TERRORISM

[LaidZeppelin]

this was going to be a response to another post but i thought more people should read it to gain some perspective.

I really cannot believe some of you people. DO some history for Christs sake, its fucking important. The sactions we put on Iraq in the early 90's doubled infant mortality and killed hundreds of thousands of women and children. OUR POLICIES FUCKING KILL PEOPLE!!!! If Iran was occupying mexico our CIA would be killing their soldiers, military enlistment would be through the roof and all you people who say "bomb Iran" would support it. It doesnt justify the attacks but it sure as hell explains it. We need to understand that our policies have a real effect on people. We supported Iraq during the IRAN - IRAQ war that led to the death of over a million muslims.....A MILLION!!!!!!!! Then Iraq ( used the weapons and support we gave them to invade Kuwait ). Then we use sanctions that lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians. At the same time we are selling arms and supporting Saudi Arabia, a brutal dictatorship. WAKE UP GUYS is it really hard to see why they hate us. George Bush has done far more damage to this country than a few hundred guys out in the desert who still use AK's they got off of dead Soviets and still make their terrorist videos on FUCKING VHS....WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!

RON PAUL 2008

[Breukelen advocaat]

The only rational choice that you leave us with is to have nothing to do with the Middle East.

Unfortunately, not too many North Americans would be willing to drive their cars less until alternative forms of energy are perfected.

Personally, I'd tell them to shove their oil. We should boycott those bastards until hell freezes over. Fuck 'em all. They'll come crawling back on their hands and knees with bin laden's head on a platter if we did that for a few months.

[psychocat]

I agree with the fact that America is reaping what it has sown.
It doesn't suprise me that after all the meddling in other countries America is seen as an overly aggressive nation.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I agree with the fact that America is reaping what it has sown.
It doesn't suprise me that after all the meddling in other countries America is seen as an overly aggressive nation.

Hey psychocat - you gave me a negative "rep" rating for expressing my opinion, and wrote "Crazy" in the explanation. Is that what this rating system is meant for? I really don't care - but it's rather childish. If you disagree with my opinion you'd be better off writing why, and what you would do instead.

One more time: BOYCOTT MIDDLE EAST OIL! We don't need it, the terrorism, or their dirty politics.

[psychocat]

The arrogance of the "let them come crawling" is what is crazy, what makes you think they need the US ? China needs energy on a massive scale so they won't be too bothered if America freezes it's ass off because they can't meet thier energy needs. Americas past is defining it's future and the attitude you have defines my reaction.
Your reaction is childish IMO , bit of tit for tat with the rep?? Not bothered in the least BTW
You obviously have a problem with criticism , the rep system isn't just for complacent agreement.

[Psycho4Bud]

So what are the excuses for the attacks in Southern Asia, Spain, Great Britain by Al-Quada? Sure the hell wasn't the U.S. to blame with that shit. We can act like scared rabbits and hide in the hole or we can do what needs to be done.

As you would say, For Christs Sake....they had a fit over a fuckin' cartoon in Denmark!! So are ya for having the world kissing Allahs' ass just to appease these radicals? Knowing the HISTORY of that region how do they react to weakness?

People in here just want to cut off Israel and let them fend for themselves. Well, the Ron Paul sector at least. DO IT! When they reach final destruction and launch their 200 atomic bombs across the middle east it'll have NO effect on your precious lives. LMAO...that's untill your car is out of gas and you can't heat or cool your homes. Then it'll be the fault of the dumbasses in government that let it happen.

Have a good one!:s4:

[LaidZeppelin]

First off our approach of bankrupting the nation in response to terrorism is not a wise strategy. Thatâ??s what we are doing right now. Overreacting. Do you plan on wiping out every terrorist one by one? Cause a war on terror is like a war on Jealousy, you are not going to win. If you can explain how the US fighting wars for Israel is in the best interest of the United States I would really like to hear it. We have made the terrorism problem so much worse for ourselves. Look at the foiled plot in Germany. Where Europeans, not even Arabs, were planning on bombing US interests. We play right into Osamaâ??s plan when we invade and occupy their land. Then Osama can say, â??look Arabs, look at what the Infidels do, they occupy holy land, kill civilians, and exploit our resources. â?? Then we spawn a whole new generation of terrorist, whether they come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran. Its like in Vietnam when we were fighting the Vietcong, Generals were looking at the figures going â??wait all the Vietcong should be deadâ?�, but we had new Vietcong that grew up with the conflict ready to fight years later. Thatâ??s the problem we create by our policies towards the middle east, a never ending supply of people ready and willing to blow themselves up if it means hurting America and repelling the infidel. Also Israel did a much better job defending there interests, remember when they took out that Syrian nuke facility recently, oh maybe not because it was done so swiftly and covertly that the media didnâ??t even cover it. So yes I do think Israel can take care of themselves. Why you suggest it is the responsibility of the American taxpayer to do it makes no sense. Please explain, I really want to know why the strongest country in the region cant defend itself. Like Christians never through a temper tantrum over Jesus Christ Superstar. If you can explain how our intervention in the middle east is making oil more accessible I would like to hear that one too. It seems to me the price of energy is going to go way up and from what I can tell most people are worried about an energy crisis. Is our foreign policy really making that situation better. Please explain. You cant just present a list of problem that we are CURRENTLY FACING and somehow suggest that what we are doing now is preventing those problems that are fucking happening.

So answer a few questions?

Why canâ??t Israel defend itself?
How do you expect to stop terrorism with a strategy that results in more terrorism?
What constitutes victory over terrorism?

I thought we were trying to get fewer people willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow us up. Did I miss something?

[Psycho4Bud]

So answer a few questions?

Why canâ??t Israel defend itself?

What wars are the U.S. fighting for Israel? We supply weapons and Israel defends herself. The only spot in Israels "conflicts" that we are remotely part of is Irans quest for a nuke.


How do you expect to stop terrorism with a strategy that results in more terrorism?

In case you haven't noticed, the moderates have become more vocal in regards to terrorism. When their own followers of Islam begin to turn on them....it's a good sign. Surely wasn't like that at all until as of late.



What constitutes victory over terrorism?

I don't think that the idea of "no more terrorists" is being realistic. There'll always be some assclown willing to strap on a suicide bomb, highjack a plane, etc.... but letting the problem go surely isn't the answer. If you have a roach problem do ya let it go or try to get rid of as many as possible?


I thought we were trying to get fewer people willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow us up. Did I miss something?

I guess you did to a point. The amount of terrorist attacks by Al-Quada in Bagdad, and other provinces, has dropped dramatically. Since 9-11 how many attacks have happened here? They're network is definately disrupted.

NOW...answer me this:
One consistant view of the typical Ron Paul supporter is screw Israel. What would be the side effects IF we were to abandon our allie and what effects would it have on YOUR life if they were to the point of launching their nuclear weapons. 200 bombs across the middle east WILL have an effect on the entire world!

And this: It amazes me that the Ron Paul sector screams this "Constitution" garbage but yet after 9-11 they can't even support the war in Afghanistan. Ron Paul has stated that ONLY wars that have been approved by Congress are constitutionally correct....well Afghanistan was and still is! Now since Afghanistan IS a war approved by Congress, how can he state that it goes against the Constitution?

Have a good one!:s4:

[Ozarks]

I really cannot believe some of you people. DO some history for Christs sake, its fucking important. The sactions we put on Iraq in the early 90's doubled infant mortality and killed hundreds of thousands of women and children.


Actually food & medical supplies were exempt from those sanctions as they are from ALL US SANCTIONS.

True Saddam denied his people those things so he could sell them on the open market for money, and as a control over the people.



OUR POLICIES FUCKING KILL PEOPLE!!!!


No, our economic sanctions don't "kill" anyone.

[LaidZeppelin]

that is just a lie...we didnt lift the sanctions after the 1st gulf war.....you can even go on youtube and see margeret thatcher responding to the sanctions. She is asked if she thinks the loss of life and turmoil it caused iraqi civilians was worth it to put pressure on sadaam and her cold response is "yep"....dont just lie, look up the effect of the sactions.

[LaidZeppelin]

I hate in when people say well look we havent had a terrorist attack so that means we are doing something right......how long was the gap between the first attack on the WTC and the 2nd. Just because event B (no attacks) happens does not mean event A (our intervention in the middle east ) is the reason. This is a leap of logic that makes little sense and has no proof or evidence to back it up. I supported going after OSAMA and look what happened. WE ignored the people actually responsible.. Just based on the fact we didnt get OSAMA should wake you up to the fact that we arent actually doing well in this "war on terror". WE didnt even get the guy responsible, common man. now he is in pakistan, with a 50% approval rating in pakistan... Wakeup dude. the only reason we got attacked on 9-11 was because our intelligence network had their thumbs up their asses. There are always going to be enemies of the US, i have no problem going after the people responsible but that isnt what we are doing. Taking our a sovereign middle eastern country, occupying it, and nation building is not in the best interests of America. Why do you have this notion that israel cant defend itself, it is not in israels best interests to send all 200 of their nukes into Iran, your using sensationalism to make a point. If israel wants to knock out their nuke plants fine, they are all grown up and can handle what is in their best interests. Why would israel bomb a country in a manner that would piss off millionns of Arabs that are right next door. Do you think Israel is this irresponsible country that just launches missles all over the place and America is keeping them in check. They know what they are doing! Lets protect THIS country, our borders, our imports, our intellegence, so we can actually defend against all the people who didlike America not just a few in the middle east. Our military is overstretched so badly we have to hire firms like blackwater to prop them up. weve got kids serving 3 or 4 tours in the desert and it isnt making the country any safer or making our military stronger. ON the Ron Paul point. Paul supported going after the taliban ( that was important, it was the only time islamic terrorist countrolled a nation state and disrupting that was important) but we still didnt get the guy responsible. We should have killed as many taliban as we could and got out. Nation building is a fruitless endeavor, why do you have so much patriotism but ignore that other countries citizens might have patriotism and narionalistic tendencies as well. The American revolution happened because of British occupation.
Israel would not nuke preemtivly nuke iran.....this is just rediculous. That is in noones best interest. plus the international community would disarm Israel if they ever did a preemtive nuclear attack. Wakeup man. Yes i agree that Iraq is getting better in many respects, but my problem is this. 1. it is not going to be able to form a democracy in our image any time soon, which will require US presence for years. 2. that US presense will bankrupt the country. We simply cannot afford this. The ramifications of bankrupting the nation our not worth a unlikely iraqi democracy. Listen to what the comtroller general is saying about the economic state of our nation. You dont hear the media talk about it but why dont we listen to the accountants and find out what we should do.. Its that simple

[Ozarks]

Again, food & medical supplies are EXEMPT from US economic sanctions.

Saddam is responsible for the evil things he did to this people, he denied them food & medical supplies, out of greed and control,

If you want to be an apologist for this murderer, go ahead.

Don't let history or the facts get in the way of your "America is bad" nonsense, that would require you to "wake up":thumbsup:

[BathingApes]

NOW...answer me this:
One consistant view of the typical Ron Paul supporter is screw Israel. What would be the side effects IF we were to abandon our allie and what effects would it have on YOUR life if they were to the point of launching their nuclear weapons. 200 bombs across the middle east WILL have an effect on the entire world!

And this: It amazes me that the Ron Paul sector screams this "Constitution" garbage but yet after 9-11 they can't even support the war in Afghanistan. Ron Paul has stated that ONLY wars that have been approved by Congress are constitutionally correct....well Afghanistan was and still is! Now since Afghanistan IS a war approved by Congress, how can he state that it goes against the Constitution?

Have a good one!:s4:

Simple. Ron Paul supported finding terrorists in Afghanistan. Now he is for removing the troops. However in the first place, he supported it.

[LaidZeppelin]

economic sanctions denied materials needed to rebuild infrastructure. Water treatment; sanitation. They arent intended results of our sanctions but they are results non the less. If we do not recognize how our policies effect civilians whether intended or not we do ourselves a disservice. typical attack line, you dont think America always does the right thing therefore your a terrorist sadaam lover...can you please try to be a little more enlightened as to how there could be unintended consiquesnces to our policies and how those unintended consequenses of a misguided foreign policy effect people all the way across the world. Its the same logic when people say. "If we bomb Iran the Iranian people will know they are attacking their government and not the people. It doesnt work like that. BOMBS ARE BOMBS. If Russia started bombing nuke sites in america during the cold war the american populace would take it personal. I am not excusing sadaams brutal regime I am mearly explaining that these policies are misguided and end up creating more problems for the United States.

[LaidZeppelin]

and when you have economic sanctions after you bomb the shit out of the country it will effect the civilians more that the government.....i dont think its out of line to say muslims resent it.. common just think about if it you were in there situation. Who sent the bombs, who implemented the sanctions. Again im not justifying terrorist behavior I am merely explaining where it comes from.....a disastrous foreign policy.

[Psycho4Bud]

Simple. Ron Paul supported finding terrorists in Afghanistan. Now he is for removing the troops. However in the first place, he supported it.

Really....show me something that states that please:

JW: What about Afghanistan? Would you continue the operations there?

RP: No, I would come home, unless there was specific knowledge of where Osama bin Laden was. Then I send out just a small team of people to take care of him.
I would not maintain the occupation of Afghanistan. That was mainly motivated by oil pipelines and some other things that are never discussed.

JW: Could you elaborate a little bit how oil pipelines were the motivation for going into Afghanistan?

RP: It's been known that certain oil companies were anxious for many, many years to be able to transverse Afghanistan to move natural gas. And that effort is still alive and well.
Too often, whether it's a pipeline in Afghanistan or control of oil wells in Iraq, oil and economics motivates our national policy much more so than national security.
Towards Liberty (http://www.isil.org/towards-liberty/07-ron-paul-interview.html)

There's a reason why he's a favorite of Prison Planet.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

NOW...answer me this:
One consistant view of the typical Ron Paul supporter is screw Israel. What would be the side effects IF we were to abandon our allie and what effects would it have on YOUR life if they were to the point of launching their nuclear weapons. 200 bombs across the middle east WILL have an effect on the entire world!

And this: It amazes me that the Ron Paul sector screams this "Constitution" garbage but yet after 9-11 they can't even support the war in Afghanistan. Ron Paul has stated that ONLY wars that have been approved by Congress are constitutionally correct....well Afghanistan was and still is! Now since Afghanistan IS a war approved by Congress, how can he state that it goes against the Constitution?

Have a good one!:s4:

LZ.....still waiting on that response.

IF we leave Israel to itself with NO assistance they'll have Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and probably Saudi Arabia and Egypt all over their asses. In the situation of immenant destruction they WILL launch 200 nukes across the middle east.

As far as the Ron Paul.....how do ya even try to justify that? Good luck!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

[BathingApes]

Really....show me something that states that please:

JW: What about Afghanistan? Would you continue the operations there?

RP: No, I would come home, unless there was specific knowledge of where Osama bin Laden was. Then I send out just a small team of people to take care of him.
I would not maintain the occupation of Afghanistan. That was mainly motivated by oil pipelines and some other things that are never discussed.

JW: Could you elaborate a little bit how oil pipelines were the motivation for going into Afghanistan?

RP: It's been known that certain oil companies were anxious for many, many years to be able to transverse Afghanistan to move natural gas. And that effort is still alive and well.
Too often, whether it's a pipeline in Afghanistan or control of oil wells in Iraq, oil and economics motivates our national policy much more so than national security.
Towards Liberty (http://www.isil.org/towards-liberty/07-ron-paul-interview.html)

There's a reason why he's a favorite of Prison Planet.

Have a good one!:s4:

As I said, he WAS in support of military action against terrorists in Afghanistan, but now he wants the troops out as we STILL haven't found Osama and he thinks we are there for oil/something not to do with terrorists.

Oh and here is what you asked for:

Project Vote Smart - Authorization for Use of Military Force Member Vote List (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3064)

About half way down he is there. You obviously dont agree with Paul's statements but I think you're so anti-paul that you assume he is against EVERYTHING you stand for.

[LaidZeppelin]

no you need to justify that.....go find the declaration of war against afganistan or the taliban....Go find it...an authorization is not a formal declaration of war. You know that. Dont play this game like giving authorization to run rampant in the middle east is a declaration of war like the constitution instructs congress to do. So when you find that war DECLARATION you win. If it were a Declaration it would called a declaration. The congress is a bunch of pussies and didnt want to take responsibility for declaring war, so they told the president to do it......THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[LaidZeppelin]

the point is congress does not have the authority under the constitution to grant the president authority to go to war, you would need to ammend the constitution to do that. Therefore the act of granting authority to the president to go to war is unconstitutional. The ONLY way to make it constitutional is to an ammendment. Thats called following the rule of law and having respect for the supreme law of the land.

[LaidZeppelin]

and you really think Iran would assure their complete distruction by attacking israel...even with US support. IRan attacks Israel, Iran is gone.

[Ozarks]

I am merely explaining where it comes from.....

No you're not, it came from an evil dictator who invaded Kuwait ignored UN resolutions and was kicked out of Kuwait by a world wide coalition.

The sanctions were left in place because HE never honored the terms of the surrender.

After which Saddam denied this people ANYTHING that HE could sell. America isn't responsible for those decisions.




a disastrous foreign policy.



If there's one thing 23 million liberated Iraqis agree on it's that they are better off with Saddam gone.

America did the right thing in 91 and America is doing the right thing now (whether you support the war or not) by staying and taking responsibility for Iraq until they can stand on their own.

[LaidZeppelin]

and half those people have fled the country....self determination does not mean having a foreign military force come in and dictate how your government will function...and fine lets say the war is right and we are doing the right thing...is it worth bankrupting AMERICA over....thats what is happening.....if we continue this policy the government wont be able to afford anything but the interest on the national debt. Taxes will got through the roof....Why is Iraqi freedom worth our freedom....WE ARE GOING BANKRUPT AND YOU DONT SEEM TO CARE. see even if i conceed that the war is the best thing ever, i still dont see how you can think depleting the treasury, devaluing the dollar, and borrowing billions from japan and chine will be in America's best interest. thats what i care about the continuation of the USA....FUCK IRAQ FUCK ISRAEL FUCK IRAN...I CARE ABOUT THE UNITED STATES

[Psycho4Bud]

the point is congress does not have the authority under the constitution to grant the president authority to go to war, you would need to ammend the constitution to do that. Therefore the act of granting authority to the president to go to war is unconstitutional.

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States of America has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times.
Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)

And Congress did with BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq.......so these wars are valid under the Constitution.

Have a good one!:s4:

[BathingApes]

No you're not, it came from an evil dictator who invaded Kuwait ignored UN resolutions and was kicked out of Kuwait by a world wide coalition.

The sanctions were left in place because HE never honored the terms of the surrender.

After which Saddam denied this people ANYTHING that HE could sell. America isn't responsible for those decisions.





If there's one thing 23 million liberated Iraqis agree on it's that they are better off with Saddam gone.

America did the right thing in 91 and America is doing the right thing now (whether you support the war or not) by staying and taking responsibility for Iraq until they can stand on their own.


Okay, we aren't responsible for those decisions but we did atleast a little bit empower him by giving him weapons..

The way you phrased the last sentence makes it seem like Iraq will be fine in a couple of years. We could be there for decades. It also isn't the war itself, its more the fact that WMDs was a complete sack of bullshit fed to us by the government. An evil dictator or not why did they want to invade Iraq REALLY?

[LaidZeppelin]

and how did sadaam get the ability to invade kuwait......thats the problem with the foreign policy......geez why dont you get this.

[Psycho4Bud]

As I said, he WAS in support of military action against terrorists in Afghanistan, but now he wants the troops out as we STILL haven't found Osama and he thinks we are there for oil/something not to do with terrorists.

Oh and here is what you asked for:

Project Vote Smart - Authorization for Use of Military Force Member Vote List (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3064)

About half way down he is there. You obviously dont agree with Paul's statements but I think you're so anti-paul that you assume he is against EVERYTHING you stand for.

That shocks me! He votes to use force and after we have accomplished this much he wants to bail? Sounds like a plan to me. How could he vote yes to this and NOW state that it was our fault in the first place........

Have a good one!:s4:

[Ozarks]

the point is congress does not have the authority under the constitution to grant the president authority to go to war,

The White house, Congress and the Supreme Court all disagree with you on that.




and having respect for the supreme law of the land.


That's a good thing:thumbsup:



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;

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 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" (Public Law 105-235);

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;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions 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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

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;

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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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 (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;

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;

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;

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;

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 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,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(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.

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 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

(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 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.

(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(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).

(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.

(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.

[Ozarks]

and how did sadaam get the ability to invade kuwait......thats the problem with the foreign policy......geez why dont you get this.

I get that you want somebody other than Saddam to be responsible for what he did and the decisions he made.

That's not the way the world works.

geez why don't you get this ?:D

[BathingApes]

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States of America has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times.
Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)

And Congress did with BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq.......so these wars are valid under the Constitution.

Have a good one!:s4:

Forget if it was illegal or legal, it's unproveable so it doesn't even matter. What is your position on the fallacy of WMDs? You can't possibly think that was true can you? The whole premise from which we rationalised our invasion is a complete lie.

Terrorists or not, evil dictator or not, that was never mentioned to us. Most people seem to argue all these details about terrorists in iraq, whether saddam was evil etc, and think that that is actually valid justification. I'm not sure if you realise the global impact but the world is the stage and the USA is THE major player. It's not just a little thing. We were lied to and those lies were used to justify a war.

9/11 despite what you think had nothing to do with Saddam and you can read that in the government's report. So why the invasion? You have to realise no matter how anti-liberal you are that the main reason we took to declare war was completely untrue. What has been accomplished? Saddam is no longer in power - Okay that's good, but are the Iraqi people liberated, are they really free? For the most part I imagine they live in constant fear. And we are going to be stuck there for decades.

I believe that soon we will invade Iran. And then what? How do you see this ending? Or do you hope that it will go past your time and your children will have to make the decision.

[BathingApes]

I get that you want somebody other than Saddam to be responsible for what he did and the decisions he made.

That's not the way the world works.

geez why don't you get this ?:D


Saddam was responsible for the invasion but we supplied him with weapons. That makes us atleast a little bit responsible in the scheme of things.

[Ozarks]

Saddam was responsible for the invasion but we supplied him with weapons. That makes us atleast a little bit responsible in the scheme of things.

Like I already posted:

Thats not the way the world works, especially when it come to relations between Governments.

You support anyone that can help you in YOUR BEST INTERESTS (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and oppose your enemies when ever you can.
Alliances change based on whats in your countries best interest.

We gave him weapons to fight Iran in the 80's, in 91 he attacked Kuwait with weapons he bought from Russia look at the old news tapes those are Russian tanks, trucks, AK47's etc. We didn't "supply" him with the weapons he used in Kuwait.

The aid we gave had long sense been used up, blown up or worn out on the Iranians.

[BathingApes]

Like I already posted:

Thats not the way the world works, especially when it come to relations between Governments.

You support anyone that can help you in YOUR BEST INTERESTS (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and oppose your enemies when ever you can.
Alliances change based on whats in your countries best interest.

We gave him weapons to fight Iran in the 80's, in 91 he attacked Kuwait with weapons he bought from Russia look at the old news tapes those are Russian tanks, trucks, AK47's etc. We didn't "supply" him with the weapons he used in Kuwait.

The aid we gave had long sense been used up, blown up or worn out on the Iranians.

We installed the Shah with a full out military coup because of our oil interests. The shah was overthrown just before the fighting you highlighted started, and the animosity had been growing for decades, ESPECIALLY since 1953.

So right, on one side we are giving weapons to Iraq to fight, but on the other side our actions of overthrowing a democratically voted government in 1953 and instally the shah led to such shit happening, so in turn, we brought Iran into the limelight and gave Iraq "weapons" (you know what I mean) to fight them. Sounds to me like we are THOROUGHLY in the picture.

[Psycho4Bud]

Saddam was responsible for the invasion but we supplied him with weapons. That makes us atleast a little bit responsible in the scheme of things.

A common myth:

Military armaments/technology
Iraq's army was primarily equipped with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[32] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany,[33] and other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).

The sources of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10% of the world market during this period) are estimated to be:

Suppliers ......................in Billions (1985 $US).... % of total
Soviet Union .......................................19.2...... 61
France ................................................5. 5...... 18
People's Republic of China .........................1.7..... 5
Brazil .................................................. ...1.1 .....4
Egypt .................................................. ..1.1..... 4
Other countries ........................................2.9.... 6
Total .................................................. ..31.5... 98.0

The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.[34]



Chemical weapons
According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.[39]

In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[40]
Iran-Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War)

We were involved but there were MANY, MANY others that did much more.........

Have a good one!:s4:

[LaidZeppelin]

this will go on forever. i do admire that you all hold your opinion and thats great. Im done with this thread we arent going to change each other minds and its just turning into a circular argument where one side goes gotcha, then the other side goes nope got you bitch...great lively debate! So i leave you with my last question that everyone repeatedly glossed over. Is Iraq worth bankrupting the nation over? im not going to respond and im sure you will somehow come to the conclusion that we arent bankrupting the nation but whatever. I just can't see how the economic collapse of America could be worth a democracy in Iraq.

[mfqr]

this will go on forever. i do admire that you all hold your opinion and thats great. Im done with this thread we arent going to change each other minds and its just turning into a circular argument where one side goes gotcha, then the other side goes nope got you bitch...great lively debate! So i leave you with my last question that everyone repeatedly glossed over. Is Iraq worth bankrupting the nation over? im not going to respond and im sure you will somehow come to the conclusion that we arent bankrupting the nation but whatever. I just can't see how the economic collapse of America could be worth a democracy in Iraq.

To certain people it is worth it...

[Ozarks]

We installed the Shah with a full out military coup because of our oil interests. The shah was overthrown just before the fighting you highlighted started, and the animosity had been growing for decades, ESPECIALLY since 1953.

So right, on one side we are giving weapons to Iraq to fight, but on the other side our actions of overthrowing a democratically voted government in 1953 and instally the shah led to such shit happening, so in turn, we brought Iran into the limelight and gave Iraq "weapons" (you know what I mean) to fight them. Sounds to me like we are THOROUGHLY in the picture.

We were talking about Saddam in Iraq, put down the clicker and quite changing the channel:D

[BathingApes]

We were talking about Saddam in Iraq, put down the clicker and quite changing the channel:D

How about you answer the question and stop making ridiculous analogies?

[growdisstuff]

Man, what assholes invading other countries. Terrorists!!! Man, the US should step down, buuut, there economy depends on it.

[yokinazu]

cool another discussion on the war

let me first say i have been against this war from the start.
but... i also realize that since we are in this war we CANNOT just up and pull out. that would be the worst thing we could possibly do. if people think it is a crazy situation now just think what the world will be like if iraq is unable to defend itsself against iran and what the ramifications of iran taking control of iraq then the rest of the middle east will be. once iran controls the middle east they will control the oil. without oil our military will be useless. tanks dont run on air. wich will open us up for foreign invasion. simply put our military is mechanized. and this is just one scenerio. next think about $20 - $30 a gallon gas what is that goin to do to our economy? the iranian army is no joke. they are hard fighting soldiers. so this is within the scope of possibility. i am not in favor of a war with iran, i do not agree with many of the policys of the US, but i do relize that when we crippled iraq we dug a very deep hole that we just cannot abandon. we have to help rebuild a goverment that is cabable of defending itself. the iraqis, no matter what the feelings toward us were ,was a buffer.

one more thing we supplied a few weopons in the early 80's to the iraqis but these were outa date and goneby the early 90's. they used the ak-47,supplied by china and ussr(also undoubtably the best assault rifle EVER desined) t-72 tanks, russian design, scud missles , russian design. also does anyone remember the iran-contra affair. the kuwaitis, who we liberated from iraq, asked russia for protection in the gulf when they discovered that we supplied weopons to their enemy the iranians.who by the way still use the f-14 .
point is the middle east is a sticky situation that we just cannot abandon at this poin in time

sorry if this s kinda meandering as to i tired and still have to go to work

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

cool another discussion on the war

let me first say i have been against this war from the start.
but... i also realize that since we are in this war we CANNOT just up and pull out. that would be the worst thing we could possibly do. if people think it is a crazy situation now just think what the world will be like if iraq is unable to defend itsself against iran and what the ramifications of iran taking control of iraq then the rest of the middle east will be. once iran controls the middle east they will control the oil. without oil our military will be useless. tanks dont run on air. wich will open us up for foreign invasion. simply put our military is mechanized. and this is just one scenerio. next think about $20 - $30 a gallon gas what is that goin to do to our economy? the iranian army is no joke. they are hard fighting soldiers. so this is within the scope of possibility. i am not in favor of a war with iran, i do not agree with many of the policys of the US, but i do relize that when we crippled iraq we dug a very deep hole that we just cannot abandon. we have to help rebuild a goverment that is cabable of defending itself. the iraqis, no matter what the feelings toward us were ,was a buffer.



Couldn't have put it better myself! Just imagine the middle-easterm perspective if they pulled out all of a sudden: "Oh, America comes in and smashes our infrastructure, kills hundreds of thousands of civilians, destabilizes the region.... but now their loses, about 5% of our losses, are too much so they're pulling out and it's our mess to clean up now". The US reputation is in rough enough shape as is.