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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhman92
I dont know why a lot of people consider Saddam to be the only bad guy, when other Arabic/African leaders commit the same acts against people who opposes them.
It's not limited to Arabic/African leaders, we have places like Belarus and any number of Fill in the _________O-stans.
Before some bleeding NeoConfused starts spewing some altruistic clap-trap about 'helping the people' please explain how supporting scumbags like Marcos, The Shah, and Pinochet to name 3 who come quickly to mind helped the people of their respective countries?
WHY should I look further? You continue to avoid the very simple question even though you've claimed to be quite familiar with the Constitution.
WHERE in the Constitution is the US Government tasked with policing the world, removing 'evil' as it sees fit? Until you answer that all your other commentary about Saddamm this and Saddam that is irrelevant.
Quote:
Declaration of War
In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered ‘‘to make war.’’ 1500 Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone, 1501 in the Senate alone, 1502 or in the President and the Senate, 1503 the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress. 1504 In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual; 1505 in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions. 1506
The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to ‘‘declare war.’’ 1507 Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to insure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks 1508 without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President. 1509
An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. 1510 Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. 1511 Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ‘‘and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .’’ 1512 But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view. 1513
Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session. 1514 Congress had subsequently ratified Lincoln’s action, 1515 so that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President’s action in the absence of congressional authorization, but the Court nonetheless approved, five-to-four, the blockade order as an exercise of Presidential power alone, on the ground that a state of war was a
fact. ‘‘The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.’’ 1516 The minority challenged this doctrine on the ground that while the President could unquestionably adopt such measures as the laws permitted for the enforcement of order against insurgency, Congress alone could stamp an insurrection with the character of war and thereby authorize the legal consequences ensuing from a state of war. 1517
The view of the majority was proclaimed by a unanimous Court a few years later when it became necessary to ascertain the exact dates on which the war began and ended. The Court, the Chief Justice said, must ‘‘refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended
blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second.’’ 1518
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnam War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration. 1519 The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, 1520 and the lower courts generally refused, on ‘‘political question’’ grounds, to adjudicate the matter. 1521 In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant. 1522
I dont know why a lot of people consider Saddam to be the only bad guy, when other Arabic/African leaders commit the same acts against people who opposes them.
They happen all over the world. Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world, one million strong. We took appropriate actions over and over and over and over and over and over again. It should be very clear to everyone that he was going to continue to be the same person he always was and a continual threat to the US and the rest of the world. The fact that we gave them billions of dollars for food to feed their people and they instead used it to procure arms while passing off good gestures of giving spoiled food to its people should have been more than an eye opener.
And although none of those situations are desirable the axis of evil was real and that is further backed up by Iran and NK's actions as of late. One could argue that we should have done something to NK or Iran before Iraq I guess. The results are still the same. The same three countries defy the rest of the world and continue to act hostile no matter what happens or how many sanctions are created or open hand is given to them.
The United States went to war against Iraq in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was chock-a-block with '�weapons of mass destruction�' (WMD). Eventually, the Americans had to admit they were wrong and they just couldn�t find those weapons. Many skeptics suspect the Bush administration lied about the WMDs in Iraq to cover a desire to invade and steal Iraqi oil.
Few understand that the United States is still lying. Iraq is full of WMDs, both used and unused, but the Bushoviks and their sycophantic media fail to alert the public because it is the Americans who are using them.
The United States has a long history of manufacturing, storing, selling and deploying WMDs. As far back as World War II, there is clear evidence of use by the United States of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of WMD.
Most of us who point fingers at the Americans are best familiar with their exploits in Vietnam. Agent Orange and napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam, although they also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and Green (the �'agents'� were so named because of the color of distinguishing markers on their shipping containers). These products are actually herbicides, developed during the 1940s, but in Vietnam they became defoliants, used to strip away the trees and grasses in order to deny the enemy hiding places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their extensive use in Vietnam has compromised the health of many who came in contact with them, including American forces.
Napalm, or jellied gasoline, was also used as a defoliant in Vietnam but, unlike the Agents, it burned the vegetation and killed by incineration anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way. Napalm bombs were also dropped on Japan by Allied troops during World War II and were used in flamethrowers in Germany in the same war. Later, it was used by United Nations forces during the Korean War. Although its use was banned by the United Nations in 1980, the United States did not sign the agreement.
The U.S. claimed to have destroyed its supplies of napalm by 2001 but that appears to be a matter of semantics rather than fact; current evidence shows they have used it as recently as 2003 in Iraq. A report carried in The Independent on August 10, 2003 quotes Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11: "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches. Unfortunately, there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." The Pentagon claims its denial of napalm use is not untrue because they have altered the petroleum distillate used and renamed the product the '�Mark 77 firebomb'�. Its victims will surely appreciate the clarification.
While the United States remains the only nation to actually drop an atomic bomb on an enemy, there have been four occasions in the past 15 years where the United States has actually engaged in nuclear war: in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf Wars I & II.
American soldiers have dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) on enemy combatants since 1991. It is lethal; it is horrid, and although it doesn�t have the bluster and showmanship of a mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb.
The use of DU is illegal under all international agreements, treaties, and covenants and it is illegal even under U.S. military law regarding WMDs. But in defiance of those international treaties, and its own laws, the United States continues to use this destructive material in full knowledge that its use could result in the slow annihilation of all species, including our own.
Depleted uranium is a waste by-product of nuclear weapons and domestic nuclear power. It is used in weapons because it is cheap, ignites easily and burns fiercely on hitting a solid target. When it impacts, it releases an aerosol of fine uranium oxide that is breathable and spreads great distances by wind until weighted down by rain, where it falls to the ground and is absorbed into soil or water sources. It was first developed for the U.S. Navy in 1968 and DU weapons were supplied to, and used by, Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Since then, the U.S. has sold DU weapons to at least 29 countries. The plans for this substance, however, actually date back to 1943. A declassified document from the Manhattan
Scientists are quite certain on two points: DU is deadly; and the effects of this material will continue to contaminate the Earth long after humans are extinct. They are also fairly clear that continued use of DU will mean the future is going to move ahead without us. Euphemistically, some in military circles refer to DU as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, the ultimate gift that keeps on giving. The half-life of the material is 4.5 billion years.
Project is a blueprint for depleted uranium weapons. The Americans have given DU to weapons manufacturers free of charge.
This is very dangerous material: it meets the U.S. definition of a ''weapon of mass destruction'' and while the United States is prepared to invade sovereign countries on the basis they ''might'' have WMDs themselves and they ''might'' be willing to use them, the Americans actually have them and actually use them. And they use them in complete disregard for the people and nations on whom they are dropped, even in disregard for the health of their own and allied troops. In the three-week Gulf War in 1991, just 467 U.S. personnel were reported as wounded. Of the 580,400 GIs who served in that war, more than 11,000 are now dead and in excess of 400,000 are on permanent medical disability. New cases are arising by an astounding 43,000 per year. In a nutshell, more than 70% of those who served in the Gulf in 1990-91 now have medical problems. The only substances to which these troops are known to have been exposed are vaccines and depleted uranium. Vaccines do not cause the diseases these troops have contracted.
In response to the mounting evidence of the hazards, the American response has been to use the same material in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and for a second time in Iraq. This transcends mere politics: it has now gone on through three presidential administrations. Even worse, the Americans knew the deadly hazard inherent in this material before they ever started to use it. A military report prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1974 stated: �In combat situations involving the widespread use of DU munitions, the potential for inhalation, ingestion, or implantation of DU compounds may be locally significant.� A contractor to the military, Science Applications International Corporation, noted in a July 1990 report that �aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects.�
Americans have cheered the successes of their military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, in the Balkans. Most remain ignorant of the horrendous weapons their troops used to destroy such feeble enemies. Even more, they are almost completely ignorant of the hazards faced by their own troops from the toys at their disposal. There is no outrage in the U.S. for the dangers being faced by American troops, even less outrage for the innocent victims of this lethal onslaught. But America�s craven allies can offer no excuses for their silence. None of the information presented in this article is secret: it is readily available from a variety of sources. In several countries, there are victims of DU exposure who thought they were going to fight the good fight with their Yankee friends, little realizing that their best buddy was going to expose them to lethal substances, just because they could.
The American decision to initiate the use of DU weaponry, and then to continue its use even when evidence mounted to thwart any lingering doubts about the hazards, is a despicable act. This has been a cold, calculated decision to inflict long-lasting harm on enemies with no regard for the innocent in those lands and no regard even for American and allied troops.
There are few observers who would excuse any other nation behaving in this way from charges of war crimes.
Depleted uranium appears to have been given the green light in 1990 for three reasons: to test the efficacy of fourth generation nuclear weapons still in their development stage, to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weaponry, and to facilitate the reintroduction of nuclear weapons into the American arsenal. And it has done a marvelous job of stopping the enemy. Unfortunately, the side effects on civilian populations and the long-lasting environmental effects are horrendous.
If the use of this weaponry marks the future of American strategy, and given their proclivity for military adventures, the deleterious effects of DU on the environment and on the population of various countries is assured. More, the health of American and allied troops is also compromised.
The continued use of DU weapons should be sufficient reason for America�s allies to decline invitations to future military excursions. Regardless of the peril presented by the enemy, America�s allies need to be concerned about the peril presented by America.
''Iraq is full of WMD'' | U.S. Military |Axisoflogic.com (http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_12216.shtml - broken link)
Talking about the power to declare war says NOTHING about the reason to declare war. Just where is the government tasked with policing the world? Where are the living conditions of people in another country given as a reason to declare war? You continue to evade a very simple question.
Ohh look another one. Let me guess, you decided not to watch the video either and instead wanted to do a fly-by-streaking to act like you know something.
I only watched a little on it but could not see anymore becuase it was sick. However even though Many Iraqis first welcomed the invasion of the US lead coalition, now has
turned against them. I enclose an example of this:
The regrets of the man who brought down Saddam
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad's Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.
The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: "I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."
The weightlifter had also been a mechanic and had felt the full weight of Saddam's regime when he was sent to Abu Ghraib prison by the Iraqi leader's son, Uday, after complaining that he had not been paid for fixing his motorcycle.
He explained: "There were lots of people from my tribe who were also put in prison or hanged. It became my dream ever since I saw them building that statue to one day topple it."
Yet he now says he would prefer to be living under Saddam than under US occupation. He said: "The devil you know [is] better than the devil you don't. We no longer know friend from foe. The situation is becoming more dangerous. It's not getting better at all. People are poor and the prices are going higher and higher."
According to an opinion poll of 5,000 Iraqis carried out over the past month, 49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam. More than one in four said they had had a close relative murdered in the past three years.
Saddam, he says, "was like Stalin. But the occupation is proving to be worse".
They happen all over the world. Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world, one million strong. We took appropriate actions over and over and over and over and over and over again. It should be very clear to everyone that he was going to continue to be the same person he always was and a continual threat to the US and the rest of the world. The fact that we gave them billions of dollars for food to feed their people and they instead used it to procure arms while passing off good gestures of giving spoiled food to its people should have been more than an eye opener.
And although none of those situations are desirable the axis of evil was real and that is further backed up by Iran and NK's actions as of late. One could argue that we should have done something to NK or Iran before Iraq I guess. The results are still the same. The same three countries defy the rest of the world and continue to act hostile no matter what happens or how many sanctions are created or open hand is given to them.
The thing is Saddam was used by the U.S. for a long time, and he was dumb enough to do everything the U.S. ordered him to do, especially in the gulf war when he took permission from the U.S. to attack Kuwait and the U.S. told him it was up to him, from that day the U.S. knew they would have a justifiable reason to invade Iraq sometime in the future, when Saddam started to realize that he was being used by the U.S. all these years, he was done by then anyways because he created a lot of enemies worldwide.
''Iraq is full of WMD'' | U.S. Military |Axisoflogic.com (http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_12216.shtml - broken link)
It doesn't appear that you know about copyrighted material and posting it in full on the board. You can post full documents if they are of public use such as would be the case from government websites like the GPO.gov or GAO.gov.
I'll look over your link but any "story" that refers to Bush as Bushoviks really deserves no credibility.
I understand more than you'll ever understand because you seem to think he's all a republican doing. Cut the partisanship, watch the video and quit cosmeticizing the brutal dictator.
Yes, that is how he came to power originally, at a time where we didn't know the extent of how much of a tyrant Saddam was. Once we knew the extent Reagan and Bush continued to fund, him continued to arm him. I do find a bit interesting that the things Saddam was ultimately put to death for was for actions he committed against his own people during the 80's. This was when he as at his worst, this was when we funded and armed him the most.
Talking about the power to declare war says NOTHING about the reason to declare war. Just where is the government tasked with policing the world? Where are the living conditions of people in another country given as a reason to declare war? You continue to evade a very simple question.
I haven't evaded anything. If you think terrorism doesn't affect you then that's all fine and dandy. It obviously does whether you like it or not. It's in our national security interest to seek out and find terrorist and state sponsors of terror. You should know this by now but you're one of those people that thinks if you turn your head just the right way you can avoid all that.
Quote:
Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.
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.
Iraq is full of WMD
