Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (20510)	3/13/2003 7:13:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 25898

Hawk, would you care to tell us how many hours the US Senate has spent debating America's very first preemptive war, Talk about "stepping in it" PT... just WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN for the past 6 months pardna??? whitehouse.gov 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. ********************** So it sounds like the entire congress, not just the Senate, took CONSIDERABLE TIME (several weeks as I recall) debating this issue and creating the above JOINT resolution. Hawk

To: PartyTime who wrote (20510)	3/13/2003 8:49:06 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Hawk, would you care to tell us how many hours the US Senate has spent debating America's very first preemptive war, What's wrong Party Time?? Cat got your tongue?? I posted the Authorization to use force out there... Not even a "Thanks Hawk.. I guess I haven't researched as much as I should have?"?? If I make a mistake, especially such a glaring one as you did, I generally acknowlege it.. After all, I'd rather not have this be a personal battle of wills to see who can persuade the most people to our "sides".. I'm trying to analyze a very important (and deadly) issue with facts, and implicit logic in order to understand if there exist any alternatives to using force which enforce the binding UN resolutions against Saddam. Should we just have the UN withdraw those resolutions and life sanctions instead?? Hawk