Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Ti

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Ti

    USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Time'...
    http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...ew-on-war.html

    Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq.
    Instead, Democrats are lost in time, Bush lowers the bar for Baghdad.
    Iraq remains a violent place, but the trends are encouraging.

    U.S. and Iraqi casualties are down sharply. Fewer of the most lethal Iranian-made explosive devices are being used as roadside bombs. In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces.

    On the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian chasm, something similar is happening. About 70,000 local, pro-government groups, a bit like neighborhood watch groups, have formed to expose extremist militias, according to Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    But as much as facts have changed on the ground, little seems to have changed in Washington. There are plans to withdraw some troops next year, but there is no clear picture of the endgame in Iraq. How long will troops be needed? Exactly what do we expect success to look like? Will we leave behind a permanent presence?

    None of the answers are any clearer than they were when the news began improving. In fact, they seem fuzzier.

    On the Republican side, the White House has been busy making excuses for the Iraqi government's failure to move toward national reconciliation (which is the goal of the troop surge), and it has lowered the benchmarks for success to the level of irrelevance. That translates into reduced accountability, continued dependency and an open-ended commitment. Lowering the bar for the Iraqi government sends a message that Baghdad can enjoy security paid for in American lives, and reconstruction aid paid by America's taxpayers, and ignore its responsibilities.

    Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals." Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle.

    What's needed is acknowledgment that the surge is achieving what was intended: not complete military victory but enough stability to make political compromise possible. What's missing is Iraqi will to take advantage of the success.

    So far, the Iraqis have missed just about every benchmark that Congress set early this year and Bush promised to enforce. Too often, they just don't seem to be making an effort. Those benchmarks included passing laws on sharing oil revenue, allowing more former Baath Party members into official jobs and holding provincial elections.

    To some degree, the positive "bottom up" developments mitigate that failure. The Sunnis, for instance, have abandoned their political isolation and now want to participate in the government. But the Shiites' persistent resistance to letting them in makes a case for new, meaningful benchmarks, not trivial certainties such as simply passing a budget, one of the requirements the White House has set.

    Beyond benchmarks, the military progress has been paralleled by a less aggressive stance by Iran, creating another opening. Iran has enormous influence in Iraq, particularly in Shiite regions. More aggressive diplomacy of the kind advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group would help — even a regional conference such as the one the United States recently hosted in Annapolis, Md., to restart Middle East peace talks.

    If the United States has learned anything over the past few years of war, it's that apparent calm can change in an instant. (Just Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 41 people and wounded 150 at the main market in the southern Shiite city of Amarah.) The U.S. military is stretched thin and cannot maintain 160,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. So now, before the surge starts to unwind, is the time to refocus the war effort and begin defining the endgame, while leaving the timetable flexible.

    The Iraq war, which has cost so much in U.S. lives and treasure, deserves far more than muddling through with fingers crossed. It demands a credible, long-term plan that will allow the United States to get out in a way that preserves U.S. interests in the region, not a political stalemate that forces it to stay in.

  2. #2
    Latest reported Coalition Fatality: Dec 13, 2007
    Current War Spending Request: $100-200 Billion (or about $10billion/month)
    Current troop levels: over 160,000 (effectivly 200,000 with foreigners and contractors)
    Territory controlled by Iraqi governemnt: virtually none with militias taking over where colatition forces withdraw
    # of Iraqi battalions that can operate w/o direct US support: pretty much none
    Iraqi Air Force: None
    Iraqi Armor(Tanks, APCs, Artilery): very few
    Political reconciliation: none

    Progress?

    Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond initial predictions?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    Did you read the article or is this just your daily anti-american rhetoric?


    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    Latest reported Coalition Fatality: Dec 13, 2007
    Current War Spending Request: $100-200 Billion (or about $10billion/month)
    Current troop levels: over 160,000 (effectivly 200,000 with foreigners and contractors)
    Territory controlled by Iraqi governemnt: virtually none with militias taking over where colatition forces withdraw
    # of Iraqi battalions that can operate w/o direct US support: pretty much none
    Iraqi Air Force: None
    Iraqi Armor(Tanks, APCs, Artilery): very few
    Political reconciliation: none

    Progress?

    Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond initial predictions?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack View Post
    Did you read the article or is this just your daily anti-american rhetoric?
    ^^^I think we know the answer to that.

    It's quite disturbing that the ones that cared soo much about our troops dying are so upset that the attacks on them have dramaticly decreased since the surge???

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sam's Club
    Posts
    4,034
    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    Latest reported Coalition Fatality: Dec 13, 2007
    Current War Spending Request: $100-200 Billion (or about $10billion/month)
    Current troop levels: over 160,000 (effectivly 200,000 with foreigners and contractors)
    Territory controlled by Iraqi governemnt: virtually none with militias taking over where colatition forces withdraw
    # of Iraqi battalions that can operate w/o direct US support: pretty much none
    Iraqi Air Force: None
    Iraqi Armor(Tanks, APCs, Artilery): very few
    Political reconciliation: none

    Progress?

    Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond initial predictions?
    Oh silly, you forgot one..

    Iran: next country the US will use to wipe its arse with.

  6. #6
    yea right JTS, where were you the last week, attack on Iran is officially off..and exposing the American military occupation of Iraq is 'anti-american'-not everyone would agree with that.

    I read the article, it's another piece that is totally exagerated as far as how much 'progress' is being made.

    even if there is less violence..obviously at this point the insurgents only need to wait out the bush administration as it will be the next one that is charged with getting America out, it's only necessary to keep up a moderate level of attcks and they can turn it up anytime they need to.

    comments like this:
    In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces.

    actually 'al-queda' was never more that 10% of the insurgency to begin with, and these 'communities' are generally beholden to other insurgent groups, they havn't switched sides to the Iraqi maliki govt. and these are the communities where US forces still get attacked everyday..only not as much..
    Last edited by eliteforce; 12-14-2007 at 07:37 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    67
    The International Compact with Iraq is about to be invoked; it is, essentially, the equivalent to the Marshall plan after WWII. When the economic progress is made, the insurgency will end for good, and final victory will be ours. I still don't think that any of this is due to any effort of ours, though. At least, not any effort of ours in the past year.

  8. #8
    The Iraq was illegal because had not launched an invasion against us or was not in the process of or capable of doing so. So that makes this it a war of aggression which is the ultimate war crime.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DON'T ASK ME FOR A SOURCE
    Posts
    11,728
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    The Iraq was illegal because had not launched an invasion against us or was not in the process of or capable of doing so. So that makes this it a war of aggression which is the ultimate war crime.
    What? Neither did Germany. Why do you say that it was illegal?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by rana173 View Post
    What? Neither did Germany. Why do you say that it was illegal?
    Germany and Italy declared war on the on December 11, 1941, three days after the pearl harbor attacks and the United States responded with it's own declaration of war. Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the processes of attacking us (so no self-defense), Congress did not declare war (and they haven't since WW2), and the UN Security Council to not approve attacking Iraq (although I am not a fan of security council declaring war).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Germany and Italy declared war on the on December 11, 1941, three days after the pearl harbor attacks and the United States responded with it's own declaration of war. Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the processes of attacking us (so no self-defense), Congress did not declare war (and they haven't since WW2), and the UN Security Council to not approve attacking Iraq (although I am not a fan of security council declaring war).
    You need to become familiar with the Constitution. The President has the right to send troops anywhere without Congress declaring war. Congress votes to declare war and assig the budget, but the President is Commander and Chief. Another example of someone who let's others form their opinions for him. Were you not ignorant of US law, perhaps you would save yourself from such unfounded rhetoric.............

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    You need to become familiar with the Constitution. The President has the right to send troops anywhere without Congress declaring war. Congress votes to declare war and assig the budget, but the President is Commander and Chief. Another example of someone who let's others form their opinions for him. Were you not ignorant of US law, perhaps you would save yourself from such unfounded rhetoric.............
    Logan, for everyones benefit, would you please post the passages from the Constitution which illustrates this power of the Executive branch to do so...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    Logan, for everyones benefit, would you please post the passages from the Constitution which illustrates this power of the Executive branch to do so...
    US Constitution: Article 2, Section 2
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.....

    Let's not forget about the 17 UN resolutions that called for the fighting in Iraq to cease, as long as Iraq met the requirements of said resolution. In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website.
    - Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
    - Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
    - States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
    http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

    War Powers Act (WPA).

    The WPA sought to clarify the separation of authority between branches. It can also seen as a power grab by Congress.
    The President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent fighting are limited to the following situations:

    - A Declaration of War by Congress
    - Specific statutory authority
    - A national emergency created by an attack on the United States of America or its forces.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    US Constitution: Article 2, Section 2
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.....

    Let's not forget about the 17 UN resolutions that called for the fighting in Iraq to cease, as long as Iraq met the requirements of said resolution. In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website.
    - Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
    - Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
    - States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
    http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

    War Powers Act (WPA).

    The WPA sought to clarify the separation of authority between branches. It can also seen as a power grab by Congress.
    The President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent fighting are limited to the following situations:

    - A Declaration of War by Congress
    - Specific statutory authority
    - A national emergency created by an attack on the United States of America or its forces.
    Just the Constitutional parts will suffice...I'm not interested in UN directives which infringe on the sovreignty of the United States and other nations...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    Just the Constitutional parts will suffice...I'm not interested in UN directives which infringe on the sovreignty of the United States and other nations...
    We may disagree sometimes, but I really like the wording in alot of your statements. Above included........

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    You need to become familiar with the Constitution. The President has the right to send troops anywhere without Congress declaring war. Congress votes to declare war and assig the budget, but the President is Commander and Chief. Another example of someone who let's others form their opinions for him. Were you not ignorant of US law, perhaps you would save yourself from such unfounded rhetoric.............
    Your response reminds me of the smug episode of south park

    The president is not a dictator and he can't do anything he wants. Congress has the authority to declare war and it has been a**icating it's constitutional authority since WW2.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Your response reminds me of the smug episode of south park

    The president is not a dictator and he can't do anything he wants. Congress has the authority to declare war and it has been a**icating it's constitutional authority since WW2.
    Again, why not sight the laws that make this war illegal...........

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Again, why not sight the laws that make this war illegal...........

    repost:
    The war was not about self-defense because Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the process of attacking us, Congress did not declare war and has not done so since WW2, and the UN Security Council did not improve of attacking Iraq (although I don't agree the UN Security Council so justify attacking countries).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    repost:
    The war was not about self-defense because Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the process of attacking us, Congress did not declare war and has not done so since WW2, and the UN Security Council did not improve of attacking Iraq (although I don't agree the UN Security Council so justify attacking countries).
    I do not want your opinion again, just re-worded. I would like you to sight the law...........

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Time'...
    http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...ew-on-war.html

    Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq.
    Instead, Democrats are lost in time, Bush lowers the bar for Baghdad.
    Iraq remains a violent place, but the trends are encouraging.

    U.S. and Iraqi casualties are down sharply. Fewer of the most lethal Iranian-made explosive devices are being used as roadside bombs. In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces.

    On the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian chasm, something similar is happening. About 70,000 local, pro-government groups, a bit like neighborhood watch groups, have formed to expose extremist militias, according to Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    But as much as facts have changed on the ground, little seems to have changed in Washington. There are plans to withdraw some troops next year, but there is no clear picture of the endgame in Iraq. How long will troops be needed? Exactly what do we expect success to look like? Will we leave behind a permanent presence?

    None of the answers are any clearer than they were when the news began improving. In fact, they seem fuzzier.

    On the Republican side, the White House has been busy making excuses for the Iraqi government's failure to move toward national reconciliation (which is the goal of the troop surge), and it has lowered the benchmarks for success to the level of irrelevance. That translates into reduced accountability, continued dependency and an open-ended commitment. Lowering the bar for the Iraqi government sends a message that Baghdad can enjoy security paid for in American lives, and reconstruction aid paid by America's taxpayers, and ignore its responsibilities.

    Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals." Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle.

    What's needed is acknowledgment that the surge is achieving what was intended: not complete military victory but enough stability to make political compromise possible. What's missing is Iraqi will to take advantage of the success.

    So far, the Iraqis have missed just about every benchmark that Congress set early this year and Bush promised to enforce. Too often, they just don't seem to be making an effort. Those benchmarks included passing laws on sharing oil revenue, allowing more former Baath Party members into official jobs and holding provincial elections.

    To some degree, the positive "bottom up" developments mitigate that failure. The Sunnis, for instance, have abandoned their political isolation and now want to participate in the government. But the Shiites' persistent resistance to letting them in makes a case for new, meaningful benchmarks, not trivial certainties such as simply passing a budget, one of the requirements the White House has set.

    Beyond benchmarks, the military progress has been paralleled by a less aggressive stance by Iran, creating another opening. Iran has enormous influence in Iraq, particularly in Shiite regions. More aggressive diplomacy of the kind advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group would help — even a regional conference such as the one the United States recently hosted in Annapolis, Md., to restart Middle East peace talks.

    If the United States has learned anything over the past few years of war, it's that apparent calm can change in an instant. (Just Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 41 people and wounded 150 at the main market in the southern Shiite city of Amarah.) The U.S. military is stretched thin and cannot maintain 160,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. So now, before the surge starts to unwind, is the time to refocus the war effort and begin defining the endgame, while leaving the timetable flexible.

    The Iraq war, which has cost so much in U.S. lives and treasure, deserves far more than muddling through with fingers crossed. It demands a credible, long-term plan that will allow the United States to get out in a way that preserves U.S. interests in the region, not a political stalemate that forces it to stay in.
    Sweet, the surge is more successful then planned... And what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. We pull out any time and the country is still going to go to hell in a hand basket.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    repost:
    The war was not about self-defense because Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the process of attacking us, Congress did not declare war and has not done so since WW2, and the UN Security Council did not improve of attacking Iraq (although I don't agree the UN Security Council so justify attacking countries).
    You make my point for me above in bold. Do you think that the US has not engaged in battle since WW2?

    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.

    Quit reading blogs and start learning for yourself.....
    Next week's class, "The History of Liberal Fascism"

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    US
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    repost:
    The war was not about self-defense because Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the process of attacking us, Congress did not declare war and has not done so since WW2, and the UN Security Council did not improve of attacking Iraq (although I don't agree the UN Security Council so justify attacking countries).
    You have a one track mind. Saddam violated his previously signed surrender agreement with us from the Kuwait incident. Game over.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
    You have a one track mind. Saddam violated his previously signed surrender agreement with us from the Kuwait incident. Game over.
    EXACTLY

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
    You have a one track mind. Saddam violated his previously signed surrender agreement with us from the Kuwait incident. Game over.
    Then you must be furious at Bush violating the UN by attacking Iraq without the UN's approval.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    You make my point for me above in bold. Do you think that the US has not engaged in battle since WW2?

    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.

    Quit reading blogs and start learning for yourself.....
    Next week's class, "The History of Liberal Fascism"
    Congress did not declare war in any of those event. They just a**icated their constitutional powers and have essentially allowed to president to conduct "police actions" as he sees fit.

    Explain to me what a liberal fascist is? Your unquestioned belief of whatever the government tells you would make any authoritarian dictatorship.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Congress did not declare war in any of those event. They just a**icated their constitutional powers and have essentially allowed to president to conduct "police actions" as he sees fit.

    Explain to me what a liberal fascist is? Your unquestioned belief of whatever the government tells you would make any authoritarian dictatorship.
    Exactly my point!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Exactly my point!
    What is your point??? That there exists a long history of blatant disregard for the rule of law?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    What is your point??? That there exists a long history of blatant disregard for the rule of law?
    Don't be dramatic. Facts are facts. You do not have to like the laws, but what you like and dislike really has no bearing on them. My point has been made, what's your point?

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Exactly my point!
    You agree that Congress hasn't declared war since WW2 so then what are you arguing about?

    Could you explain to me what a liberal fascist is?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    You agree that Congress hasn't declared war since WW2 so then what are you arguing about?

    Could you explain to me what a liberal fascist is?
    What I agree to is that Congress has not declared war even once since WW2, so why do you insist that the Iraq War is the illegal one? Obviously it is not or this whole "illegal war" issue would have been brought up sometime in the last 60 years. There are 13 examples in the above threads to support my stance. How many are there to support yours'?

  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    What I agree to is that Congress has not declared war even once since WW2, so why do you insist that the Iraq War is the illegal one? Obviously it is not or this whole "illegal war" issue would have been brought up sometime in the last 60 years. There are 13 examples in the above threads to support my stance. How many are there to support yours'?
    The war was not about self-defense so that is the main reason I consider it illegal. In WW2, Japan attacked us and his it was about self-defense and Congress declared war on Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on us a couple days later and we did likewise. Congress has been a**icating it's constitutional authority since WW2 by not declaring wars. The reason probably is politically so Congress can take credit if the war goes good and blame the president when it goes bad. The war was not approved by the UN Security Council so that make illegal. I don't think the Security Council should be deciding wars but if people say one of the reasons we attacked Saddam was because he violated UN Security Resolution, then we can't be violating UN Security Council too. Your first sentence up to that comma agrees with and reinforces what I have been saying.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Do you think that if you say the war is ILLEGAL enough that someone will arrest Bush. Why do you insist on saying illegal, name the law that was broken, please.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •