Richest Cities in America (safe, move, authority)

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by Freefreq

LOL....He has been in office for a about 6 weeks and grew the National Debt Larger then any President before him in just 6 weeks time.

He said no earmarks if he became President.....But yet Both stimulus packages have billions for the same Special Interest Groups that helped get him elected. Yes Acorn is getting Billions too....

He scared his Democratic Congress to vote for a MASSIVE spending bill that will grow the Government Larger then ever seen before and they NEVER even had time to read the freaking thing before they voted YES for it.....How in the hell can you vote for the LARGEST spending Bill ever and not even read the Bill before you vote YES on it.

They took Barry for his word and they let him scare them into voting YES..Obama has the American public running scared and his words arent encouraging at all. Its all DOOM and GLOOM and his words alone are killing the market.

He will NEVER be my President cause he is throwing the Constitution out the window and then spitting on it.

Nothing, outside of his executive orders, has even had one ounce of actual influence on anything yet. How on earth can you possibly already cast aside the bills, without even realizing what the end result is.

By the way, how exactly is Obama throwing the Consitution out the window? It certainly isnt by violating international treaties, which intern, violates the US Constitution by invading a sovereign nation unprovoked.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Get over it, grandpa John lost, and we will all be safe from war with North Korea, Venezuela and Iran for at least four more years.

[Freefreq]

So RandomDude what your saying is YOU would vote for the largest spending bill in US History without reading it first ??

And please dont get me started on the War cause I was there and you really dont wanna go there with your violating BS playing Monday night quarterback junk sitting at home and reading the paper in your recliner. You know what you have read from your left wing websites and paper that fill your mind with all types of lies and saying you have nothing else to go by cause you werent there then thats what you choose to do.

I lived it........... saw it........... and read it. The media trashes the troops and what they do and in due time people will look back on it just as they did with Reagan and see they were wrong all along.

[SiestaBay]

Originally Posted by Freefreq

So RandomDude what your saying is YOU would vote for the largest spending bill in US History without reading it first ??

And please dont get me started on the War cause I was there and you really dont wanna go there with your violating BS playing Monday night quarterback junk sitting at home and reading the paper in your recliner. You know what you have read from your left wing websites and paper that fill your mind with all types of lies and saying you have nothing else to go by cause you werent there then thats what you choose to do.

I lived it........... saw it........... and read it. The media trashes the troops and what they do and in due time people will look back on it just as they did with Reagan and see they were wrong all along.

Get off your high horse and quit watching Hannity reruns day in and day out.

Left wing or not, the verdict is in and there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

The media doesn't 'trash the troops,' the media trashes lies and deceit that the government tried to pass off as fact.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by Freefreq

So RandomDude what your saying is YOU would vote for the largest spending bill in US History without reading it first ??

And please dont get me started on the War cause I was there and you really dont wanna go there with your violating BS playing Monday night quarterback junk sitting at home and reading the paper in your recliner. You know what you have read from your left wing websites and paper that fill your mind with all types of lies and saying you have nothing else to go by cause you werent there then thats what you choose to do.

I lived it........... saw it........... and read it. The media trashes the troops and what they do and in due time people will look back on it just as they did with Reagan and see they were wrong all along.

Good thing it doesnt require being on the ground in Iraq to know that the US attacked a sovereign nation and forcibly removed its leader, both in violation of international treaty and law, which clearly violates the Constitution.

I could care less about you playing the "soldier card". The fact that you stood in the middle of the desert with a rifle in your hand does not make you qualified to talk about anything outside of standing in the desert with a rifle in your hand. Im not claiming to know whats happening on the ground, and frankly, I couldnt care, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal aspects of the war, which are much better handled by "people in recliners", then grunts on the ground whom are mostly average joes and know nothing of international law or consitutional law.

Im now prepaired for you to go in to a genuine Coulter rant about everyone who disagrees with the right wing is a terrorist, treasonist, un-American, hates the troops, communist, cowards blah blah blah. After all, thats immediatley what the right runs to when faced with superior intellegence, and/or facts they have no answer for.

[Freefreq]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

Good thing it doesnt require being on the ground in Iraq to know that the US attacked a sovereign nation and forcibly removed its leader, both in violation of international treaty and law, which clearly violates the Constitution.

I could care less about you playing the "soldier card". The fact that you stood in the middle of the desert with a rifle in your hand does not make you qualified to talk about anything outside of standing in the desert with a rifle in your hand. Im not claiming to know whats happening on the ground, and frankly, I couldnt care, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal aspects of the war, which are much better handled by "people in recliners", then grunts on the ground whom are mostly average joes and know nothing of international law or consitutional law.

Im now prepaired for you to go in to a genuine Coulter rant about everyone who disagrees with the right wing is a terrorist, treasonist, un-American, hates the troops, communist, cowards blah blah blah. After all, thats immediatley what the right runs to when faced with superior intellegence, and/or facts they have no answer for.

One thing for ya bud......Go and read the cease fire agreement made by the UN in 1991 signed by the Iraqi Government and the US.

The legality of the Iraq War is a matter both of international law and U.S. Constitutional Law.
From a legal perspective, it is also important to understand the 1991 cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States. Saddam Hussein clearly violated this cease-fire agreement, and thus the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be legally considered a continuation of the war that started in 1991.



U.S. Constitutional Law

Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water . . . "
A formal declaration of war is not necessary for Congress to authorize the use of force, and World War II was the last conflict the U.S. fought with an actual Declaration of War. Several major conflicts, including the Korean War and the Vietnam War, have been fought since that time without a Declaration of War. Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provides the statutory equivalent of a Declaration of War:
(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. The relevant section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 reads (emphasis added):
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ... Per the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a "specific statutory authorization" by Congress grants the same powers as a formal Declaration of War.



AUMF

Congress granted the President broad powers to retaliate for the 911 attacks by passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001. Section II states as follows:
"(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." [edit] AUMF Iraq

On October 11, 2002, the U.S. Senate passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, also known as the 'Iraq War Resolution'. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
The Iraq War Resolution in part states:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

UN Security Council Resolutions

Iraq was in material breach of a series of Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, as well as the armistice ending the Gulf War in 1991.
The U.S State Department has stated that Saddam Hussein violated each and every one of the UNSC resolutions passed since Iraq invaded Kuwait during the Gulf War. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
Security Council Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with all previous UNSC resolutions, which he failed to do.

1991 Cease-Fire


The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution. Some of those provisions included:

• Requiring Iraq to dismantle all WMD and all long-range missiles *under international supervision* (article C).
• Requiring Iraq to abandon all future WMD programs (article C)
• Comply with UN restrictions on the importation of conventional weapons (article F)
• Permenantly abandon support for terrorism (article H)

As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.

[Freefreq]

Originally Posted by SiestaBay

Get off your high horse and quit watching Hannity reruns day in and day out.

Left wing or not, the verdict is in and there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

The media doesn't 'trash the troops,' the media trashes lies and deceit that the government tried to pass off as fact.

In due time I guess you will find out the truth but until then KEEP that thought ok ??

[Deeman804]

...and if McCain was president, we would stay in Iraq until "the truth" surfaced a.k.a. "forever". Fact is fact, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We saved Iraq from Saddam, but that's it.
1. We were not defending ourselves.
2. They were no more a threat than many other Middle Eastern countries
3. We lost tons of taxpayer dollars (more than the stimulus package will use)
4. The president capitalized on 9-11 emotions by signing ridiculous acts (see the Freedom Act and AUMF)
5. Wasn't this post about how rich VA Beach is?????

[xGrendelx]

Originally Posted by Deeman804

5. Wasn't this post about how rich VA Beach is?????

It used to be, haha. This debate has been interesting to read though.

[Freefreq]

Originally Posted by Deeman804

...and if McCain was president, we would stay in Iraq until "the truth" surfaced a.k.a. "forever". Fact is fact, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We saved Iraq from Saddam, but that's it.
1. We were not defending ourselves.
2. They were no more a threat than many other Middle Eastern countries
3. We lost tons of taxpayer dollars (more than the stimulus package will use)
4. The president capitalized on 9-11 emotions by signing ridiculous acts (see the Freedom Act and AUMF)
5. Wasn't this post about how rich VA Beach is?????

Ok do you actually even know why we are still in Iraq now ? Cause to me it seems you really dont.

In reality the Iraqi War is over and has been for awhile now but you know there are people that arent really liking the fact with Iraq being a Free country. They come from Iran/Pakistan/Seria/Saudi Arabia etc...

The Terrorist come from all over to try to stop the Iraqis from being stable and able to defend themselves. They do this cause they want the oil. Oil means money and if the wrong hands then that means money to them which means weapons of all sorts.

If we were to just pick up and leave what would happen ?? If you were President would you be willing to take that chance without finishing the entire job and stabilize the country so they can defeat such attacks and not be ran over by crazed idiots. Wouldnt you do everything you could so we as Americans wouldnt ever have to go back there again ?? There is nothing saying we wont but chances are if not completed we will in the future.

There are so many other reasons we are still there also but the main one is to make it so these terrorist groups dont end up with these Iraqi Oil fields and an unlimited cash flow to do as they please around the world and to the US also.

War sucks and yeah I want it over also but not till they are done cause if they cut and run it will bite us in the future and eventually we will have to finish it. It not today then tomorrow or the next.

Our country got its shot at Freedom when the French showed up and stood by us against the Brits. We repayed that favor during WWII when France had been taken over by the Germans. We came in and many brave souls died on June 6, 1944 at Normandy Beach.

Regardless of how we got there we are there now. Support the guys and let them finish things so we dont have to return in the future.

[Deeman804]

I understand fully (FYI - I am an independent voter). I think that we need an exit plan (much longer than 18 months), however, I hate when people justify the need for staying in Iraq without acknowledging that we shouldn't have been there to start. I also have a buddy from Iraq (Iraqi, not soldier) and he says that the general consensus is that the Americans attract terrorists. They find it easier to attack Americans in Iraq without having to do fly across the ocean. The American influence and visibility make them the terrorist target. I think its safe to assume that the less Americans, the less violence, especially since we really shouldn't have been there to start.

Also, I support the troops by voting for the guy that acknowledges that a timetable needs to be set for them to leave. Not someone that wants to keep giving soldiers Stop-Loss when they have been deployed months on end