The Iraqi Elections

[Ian]

doc,

 

You keep richoting between the weakness of the media, the general public and American and international law, pitting one against the other.

 

So let's keep it simple and just answer me this: Is America in a legal state of war as defined by the American constitution (not the UN, not the media, not the great unwashed and not the administration)? The only legitimate answer is either yes or no: One syllable, no justification.

 

I

Edited January 26, 2005 by Iain

[moon]

Tell me what "severest consequences" means? Then tell me where the chemical agents are. The UN lost track of them. They were absolutely there. It isn't that they didn't find them. They lost them, years ago.

'Severest consequences' means military action endorsed by the Security Council. No such Resolution was tabled and France threatened to veto it if it was.

I don't know where the chemical agents are but the Chemical Brothers are on tour.

Edited January 26, 2005 by moon

[one2gamble]

trick question Iain

Edited January 26, 2005 by one2gamble

[cpuguru]

I can't believe how much worth people put into the media at times, it's astounding.

What else do you got for information? The government? Governments only give the straight goods eh? They would never try and cover up scandles

 

At least with media their are left and right wing media outlets and somewhere in the whole cluster:filtered: is the truth. The government tells you what you want to hear!

[Drovers Dog]

doc,

 

You keep richoting between the weakness of the media, the general public and American and international law, pitting one against the other.

 

So let's keep it simple and just answer me this: Is America in a legal state of war as defined by the American constitution (not the UN, not the media, not the great unwashed and not the administration)? The only legitimate answer is either yes or no: One syllable, no justification.

 

I

 

I would be very interested to hear the Answer to the Question you Posed, Iain!

 

It is a very Fair Question, which strips away all the two and Froing, makes it quite Simple? Either there is a Legal War, or there is Not!

 

[one2gamble]

thats not really true because of two reasons

 

1. Its legal due to the failure of Iraq to meet its cease fire obligations that it signed with the US and other participating members of Gulf War 1

 

2. Its legality under the US constitution can be argued due to the length of time of US troop deployments. Due to the lack of a true declaration of war, and the fact that US troops are going to be deployed for multiple years this is in essence unconstitutional even though congress did in fact approve the altercation and the president went through proper channels to gain approval to start a military conflict.

Edited January 26, 2005 by one2gamble

[firekracker]

it's even easier than that....it it looks like a duck, walks like a duck n' sounds like a duck....it ain't an elephant....it's a duck, duck being war

 

besides that, that news articles discussing bush's request for 80 billion was stated to be for the purpose of the war in Iraq.

 

with an all time deficent n' social security being ripped apart, among other things....there's gonna be a war if there isn't already

[Drovers Dog]

 

How did the DUCK get here?

 

You are Right, Kracker!

 

What the heck do we do now, if it was Illegal? Going to War with Iraq? You know more than me, Mate?

 

[Chopdoc]

doc,

 

You keep richoting between the weakness of the media, the general public and American and international law, pitting one against the other.

 

So let's keep it simple and just answer me this: Is America in a legal state of war as defined by the American constitution (not the UN, not the media, not the great unwashed and not the administration)? The only legitimate answer is either yes or no: One syllable, no justification.

 

I

No, the war is formally over.

 

As for the former war, yes.

[moon]

Here ya go, 'doc. ;

Tony Blair yesterday refused to release the full advice he received on the legality of the invasion of Iraq, in what is seen as a key test of the government's commitment to freedom of information.

 

The prime minister rejected more than 40 requests for the information from MPs, other individuals and media organisations, including the Guardian.

 

He is now heading for a confrontation with the information commissioner. The advice is seen as an important test for the openness act, as it is widely believed that the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, failed to provide a proper justification for the invasion.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/freedom/Story/0,...1398508,00.html

[moon]

Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith, a leading Pentagon hawk and an architect of the US policy on Iraq, will stand down in the coming months, US officials say

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4210945.stm

 

I hope he enjoys his retirement villa in Fallujha.

[one2gamble]

all i know is I am wishing the Iraqis good luck

[Ian]

the president went through proper channels to gain approval to start a military conflict.

Not true, in my opinion. The president bullied congress into approving extraordinary deployments in Iraq which lay outside of both their constitutional mandates: Bullying designed to give American voters a hard-on in light of the military and political failures they've suffered over the past thirty years, real or perceived.

 

I

[Drovers Dog]

 

The really, really thing, under Law? Did the US and the Allies INVADE Legally???

 

If they diddn't? Watch out for the Damages BILL, could be worth $TRILLIONS!!!!

 

Interesting Point about this, Particularly considering you can be sued, just simply if your Kid does something so silly!

 

[Chopdoc]

Now it's the US?

 

Well, at least you didn't say Bush.

 

It was a Coalition, which includes Australia.

[Sir T Fireball]

Now it's the US?

 

Well, at least you didn't say Bush.

 

It was a Coalition, which includes Australia.

Did the US and the Allies INVADE Legally???

[firekracker]

all i know is I am wishing the Iraqis good luck

me too....they're sure gonna need it. my fear is that election day is going to be one of the worse yet.

[Drovers Dog]

 

I am really concerned about Who is going to pick up the Massive Bill, if some IDIOT's got it wrong? Just think about the $Trillions we will have to pay?

 

That is totally Staggering to us All!

 

[firekracker]

the so-called War in Iraq, n' i do think it's a "war", has already cost the US close to $152 billion dollars....n' that's not counting the 80 billion Bush iontends to ask Congress for

 

http://costofwar.com/index-public-education.html

[Drovers Dog]

 

So??

 

If it was not Legal????

 

God Help us all?

 

[firekracker]

god help who all?? i sure don't have the foggiest what the procedures would be or who brings what to where to make that determination

 

maybe some research needs to be done on this issue

[Drovers Dog]

 

What an interesting Point?

 

What would Happen, just if? Iraq was Invaded Illegally?

 

Someone want to research it?

 

What a strange thing?

 

Here is one to start it off!

 

http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm

 

BTW I diddn't write that!

 

Edited January 27, 2005 by Drovers Dog

[one2gamble]

Not true, in my opinion. The president bullied congress into approving extraordinary deployments in Iraq which lay outside of both their constitutional mandates: Bullying designed to give American voters a hard-on in light of the military and political failures they've suffered over the past thirty years, real or perceived.

 

I

did congress approve the deployment or not?

 

 

bills have been bullied through congress every year since the congressional first term, its not a valid argument.

Edited January 27, 2005 by one2gamble

[one2gamble]

the first locked door, the first locked target, the first time Iraq avoided sanctions etc etc etc ended the cease first agreement between Iraq and the US, so yes....its legal.

[Sir T Fireball]

Not too sure what your post has got to do with my reply to Docs post, but hey! ho! enjoy yaself anyways