Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TnHilltopper - "why did we go to Iraq" - Public Law 107-40 - violation of the terms of the Gulf I ceasefire, Iraq uncooperative with weapons inspections and disposal of weapons discovered after Gulf I, implementation of 1998 US policy for regime change, Iraq's continuing threat to US security, Iraq sheltering Al Qaida and other terrorists, etc.
I will be sure to let my editor know that I have been misinformed and ignorant for the past 12 years, I'm sure they will want their money back.
Tnhilltopper - I can't believe that you didn't know all that. You've been protesting the war all this time and didn't know why we're there?
I suggest you might take a closer look at the law you mentioned or as it was known in the House and Senate as H.J.Res.114 in which I will be happy to provide the full text of this resolution and highlight various relevant portions of said document that you apparently have overlooked.
Quote:
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
completely FALSE
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
(based upon evidence given to the Congress through the office of special plans under Dick Cheney which has since been proven FALSE)
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
(never proven because as stated in the above paragraph, the inspectors were withdrawn and later intelligence as well as continued searches until 2007 have proven there were none)
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
(this entire paragraph has been proven false to the point of being completely laughable by our own CIA and military leadership)
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
(another case repeatedly never proven nor has there been any evidence shown that any relationship between Saddam and Al-Quaeda ever existed)
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
TOTAL FABRICATION that has been repeatedly refuted by US intelligence and CIA, as well as foreign intelligence
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; (there is no mention that military force should be used to forward the regime change of Saddam Hussien, and the wording of this document was a method of assessing Congressional members and getting them on record in order to pursue a course of action, but the ILA was not intended as a tool to use military force)
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Was going to war necessary to deal with Saddam Hussien, I guess we will never know.
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
This whole paragraph should be reason enough to haul President Bush into court and put him on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors if not treason.
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Another reason to haul Bush and Cheney into court in order to put them on trial for crimes against their country. The only people who believe these two paragraphs are faith based loonies, glue sniffers and the mentally ill
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
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.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(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.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- 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 3 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 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- 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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.
Tnhilltopper - "I will be sure to let my editor know that I have been misinformed and ignorant for the past 12 years, I'm sure they will want their money back."
Why am I not surprised that you work in the media?
Aren't bills known as Resolutions (i.e., House Res.) until they're enacted into law? This law was passed with bi-partisan support (including Sen. Clinton).
It does answer the question: "why did we go".
Sorry, but I've only got time to debunk one of your objections right now:
Quote:
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
(another case repeatedly never proven nor has there been any evidence shown that any relationship between Saddam and Al-Quaeda ever existed)
It doesn't say "Al-Quaada" - it says "international terrorist organizations" - which means people like this terrorist Abu Abbas:
Aren't bills known as Resolutions (i.e., House Res.) until they're enacted into law? This law was passed with bi-partisan support (including Sen. Clinton).
It doesn't say "Al-Quaada" - it says "international terrorist organizations" - which means people like this terrorist Abu Abbas:
For one, I hold Congress as at the most equally responsible and the least, complicit for failing to use their powers to determine the validity of the evidence presented to them. They accepted it upon faith, little more.
As to Abbas, yes he was certainly captured in Iraq, does this mean that Saddam or the Iraq government gave harbor, shelter and aid to this person? When domestic terrorist Eric Rudolf or Timothy McVeigh were captured withing the United States, does this then mean the US government was giving aid and shelter? I don't think either case is true.
Tnhilltopper - "As to Abbas, yes he was certainly captured in Iraq, does this mean that Saddam or the Iraq government gave harbor, shelter and aid to this person?"
Why, yes it does:
Quote:
Abbas and the group he led, a faction of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), have been based in Iraq for the past 17 years.
Since the cruise ship hijacking, Abbas has lived in Tunisia, Libya, Gaza and finally -- since 1994 -- in Iraq, where the PLF was based under the protection of Saddam Hussein.
Abbas, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Front during the 1980's and 90's, has been living in Baghdad under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,364 posts, read 54,587,695 times
Reputation: 40841
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie94
that is how fighting terrorism is..or i sthat what you meant?
What I meant is that there having been terrorist attacks in two coalition countries it can hardly be claimed that invading Iraq prevented attacks since 9/11.
one was a retaliatory strike against a week system (british antiterror and law and enforcement) for being involved in the war, trying to turn the politcal favor against fighting a war in iraq.
spain was the same, to try and change the political climate..and it worked
america hasnt had an attack because we are in there backyard and they cant stand it so they focus efforts there and they also think another attack will probably have the same result of galvanizing the people again. so its not at the forefront...yet
they are waiting for the right time to strike (if they can pull it off) to show that we havent done aything to prevent it
but they have to balance this with pissing off america again, part that sucks is that they have the discretion and the initiative
they are still planning and waiting for the right time. hopefully getting past american security
terrorism has the advantage of the initiative as I stated above, we took that away partly by invading afghanistan and iraq. so they are trying to wait us out and and use the VC strategy of turning our politics and people against us, once we are out of the middle east they will see it as a victory and soon turn there efforts against american interest at home and abroad and will continue to attack the piper tiger/ great satan of america
all pretty heady stuff but that is generally how its being played
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,364 posts, read 54,587,695 times
Reputation: 40841
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie94
one was a retaliatory strike against a week system (british antiterror and law and enforcement) for being involved in the war, trying to turn the politcal favor against fighting a war in iraq.
spain was the same, to try and change the political climate..and it worked
america hasnt had an attack because we are in there backyard and they cant stand it so they focus efforts there and they also think another attack will probably have the same result of galvanizing the people again. so its not at the forefront...yet
they are waiting for the right time to strike (if they can pull it off) to show that we havent done aything to prevent it
I think that's pure rationalization. The fact is we deposed an enemy of al Qaeda who was not an imminent threat to the US when we should have been going full force at the real enemy. To lightly toss off attacks on coalition members as being meaningless, since the US wasn't attacked just shows it to be a coalition of convenience and no real meaning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
