Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[gekaap]

Straw man? You're the one claiming that the President with 2/3rds of the Senate can send everyone in Arizona off to be slaves.

No, I did not. As a matter of fact I explicitly rejected that notion. That's why it's a straw man for you to suggest such.

Actually, you did. The scenario I provided violates the 5th and the 13th amendments at the very least, yet you stood up and proudly beamed "Our SUPREME ruler could do that!"

Again, I did no such thing. Which is why it is a straw man for you to suggest it.

What you fail to grasp is that treaties by nature are INFERIOR to the constitution. Whereas a resolution violates the constitution, it cannot and does not act as law.

Nobody said otherwise. But, since you've brought it up (and since you did, it is a straw man) now that I'm looking at it, I'm not quite sure that the constitution holds supremacy over treaties. The constitution states, basically, that US law is the supreme law of the land. In other words, federal law is supreme to state law, and any state law that violates such is not with standing. However, the constitution explicitly states that US statutes must be made in pursuance to the constitution. It does not say the same thing about treaties. Therefore, there is a reasonable argument to be made that any act of entering into a treaty the US makes, within the methods demanded by the constitution, would thus equally valid and of equal supremacy as the constitution itself. If this confuses you, think about the UK parliament. Any act of the Parliament is inherently constitutional in the UK, because acts of Parliament become part of the constitution by their nature. It's not quite the same thing, but it's similar.

In any event, I am not prepared to say that this is definitely the case. But from the way the constitution reads it would appear to be so.

FURTHER, which the UN charter was ratified by the Senate, resolution 768 (or whatever) is NOT ratified, is NOT a treaty and has ZERO weight in American jurisprudence.

The UN charter was ratified by the Senate, thus the US is bound by any legitimate act under the UN charter.

You of the left viewed joining the UN as the establishment of a world government and the dissolution of the sovereignty of these United States - it ain't the case.

I'm not "of the left." And it is YOU who seems to equate the UN with some kind of world government. I'm not here talking about the UN as if it is a legislative body. I'm talking about the US entering a treaty that agrees to certain behaviors regarding international affairs.

The fuck they're not; that is precisely what you're angling for. You place the UN Charter and the resolutions made by foreign bodies above the US Constitution, effectively rendering it null and void.

No, I'm not "angling" for that, or anything else. Stop reading into the situation. You keep drawing things forth that I'm not saying, which is what makes your comments straw men. You're almost sounding like a lunatic conspiracy theorist.

As stated, resolutions from the UN are not treaties, even actual treaties cannot violate the US Constitution.

Forget resolutions for a moment because it's really not the issue before us, you just keep pushing it. The US, by treaty, has agreed not to invade any member state of the UN without the consent of the Security Council. That is it. The US is bound to honor that treaty by the US constitution. That is why invading Iraq was unconstitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I did not. As a matter of fact I explicitly rejected that notion. That's why it's a straw man for you to suggest such.

Ah, my mistake. It must have been some other gekaap that made the INCREDIBLY fucking stupid statement of;

If the US made a treaty to cede the state of AZ to Libya, then yes that would become legally binding. The state would no longer be part of the United States

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-6.html#post3397865

We can all see that you sure didn't say it.....

Again, I did no such thing. Which is why it is a straw man for you to suggest it.

It was that OTHER gekaap again, damn him...

Nobody said otherwise. But, since you've brought it up (and since you did, it is a straw man) now that I'm looking at it, I'm not quite sure that the constitution holds supremacy over treaties.

Of course you don't, but then you don't grasp the fact that this is a sovereign nation not subject to the laws of foreign lands.

Your lack of comprehension has no effect on the facts, though.

The constitution states, basically, that US law is the supreme law of the land. In other words, federal law is supreme to state law, and any state law that violates such is not with standing. However, the constitution explicitly states that US statutes must be made in pursuance to the constitution. It does not say the same thing about treaties.

I understand that you're attempting to be clever, but you're not pulling it off.

If ratified treaties have the weight of law, then they are subject to the same judicial review as other laws.

Therefore, there is a reasonable argument to be made that any act of entering into a treaty the US makes, within the methods demanded by the constitution, would thus equally valid and of equal supremacy as the constitution itself.

That is not a "reasonable" argument, but rather an absurdity. As I posted earlier, the act of the President and Senate simply signing such law would be a violation of their oaths of office and would render the treaty null on it's face.

The UN charter was ratified by the Senate, thus the US is bound by any legitimate act under the UN charter.

False.

Though it distresses you, we did not cede sovereignty to a world body in said ratification.

I'm not "of the left." And it is YOU who seems to equate the UN with some kind of world government. I'm not here talking about the UN as if it is a legislative body.

Yet your claim is that resolutions by the UN have the weight of US law.

I'm talking about the US entering a treaty that agrees to certain behaviors regarding international affairs.

Only that explicitly defined in the treaty at the time of ratification has any bearing. Acts and resolutions added later are not binding.

 

[8537]

Gad dammit - how did he become so f'ing dumb just 6 short years later? It's almost like he forgot to read his own playbook.

Maybe he didn't change, maybe the hive hadn't released the pheromones instructing you to hate him him prior to 2000....

No, I hated that bastard long before 1994.

It just so happens that he was smarter in 1994 than in 2000.

 

[gekaap]

Good job, cherry picking. How about you quote the next sentence there?

It's clear that you aren't actually addressing the merit of my comments. You're just repeating your same BS, and leaving it completely unsubstantiated, and ignoring the evidence that is right there in the US constitution, and trying to twist the constitution to fit a conclusion that you want, and twist it away a conclusion you want to avoid, all while trying to misrepresent what I am saying in the first place. May as well be in the middle of an I Love Lucy episode or an Abbott and Costello skit. Who's on first? Exactly.

To cut to the important parts:

1) I'm still waiting for that list of 12 nations, and the evidence that supports that anything happening there is due to our invasion of Iraq.

2) There's no room for doubt that the US entered into a treaty to not invade a member state of the UN without the prior consent of the Security Council.

 

[ekrem]

Iraq War was a success.
In 2012 a Republican POTUS will come to power, and all the Arab people will again put an US-backed Arab dictator into power and all those people will again welcome you with flowers.

 

[georgephillip]

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?

Kinda hard not to when they are harboring terrorists in there homes and around there villages.

Are you using "terrorist" in a literal or propagandistic sense?

"US Army manual on countering terrorism defines it as 'the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.'"

Those Iraqis were defending their homes and villages from hired killers participating in a War of aggression thousands of miles from their homeland.

How do you justify killing thousands of civilians thousands of miles from your homeland in order to obtain goals that were political or ideological in nature?

Money?

 

[MikeK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM

Over four-thousand American troops killed, thousands more maimed and/or disfigured, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed or maimed, including women and children, and more than a trillion dollars wasted. Why?

Saddam Hussein had been rendered politically and militarily impotent by Desert Storm and years of suppressive bombing. There was absolutely no good reason for invading his country. Our action was in fact shameful and as damaging to our reputation as was Hitler's brutal invasion of Poland.

2) STABILIZE COUNTRY

You think Iraq is stable? If we left there it would be a matter of weeks before a civil war erupts and a radical regime emerges. And there are millions of Iraqis who have good cause to despise America and Americans. The fact is we are stuck in Iraq indefinitely at enormous cost to the American taxpayer and we are looking more and more like ancient Rome.

3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Yes. The real reason for your synthetic enthusiasm, which I suspect is the real beneficiary of the destruction of Iraq -- Israel.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When you start using WAR as a political policy option, as opposed to a last resort when all else has failed and your vital interests depend on it,

then your war is a failure no matter what the outcome.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's clear that you aren't actually addressing the merit of my comments.

Speaking of which...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-8.html#post3398740

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you start using WAR as a political policy option, as opposed to a last resort when all else has failed and your vital interests depend on it,
then your war is a failure no matter what the outcome.

This is amazingly asinine, even from you.

 

[gekaap]

Speaking of which...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-8.html#post3398740

I've answered multiple times now. You just keep ignoring it and saying I haven't answered. Open your eyes and read.

 

[Agit8r]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Bankrupt USA?
DONE

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Bankrupt USA?
DONE

The stimulus cost as much as the war in Iraq did
the deficit for 2009 is 500 billion more than the war was
Lets not forget
these troops would have had to have been somewhere, i am giving you numbers that is 100% iraqi war numbers
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
this information is from the CBO

 

[rightwinger]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Bankrupt USA?
DONE

The stimulus cost as much as the war in Iraq didthe deficit for 2009 is 500 billion more than the war was
Lets not forget
these troops would have had to have been somewhere, i am giving you numbers that is 100% iraqi war numbers
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
this information is from the CBO

I don't believe you can actually equate the two.

Providing jobs and tax breaks to Americans vs invading and occupying a country that was not involved in terrorism and was not a threat

The Stimulus didn't kill 4000 Americans either

 

[DiamondDave]

Bankrupt USA?
DONE

The stimulus cost as much as the war in Iraq didthe deficit for 2009 is 500 billion more than the war was
Lets not forget
these troops would have had to have been somewhere, i am giving you numbers that is 100% iraqi war numbers
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
this information is from the CBO

I don't believe you can actually equate the two.

Providing jobs and tax breaks to Americans vs invading and occupying a country that was not involved in terrorism and was not a threat

The Stimulus didn't kill 4000 Americans either

You're right... you cannot equate the 2.... national defense is a charge of the federal government... stimulus nor entitlements nor bailouts are not charges of the federal government, and should never have been done regardless of if it were Bush or Obama or whomever

 

[Dr.Drock]

Rightwinger and DiamondDave arguing what's the best way to bankrupt our country. Unconstitutional wars or crazy out of control spending packages.

As an independent it'd be funny watching partisan voters make excuses for their pathetic bureacrats if their hero's actions weren't destroying our country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Good job, cherry picking. How about you quote the next sentence there?

It's called "debate," the art of addressing salient points.

It's clear that you aren't actually addressing the merit of my comments.

I'm eviscerating your comments due to their lack of merit.

You're just repeating your same BS,

If it is BS, then you should have short work in refuting it.

and leaving it completely unsubstantiated, and ignoring the evidence that is right there in the US constitution,

Your failure to grasp the constitution is not germane to the discussion.

There is a plethora of precedent demonstrating the absurdity of your claims, starting with Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1.

The SCOTUS held;

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

and trying to twist the constitution to fit a conclusion that you want, and twist it away a conclusion you want to avoid, all while trying to misrepresent what I am saying in the first place.

I'm not "twisting" anything, nor do I have need to do so. Your position is not just wrong, but simply ignorant.

 

[JRK]

Rightwinger and DiamondDave arguing what's the best way to bankrupt our country. Unconstitutional wars or crazy out of control spending packages.

As an independent it'd be funny watching partisan voters make excuses for their pathetic bureacrats if their hero's actions weren't destroying our country.

There is nothing funny about any of this, especially your contention the wars are un constitutional

It is embarrassing to me that anyone would reach to that level of desperation.

exactly what part of these wars where un constitutional?

The funding that congress did?
Which vote in congress was un constitutional?
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BlindBoo]

So...
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?

No the UN has no authority to determine domestic policy in any member state.

The argument I responsed to makes no such distinction.
The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States, or it is not - you do not get to pick and choose.

Perhaps you need to study the history of the UN, it's Charter, and it's purpose.

 

[JRK]

There is much to answer
1) 4000 troops died for no other reason than the 3000+ died on 9-11. without terror, no one dies

2) Who claimed Saddam in these threads had anything to do with 9-11? Saddam was removed for reasons that did include 9-11 back then. Saddam had 18 months to prevent all of this.
MEDIA IGNORES BUSH ADMISSION THAT SADDAM NOT INVOLVED IN SEPT. 11
sept 203 GWB admitted it
Iraq: 'We'll ignore any UN resolution' | Mail Online
speaks for its self
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
speaks for its self
Answers.com - Did George Bush lie about the WMDs in Iraq
speaks for its self