Jump to content

Change Mode

The Iraqi Elections


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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.

 

 

 

did congress approve the deployment or not?

You can bet the family jewels on it, yes they did. Read it in plain English above.

 

 

EDIT: http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

Must admit so many beers and sleepess nights have blurred my memory.

 

Exactly what was the continued threat posed by Iraq against the US?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit so many beers and sleepess nights have blurred my memory.

 

Exactly what was the continued threat posed by Iraq against the US?

Frankly it does not even matter!

 

READ:

(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

Bold, large, red added for emphasis since so many have missed it every time I posted it even though I put it in bold in the quote.

 

It does not say and, it does not say and/or....it says or.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurdy, you're kidding...right?

 

The verbage you are indicating does not mean what you are hoping it means. The following "PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION" clarifies that. If it were to mean that both points were required then Presidential Determination would have required it. As it stands it was required of the President to meet only one of the points.

 

 

It is qite clear according to this document that a direct threat to the US was not a requirement.

 

As with other supporting documents the important point is the failure of Iraq to meet the requirements of the UN under the cease fire. That is all that was required here.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not say and, it does not say and/or....it says or.

You're the one that made the distinction in HUGE RED letters not me.

 

Do you have a cure for the wind?

 

If so - then physician heal thyself.

 

I'll leave you to your own meanderings.

Edited by Hurdy
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one that made the distinction in HUGE RED letters not me.

 

Do you have a cure for the wind?

 

If so - then physician heal thyself.

 

I'll leave you to your own meanderings.

Yes of course I pointed it out very well for good reason, it was being repeatedly ignored. What you are now pointing out is from a different line. The line that I indicated defines the requirements, not the one that you indicated.

 

That is the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit so many beers and sleepess nights have blurred my memory.

 

Exactly what was the continued threat posed by Iraq against the US?

Geez Hurdy weren't you paying attention, it was the weapons of mass destruction :rolleyes::lol:;)

 

You know all of those nuclear and biological weapons the US found in Iraq ;):lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, It really isn't funny that they did not find them considering the HUNDREDS of tonnes of biological and chemical weapons agents that they definitely had, that they admitted to and were known, and that the UN lost track of.

 

Geee...Mr UN inspector...we don't have any...see? Where did they go? Well we disposed of them! Yes, against UN requirements and in secret of course. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

I would say it isn't funny at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the US in Iraq pursuing WMD, why aren't they in Syria or Jordan tracking down those weapons then? Iraq has no weapons, they are not a threat. They could have sold their weapons a decade ago and the US wouldn't have known about it but still they make those claims and march their troops in to their deaths over a wild goose chase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the US in Iraq pursuing WMD, why aren't they in Syria or Jordan tracking down those weapons then? Iraq has no weapons, they are not a threat. They could have sold their weapons a decade ago and the US wouldn't have known about it but still they make those claims and march their troops in to their deaths over a wild goose chase.

:P

 

And each Country that Marched to the Drum, must Pay?

 

:mrgreen::mrgreen::rolleyes::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every country whose leader won't admit that they were wrong. If I remember correctly didn't Blair have enough courage to admit he was wrong? It is bad that they went in without doing their homework and admitting they were wrong won't bring back the innocent killed in this conflict, however there is a sense of closure to their people by admitting that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:P

 

Nice words,Mate!

 

Dont mean nothing!

 

You or I Kill one person, we go to the Big House!

 

Politicitians can Kill Millions, who cares?

 

It just takes one Iraqi to challange it in the World Court, for us all to say,"OMG!"

 

:mrgreen::mrgreen::rolleyes::lol:

Edited by Drovers Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed

 

It takes some balls for a leader to admit he was wrong though, how can anyone be expected to respect him when he will not even respect his own people by telling them the truth?

 

He probably should spend some time in the Hague, he never will but he should.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the US in Iraq pursuing WMD, why aren't they in Syria or Jordan tracking down those weapons then? Iraq has no weapons, they are not a threat. They could have sold their weapons a decade ago and the US wouldn't have known about it but still they make those claims and march their troops in to their deaths over a wild goose chase.

That's funny. The UN was looking for them for years before the US went in. Why not crititcize the UN for looking?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...