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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (57058)	4/1/2007 11:03:51 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

a war authorization is not the same as a declaration Yes it is. Technically and legally. From Democrats and for Republicans. For conservatives and liberals.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (57058)	4/1/2007 11:14:23 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

At least your spelling is better. Not perfect, but better. Sup[p]ort has two of them; com[m]itting has two; inncocent is spelled innocent. Rape and murder is never moral, and in our system is punished accordingly, even in a war zone. The war in Iraq is waged strictly by constitutional principles, and if it weren't, it would soon be stopped by the checks and balances of our system. You are just yapping about something you don't like, for whatever reason, but saying that it is unconstitutional does not make it so. The rest of your facts are wrong.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (57058)	4/3/2007 2:59:20 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

<< "You are rationalizing a completely irrational act by our government, that being the unconstitutional invasion and occupation of a country (Iraq) that never attacked or directly threatened us. A great example of the dubious morality demonstrated by most Americans in their support of their government's foreign and military policies." >> Ya know Rock_nj, you talk with the assurance of someone who has given the issues a lot of thought & has strong convictions about them. So I have to ask myself how you could be so completely wrong on so many of the specifics you cite? Anyone who has serious concerns about the legality of the removal of Saddam would have at least a passing knowledge of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement (GWCFA). They would also know that Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. They would also know that Congress use of force authorization cited the GWCFA as one of the reasons justifying the removal of Saddam. They would also know that the GWCFA became UN Resolution #687. They would also know that UN Resolution #687 became irrevocably tied to every UN Resolution passed against Iraq until Saddam's removal. They would also know that the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement, was unconditional. They would also know that meant that ANY violation of the GWCFA would be cause for an immediate resumption of hostilities. They would also know the GWCFA required Saddam to do the following; 1) Completely eliminate every aspect of his WMD PROGRAMS (not just "stockpiles"). This included provisions for the complete destruction of all offensive weapons. This had to be done in a completely verifiable manner to UN Inspectors. 2) Saddam had to completely eliminate every tie to terrorists (internal & external). 3) Saddam had to completely halt his crimes against humanity. 4) Saddam had to make full reparations to Kuwait, ET AL. Now this was the short & sweet version of the GWCFA. There were absolutely no provisions that allowed any deviation from each explicit requirement. Saddam spent more than 12 years in utter defiance of every one of the above requirements before Bush's so-called "rush to war". You know, where "Bush lied & misled" America into a "unilateral", "illegal" war to take over their oil for his Big Oil cronies? Some supporting links for your reading pleasure: #687 daccessdds.un.org #1441 un.int Message 22771680 Message 20620056 Message 20809850 Message 20962121 Message 22279138 Message 22181764