that we should get out of the UN go ahead I might agree with you. But the congress would not have approved the authoriztion without the UN resolutions.

Nope, they did not. It's only how you and other conservatives have interrpreted it to mean.

Yes they did, authorizing our forces to invade another country for the purpose of removing that government IS WAR. We were already in a state of war with Iraq we were just in a cease fire period. We were controlling air space, we were blockading and applying forced sanctions against commerece, those are all acts of war.

But according to the constitution which clearly states that Congress must declare a state of war in order to allow for war with any other nation will there actully be such an authorization. Those "declarations" are not declarations of war.

No it doesn't

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That can be in any form the Congress decides it to be.

The authorization was clear.

Yes, but that's not a free pass for the US to go to war with Iraq, which in this case was what was required to remove Saddam. Sending funds to support a revolution and so such would also be removing Saddam from power.

You are simpl wrong and that has been clearly shown your arguements are nothing more that obstence at this point.

It is also the policy of the US to use force against drug trafficing, however you do not see any troops sent into Columbia. Why is that?

Not military force for the purpose of removing the government of Columbia that would require the Congress authorizing it like they did in Iraq.

 

[jfuh]

No it is not, we are a signator of the documents and treaties which founded the UN and require any state to have the approval of the UN before engaging in military action against another government. Now if you want to make the case that we should get out of the UN go ahead I might agree with you. But the congress would not have approved the authoriztion without the UN resolutions.

Doesn't matter. The UN only allows for troop deployment to be "Internationally Legal" However it does not force the US nor any other state that it must deploy troops. That is up to each individual nation state.

Yes they did, authorizing our forces to invade another country for the purpose of removing that government IS WAR. We were already in a state of war with Iraq we were just in a cease fire period. We were controlling air space, we were blockading and applying forced sanctions against commerece, those are all acts of war.

Cease Fire? Lol what ever you like dude.

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That can be in any form the Congress decides it to be.

The authorization was clear.

What ever doesn't rock your boat.

You are simpl wrong and that has been clearly shown your arguements are nothing more that obstence at this point.

You've shown nothing but of how rediculous and completely unrelated to the thread you're arguing.

Not military force for the purpose of removing the government of Columbia that would require the Congress authorizing it like they did in Iraq.

You're completely full of lies and bs. Perhaps someone needs to teach you how to "stay on topic".

 

[Stinger]

Doesn't matter. The UN only allows for troop deployment to be "Internationally Legal" However it does not force the US nor any other state that it must deploy troops. That is up to each individual nation state.

As with any international agreement or treatie we DO try to abide by it and we did in this case. The UN speak for the world body authorized the removal of Saddam by force if necessary. On top of that it was already the offical policy of the United States to remove his regiem and replace it with one that is self-determined by the Iraqi's through a peaceful democratic process, we are doing that. On top of that, just to be sure, the Congress passed another resolution calling for his removal and liste 19 seperate reason and authorized "any means" to accomplish that including military force.

Cease Fire? Lol what ever you like dude.

If you don't even know that Saddam had signed a cease fire agreement after he got kicked out of Kuwait you are simply too ignorant in this matter to have an intelligent conversation about it.

Go read up. UN resolution 687. I've already pointed it out to you once before.

You're completely full of lies and bs. Perhaps someone needs to teach you how to "stay on topic".

Sir you are far to ignorant of the facts to make such an observation. And your topic is why we went to war which is exactly what I'm addressing, your protest are completely specious.

 

[jfuh]

As with any international agreement or treatie we DO try to abide by it and we did in this case. The UN speak for the world body authorized the removal of Saddam by force if necessary. On top of that it was already the offical policy of the United States to remove his regiem and replace it with one that is self-determined by the Iraqi's through a peaceful democratic process, we are doing that. On top of that, just to be sure, the Congress passed another resolution calling for his removal and liste 19 seperate reason and authorized "any means" to accomplish that including military force.

Doesn't matter, as I've stated many times now. Constitution over rules any international treaty when it comes to any domestic decision. Thus, UN authorization or Ultimatums are inapplicable in declaration of war for the US. The US does not answer to the Vote of the UN unless ratified and voted on before congress. This is especially true in any declaration of war.

If you don't even know that Saddam had signed a cease fire agreement after he got kicked out of Kuwait you are simply too ignorant in this matter to have an intelligent conversation about it.

Gulf war one if you have that memory, was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, plain and simple, had nothing at all to do with the invasion of Iraq at all.

Go read up. UN resolution 687. I've already pointed it out to you once before.

And as I've said plenty, it's irrelevant to any declaration of war by the part of the US.

Sir you are far to ignorant of the facts to make such an observation. And your topic is why we went to war which is exactly what I'm addressing, your protest are completely specious.

My topic is upon the relationship between the MIC and the gun ho attitude of using war to resolve various issues. If you have trouble reading that as you have trouble with many threads it seems, try to control yourself from being so overly dramatic.

 

[jfuh]

Sir you are far to ignorant of the facts to make such an observation. And your topic is why we went to war which is exactly what I'm addressing, your protest are completely specious.

Actually the facts speak for themselves quite clearly. The US and Britain went to war with Saddam over WMD's which Saddam did not have, nor were he trying to obtain.
That was the cause, yet, that was the lie.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm
Interesting how you've avoided this all this time.

 

[Stinger]

Actually the facts speak for themselves quite clearly. The US and Britain went to war with Saddam over WMD's which Saddam did not have, nor were he trying to obtain.
That was the cause, yet, that was the lie.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm
Interesting how you've avoided this all this time.

And the other 22 reasons listed in the Congressional declaration and the Iraqi Liberation Act. And yes indeed the UN inspections were a total failure as the Kay and Duelfer reports show along with the tapes we now have of Saddam and his cabinet discussing how they were successfully hiding proscribed items from the inspectors and General Sadr's admittance that proscribed items were moved to Syria.

 

[jfuh]

And the other 22 reasons listed in the Congressional declaration and the Iraqi Liberation Act. And yes indeed the UN inspections were a total failure as the Kay and Duelfer reports show along with the tapes we now have of Saddam and his cabinet discussing how they were successfully hiding proscribed items from the inspectors and General Sadr's admittance that proscribed items were moved to Syria.

I have not seen any credible evidence suggesting what you have shown. However, to claim that there was such evidence is bullshit.
Plame case, showed the opposite of what you are claiming.
The link I posted of the UN report also shows otherwise then what you are claiming. As well as numerous other reports that all claim other then what you are claiming.
It is very obvious regardless of how you try to spin the facts stinger, that Bush Inc. was so intent on going into Iraq even during the 2000 election campaign that 9/11 was the perfect excuse for them to go in.
None of the "declarations, nor acts" ever authorized war with Iraq. Those were not the authorizations. Since you seem knowledgeable this then concludes that you are lieing about it. Not that I'm surprised.
Here's why the US went into Iraq, went in because of false pretenses of aquisition of wmd's mainly nukes.