What a joke

[Paulie]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

The Congress has not declared this war, as written into the Constitution of the United States.

DECLARATION OF WAR

There are several problems with this. For starters, it makes a mockery of the constitution. It's legitimate to draw a line beneath which the president can commit troops on his own authority, but there's little question that we've gone well over that line repeatedly in the past decade and a half. By anybody's definition, Gulf I was a war, Kosovo was a war, Afghanistan was a war, and Gulf II was a war. None of them required either secrecy or an instant response that couldn't wait on Congress. In other words, if a declaration of war wasn't required for these conflicts, then Congress's constitutional authority is meaningless. That clause of the constitution might as well not exist.

Second, it gives the president a blank check. Once troops are in the field, no Congress can afford to withhold its support. The reality is that if presidents are allowed to commit large numbers of troops on their own authority, there are essentially no limits to what they can do.

Third, and worst, it allows Congress to evade its own responsibility for war. Did John Edwards really vote for war? Or did he merely vote to authorize coercive inspections? Would he still have voted for the war on March 20 based on what he knew then? Or would the lack of WMD and failed diplomacy have changed his mind?

This is what I've been saying. I think this makes a damn good amount of sense.

From the War Powers Resolution of 1973:

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
he refuses to report that to congress. "No timetables". I believe that ALONE disobeys this resolution, and breaches the Iraq Authorization.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
This would fall under the last category, where Congress is requesting a timetable, and the president is REFUSING to give one.

Also, benchmarks for success have been requested, and been denied by Bush. He is clearly violating this Resolution right here.

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation[(COLOR="red"]once again[/COLOR)], but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

(further along in the wording) ...

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

I'm seeing the president as CLEARLY violating terms of this War Powers Resolution. That automatically unbinds the Iraq authorization, and makes this continued occupation ILLEGAL.


Here's the link to the WPR of 1973:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

 

[Dr Grump]

Responsibility ring a bell? I realize you leftbots think no one is ever responsible for anything, well except Bush and the Republicans of course.

They VOLUNTEERED to serve. They were quite happy to collect a paycheck and all the benefits of military life until they were asked to actually do that which they signed to do, FIGHT a war.

Running away is not principled, it is cowardly. That Lt that refused his orders and stood a courts martial, THAT is principled, fleeing to avoid prosecution is NOT principled.

Leaving for 31 days and then turning oneself in also would be principled, fleeing to Canada is cowardly. Refusing to board an aircraft bound for Iraq, that would be principled, Hiding in Mom's garage is cowardly. Requesting a non combat assignment and if refused then refusing to go to Iraq, that would be principled, Hiding in the hood is cowardly.

Get the idea? I doubt it.

If it was all about responsibility then your country wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. And why are the armed forces sacrosanct? In any other job, if I don't like it, I can leave any time I like and the employer is likely more than happy for you to leave....why not the military?

 

[Annie]

If it was all about responsibility then your country wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. And why are the armed forces sacrosanct? In any other job, if I don't like it, I can leave any time I like and the employer is likely more than happy for you to leave....why not the military?

The military isn't like 'other jobs.' You have a contract.

However, regarding this

In any other job, if I don't like it, I can leave any time I like and the employer is likely more than happy for you to leave....why not the military?

as I posted earlier, the military seems to be doing so. They just give out the 'less than honorable discharge' for the most part.

 

[Gunny]

If it was all about responsibility then your country wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. And why are the armed forces sacrosanct? In any other job, if I don't like it, I can leave any time I like and the employer is likely more than happy for you to leave....why not the military?

For the very reason this thread exists. People trying to cherrypick which wars they wish to participate in and when.

I'll also point out none of these people are conscripts. They volunteered. I could understand draftees whining and bitch because they are forced to participate want to or not.

But I don't want to hear the whining from volunteers who want what is essentially an easy life during peacetime start squawking the second they're called upon to ante up.

 

[indago]

WAR IS A RACKET

 

[manu1959]

If it was all about responsibility then your country wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. And why are the armed forces sacrosanct? In any other job, if I don't like it, I can leave any time I like and the employer is likely more than happy for you to leave....why not the military?

other jobs have employment contracts and there a consequences if you quit.....hollywood, pro sports, hell i have an employment contract ... i lose quite a bit if i walk.....

 

[indago]

This is what the war is about...

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

Editorial — New York Times 14 July 2007:
-----------------------------------------------------
An American who worked for a Halliburton subsidiary pleaded guilty yesterday to receiving kickbacks in exchange for awarding a Kuwaiti company nearly $13 million in contracts to supply the American military with semi-tractor-trailers, refrigeration trailers and fuel tankers in Iraq and Kuwait in 2003. Mr. Heaton pleaded guilty in Federal District Court in the Central District of Illinois to awarding two major contracts in exchange for what was to have been over $200,000 in kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------


Journalist James Glanz reported for the New York Times 26 July 2007:
----------------------------------------------------
One of the largest American contractors working in Iraq, Bechtel National, met its original objectives on fewer than half of the projects it received as part of a $1.8 billion reconstruction contract, while most of the rest were canceled, reduced in scope or never completed as designed, federal investigators have found in a report released yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------


Journalist James Glanz reported for the New York Times 28 July 2007:
---------------------------------------------------
Iraq’s national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.

The conclusions, detailed in a report released Friday by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a federal oversight agency, include the finding that of 2,797 completed projects costing $5.8 billion, Iraq’s national government had, by the spring of this year, accepted only 435 projects valued at $501 million. Few transfers to Iraqi national government control have taken place since the current Iraqi government, which is frequently criticized for inaction on matters relating to the American intervention, took office in 2006.

The United States often promotes the number of rebuilding projects, like power plants and hospitals, that have been completed in Iraq, citing them as signs of progress in a nation otherwise fraught with violence and political stalemate. But closer examination by the inspector general’s office, headed by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., has found that a number of individual projects are crumbling, abandoned or otherwise inoperative only months after the United States declared that they had been successfully completed.
----------------------------------------------------


Journalists Eric Schmitt and James Glanz reported for the New York Times 31 August 2007:
------------------------------------------------------
An American-owned company operating from Kuwait paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to American contracting officers in efforts to win more than $11 million in contracts, the government says in court documents.
------------------------------------------------------


Journalists Ginger Thompson and Eric Schmitt reported for the New York Times 24 September 2007:
------------------------------------------------------
Major Cockerham was behind bars, accused of orchestrating the largest single bribery scheme against the military since the start of the Iraq war. According to the authorities, the 41-year-old officer, with his wife and a sister, used an elaborate network of offshore bank accounts and safe deposit boxes to hide nearly $10 million in bribes from companies seeking military contracts.
-----------------------------------------------------


Journalist James Glanz reported for the New York Times 31 October 2007:
----------------------------------------------------
More than $100 billion has been devoted to rebuilding Iraq, mainly thanks to American taxpayers and Iraqi oil revenues, but nearly five years into the conflict, output in critical areas like water and electricity remain below United States goals, federal oversight officials reported to Congress on Tuesday.
----------------------------------------------------


Journalist James Glanz reported for the New York Times 6 November 2007:
----------------------------------------------------
More than a year after the Parsons Corporation, the American contracting giant, promised Congress that it would fix the disastrous plumbing and shoddy construction in barracks the company built at the Baghdad police academy, the ceilings are still stained with excrement, parts of the structures are crumbling and sections of the buildings are unusable because the toilets are filthy and nonfunctioning. The project, where United States inspectors found giant cracks snaking through newly built walls and human waste dripping from ceilings, became one of the most visible examples of a $45 billion American reconstruction program that is widely seen as a failure.
---------------------------------------------------


Journalists Eric Schmitt and Ginger Thompson reported for the New York Times 11 November 2007:
--------------------------------------------------
As the insurgency in Iraq escalated in the spring of 2004, American officials entrusted an Iraqi businessman with issuing weapons to Iraqi police cadets training to help quell the violence.

By all accounts, the businessman, Kassim al-Saffar, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, did well at distributing the Pentagon-supplied weapons from the Baghdad Police Academy armory he managed for a military contractor. But, co-workers say, he also turned the armory into his own private arms bazaar with the seeming approval of some American officials and executives, selling AK-47 assault rifles, Glock pistols and heavy machine guns to anyone with cash in hand — Iraqi militias, South African security guards and even American contractors.

“This was the craziest thing in the world,” said John Tisdale, a retired Air Force master sergeant who managed an adjacent warehouse. “They were taking weapons away by the truckload.”

Activities at that armory and other warehouses help explain how the American military lost track of some 190,000 pistols and automatic rifles supplied by the United States to Iraq’s security forces in 2004 and 2005, as auditors discovered in the past year.

...In the armory that Mr. Saffar presided over, for example, his dealings were murky. Mr. Tisdale, who recalled seeing a briefcase stuffed with stacks of $20 bills under Mr. Saffar’s desk, said he thought Mr. Saffar enriched himself selling American stocks along with guns he acquired from the streets.
-------------------------------------------------

And it goes on, and on, and...


-

 

[indago]

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

Jeremy Scahill on Bill Moyers Journal 19 October 2007:
----------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, there are two things at play here. There's the funding of congressional candidates. And Erik Prince has given over a quarter of a million dollars to Republican candidates. He's also given money to the green party to defeat Democratic candidates in the 2006 election cycle. So, he's a pretty committed supporter of the Republican party. ...Blackwater has just won a 92 million dollar contract from the Pentagon ...When I got Blackwater's contract with the Department of Homeland Security, it turns out that Blackwater billed US taxpayers 950 dollars per man per day in the hurricane zone.
----------------------------------------------------------

So, US Taxpayers are funding the Republican Party...

 

[GHook93]

Good comeback, kath.

Have you ever served in the military?

That is always the leftist attack! You never serve in the military then you have no say. You aren't sending your child there to fight, so you have no say.

Yet when McCain states the sacrifice not only him and his father made. That is not enough. He then states his son is in Iraq fighting bravely. Still doesn't suffice.

 

[jillian]

That is always the leftist attack! You never serve in the military then you have no say. You aren't sending your child there to fight, so you have no say.

Yet when McCain states the sacrifice not only him and his father made. That is not enough. He then states his son is in Iraq fighting bravely. Still doesn't suffice.

Er... Paulitics isn't on my side of the aisle. He's a Ron Paul groupie, as you might guess from his nic.

Personally, I have the utmost respect for McCain's service and sacrifice. It's the chickenhawks who send other people's kids to die for something for which they wouldn't send their own kids who I take issue with.

 

[Dr Grump]

The military isn't like 'other jobs.' You have a contract.

However, regarding this

as I posted earlier, the military seems to be doing so. They just give out the 'less than honorable discharge' for the most part.

Tonnes of jobs have out clauses in the contract. I think it should be like any other employment, if you no longer enjoy it, you can leave. There seems to be plenty of people who want ot go over there anyway, so what's the problem if some do not want to go? Also, I think going to war is a very serious thing. Both Afghanistan and Iraq (the US reasons for being there) are blurry at best. So I think individuals should be able to make such a call..

 

[Paulie]

That is always the leftist attack! You never serve in the military then you have no say. You aren't sending your child there to fight, so you have no say.

Yet when McCain states the sacrifice not only him and his father made. That is not enough. He then states his son is in Iraq fighting bravely. Still doesn't suffice.

It wasn't even an attack. It was just a question. I was just curious, really.

And this post from jillian makes my point for me, regardless of what kathianne's answer would have been:

Personally, I have the utmost respect for McCain's service and sacrifice. It's the chickenhawks who send other people's kids to die for something for which they wouldn't send their own kids who I take issue with.

I mean, it makes sense. If you wouldn't be willing to fight the fight yourself, or be willing to part with your child for the cause, then you really have no business cheerleading for the war.

You don't have to have served in the military to fit into that summarization, I just wanted to know if kathianne had served, that's all.

I personally did serve, with honor and respect. But i wouldn't serve in the military today, nor advocate for my child to. Not until a sensible foreign policy is undertaken again.

 

[Gunny]

I totally believe that anybody who thinks any war is illegal and is part of the military has every right to not fight if they do not believe in it. It does not make them cowards, it makes them principled. Are there some cowards amongst them? Could be. All of them? I doubt it. I find it amusing that one of the main planks of neocons and even normal conservatives is that every person is an island and individual rights are paramount. Yet when a person makes such a decision, they now should be part of the collective sheeple. So much for the right to pursue happiness........

I can agree with your first statement IF "anybody" who feels such does NOT voluntarily join the military whose primary role in life is to conduct such wars as the government feels necessary to conduct for whatever reason.

It DOES make them cowards if, as I already stated, they take the bennies durign peacetime, but start whining if and when caled upon to do what they are being paid to do.

While individual rights may be paramount, when one voluntarily gives up some of those rights as is necessary to become part of a greater whole, whining is not acceptable.

No machine can function if its parts are off doing their own individual "thing."

So, IMO, one must weigh what is most important to one's self PRIOR TO joining in a binding contract that restricts one's individual rights.

 

[manu1959]

That's ridiculous. You might as well just say that because I don't believe in your creator, I don't even exist. How dare you alienate me because of that.

I still haven't said that I don't believe in a 'god'. I just don't believe in yours. The declaration doesn't state a specific religion, and the constitution separates church from state, and gives us the right to freely express our religious beliefs. SOMETHING created life. It doesn't have to be a Christian deity, or any other mainstream accepted deity, to be considered EVERYONE'S creator. You, least of all, have no say in WHO the creator is, and who gets to enjoy the rights granted by IT. You merely have the RIGHT to believe in whatever religion you want.

This is exactly what I knew you were trying to do, and you should be ashamed of yourself. This is one of the reasons I have such a problem with specific religions. So many people that subscribe to them think they're ABOVE anyone who doesn't. You're no more special than any other human being, and you're above NO ONE.

i don't have a god.......or a religion.......and you don't exist.....