FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why is the USA in Iraq?





S3nd K3ys
..lest we forget!

To the libs and Dems who keep burying their heads in the sand and those who are upset at Bush because of their own lack of 'power' and the fact the dems had an opportunity to take action but failed!

So along comes Bush, he takes action, and they criticize to the point of spewing treasonistic rhetoric. Once again...wrapping themselves with one part of the Constitution and wiping their ass with the other part.


http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
107th Congress wrote:


IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

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 resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States 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 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

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 interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.


Cut-and-dried. The REAL REASON we went to war in Iraq:

Quote:
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; Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens....

...Now, therefore, be it [b]Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled...

...The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


10/10/2002 3:03pm: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 296 - 133
10/11/2002:Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 77 - 23

Yeas:
Kerry (D-MA)
Edwards (D-NC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Clinton (D-NY)

10/16/2002: Signed by President.
10/16/2002: Became Public Law No: 107-243

There it is folks, irrefutable proof about why we went, and who lied, and who authorized this war.
djcaution
You only figured out it's Bush's doing just now?......
horseatingweeds
But, but, but.....

Weapons of Mass Destruct......

and and and War is wrong and violence is never ever ever the answer......

he he tricked us, mut mut viable exit strategy, quagmire, 2000 dead, expensive body armor, wire tapes, making more terrorist, boobly-dooo.

Instead of war we should have built a wall around our entire country including Canada with union labors that make more than the teachers we are unable to hire to work in all the schools we built with the money we saved by not going to war. Then we can apologize to the terrorist, I'm sorry, I mean valiant freedom fighters for making them so agree. Then we can open up dialogue with Korea. I'm glad I'm so smart......
S3nd K3ys
djcaution wrote:
You only figured out it's Bush's doing just now?......


Kinda slow eh? Or perhaps your reading skills aren't what they should be?

Here, I'll make it easy for you...

K3ys wrote:
To the libs and Dems who keep burying their heads in the sand and those who are upset at Bush because of their own lack of 'power' and the fact the dems had an opportunity to take action but failed!


All clear now?

horseatingweeds wrote:
But, but, but.....

Weapons of Mass Destruct......

and and and War is wrong and violence is never ever ever the answer......

he he tricked us, mut mut viable exit strategy, quagmire, 2000 dead, expensive body armor, wire tapes, making more terrorist, boobly-dooo.

...


djcaution
so.....the libs and dems did it...???
S3nd K3ys
djcaution wrote:
so.....the libs and dems did it...???


Ack.

Either you're pretending to be stupid, or you really a.... never mind. Yeah, the dems and the libs did it.
Bondings
Q: Why is the USA in Iraq?
A: The dems and the libs did it.

That's what they call indoctrination. Wink
shr3dd
omg, S3nd, I don't think he's prentending... lol


Frustration understood, I completely agree that....

... lol you know where I stand on this issue.






djcaution: yes, the libs and dems did it, they've been in Iraq for years actually. They got used to the sand heat and abuse of power they saw in 1990 and decided to stay. The dems and libs still want Kuwait too.
Animal
Why are the American military in Iraq? I can't help but think it's all about unfinished business.

George Bush senior didn't manage to get rid of Saddam, so Dubyah was told to have a go.

In their credit, Saddam is not a nice man, and really does deserve to be put in prison to rot for the rest of his natural life, but the war was brought about under false pretences and I don't think the world's population will forget that any time soon.
Bondings
shr3dd wrote:
omg, S3nd, I don't think he's prentending... lol

Yeah sorry, I couldn't resist it. It's a joke by the way. That's why I used a wink.

I mean, you went to Iraq quite some time ago. There is nothing that can be changed about that fact. A lot of people don't believe that terrorism and WMD were the real reasons for that war. You are never going to persuade those. The more you try, the more they (we) will protest about it.

As retreat isn't an option, why doesn't Bush and others just stop talking about the reasons for the war? The Americans are stuck in there for at least 10-20 years. Why not make the best of it?
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
Q: Why is the USA in Iraq?
A: The dems and the libs did it.

That's what they call indoctrination. Wink


ERROR 414: SARCASM NOT FOUND




So I guess i should put this into (much) simpler context...

The question: Why is the US in Iraq was asked of the dems and libs.

Like this, watch...

K3ys wrote:

Hey, dems and libs... "why is the US in Iraq"?


Then I proceded to explain it to them, because they've obviously forgotten what their party voted for...

Animal, you said

Quote:
Why are the American military in Iraq? I can't help but think it's all about unfinished business.


It IS about unfinished business. But it's not Bush's. Bill Clinton paved the way for military actions against Iraq. Bush just stepped in and continued the process.


Note the date of this CNN article...

CNN wrote:
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
omg, S3nd, I don't think he's prentending... lol

Yeah sorry, I couldn't resist it. It's a joke by the way. That's why I used a wink.

I mean, you went to Iraq quite some time ago. There is nothing that can be changed about that fact. A lot of people don't believe that terrorism and WMD were the real reasons for that war. You are never going to persuade those. The more you try, the more they (we) will protest about it.

As retreat isn't an option, why doesn't Bush and others just stop talking about the reasons for the war? The Americans are stuck in there for at least 10-20 years. Why not make the best of it?


Oh, disregard the ERROR msg. Very Happy

It wasn't just terrorism and WMD. Read the article I posted. That explains much of it. For more in depth info, read the actual 17 UN resolutions. (A quick google will find it)

Bush can't stop talking about it because the libs and dems are trying desperately to discredit him run him out of office. They have stopped at nothing, including lies and IMNSHO breeches of national security laws to do it.

They're politicizing things that should not be politicized. (Not yet, anyway, not while it can (and has) put our boy's lives in danger) Why? They're prolly mad at the right for controlling so much power in the government. The problem is, they did it to themselves. And now they're so desperate, they're acting stupid. They're dragging the party down and they'll likely take the MSM with them. I realized this long ago, and acted on it in the last few years and jumped the sinking democratic/liberal ship.

Since changing parties, I've researched things I never would have before, and seen things that completely changed my view of the dems and libs. I always took thier word as gospel, and never questioned them.

Now I question everything.
Bondings
If you really want to have a discussion once again ...

1) In 1998 Saddam had WMD. Most of them were destroyed by the war. Others after the santions of the UN. You most likely attacked when they had the lowest level of WMD in 30 years. If you would have attacked at another time, then yes you might have gotten the support of the rest of the world.

2) Saddam was an evil dictator, but there are worse situations. Switching Saddam with a religious fundamentalist (like the taliban) might have very bad effects.

3) There was no are almost no plan for after the war. Didn't Rumsfeld say that the soldiers would be gone in 2 months?

4) You didn't use enough soldiers. And most of them were only trained for war-situations, not to rebuild a country and secure it against terrorists.

5) Bush didn't reveal the real reasons for the war. The CIA and other intelligence were forced to report WMD and all indications were blown out of their proportions.

The real reasons
-Bush needed a second war to have more chance to be reelected. Americans love to vote for a war president. Where didn't really matter.
-The economy needed a push, a war would help it. The same for oil.
-Strong lobying from the oil companies and weapon manufacturers.
-Having a stronghold in the Middle-East, certainly next to Iran.
(-Minimal: Finally beat Saddam, a dictator, terrorism and prevent future WMD.)

But this is the last time I'll talk about it. This is old news and discussing this won't change the future. A discussion about how to prevent Iraq to become a religious fundamentalist dictature might be better. Wink
horseatingweeds
Quote:

Bondings:
The real reasons
-Bush needed a second war to have more chance to be reelected. Americans love to vote for a war president. Where didn't really matter.
-The economy needed a push, a war would help it. The same for oil.
-Strong lobying from the oil companies and weapon manufacturers.
-Having a stronghold in the Middle-East, certainly next to Iran.
(-Minimal: Finally beat Saddam, a dictator, terrorism and prevent future WMD.)


-If there was any reason that Bush nearly lost it was the war! Don't you remember Kerry? This president bla bla bla.....

-If you think the economy and oil are helped by a war you get to much political info. from drunken bar ranters and have never studied economics. First war scares the crap out of investors, second we spend lots of money moving expensive stuff to some place and leave it there, and third we loose strong brave people. A push down the stairs maybe. I don't know what you mean by oil needing a push.

-The last thing oil companies want is a war between them and their product. Weapons manufacturers lobbying.....??? I would have lobed for a juicier country.

Strong hold in the mid-east? Yes indeed. Its expensive maintaining two carrier groups within striking distance of that place.
Billy Hill
Bondings wrote:


The real reasons
-Bush needed a second war to have more chance to be reelected. Americans love to vote for a war president. Where didn't really matter.
-The economy needed a push, a war would help it. The same for oil.
-Strong lobying from the oil companies and weapon manufacturers.
-Having a stronghold in the Middle-East, certainly next to Iran.
(-Minimal: Finally beat Saddam, a dictator, terrorism and prevent future WMD.)


In your opinion. Wink
wolfhnd
Nothing is as simple as it first appears. Many of the members of Congress who voted for the war felt that they were responding to the demands of their constituents. That does not mean that they agreed with or believed the explanations offered by the president.

There remains many questions about what motivations are hidden behind the rhetoric of the Bush administration. It would not be first time that stated reasons have only served to obscure true motivations.

That said even if you except it all at face value there still remains the issue of outcome. Proper motivations do not always offer positive results.

So far the only success in terms of reducing terrorism long term that I see is the possibility that the fly trap theory will work. Since the invasion will no doubt create a good deal of anti american sentiment it is still possible more terrorist will be created than were eliminated.

There could of course be other positive result such as a stabilized middle east but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

The huge cost of the war will almost certainly offset any return economicly. This huge drain on the economy should have been offset by gains in the balance of foreign trade but with a republican leading the charge any call for americans to aid in the war effort by reducing the use of foreign oil is out of the question. To some degree it is a shame that so large a part of the population equates "american way of life" with consumptive abandon.
mengshi200
If USA withdraw his army after finishied mission,it help world peace and american impression.
Bondings
horseatingweeds wrote:
-If there was any reason that Bush nearly lost it was the war! Don't you remember Kerry? This president bla bla bla.....

The fact that Kerry used this argument, doesn't change the fact a lot of Americans think that supporting a war president is patriotic. This might have been only a few %, but those votes decided who won.
horseatingweeds wrote:
-If you think the economy and oil are helped by a war you get to much political info. from drunken bar ranters and have never studied economics. First war scares the crap out of investors, second we spend lots of money moving expensive stuff to some place and leave it there, and third we loose strong brave people. A push down the stairs maybe. I don't know what you mean by oil needing a push.


-The last thing oil companies want is a war between them and their product. Weapons manufacturers lobbying.....??? I would have lobed for a juicier country.

Most economists will agree that wars like the one in Iraq have a positive effect on the economy in the short term, not in the long run. Ever wondered who received the spent money? American soldiers and weapon manufacturers. And yes, it did have an effect.

About the oil, there is a difference between reality and predictions. A much bigger oil export from Iraq was expected.

Do you have any idea how much influence the big lobbies have in Washington?

And no the oil didn't need a push. The economy needed cheaper oil. Wink

Quote:
In your opinion.

Everything I write on this forum is my own opinion. Otherwise I quote it. Wink
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:

Most economists will agree that wars like the one in Iraq have a positive effect on the economy in the short term, not in the long run. Ever wondered who received the spent money? American soldiers and weapon manufacturers. And yes, it did have an effect.


Agreed.

Wars have almost always been good for the economy of the US. (I'm not sure about other countries). I'm included in one of those categories that definately benefits from war or the production of the implements of war. I'm lucky in that I also benefit from peacetime implemetations of wartime devices. Wink
chico-lama
Bondings wrote:

Most economists will agree that wars like the one in Iraq have a positive effect on the economy in the short term, not in the long run. Ever wondered who received the spent money? American soldiers and weapon manufacturers. And yes, it did have an effect.


I do agree on this point. Soldiers and weapon manufacturers are the only flourishing parties in wars and ofcourse the media.. The rest of the USA will degrade every minute. Did anyone realise that every downfall of societies all over history started with spending to much on war instead of there own economy? (for example the romans, greek, the third reich..etc.)

Bondings wrote:

About the oil, there is a difference between reality and predictions. A much bigger oil export from Iraq was expected.

Jep true. I think that a whole lot of oil is used in the war compared to exported from Iraq. If this war will continue (it 's impossible to deny that the war is still going on) for a couple of more years, then it maybe the case that more oil is spended to secure the oil then ever will be exported from iraq...

Bondings wrote:

Do you have any idea how much influence the big lobbies have in Washington?

Goes beyond my imagination, but it must be huge!


Bondings wrote:

And no the oil didn't need a push. The economy needed cheaper oil. Wink

And it only got more expensive..
geeren
S3nd K3ys wrote:
..lest we forget!

To the libs and Dems who keep burying their heads in the sand and those who are upset at Bush because of their own lack of 'power' and the fact the dems had an opportunity to take action but failed!

So along comes Bush, he takes action, and they criticize to the point of spewing treasonistic rhetoric. Once again...wrapping themselves with one part of the Constitution and wiping their *** with the other part.


http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
107th Congress wrote:


IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

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 resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States 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 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

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 interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.


Cut-and-dried. The REAL REASON we went to war in Iraq:

Quote:
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; Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens....

...Now, therefore, be it [b]Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled...

...The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


10/10/2002 3:03pm: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 296 - 133
10/11/2002:Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 77 - 23

Yeas:
Kerry (D-MA)
Edwards (D-NC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Clinton (D-NY)

10/16/2002: Signed by President.
10/16/2002: Became Public Law No: 107-243

There it is folks, irrefutable proof about why we went, and who lied, and who authorized this war.


For the oil, wahat do you think. A country doesn't start a war to free the people.
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
107th Congress wrote:

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

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;
.....
Edit : (I would have liked to have quoted the whole thing, but someone quoted the first post in full just above mine, and that's making this page far too long.)

Oooh... the Congress passed the resolution?
Sad, because they didn't have as much information as the president:
CRS Report wrote:
By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods[/color. They, [b]unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, [color=red]the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

In addition to their greater access to intelligence, the President and his senior advisors also are better equipped than is Congress to assess intelligence information by virtue of the primacy of their roles in formulating U.S. foreign policy. Their foreign policy responsibilities often require active, sustained, and often personal interaction, with senior officials of many of the same countries targeted for intelligence collection by the Intelligence Community. Thus the President and his senior advisors are uniquely positioned to glean additional information and impressions - information that, like certain sensitive intelligence information, is generally unavailable to Congress - that can provide them with an important additional perspective with which to judge the quality of intelligence.

Authorities Governing Executive Branch Control Over National Intelligence:

The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. (6) Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be "the owner" of national intelligence.

The President's otherwise exclusive control over national intelligence, however, is tempered by a statutory obligation to keep Congress, through its two congressional intelligence committees, "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities..." (7) Current law also prevents the executive branch from withholding intelligence information from the committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods. (Cool

Damn, there's so much to quote from that report... but I'm afraid I'm going to fall asleep formatting it all.
source = http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
Go ahead, read it... all.
Oh dammit, I just can't resist posting this:
Error 444 : Research Not Done?

wolfhnd wrote:
There could of course be other positive result such as a stabilized middle east but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

*cough*Iran*cough*

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Now I question everything.

Except GW's motives?... Or what other possible real reasons there can be for attacking Iraq? Rolling Eyes


PS: djcaution, welcome to this new world, where everything that went wrong, went wrong because the dems and libs did something wrong.

Error 404 : WMDs not found?
Dang, those libs and dems got to Iraq *before* the armed forces and exported/hid the WMDs in Syria!
shr3dd
No one pays attention to the fact that Saddam's regime had thousands of trucks export unknown cargo out of Iraq just weeks before the US started it's attacks.
gonzo
lib wrote:

Error 404 : WMDs not found?


i_am_mine
Quote:

-If you think the economy and oil are helped by a war you get to much political info. from drunken bar ranters and have never studied economics. First war scares the crap out of investors, second we spend lots of money moving expensive stuff to some place and leave it there, and third we loose strong brave people. A push down the stairs maybe. I don't know what you mean by oil needing a push.

-The last thing oil companies want is a war between them and their product. Weapons manufacturers lobbying.....??? I would have lobed for a juicier country.

Strong hold in the mid-east? Yes indeed. Its expensive maintaining two carrier groups within striking distance of that place.


Clearly, you've never studied economics. Or for that matter you've never studied History either, which is a lot easier and I suggest you read.Here is a brief History of The Economics Of The Wars America has been involved in.I'd be happy to provide you with the plain data/statistics/facts/figures etc, as and when you request it. For those whose lurning curve is well, a little challenged, here it is in simple words:

Quote:

Key Issue: Big businesses made big profits. Smaller companies were taken over by bigger ones to make huge corporations.

Background: In the 1930s the USA was hit by a big economic depression after the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Millions were out of work, companies and banks had gone bust, and the system of free-market capitalism was on the point of collapsing.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) set up the New Deal in the 1930s. The New Deal was the Federal (all-states) Government spending billions of dollars creating jobs, by building dams, roads, schools and hospitals. Many rich people did not like this because it meant they had to pay more taxes.

The New Deal did not solve unemployment problems. In 1939 18% of American workers were jobless (9.5 million). The war however did create more jobs (especially soldiers!) and unemployment dropped to 670,000 by 1944.
Big Business

In 1942 the War Production Board was set up to convert peacetime industry into war production.



e.g. car factory --> tank factory

fridge makers --> munitions (bombs/bullets)



America had to make more aeroplanes. In 1939 the US Army Air Corps had just 300 planes. In 1944 over 96,000 were built in that year alone – 30,000 more than Germany and Japan put together.



Over $175 billion – that’s $175,000,000,000 - government war contracts were given to companies. Bigger companies such as Ford, Boeing, Douglas, Winchester and General Motors were given most of the contracts so many smaller businesses ended up going bust or being taken over by them to create super-corporations.



The public was encouraged to invest in

war bonds - like a savings account with

the government - which would be spent

on the war and returned to the investor

after the war.

Rationing and recycling goods such as metal, rubber and nylon were brought in.


Propaganda

Some companies were encouraged to make their workers feel patriotic about going to work. They were made to feel guilty if they were off sick, and were discouraged from asking for pay-rises. The $175 billion was obviously not aimed at the worker!

The main unions in America agreed not to go on strike during the war, waiting until 1945 to press for better pay.


Summary

The war brought the USA out of the Depression. US companies were now the biggest in the world and made huge profits. Government spending on military contracts became the ‘fuel’ for the growing American economy. This has been the way ever since. The big corporations formed a ‘military-oil-industrial complex’ which has had a big influence on American government policies ever since.



Ofcourse, you'd say that this is a liberal point of view, but alas it is school text book material.Someone wasn't paying attention in class.

That ofcourse was World War 2, and as shown not only did the War uplift the economy in the short term, but brought the country out of its depression i.e., long term effect of War.

Here is another War,its called War In Iraq, maybe you've heard about it:

What do the war in Iraq and the economic recovery in the United States have in common? More than one might expect, to judge from the last couple of rounds of US growth figures.

Quote:

During the second quarter of 2003, when the war in Iraq was in full swing, some 60 per cent of the 3.3 per cent GDP growth rate was attributable to military spending. Expenditure on manpower and weaponry was relatively flat, according to Professor Pollin's analysis, while the lion's share of the stimulus came from the multi-billion dollar contracts handed out to Halliburton, Bechtel and other private contractors.

A smaller proportion of the roaring 8.2 per cent growth recorded for the third quarter was directly attributable to the military, but Professor Pollin and others argue that it is still the military that is driving the deficit, and the deficit - budgeted at about $500 billion (£270bn) for next year - that is driving the recovery.

Just last month, the Pentagon awarded a $4 billion contract to California company Northrop Grumman to work on the Star Wars missile defense program. It is the sort of figure that can regenerate the economy of an entire region. California - the state where US economic booms have a tendency to begin and end - is also a beneficiary of the boom in security-related spending, since much modern security paraphernalia depends on Silicon Valley computer technology.

The Bush administration itself prefers to attribute the recovery to its tax cuts, targeted disproportionately towards the richest Americans. Many non-administration economists, however, say this is nonsense, and that the tax cuts are far more political than they are stimulative. A more significant role has been played by buoyant household spending, helped by low mortgage interest rates which have inspired many homeowners to borrow against the rising value of their properties. But there are signs that interest rates are now on their way back up and that the refinancing fad has ended.

Military-fueled growth, or military Keynesianism as it is now known in academic circles, was first theorized by the Polish economist Michal Kalecki in 1943. Kalecki argued that capitalists and their political champions tended to bridle against classic Keynesianism; achieving full employment through public spending made them nervous because it risked over-empowering the working class and the unions.

The military was a much more desirable investment from their point of view, although justifying such a diversion of public funds required a certain degree of political repression, best achieved through appeals to patriotism and fear-mongering about an enemy threat - and, inexorably, an actual war.

At the time, Kalecki's best example of military Keynesianism was Nazi Germany. But the concept does not just operate under fascist dictatorships. Indeed, it has been taken up with enthusiasm by the neo-liberal right wing in the United States.

Ronald Reagan famously resorted to deficit spending, using talk of the Evil Empire and communist threats from Central America as his excuse to ratchet up the military budget. In 1984, the deficit rose to a whopping 6.2 per cent of GDP. Consequently, the economy grew by more than 7 per cent that year, and he was re-elected by a landslide.

The corollary of the Reagan military boom was a sharp cutback in social spending, something that was not reversed under Bill Clinton and is now back on the agenda with George Bush. State and local budgets are all in crisis because of the recession of the past two years. The fact that the White House is not using federal dollars to help them finance schools, hospitals and police forces hurts all the more because these things have now been underfunded for a generation.


You would have lobbied for a juicier country.
I would have too.
But then there's someone else there lobbying isn't there?


And s3nd k3ys, please do your homework before you post.As much as the material you post is unreadable, some of us do waste our time reading and are bound to find the flaws you inherently overlook, as lib did [ thank you ] . Please read your own document again..
I think you very well knew that a Congress Resolution does not require data, evidence and proof to be laid before the congressmen.Its solely at the discretion of the President, what he'd like to reveal and what he wouldn't.

Infact people calling for the impeachment of Pres. Bush ( which will never happen ) are impeaching him on those terms alone: that he did not state the facts and witheld too much information from the Congress and thus the American people.

Which precisely why he had to admit on national television that WMDs and the reasons before the war were not substantial and unproven to this date.

Thats your main man saying it, so what the point arguing when he's already admitted it?

Are you reminded of the thread where I proved with the evidence you demanded that Bush did not have reason or evidence to go into Iraq, and that the reasons he stated when the war was initiated were defunct ( which you subsequently admitted and then argued along the lines of " I don't care " and " I don't care about the reasons ").Bush recently admitted that these reasons did not hold good, but stated that atleast they got rid of a tyrant.

Main man admitting it again.

Too bad.
gonzo
hey, don't forget the kurds

rwojick
The US is in Iraq because they took false information and the processed it as if it were true?

Why did they do that?

For the children....
rwojick
You know, for all this crap about the "right" and the "left" and the dems and the repubs there is an assumption that all of these groups are assembling their positions with TRUE elemets.

In most cases, this assumption is false because the shitheads you are putting in the categorys are just liars!

If you lie then you are not a liberal or a democrat, you are an ******.

If you claim you are a liberal and you define your position using true statements then your position should be considered. If you are ongoing passer of false information then you are NOT a liberal, you are a person who participates in the American discussion from OUT OF BOUNDS.

A liberal defines his position IN BOUNDS, which means with true statements with regard to facts and laws. An ****** claims to be a liberal or a conservative, and then JUST LIES.
S3nd K3ys
sharkkky wrote:
The US is in Iraq so that the goverment officials in the US who have buisness links in the arms trade can make some more money. The more bullets and bombs they can use up killing innocent people the better for them. It means they can put in more orders for the stuff and make a bit of extra cash. They did the same in Vietnam, just another way for the politicians to get rich, but hey it is the US after all thats what they do and thats all they care about, why should anyone be surprised?


Whaa whaa whaa... How bout calling us names and saying we should be wiped out again?

You're such the expert on why the US is there, aren't you? The BBC must have told you, eh?
polarBear
Not really, I could tell as soon as I saw a Halliburton flag waving there Smile
S3nd K3ys
polarBear wrote:
Not really, I could tell as soon as I saw a Halliburton flag waving there Smile


halliburton? Seriously?

Do your homework before you make yourself look foolish again!
polarBear
Just to cool down the things and don't call you a cocky, ignorant and whining repug, let's review this site:
http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/halliburton_iraq.htm

or any of the following links:
http://www.google.com.ar/search?hs=YYV&hl=es&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aes-ES%3Aofficial&q=halliburton+buildings+in+iraq&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda&meta=

feel like doing it?
i_am_mine
Quote:

Whaa whaa whaa... How bout calling us names and saying we should be wiped out again?


lol, nah, we leave the whaa whaa - ing and calling names to you.I recal correctly when I say you're the first on the thread who has **** in his posts.You're also famous for calling people with viewpoints other than your own terrorists, evil, islamic suicide bombers and other such things which I shall not waste time to remember.

But I must admit, your juvenilia and name-calling lend a certain 8 year-old-schoolboy/delinquent immaturity charm.
lib
gonzo wrote:
<<Insert annoying violent image here>>

You don't seem to get it... the CIA itself admitted that intelligence was flawed and there were no WMDs in Iraq. Wow, I think poster boy President (Georgie) also admitted that there we no WMDs in Iraq, and he took responsibility for the intelligence failure! I'm not going to repost all the links.. search (Like some of you claim to be in search of "the truth", if you want to know it, then search in my previous posts for all my sources.)


more?

Gonzo, don't take this personally, but unless you've got a valid point to make, which hasn't been quished before......, shut up.
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
shut up.


lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
lib wrote:
shut up.



Honestly, can't believe I wrote that. I generally try my best not to get personal with my posts.

I suppose it just gets a little frustrating when you see someone continuously asking for sources and real news, and then you see someone else getting patted on the back for not having sources or valid points by the same person who wanted the sources, just because the pattee believes/preaches the same political ideology.
somnific
S3nd K3ys wrote:
..lest we forget!

To the libs and Dems who keep burying their heads in the sand and those who are upset at Bush because of their own lack of 'power' and the fact the dems had an opportunity to take action but failed!

So along comes Bush, he takes action, and they criticize to the point of spewing treasonistic rhetoric. Once again...wrapping themselves with one part of the Constitution and wiping their *** with the other part.


http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
107th Congress wrote:


IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

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 resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States 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 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

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 interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.


Cut-and-dried. The REAL REASON we went to war in Iraq:

Quote:
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; Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens....

...Now, therefore, be it [b]Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled...

...The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


10/10/2002 3:03pm: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 296 - 133
10/11/2002:Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 77 - 23

Yeas:
Kerry (D-MA)
Edwards (D-NC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Clinton (D-NY)

10/16/2002: Signed by President.
10/16/2002: Became Public Law No: 107-243

There it is folks, irrefutable proof about why we went, and who lied, and who authorized this war.



laugh out loud
i_am_mine
As before stated by lib, if you care to go through the documents provided by the most kind [b]s3nd k3ys you will notice ( highlighted in red by lib ) the clauses which state that the President Of The United States Of America was not required to disclose information,evidence and facts that lead to the intitiation of the war with Iraq.Which is why the Bush is feeling the heat now days (as seen on TV: " Pres. Admits Evidence Was Baloney " ).Also it is clear that this "information", or the lack of it, and its flimsiness was clear to Bush in the days before the war; but ofcourse this is where the clause regarding witholding information form Congress is prefectly fine.

However, in other more functioning democracies such as England ( I speak only relatively ) and France, the legality of the war has been questioned by those in the highest echelons of power:

The Attorney General (i.e.,the man that has the Last Word in Legal Opinion in a country ) Of England himself:

Quote:
The Government's refusal to disclose the advice has been one of the most controversial issues since the war ended, but The Mail on Sunday can now reveal for the first time exactly what counsel Mr Blair received.

The full document shows categorically the Prime Minister's claim that the advice was identical to a brief published 'summary' which declared the war was legal is completely untrue.

In fact, the full 13 pages of advice drawn up by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith stated the war was likely to be challenged under international law on a number of counts.


The revelations were seized on last night by Tories and Liberal Democrats who claim Downing Street's refusal to publish the legal advice document stems from fears its explosive contents would cause political uproar.

The Mail on Sunday can reveal the legal advice warned Mr Blair could be in breach of international law for six reasons:

1. In law, there was a strong argument that it was the job of the United Nations - not Mr Blair - to rule whether Iraq had defied the UN's order to disarm.

Goldsmith set out how it may be judged that it was the function of the UN Security Council, not an individual country such as Britain or America, to decide if Iraq was in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and giving it a 'final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations'. Goldsmith pointed out that although Mr Blair could in theory make the decision, a court could decide otherwise.

2. Goldsmith questioned whether Britain could attack Iraq by using UN Resolution

The legal advice explained why the resolution's warning of 'serious consequences' if Saddam continued to flout the UN fell crucially short of permitting military action. The exact wording had important implications. It did not say 'all necessary means' - UN terminology for war, used when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.

3. Goldsmith urged caution about going to war without a second UN resolution.

He said Mr Blair could go to war without one, but it would be much 'safer' and desirable to secure a second resolution giving specific approval to military intervention.

4. Mr Blair was warned of the risks of relying on the earlier UN resolution used to eject Saddam from Kuwait.

The legal advice challenged Mr Blair's claims that Britain and the United States had a right to go to war by 'reviving' UN Resolution 678, passed in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Resolution 678 did not permit them to invade Iraq itself. The limited nature of Resolution 678 was one of the chief reasons the Allies did not try to topple Saddam when he was ousted from Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War. In principle, Resolution 678 could be revived; in practice it could be difficult.

5. Goldsmith drew attention to UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and his search for weapons of mass destruction.

On March 7, 2003, the day the legal advice was written, Mr Blix reported to the UN Security Council that 34 Iraqi al-Samoud missiles had been disabled. He said Iraq was being more helpful generally and that no weapons of mass destruction had been found so far. By the time Mr Blair received Goldsmsith's legal advice, he would have been aware of Blix's latest report.

6. He explained that the American government's position on the legality of the war did not apply in Britain.

Goldsmith explained the legal stance taken by George Bush and why he faced none of the legal restraints confronting Mr Blair. The US Congress had given Mr Bush special powers to declare the war legal in American law. It also detailed why, in the US view, a second resolution was unnecessary.

Caveats stripped out

All six caveats were stripped out when the Attorney General's nine-paragraph 'summary' was published ten days later. This summary declared the war was legal.

At a press conference on February 23 this year, Mr Blair was challenged whether the Attorney General's 'summary' on the issue was a fair representation of his legal advice. He snapped: "That is what he said and that is what I say."

One senior figure who has a copy of the Attorney General's legal advice said last night: "The Government sexed it up in the same way that it sexed up claims of missiles capable of being launched in 45 minutes."

Another source said: "When you clear away the legalese the picture is clear: the Attorney General believed the legality of the war was highly dodgy, and in all likelihood, it was illegal."

Leading international lawyer Phillipe Sands, who has led the campaign to show that the Iraq war was illegal, added: "These new disclosures confirm that the 'summary' produced by Lord Goldsmith in the Lords can in no way be described as a fair summary of the legal advice he gave the Prime Minister. It is utterly misleading of Mr Blair to pretend otherwise."

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said: "The Attorney General presented his view to Cabinet on March 17, 2003, that military action in Iraq would be lawful. It was his own, genuinely-held, independent view.

"Legal advice is confidential, protected by professional privilege and we don't comment on the process of giving advice. The Parliamentary statement of March 17, 2003 never purported to be a summary of the Attorney General's advice."

The legal wrangle dates from 2002 when Foreign Office legal chief Michael Wood and his deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst confronted Jack Straw over their belief the war was illegal without a second UN resolution.

Mr Straw told them: "I am a lawyer, I have negotiated every dot and comma of this. Thank you for your advice but I am not going to take it."

Ms Wilmshurst and Mr Wood appealed to Lord Goldsmith to overrule Straw. Goldsmith told them: "I am not permitted to give you any advice but you know what my view is." They knew he believed the war was illegal, but dare not say so.

On February 11, 2003, as war approached, and with Mr Blair close to panic over the legal fiasco, Goldsmith flew to the White House to meet US National Security Council legal chief, John Bellinger.

His message was clear: the US had no legal worries because Congress had already given Mr Bush the power to rule the war legal. In addition it believed there was no need for a second UN resolution.

Mr Bellinger later boasted: "We had a problem with your Attorney General who was telling us it was legally doubtful under international law. We straightened him out."

The reference in the legal advice to the US position may be one of the reasons Mr Blair is reluctant to publish it, since it would be held as further proof that he was Mr Bush's 'poodle'.

The legal advice was written on March 7 and given to Mr Blair .

On March 13, Goldsmith met the Prime Minister's confidants, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Downing Street aide Baroness Morgan.

On March 15, Goldsmith asked for - and obtained - a written assurance from Mr Blair declaring Iraq was in breach of the UN orders
.
diverden
No one will argue that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but if we start a war with every dictator that we don't like then we will need a lot more gravediggers. Bush and his stay the course attitude can be compared to the captain of the Titanic who stayed the course, the charge up San Juan Hill which stayed the course and Gen. Custer who stayed the course.
diverden
We would not be in Iraq if it was not rich in oil. There are more than a dozen totalitarian regimes around the world in Africa, Asia and South America but they do not have the resources or economic impact of Iraq. Are they any less brutal or just not worth our intervention.
Spartacus
Anybody who's bothered to look into the actual facts of the situation is already well aware that its a war over oil, anybody else either hasn't done a lick of research or is fooling themselves. This is basic common knowledge though, so I'm just stating the obvious.
animefanlee
war over oil LOL OMG what nonsense first off the first gulf war never eneded saddam signed a ceasefire document aka war did not end but our offensive operations did pause IF saddam followed his promises
Soulfire
Spartacus wrote:
Anybody who's bothered to look into the actual facts of the situation is already well aware that its a war over oil, anybody else either hasn't done a lick of research or is fooling themselves. This is basic common knowledge though, so I'm just stating the obvious.

Perhaps you should take up your own advice and look up the facts. The war started under the pretense of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Although none were found, and I stress found, because there is a HUGE difference between found and non-existant, the U.S. helped rid a tyrannical leader from power who could've some day threatened the U.S. and put all of us in danger.

[sarcasm]Yes, it's terrible of Bush to remove a leader from power who tortures his own people and could very well strike us whenever he pleased. Pooey on him. I have to make a sacrifice at home, it's just not fair.[/sarcasm]

Liberals, take your blinders off.
justmooit
Im no fan of bush but never the less, if troops had not been sent wouldnt the general public just be critisizing even more. Maybe the result of not sending troops in to Iraq would have been worse. Im afraid to say that we will never know..
S3nd K3ys
justmooit wrote:
Im afraid to say that we will never know..


I'm glad to say we'll never know, because it would have been worse in more ways than one.
justmooit
If you can see into the future then ill believe you but what evidence that u have proves that it would be better if Bush had never invaded
justmooit
I don't know what people were expecting from the war in Iraq. War is no miracle, it is not settled in a matter of weeks. It continues for years. I genuinely believe that there has been a huge difference made but the troops in Iraq. Saddam's regime has fallen, just like his statue. There is no doubt that the Iraqi people have come a long way. Don't forget that It is not just americans in Iraq, there are british, canadian and other countries that have supported Tony Blair and George Bush. If we had not invaded wouldn't just another terrorist attack be carried out and more and more. I believe that this is not for the oil. It is for the innocent people and their families that suffered from the twin tower bombings and the London train bombings and the Madrid bombings. And the innocent people that would have suffered if not for the actions taken by The invaders of Iraq. And all this complaining and rumours and constant negative media output does not help the troops and their families and will do nothing.

Support all our troops from all over the world.
lyndonray
first of all you need to look at the political climate at the time that blank check was given to Duby by congress. it was on the eve of a mid-term election that democrats didn't have a unified strategy for. Did the GOP have a strategy? They did. Oh did they ever have a great strategy:

- Politicise the war but, don't make it look like you are politicizing it.
- In our heart of hearts we know it is a dumb and uneccesary war and the dems know that. So when they go against the war, and therefore the PRESIDENT, call them unpatriotic. Do what ever we need to take Congress back!!!

So the stupid dems without a Karl Rove of their own just buckled and gave in. They told themselves they couldn't go against a president who had sky-high ratings in the aftermath of 9/11, even though what he wanted was about as retarded as.......you see? i can't think of a single thing more retarded!!! So they buckled and voted for the war, hoping they could still retain control of congress. That's how Bush got his blank check.

As for the real reason there is a war in iraq. i have no idea. it doesn't make any sense. ok lets go through the main reasons given:

1.WMD

Now guys like hans Blix and Al Baradei repeatedly said there was no evidence there was stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. however, they insisted that insepctions continue. but of course since inspections were not producing the right results for the administration, they had to be stopped

Other guys like Scott Ritter had repeatedly said if Iraq had reconstituted its WMD program since '98, the US would know about it. If you control a substantial amount of a country's air space, have satellites fixed on it and have some operatives on the ground, that country can't have a WMD program without you being totally clueless about it. "There was no evidence that the program had been reconstituted. But we could still continue looking", said mr Blix. "F**k you", said the administration, "get out, we are bringing in the troops"

And as we all know no WMD has been found. Only the occasional weapon's cache. BIG SURPRISE!!

IRAQ and Al Qaida

Now that was clearly a figment of Cheney's over-active imagination. Saddam and Bin laden loathe eachother. So why would they cooperate? one is more of a secularist nut job who at least lets women go to school, The other is a fundamentalist nut job who thinks women are less property than toilet paper, which he probably doesn't use!

yes they both hate america. but where is the evidence that they were collaborating on jointly destroying the U.S. There is none. Except for Cheney's over-dramatic, apocalyptic speeches he gives whenever given the chance.


What was the other reason for war? who cares! it is a dumb war and america is now more unsafe and hated everywhere, than ever before.
S3nd K3ys
lyndonray wrote:
first of all you need to look at the political climate


I'll agree with that...

Quote:
As for the real reason there is a war in iraq. i have no idea. it doesn't make any sense. ok lets go through the main reasons given:

1.WMD


Ruh roh, Rorge...

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1 wrote:
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.



Quote:
And as we all know no WMD has been found. Only the occasional weapon's cache. BIG SURPRISE!!


Yeah. Big suprise, eh? Rolling Eyes


Quote:

IRAQ and Al Qaida


I've showed ties with these two already, no need to re-hash it.

(LOLing at the lefty's trying to re-ignight old and busted propaghanda)
Talk2Tom11
Thank god that bush won the election in 2000 and not gore. Could you imagine if we had to deal with 9/11 with gore as president. The man thinks he created the internet.

We are in iraq for the right reason and we will be better off in the end.

Liberals try to find every little thing wrong to give a reason why we should not be there. Abugrave, Sorry for the spelling, sure it was wrong to abuse the prisoners, but that doesn't mena we shouldn't have gone in, in the first place.

All those public dem's are hipocrits. John Kerry use to speak out against clinton for not going to war in iraq. But now it is... in kerry's words...
The Wrong War at the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time.

Let justs say we should be happy to have a man in the white house with a backbone.

Support Our Troops
polarBear
Just that the US violates the geneva convention(link) and that it constitutes an extension of the Monroe doctrine(link) and a remake of imperialism(link) it doesn't mean it'sn not right, huh?
Soulfire
Nobody follows the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention, well, in order to be correct and not flamed to death by the liberals who live on my every word looking for a slip up... I will say this:

Almost nobody follows the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention.

And if we are giving Iraq back to Iraq, how is that imperialism? And we don't follow the Monroe Doctrine anymore. Our policy of isolationism is almost hundreds of years old now, starting with the Spanish American war, we pretty much abandoned that.
Blaster
George Bush

The way I see it he is finishing what his dad started.

I HATE HIM

First U.S president to ever go against the U.N.

Must be proud of yourself George.
risuarez
Why is the USA in Irak. simple question deseves simple answer. Because of the Oil.
SunburnedCactus
Blaster wrote:
First U.S president to ever go against the U.N.


But what does that say of the U.N.?

Quote:
Why is the USA in Irak. simple question deseves simple answer. Because of the Oil.


No, it's not a simple question. And that is simply a simple way of seeing it.
diverden
The Patriot act and the war in Iraq were posed by the republicans as a good against evil, and if your did not vote for both your were not only a weakling and sissy but unpatriotic and possibly a traitor. How many politicians are going to vote against something like that. Bush convinced the people that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 but the terrorists were almost all Saudi's and some of them came in from Canada. I say we bomb Canada and we bomb Saudi Arabia since they were as responsible as Iraq. We need a much bigger army if you think stopping terrorism is the same as killing terrorists.
nopaniers
Thankyou for the reminder of just how wrong the US's reasons for war were.

Reading it now, I think even Americans can see the gaping holes which the rest of the world saw at the time. For a start, the connection between Iraq and AlQaeda proved wrong, as did the blind belief that Iraq had WMD, even when there was no evidence (and indeed that Powell's "evidence" proved wrong before the war).

I still shudder when I read this: How easily a whole country can be mislead by a few constantly made, but unjustified, associations by its leaders.
demolaynyc
mengshi200 wrote:
If USA withdraw his army after finishied mission,it help world peace and american impression.


If the US did withdraw without trying to establish a better gov't for the country, then who knows who might take over without any strong nation watching over em. Anything can happen--maybe one of the many supporters of Saddam would take over. Then it would be another Saddam to take care of.
S3nd K3ys
nopaniers wrote:
Thankyou for the reminder of just how wrong the US's reasons for war were.

Reading it now, I think even Americans can see the gaping holes which the rest of the world saw at the time. For a start, the connection between Iraq and AlQaeda proved wrong, as did the blind belief that Iraq had WMD, even when there was no evidence (and indeed that Powell's "evidence" proved wrong before the war).

I still shudder when I read this: How easily a whole country can be mislead by a few constantly made, but unjustified, associations by its leaders.


Pardon me, maam, your ignorance is showing...

The connection between Iraq and Al Quada proved TRUE many many times. Just because you dismiss it does not make it go away.

The WMD issue has also been proven. It is STILL being proven, and the likes of you STILL dismiss it.

http://www.nysun.com/article/27110

Quote:
Congress's Secret Saddam Tapes

By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 7, 2006

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The committee has already confirmed through the intelligence community that the recordings of Saddam's voice are authentic, according to its chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who would not go into detail about the nature of the conversations or their context. They were provided to his committee by a former federal prosecutor, John Loftus, who says he received them from a former American military intelligence analyst.
...

The audio recordings are part of new evidence the House intelligence committee is piecing together that has spurred Mr. Hoekstra to reopen the question of whether Iraq had the biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons American inspectors could not turn up. President Bush called off the hunt for those weapons last year and has conceded that America has yet to find evidence of the stockpiles.

Related topics
FOR WAR OR NOT
A soldier's rant
Iran says will resume atomic work
Nuclear power, is it required?
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
the 9/11 truth
Iran Completed It's Nuclear Program
How many people did usa kill in iraq?
Israel "The Untouchables"
The Middle East Conflict
Iran nuclear showdown getting closer
Tony Blair
IF Islam is the fastest growing religion, this is why...
Ho are the Syrian rebels/fighters
Bomb Syria to help out or...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.