Dem voters no longer fight battle of Iraq

[Logan13]

Section 3, paragraph B, of the Congressional authorization for force is quoted below.

This says congress does not authorize the use of force unless Bush proves to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited

Thus the administration has no authority from congress to use force in Iraq, and the "war" is technically illegal. I don't think congress has pressed the issue, cause we're kind of too deep in it now.

I hope that you did not spend alot of time on this.
Knowing that Congress voted on this back in 2003, what is your point........?
Why do you think the Dems keep pointing fingers at one another in attempt to tie their presidential opponents to voting for the war.

I guess that all of the following acts "were illegal wars" as well....
US military conflicts since WW2. (None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War):
Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........)
Bay of Pigs (1961)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Vietnam War (1961-1973)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001–present)
Iraq War (2003–present)

Another bit of trivia:
There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

Liberals tend to have big problems with providing facts to support their crazy claims.
NEXT.....

[Coop77]

I hope that you did not spend alot of time on this.
Knowing that Congress voted on this back in 2003, what is your point........?

You requested someone "sight the laws", whatever that means. I cited the congressional authorization given to the president, and its stipulations.

Why do you think the Dems keep pointing fingers at one another in attempt to tie their presidential opponents to voting for the war.

Because the "war" is a ****ed up mess and political poison, and everyone knows it. They want to seem like they didn't fall for the administration's ruse about supposed Iraqi WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, but a lot of them did.

I guess that all of the following acts "were illegal wars" as well....
US military conflicts since WW2. (None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War):
Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........)
Bay of Pigs (1961)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Vietnam War (1961-1973)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001–present)
Iraq War (2003–present)

None of those were technically wars. They were military campaigns. A declaration of war isn't needed for a president to use military force. But unless it's an emergency, the president does need permission from congress in some form. That's what I quoted in my previous post.

[Logan13]

You requested someone "sight the laws", whatever that means. I cited the congressional authorization given to the president, and its stipulations.

Below is the link to said authorization. So what is your point? Are you guys seriously this ignorant of the facts?
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Because the "war" is a ****ed up mess and political poison, and everyone knows it. They want to seem like they didn't fall for the administration's ruse about supposed Iraqi WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, but a lot of them did.

Yes, but the point is that many Dems voted for the above authorization. The authorization that you said the President did not have........

None of those were technically wars. They were military campaigns. A declaration of war isn't needed for a president to use military force. But unless it's an emergency, the president does need permission from congress in some form. That's what I quoted in my previous post.

None of those are technically wars? You need to acquaint yourself with history..........I have unequivocally proven that the Iraq war is NOT ILLEGAL. Perhaps you feel that it is, but your feelings are at odds with the facts!
Quit making statements that are false, all of you.

[Coop77]

None of those are technically wars? You need to acquaint yourself with history..........

That's right. None of those were technically wars, in the context of this discussion about congressional authorization and the legal authority of the president, because war was never declared by congress. All the constitutional rules change regarding the authority of the president when war is declared. Whole sections of the constitution come into play.
In the sense of them being violent conflicts, of course they were wars.

I have unequivocally proven that the Iraq war is NOT ILLEGAL. Perhaps you feel that it is, but your feelings are at odds with the facts!

You have an odd concept of unequivocal proof. Especially since you yourself posted a link to the congressional authorization document, which states that authorization is dependent on (1) protecting the US from threat (i.e. WMD), and (2) the alleged links between Iraq and 9-11.
I don't "feel" that there were no WMD, and no connection between Iraq and 9-11. It's been proven.

But really.. the whole term "illegal war" is pretty stupid. I only used that term because others in the discussion did. The whole point is that Bush mislead congress and the people with WMD & terrorist BS in order to get authority to invade Iraq, which was planned long before 9-11.

[thegodfather]

I hope that you did not spend alot of time on this.
Knowing that Congress voted on this back in 2003, what is your point........?
Why do you think the Dems keep pointing fingers at one another in attempt to tie their presidential opponents to voting for the war.

I guess that all of the following acts "were illegal wars" as well....
US military conflicts since WW2. (None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War):
Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........)
Bay of Pigs (1961)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Vietnam War (1961-1973)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001–present)
Iraq War (2003–present)

Another bit of trivia:
There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

Liberals tend to have big problems with providing facts to support their crazy claims.
NEXT.....

He cited the laws, and then you cited numerous examples of subversion of said laws. Because the law has been constantly abused in times passed and present, does not make that law void.

[alphaman]

He cited the laws, and then you cited numerous examples of subversion of said laws. Because the law has been constantly abused in times passed and present, does not make that law void.

Good post. Because it'd be hard to argue that several of those weren't wars. lol

[Logan13]

He cited the laws, and then you cited numerous examples of subversion of said laws. Because the law has been constantly abused in times passed and present, does not make that law void.

Here is the authorization. People should know the facts before making outlandish, unsubstantiated claims......
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf