MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs

[thegodfather]

I have no interest in hearing about UN resolutions which seriously diminish the United States sovreignty and ability to make and set its own policies as it sees fit. I see no reason we should be enforcing UN resolutions and using such things as a justification for war. This is simply a policing tactic.

The US Congress independently mandated such actions against Iraq, because UN mandates are not binding. If you would have read the link, you would know this to be true. You would have also saved yourself the time of typing this paragraph and saved me the time or replying to it.........

And what authority does the US Congress have over the actions of a sovereign nation, Iraq? None. They are proclaiming authority where none existed. This is another example of an inflammatory US foreign policy where we think we are able to police the world and tell sovereign nations what they can and cannot do. So I disagree with the entire notion that the United States Congress has any authroity over a sovereign nation to tell them what they are and are not able to do within the borders of their own country, and additionally do not think US soldiers lives should be sacraficed to enforce this false authority. An unjust law is no law at all.



http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

- 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.

None of these violations of a UN resolution EVER posed a National Security threat to the United States, a pre-requesite for declaring war against a country. In addition Iraq never attacked the United States.

The possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons does not pose a security threat? Um, OK...?

It certainly did not pose a national security threat to the homeland of the United States. I really dont give two shits if it posed a security threat to Israel or its other neighbors. This isn't Israel, and they have their own army and are a sovereign nation who can take care of themselves as far as I'm concerned. Pakistan or N.Korea pose more of a security threat if they posessed nuclear weapons than Saddam Hussein. Saddam was not a "radical islamic extremist," the term all of the presidential hopefuls have been using. In addition to that he had no links to Al-Qaeda what so ever, and therefore if he had posessed nuclear weapons it would not have posed any imminent threat to the homeland of the United States, and therefore there was never a legitimate reason to goto war.

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.

(2)"Since Congress did not make a Declaration of War, the President has broken the law by sending and keeping troops in Iraq"

US military conflicts since WW2. None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War:

You have posted these military campaigns several times before. What is your point? A clear history of usurping Congressional approval to send troops into other countries makes the standards for a sending our troops into other countries any less legitimate? Im not sure I understand your point.
Bypassing Congressional approval does not make it illegal, your facts are skewed in this area.

Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........) Another example of US occupation and Imperialism which further galvanizes hatred for the United States and contributes to blowback. We have no threat to our national security in Korea, and therefore have no legitimate reason to be occupying a sovereign nations land. We would object to such occupation in our own country, so I ask Logan what reason or justification do you believe we have for occupying theirs?
Korea asked us to stay on, what part of this do you not understand?

Another bit of trivia: (Wikpedia)
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.

I bet those 386,000 troops would do a fine job of securing our border with Mexico.
Pick apart anything you wish, you still have not given anything to support YOUR stance. Nothing besides your "feelings" on the matter.


MY answers in bold.

red and bold

[Logan13]

red and bold

The US Congress independently mandated such actions against Iraq, because UN mandates are not binding. If you would have read the link, you would know this to be true. You would have also saved yourself the time of typing this paragraph and saved me the time or replying to it.........

And what authority does the US Congress have over the actions of a sovereign nation, Iraq? None. They are proclaiming authority where none existed. This is another example of an inflammatory US foreign policy where we think we are able to police the world and tell sovereign nations what they can and cannot do. So I disagree with the entire notion that the United States Congress has any authroity over a sovereign nation to tell them what they are and are not able to do within the borders of their own country, and additionally do not think US soldiers lives should be sacraficed to enforce this false authority. An unjust law is no law at all.

It is called a cease-fire agreement, come on quit reaching so much.........

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

- 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.

None of these violations of a UN resolution EVER posed a National Security threat to the United States, a pre-requesite for declaring war against a country. In addition Iraq never attacked the United States.

The possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons does not pose a security threat? Um, OK...?

It certainly did not pose a national security threat to the homeland of the United States. I really dont give two shits if it posed a security threat to Israel or its other neighbors. This isn't Israel, and they have their own army and are a sovereign nation who can take care of themselves as far as I'm concerned. Pakistan or N.Korea pose more of a security threat if they posessed nuclear weapons than Saddam Hussein. Saddam was not a "radical islamic extremist," the term all of the presidential hopefuls have been using. In addition to that he had no links to Al-Qaeda what so ever, and therefore if he had posessed nuclear weapons it would not have posed any imminent threat to the homeland of the United States, and therefore there was never a legitimate reason to goto war.

You are bordering on irrational.