Illegal wars
M.K. Watson of Parker writes:
This letter has not been edited.
What????? I can't hear ya'.....can ya speak a little louder????
Posted by OldCoot on May 3, 2007 02:07 PMAnd what is illegal about the war in Afghanistan?
Posted by Tom on May 3, 2007 02:07 PMThe war in Afganistan is a much more legal war than the one in Iraq. Leaders of Afganistan attacked the U.S., so we attacked back.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 02:13 PMThe dems would've already pounced on Bush & Co if one iota if this war was waged illegally. They knew it before the elections and know the voters are learning it too.
Lets be more careful and and trust politicians whose only platform is a new direction unless they can pinpoint what that actually means.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 02:28 PMThe new direction is socialism.
Posted by A on May 3, 2007 02:33 PMYes, I remember this new direction that 21,500 more troops were supposed to take us.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 02:44 PMThe wars are not illegal.
Posted by Bob on May 3, 2007 02:45 PMWhat should be illegal is for an imbecile to be commander in chief
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 03:29 PMYes Drew but that would narrow the current dem field for pres down to zero.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 03:56 PMI thought you wanted a level playing field kw?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 03:59 PMWhile I don't think that the war has been run very well, (actually that is not true). Let me start again. While I think the war itself was run very well and reached the goals we set out for, the mishandling of the occupation has been terrible.
But, for ANYONE who says that Iraq or Afghanistan is illegal, needs a lesson in history and constitutional law. Now, I am sure that I will be vilified and determined to be a "right wing nut" or some other non-sense, but Congress has the only authority to declare war and commit troops (for over 90 days) and with this resolution, did just that:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
There it is, plain as day, with those that voted for and against.
THE WAR IS NOT ILLEGAL
I know, I know, Bush lied to get us into war. Here is a wonderful quote by the President:
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."
-President William Jefferson Clinton 1998
Boy it's a good thing there never was an official declaration of war filed on Iraq.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 04:17 PMDrew - Level playing field yes. But we don't want you having to forfeit the game.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 04:31 PMThat wasn't Drew, that was me. Who ever said anything about forfeiting?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 04:41 PMPlease people, look on the surrender documents signed by Iraqi Generals and Saddam at the end of the 1991 gulf war. Failure to comply with any of the agreements gave the US, and any of the coaltion forces all legal rights to resume military operations. There for the "war" is not illegal and considering that Congress overwhelmingly voted FOR these such operations gives more right. just because they are falling into a failure and runaway pose now, doesnt make it any less legal.
Posted by Nick on May 3, 2007 04:42 PMYes congress voted for military operations (when all other options have failed). B'oh!! There goes those pesky facts again.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 04:45 PMUnsigned poster,
You use bits of facts to make a point. But the joint resolution did not say "when all other options have failed," instead said:
"AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."
If you would like to read the entire resolution, it is here at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
The GPO is the Government Printing Office and they are in charge of all legal documents from the Government.
Posted by Dan2 on May 3, 2007 04:50 PMAhh, maybe you were indeed referring to this?
"(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
You can think what you want, but it is all right there for you to read.
Strange coincidence here.
I opened the June 2007 issue of "Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine" this afternoon; and the lead story is one by Harry Turtledove, called "News from the Front".
The whole story is made up of excerpts taken from newspaper columns in the months immediately after Pearl Harbor.
Now I haven't gone to the library and attempted to verify each and every date and paper - some could be invented, to move the story along, of course. But . . . the whole read just about . . . blew my mind, as the saying goes.
What does that have to do with what's here?
Get it - Steal it if you have to! - and READ IT for yourselves. It's uncanny, in its way. And for me, since I'm old enough to remember those days, it was mind boggling.
I don't have French diacritical marks available; but the old saying: "The more things change, the more they remain the same", is all I can add.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 08:42 PMI must be forgetting Dan2, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 07:41 AMAgain with this 9/11 Iraq link nonsense. No one can prove that Saddam's regime had anything to do with 9/11, but neither can anyone prove that it didn't. What an idiotic point that gets repeated over and over on these boards.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 08:09 AM7:41,
The topic was illegal war. Not where are the similarities, but ILLEGAL war. Since it's not illegal, then this topic is pointless.
But to answer your question, nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither did Afghanistan actually. The taliban was part of Al queda but the taliban itself did not do anything with the 9/11 attack either.
We must refer to our mood at the time, and the President's first national address after 9/11 when he said those that harbor terrorists will be treated like terrorists, and how we all rejoiced to hear those words.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 08:30 AMThat's why we should've kept going after the terrorists instead of invading and occupying Iraq. I doubt there were very many people who were not on the presidents side when we attacked Afganistan. I was. They attacked us, we attacked harder. This is a great use of force, and serves much more of a deterent purpose than what has happened since. If the president was serious about going after terrorists, than he would've done so. But it was actually the perfect cover to "finish daddy's job". Do you think it would be acceptable if we were attacked by Egypt and we went after Sweden? This war is no longer about fighting terrorism, if it was, then bin laden would have been captured long ago. And if you don't think that the most advanced army in the world is capable of finding a guy in a cave, then you have even less faith in the military than I do in the president.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 09:05 AMI see what you mean, but it's not like Bin Laden was a non-entity before 2001. Bin Laden has been on the FBI's most wanted list since 1999, when he first became a suspect in 1998 bombings of US Embassies abroad.
The connection to Iraq is directly in the instability of Saddam's rule and that the intelligence was such that if he did sell any of his MWD's (we KNOW he had them, he used them on the Kurds and Iranians as well as disclosed them on the UN documents) to other terrorists, that would be a direct threat to the security of the United States. And that is why Congress granted the authority for the President to use the armed forces "as he deems necessary..." It's that simple.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 10:34 AMI agree, bin laden has been a wanted man for a long time now, but this was the time when we were supposed to say no more. If it was that simple, we need to look at ourselves also. The US is the biggest manufacturer and distributor of arms in the world. We pose a threat to every nation in the world, so why is it we get by all these sanctions? Because we write them?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 10:52 AMWell, the security council of the United Nations typically writes sanctions, and as one of permanent members, the US is involved in those sanctions. But does not write them alone. And with NATO and other treaties, we really pose no legitimate threat. By the nature of our Constitution and Free Market Enterprise, we pose economical threats to other countries, but because of our treaties, we certainly pose no more of a threat than Greece does.
We could debate the intentions of the war, the reasoning of going to war, the legitimacy of the war, and the military industrial complex of the United States and democratic States world-wide. But this thread was discussing the illegality of the war, of which there is none.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 11:14 AMWell I guess since the purpose of war is to kill everybody else, I guess your right, this war is not illegal.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 11:50 AMI wouldn't mind, as it seems we have this thread all to ourselves, in discussing what you mean by illegal, or even the purpose of this war. I think we could have a very calm and rational debate regarding the intentions of this war, what it has turned into, and what our next steps should be.
And usually the purpose of war is to dominate. If the "real" purpose of war was just killing the other person, there would be no rules of engagement, no reason to worry about collateral damage, no Geneva convention, no UN... you get my point I am sure.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 01:29 PMPersonally I can't figure out the purpose of this war, but granted, I'm not a general, I'm not an oil tycoon, I'm not a person who sits in a room deciding who the next biggest threat is. In a warzone however there is little concern for the rules of engagement. When somebody shoots at you, you shoot back. I can't blame the Iraqis for shooting at us, we would be doing the same thing if somebody came here uninvited and said they were going to change our nation for the better. I wish I could place a reason for going to this war, but all I can do is go off what I see. And what I see is a military spending all this time and money in Iraq when there are actual terrorists in other countries that pose a far worse threat than any insurgent. I see a president who was fearful of being forgotten in the record books and wanted to have his name in some book somewhere, and a war is the easiest way to go about that. You won't be reading about Clinton a hundred years from now, but you will be reading about bush2. I see this war turning into what it's been for the last 5 years, more bloodshed for no result. I don't have any suggestions as to where we go from here because the path of destruction has been dug so deep as to completely change the original goal.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 01:59 PMWell, I did see and understand the purpose (as I think Congress did as well). For me, it was about the lack of compliance with UN resolutions, time and again, and finally there were indeed some "grave consequences." President Clinton said it best in 1998 when he said the only thing that will make us safe from Iraq is the removal of Saddam from power. It will be a long process, but worth it (I paraphrased to save time and space).
I agree with you that there was no real plan, nor understanding of the landscape and history of Iraq, because if there were, I would think that we would have tried a different plan. I fault the UN for not being more involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, as that is it's function, but I have a very low regard for the UN anyway
As history teaches us, not doing anything or just leaving Iraq to itself, will indeed lead to disaster. Think Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hirohito. All ascended into power in a vacuum where there was none. And with the bloody history of the region, this will be something my grandkids may have to still deal with (and I'm only 34).
This is not about oil, not about terrorism, but about stability in a region where none exists. This is America's attempt at influence in a region that has been devoid of influence since the British left in the 1900's. I don't really know what to do about it. Break it up? I do think that diplomatically it is in the best interest of the Untied States to engage Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan as it will directly impact their securities as well. I think being stubborn was great for the cold war and the Soviet Union, but everyone wants to be Ronald Reagan, without understanding the differences that his era and this one, his enemy and ours, differ.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 03:18 PMBut is it really so hard to say that's what the purpose is/was? That's a great mission you outlined of why we are there now, it's just too bad that it's taken the road we are on to get there, especially when there was a superhighway one exit down.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 04:01 PMBoth wars are illegal because Congress never DECLARED war. We are a sovreign nation and can make war on anyone for any reason, but Congress must decalre war. The C-in-C can't declare war and Congress can't delegate its authority to the President (check the Supreme Court rejecting the Congress trying to delegate to the President the Legislative authority of the line item veto).
Both wars are illegal.
Posted by Dave on May 4, 2007 10:05 PMDave, as in Korea and Vietnam, these are not true wars as congress never did declare war, however they did give authorization the go ahead for full military action. Also the UN sanctions allowed full military action against Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by Nick on May 4, 2007 11:07 PMNick, both Korea and Vietnam were illegal wars (wasn't that the lesson of Vietnam? No more Gulf of Tonkin resloutions). Congress may NOT delegate its war making power. We should not subordinate our sovereignty to the proclaimations of the UN. I'm asking for clarity, respect and and honesty...... Declare war or get out.
Posted by Dave on May 5, 2007 05:59 AMKorea was not illegal as the North invaded the South and UN forces were used to regain control. Full authorization was given, Vietnam was not illegal as France asked for our help and many other countries only to run as soon as we got there and condemn all those involved even though their actions were far worse. Only when congress officially declares it a war can it be called a true war and until then it is justmilitary action. But the main point is all these actions were in one way or another were approved by the UN and congress until such time when they decided it was no more fun
Posted by Nick on May 5, 2007 10:10 AMWhat I so love about this whole debate is that those who are proclaiming it to be illegal have conveniently forgotten that most members of Congress voted in favor of the use of force.
Now, those members who are against our continued particpation and that have had their votes on this matter revealed again to remind all of us are now trying to deflect, obfuscate and color that information.
"If I knew then what I know now.....etc."
Pathetic losers. All of them, from both sides of the aisle. Populists who are in politics for their own enrichment and not looking out for the best interests of this country.
Advocating a losing strategy for the U.S. without the foresight to even consider the long term consequences of their position is not a good or very smart strategy.
Once again, they are counting on the ignorance and short memories of American voters.
Posted by RU Serious on May 5, 2007 01:03 PM01:03 PM: "Advocating a losing strategy for the U.S. without the foresight to even consider the long term consequences of their position is not a good or very smart strategy."
President Bush has advocated a losing strategy for some years now.
Posted by Truth on May 5, 2007 05:04 PM