Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Bush to Sidestep Congress on Iraq Pact
Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Thu 03/13/08 05:08 PM
the aricle clearly states that there is a UN mandate for troops to be in Iraq..........You can't have it both ways. We did not meet the mandates, there had to be a connection to al qaeda, WMD, imminent threat to the US, etc..... None of which was met by us.

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 03/13/08 05:12 PM
the aricle clearly states that there is a UN mandate for troops to be in Iraq..........You can't have it both ways. We did not meet the mandates, there had to be a connection to al qaeda, WMD, imminent threat to the US, etc..... None of which was met by us. lol UN, same UN that has never stopped a genocide, never prevented war, never ceased conflict. A collection of countries, whose members are among the worst drug dealers, genocide committers, rights abusers, illegal weapons dealers, and flesh trade sellers. Come on, you really want to wave the UN Flag?

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 05:17 PM Edited by adj4u on Thu 03/13/08 05:19 PM
****Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.**** the united states has not had a declaration of war since world war two Congress DID declare military action. Same as Vietnam. Both are as much of a war as war can be. Same thing in the first Gulf War. We have declared war, just not used the exact words and steps. They DID pass the right for the Commander in Chief to perform war-like actions in Iraq. This is a military operation. The Commander in Chief is the top military commander. The Congress cannot end military action without the authorization of the President. They can cut of funding for the....wait, what does the Congress say here? Oh yeah, they will cut off funding for the IRAQ WAR. They even call it war, and thus, legally, this can be considered a war as they refer to it as such. They can only cut funding. That's it. that is not a declaration of war declarations of war involk a lot of other issues such as treaties and defense agreements technically this is an illegal war just as was every war since ww2 if you use constitutional law but congress is just as much the criminal as anyone else every member of congress that voted for military action without a declaration of war has broken the oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america (and so has each that voted for the patriot act)

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Thu 03/13/08 05:19 PM
****Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.**** the united states has not had a declaration of war since world war two Congress DID declare military action. Same as Vietnam. Both are as much of a war as war can be. Same thing in the first Gulf War. We have declared war, just not used the exact words and steps. They DID pass the right for the Commander in Chief to perform war-like actions in Iraq. This is a military operation. The Commander in Chief is the top military commander. The Congress cannot end military action without the authorization of the President. They can cut of funding for the....wait, what does the Congress say here? Oh yeah, they will cut off funding for the IRAQ WAR. They even call it war, and thus, legally, this can be considered a war as they refer to it as such. They can only cut funding. That's it. that is not a declaration of war declarations of war involk a lot of other issues such as treaties and defense agreements technically this is an illegal war just as was every war since ww2 if you use constitutional law but congress is just as much the criminal as anyone else every member of congress that voted for military action without a declaration of war has broken the oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america (and so has each that voted for the patriot act) adj, you know I just love you, even when we disagree, but this time you are right on

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 03/13/08 05:24 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 03/13/08 05:25 PM
****Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.**** the united states has not had a declaration of war since world war two Congress DID declare military action. Same as Vietnam. Both are as much of a war as war can be. Same thing in the first Gulf War. We have declared war, just not used the exact words and steps. They DID pass the right for the Commander in Chief to perform war-like actions in Iraq. This is a military operation. The Commander in Chief is the top military commander. The Congress cannot end military action without the authorization of the President. They can cut of funding for the....wait, what does the Congress say here? Oh yeah, they will cut off funding for the IRAQ WAR. They even call it war, and thus, legally, this can be considered a war as they refer to it as such. They can only cut funding. That's it. that is not a declaration of war declarations of war involk a lot of other issues such as treaties and defense agreements technically this is an illegal war just as was every war since ww2 if you use constitutional law but congress is just as much the criminal as anyone else every member of congress that voted for military action without a declaration of war has broken the oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america (and so has each that voted for the patriot act) Wait wait wait I was about to agree with you before I realized something, you called this a war, but according to you it isn't a war, it is military action. Does the Constitution say military action is against the Constitution? I doubt it.

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Thu 03/13/08 05:26 PM
Wait wait wait I was about to agree with you before I realized something, you called this a war, but according to you it isn't a war, it is military action. Does the Constitution say military action is against the Constitution? I doubt it.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 05:28 PM Edited by adj4u on Thu 03/13/08 05:34 PM
****Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.**** the united states has not had a declaration of war since world war two Congress DID declare military action. Same as Vietnam. Both are as much of a war as war can be. Same thing in the first Gulf War. We have declared war, just not used the exact words and steps. They DID pass the right for the Commander in Chief to perform war-like actions in Iraq. This is a military operation. The Commander in Chief is the top military commander. The Congress cannot end military action without the authorization of the President. They can cut of funding for the....wait, what does the Congress say here? Oh yeah, they will cut off funding for the IRAQ WAR. They even call it war, and thus, legally, this can be considered a war as they refer to it as such. They can only cut funding. That's it. that is not a declaration of war declarations of war involk a lot of other issues such as treaties and defense agreements technically this is an illegal war just as was every war since ww2 if you use constitutional law but congress is just as much the criminal as anyone else every member of congress that voted for military action without a declaration of war has broken the oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america (and so has each that voted for the patriot act) Wait wait wait I was about to agree with you before I realized something, you called this a war, but according to you it isn't a war, it is military action. Does the Constitution say military action is against the Constitution? I doubt it. Please correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, there is no constitutional power given Congress to issue a "resolution" authorizing the president to use military force at his discretion, and if that power is not specifically given the Congress, then Article 10 forbids Congress from exercising that power. The Congress cannot take power which is not given them by the Constitution, nor do they have the authority to give away a power assigned to the Congress by the Constitution. ------ They are not the same, and a resolution has no constitutional backing, which means that my original contention that the war being prosecuted by the United States military against Iraq is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. But what is even more disturbing is the full realization that the government occupying Washington D.C. is in fact an illegal government as well. http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Guest-Column-28.html

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 05:30 PM
james madison aug 1793 The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted. same site

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 03/13/08 05:36 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 03/13/08 05:37 PM
****Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.**** the united states has not had a declaration of war since world war two Congress DID declare military action. Same as Vietnam. Both are as much of a war as war can be. Same thing in the first Gulf War. We have declared war, just not used the exact words and steps. They DID pass the right for the Commander in Chief to perform war-like actions in Iraq. This is a military operation. The Commander in Chief is the top military commander. The Congress cannot end military action without the authorization of the President. They can cut of funding for the....wait, what does the Congress say here? Oh yeah, they will cut off funding for the IRAQ WAR. They even call it war, and thus, legally, this can be considered a war as they refer to it as such. They can only cut funding. That's it. that is not a declaration of war declarations of war involk a lot of other issues such as treaties and defense agreements technically this is an illegal war just as was every war since ww2 if you use constitutional law but congress is just as much the criminal as anyone else every member of congress that voted for military action without a declaration of war has broken the oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america (and so has each that voted for the patriot act) Wait wait wait I was about to agree with you before I realized something, you called this a war, but according to you it isn't a war, it is military action. Does the Constitution say military action is against the Constitution? I doubt it. Please correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, there is no constitutional power given Congress to issue a "resolution" authorizing the president to use military force at his discretion, and if that power is not specifically given the Congress, then Article 10 forbids Congress from exercising that power. The Congress cannot take power which is not given them by the Constitution, nor do they have the authority to give away a power assigned to the Congress by the Constitution. http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Guest-Column-28.html Hmm...that is an opinion piece, not a direct pull from the Constitution, so you have to take that with a grain of salt. And, don't use quotes for sensationalism. The question is a rough one. Personally, this whole Congress allowing military action in the first place WITHOUT declaring war was a horrible path to go down. But! James Madison did have authorized military action in the Second Barabary War, which was never a declared war. And, he wasn't the first to have a war, without the declaration of war. 22 years after he made that quote he stepped all over it.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 05:41 PM Edited by adj4u on Thu 03/13/08 05:43 PM
was not the barbery war a war against outlaws not a nation kinda like the war on terror it was a defense of a declaration of war --------- In May, 1801, the United States refused to succumb to the increasing demands of the Pacha of Tripoli; in return, the Pacha declared war against the States. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 03/13/08 05:47 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 03/13/08 05:49 PM
was not the barbery war a war against outlaws not a nation kinda like the war on terror No, the Barbary Pirates were apart of the Ottoman Empire. The Barabary Pirates were actually a collection of three states, Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis, which were known as the Barbary States. Did look that up, definately didn't get that off the top of my head. I'd look it up if you don't trust my info. I got it from wikipedia, which I HATE to use as a source, but I backtracked and you can find the same info on education and government sites as well. EDIT: Here, I found a good source of info on it: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2005/050923.Lambert.pirates.html They were states.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 05:48 PM
check the edit it was a defensive action

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 03/13/08 05:51 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 03/13/08 05:52 PM
check the edit it was a defensive action Pacha is not the Barbary State conflict called the Barbary War. The First Barbary War took place in 1801. The SECOND Barbary War took place in 1815

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 05:56 PM
check the edit it was a defensive action Pacha is not the Barbary State conflict called the Barbary War. The First Barbary War took place in 1801. The SECOND Barbary War took place in 1815 they broke the treaty ARTICLE 1st There shall be, from the conclusion of this Treaty, a firm, inviolable and universal peace, and a sincere friendship between the President and Citizens of the United States of America, on the one part, and the Bashaw, Bey and Subjects of the Regency of Tripoli in Barbary on the other, made by the free consent of both Parties, and on the terms of the most favoured Nation. And if either party shall hereafter grant to any other Nation, any particular favour or priviledge in Navigation or Commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other party, freely, where it is freely granted, to such other Nation, but where the grant is conditional it shall be at the option of the contracting parties to accept, alter or reject, such conditions in such manner, as shall be most conducive to their respective Interests. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 03/13/08 06:00 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 03/13/08 06:01 PM
check the edit it was a defensive action Pacha is not the Barbary State conflict called the Barbary War. The First Barbary War took place in 1801. The SECOND Barbary War took place in 1815 they broke the treaty ARTICLE 1st There shall be, from the conclusion of this Treaty, a firm, inviolable and universal peace, and a sincere friendship between the President and Citizens of the United States of America, on the one part, and the Bashaw, Bey and Subjects of the Regency of Tripoli in Barbary on the other, made by the free consent of both Parties, and on the terms of the most favoured Nation. And if either party shall hereafter grant to any other Nation, any particular favour or priviledge in Navigation or Commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other party, freely, where it is freely granted, to such other Nation, but where the grant is conditional it shall be at the option of the contracting parties to accept, alter or reject, such conditions in such manner, as shall be most conducive to their respective Interests. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm Besides all the other issues. What happens when someone breaks a Treaty? You still must declare war to go after them, especially since you never declared war the first time to launch military operations. The first nor second time did the Congress authorize a declaration of war. It is as simple as that, I am done with this. Japan bombed us, we declared war on them. Barbary pirates attacked our ship we declared military action on them.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 06:05 PM
well i hope we never have to defend ourselves against a declaration of war cause the congress of today has a lot of cowards in it and if we need a declaration of anything you might as well for get it ------ it has been nice discussing with you sailor

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 03/13/08 06:06 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 03/13/08 06:07 PM
well i hope we never have to defend ourselves against a declaration of war cause the congress of today has a lot of cowards in it and if we need a declaration of anything you might as well for get it ------ it has been nice discussing with you sailor Yep, same to you. Glad someone can hold an intelligent debate/discusssion here.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 03/13/08 06:08 PM
well i hope we never have to defend ourselves against a declaration of war cause the congress of today has a lot of cowards in it and if we need a declaration of anything you might as well for get it ------ it has been nice discussing with you sailor Yep, same to you. Glad someone can hold an intelligent debate/discusssion here. me too

crickstergo Joined Fri 11/02/07 Posts: 1965	Fri 03/14/08 07:39 PM
the aricle clearly states that there is a UN mandate for troops to be in Iraq..........You can't have it both ways. Show me where the UN states that we have not met our mandates..... SHOW ME WHERE THE UN HAS STATED THAT WE HAVE NOT MET OUR MANDATES AND JUST WHEN AND WHERE THE UN STATES THAT THIS IS AN ILLEGAL WAR. Evidently you have only shown that there is a clear mandate by the UN for the war so where is the UN mandate against the war because we have not met our mandates?

Fanta46 Joined Sat 11/11/06 Posts: 29361	Fri 03/14/08 09:48 PM
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2006/0825bushstandtrial.htm http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm