Iraq War Vote

Discussion in 'Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs' started by Tehon, May 7, 2016.

  1. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    Lol, LEOs operate under a code of conduct. The code of conduct stipulates that he must enforce the law courteously and appropriately and never with excessive force or violence. If a LEO breaks the public trust there is a system in place to deal with it. The LEO knows that if he shoots someone for speeding that there will be repercussions because he was given the code of conduct and he signed on to it before he took the job. Now stop lying and admit that no such "code of conduct" was issued as part of the AUMF. The method of enforcement was left to the discretion of the president and he was authorized to use deadly force. End of story.
     
  2. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    I never lie and not as you say. I did not say that a code of conduct was part of the AUMF.

    My point was about your ignorance regarding the term 'enforce'.

    The method of enforcement was not left to the discretion of the president. Read the AUMF again. The president was given the discretion to determine if military force was needed and how much "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq."

    The method that both Bush and the unanimous vote of the 15 member UNSC chose and agreed upon was Resolution 1441. The method of 'enforcement' 1441 approved was UN inspections.

    Look it up in 1441. In order to use military force Res 1441 required the Council to reconvene in order to decide what's to be done if Iraq did not cooperate under the terms of 1441. The UNSC AND both Chief inspectors never saw the need to reconvene the Council to determine if military force was required. They never ever ever came close to deciding to use military force.

    Bush was the rogue cop. Bush enforced Bush Law - not UNSC law.

    Therefore Bush was not in compliance with the AUMF stated condition that he use military force in order to 'enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq'.

    You are arguing the absurdity that 1441 was not relevant to Iraq's WMD compliance as well as your other absurdities that 1441 authorized the use of military force; and that one that there were no conditions in the AUMF but you also argue again and again that Bush was actually enforcing the condition that you argue does not exist.

    It's a fact that you cannot deny that the UNSC was in the very successful act of enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq under UNSC 1441, peacefully and without the use of military force when Bush decided to terminate the inspections and use military force to enforce his own version of international law.

    It's amazing that you believe Bush's version when Bush himself tells you that he and his coalition acted on their own to enforce the world's demands - not the UNSC demands.!

    Bush March 17 2003 speech to the nation: "For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's longstanding demands."

    That was of enforcing peacefully within the UNSC. Bush mutters on:

    "Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."

    That means there was no resolution by the UNSC that authorized the use of military force to disarm Iraq. And rightfully so they would have been if a resolution ever was presented for a vote. Bush never presented one because he knew he would lose.

    So Bush tells you right here that he no longer is going to work 'within' the UNSC and peaceful inspections in order enforce what he calls "the world's demands"

    "Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.

    The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."

    You do know what 'however' means don't you?

    Do you believe Bush had the authority to take over the UNSC when he tells you "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities"

    Or do you believe Bush acted outside and against the UNSC in order to (as Bush put it) to enforce the just demands of the world?

    Was what Bush did 'Just'?

    Senator Clinton agreed with the UNSC majority that inspections must continue and remain peaceful.

    Bush is a liar when he says he wanted to peacefully work within or through the UNSC. Deal with it. Can the absurdity that Bush was in fact enforcing 1441 through the UNSC.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2016
  3. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    What I believe is irrelevant to what transpired. I believed Bush would take us to war and my belief was justified.
    Bush acted within the authority granted to him by congress, it is an undeniable fact.
    This is what Hillary believed, she signed her name to it, she granted the authority.

    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
    the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
    and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
    international peace and security, including the development of
    weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
    Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
    in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
    (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
    in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
    949 (1994);

    Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
    Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
    ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
    Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
    implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
    665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
    ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
    with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
    Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
    civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
    Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
    security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
    Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
    goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
     
  4. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14370370

    "I believed Bush would take us to war and my belief was justified."

    You believed that how? More absurdity on your part that you knew for certain in October 2002 that UN inspections would be resumed and working and that Bush would terminate the inspections and invade Iraq in March 2003.

    Tell us all about your clairvoyance abilities.

    Of course you believe your beliefs are justified. But you are absurd in the ways you arrive at them. Words and facts mean nothing to you.
     
  5. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    I never lie and not as you say. I did not say that a code of conduct was part of the AUMF.

    My point was about your ignorance regarding the term 'enforce'.

    The method of enforcement was not left to the discretion of the president. Read the AUMF again. The president was given the discretion to determine if military force was needed and how much "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq."

    The method that both Bush and the unanimous vote of the 15 member UNSC was Resolution 1441. The method of 'enforcement' 1441 approved was UN inspections.

    Look it up in 1441. In order to use military force Res 1441 required the Council to reconvene in order to decide what's to be done if Iraq did not cooperate under the terms of 1441. The UNSC AND both Chief inspectors never saw the need to reconvene the Council to determine if military force was required. They never ever ever came close to deciding to use military force.

    Bush was the rogue cop. Bush enforced Bush Law - not UNSC law.

    Therefore Bush was not in compliance with the AUMF stated condition that he use military force to 'enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq'.

    You are arguing the absurdity that 1441 was not relevant to Iraq's WMD compliance as well as your other absurdities that 1441 authorized the use of military force; and that one that there were no conditions in the AUMF but you also argue again and again that Bush was actually enforcing the condition that you argue does not exist.

    It's a fact that you cannot deny that the UNSC was in the very successful act of enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq under UNSC 1441, peacefully and without the use of military force when Bush decided to terminate the inspections and use military force to enforce his own version of international law.

    It's amazing that you believe Bush's version when Bush himself tells you that he acted on his own.
     
  6. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    You ignore the facts provided. Bush's intentions were clear.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    Bush acted on the authority granted by Congress.
     
  8. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14363518
    I never said he was not. You leave out what the AUMF authorized him to use deadly military force "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC with regard to Iraq." That includes 1441 which you claim he was enforcing it. You claim something that Bush himself tells you in the moment of deciding war that he was not enforcing 1441. He said he was enforcing World Demands. Whatever the hell that is. But it definitely was not enforcing UNSC demands or Resolutions.

    It is absurd to claim that Bush was enforcing 1441 when Bush tells us explicitly that he was not.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2016
  9. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Sure Bush acted but it was not per the language of conditions imposed in it. Because he is a liar. Nice of you to defend Bush by telling us he was not a liar.
     
  10. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    Oh for crying out loud, 1441 did not exist when the AUMF was passed. Furthermore it solidified Congress's authorization by recalling all the past resolutions. Of course Bush should have gone back to the UN for approval but that was made unnecessary by the AUMF which protected him here in the US. Congress gave him the authority and he acted on it. And yes, well informed people knew he would and called on Congress to deny him the AUMF. I was one.
     

Share This Page