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:
    6,846
    Thanks Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,297
    If Senator Clinton was in on Bush's plan to lie peace and ignite war, why is that UNSC specific condition even there?

    There is no condition placed on the authorization. It is a basic fact.

    condition
    n. a term or requirement stated in a contract, which must be met for the other party to have the duty to fulfill his/her obligations
    condition

    Where does it state in the AUMF that the president must do something to retain the authorization and if he doesn't comply he will lose it?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  2. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,728
    Thanks Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,636

    It's in the clause that you and I have posted a zillion times. Congress authorized the use of military force to do two things and two things only. One of which was 'in order to" enforce "all" relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq.

    That is a definite condition.

    Bush was not authorized to use military force "in order to" enforce the world's just demands.

    Bush was not authorized to use military force 'in order to' change the regime and establish an Islamic democracy in Iraq.

    The lawmakers did not set that condition. It was not authorized to use military force to do what Bush did?
     
  3. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,728
    Thanks Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    Tehon 14378005
    Just because Bush did not comply with the 'in order to" conditions set in the AUMF did not mean that Congress had the political will to end it.

    You are just reiterating that Bush was right when he told you he was enforcing the world's demands, not UNSC demands.

    I would never go there. Bush was wrong to believe he had authorization to do what he ended up doing. You appear to be relishing in being there with him.

    An entire other part of the whole story is that Bush could have invaded Iraq under the war powers act and the War on Terror Act passed after 9/11/01 without giving peaceful inspections a try.

    He kicked peaceful inspectors out when they made much headway - So it was not far fetched at the time to believe Bush would indeed start a war without a specific Iraq AUMF.
     
  4. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    6,846
    Thanks Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,297
    Just because Bush did not comply with the 'in order to" conditions set in the AUMF did not mean that Congress had the political will to end it.

    Congress couldn't end it because there were no conditions set to end it. They would have had to write new legislation and have it signed by the president to end it.

    You don't understand what a condition is. It's been real but I'm done, I might as well be talking to a wall.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  5. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,728
    Thanks Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    Tehon 14250190
    What was plainly evident in October 2002 is what Bush expressed by word and deed. His intent was to allow the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully if stronger inspections were to be resumed.


    NFBW 14250436
    You have never explained how you knew with certainty in October 2002 from the couch in your living room 7,000 miles away what the UNSC inspection teams coming later did not know for certain at all.

    Please explain how and why you knew back in October 2002 so much more about Iraq's WMD than UN inspectors knew.



    Tehon 14377062
    Why did you say Bush was militarily enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq from one side of your mouth and then from the other side admit that Bush did not seek authorization for war from the UNSC?
     
  6. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,728
    Thanks Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    So you are running away because you can't explain why 'in order to' is not a condition. Run dude. Your absurd views and self/claimed clairvoyance are duly noted.
     
  7. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,728
    Thanks Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,636
    Tehon 14380750
    More phony nonsense. Congress could have ended it after 90 days at any time by cutting off funding. There was no political will in a Republican controlled House to cut off funding.

    Doesn't mean 'in order to' was not a condition in the AUMF.

    So run if you must.
     

Share This Page