Republican Team ISIS Fighters quitting their 'lost cause' fight.

[Tehon]

Add another American killed to Obama's body count.

After being too incompetent to safe-guard our victory in Iraq (Iraqi liberation by allowing ISIS to march into Iraq unopposed to begin taking over the country our military had liberated at great cost) AND vowed 'no more combat troops in Iraq, a SpecOps troop was killed by ISIS...evidently while 'observing'...NOT participating in combat.

safe-guard our victory in Iraq

You are just as ignorant as fooledbyw. The two of you perfectly represent the ignorance of partisanship which has led us to our current sorry state of affairs.

 

[easyt65]

T, if Obama had not lost Iraq, had not lied about NOT sending more combat troops back to Iraq, and had NOT sent more combat troops to Iraq this soldier would still be alive.

 

[Tehon]

T, if Obama had not lost Iraq, had not lied about NOT sending more combat troops back to Iraq, and had NOT sent more combat troops to Iraq this soldier would still be alive.

We didn't win anything in Iraq. It was a monumental failure morally, and ethically and further diminished our reputation in the world. It was also a huge failure fiscally. We didn't win a goddamn thing and Iraq was in ruins.....it was a ******* disaster when Bush left office.

 

[easyt65]

T, Iraq was liberated. To deny that is to piss on the sacrifices made my our military who accomplished the feat at great cost...but hell, that's what libs do....

 

[Tehon]

T, Iraq was liberated. To deny that is to piss on the sacrifices made my our military who accomplished the feat at great cost...but hell, that's what libs do....

Saddam Hussein was deposed but Iraqis knew nothing of liberty. Denying that pisses on the intelligence of right thinking people, military or otherwise.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

military force was authorized by Congress in order to: {{{(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq}}}


Tehon 14178177

...... I understand the difference between a condition and a justification.

But you can't explain in your highly advanced college trained mind why Congress legally authorizing military force in order to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq" is not a condition written into law. It appears you wasted your education funds.

"Condition as defined in Law: An uncertain future act or event, the occurrence of which determines the existence or extent of an interest or right, or liability or obligation; or which initiates, halts, or terminates the performance of a duty."

What is condition? definition and meaning

That is exactly a condition 'imposed' on Bush in the AUMF that Hilliary voted for.

An uncertain future act or event,
(enforcing UNSC relevant resolutions) the occurrence of which initiates the performance of (the use of military force against Iraq).

It is a condition. You cannot explain why it is not.

Justification for war comes after an act of war event happens, not before it happens. Iraq did nothing to justify Bushes action to start a war. They were determined to be cooperating proactively by the inspectors for about a month before Bush decided NOT to enforce all UNSC relevant resolutions regarding Iraq including UNSC Resolution 1441 that Bush signed the U.S. onto.

So how was not enforcing UNSC resolutions a justification for war when the AUMF required Bush to do the opposite.

You make absolutely no sense.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

T, Iraq was liberated. To deny that is to piss on the sacrifices made my our military who accomplished the feat at great cost...but hell, that's what libs do....

Congress did not authorize Bush to 'liberate' Iraq. It was Bush that pissed on the U.S. Military when he ordered them to invade a country that was earnestly attempting to cooperate with the UN inspections that Bush agreed would be done instead of war.

It was about WMD and there was no UNSC Resolution in place demanding that Iraq be liberated.

See my discussions with Tehon so you know what conditions were put on Bush in the October 2002 AUMF as written.

 

[Dragonlady]

T, Iraq was liberated. To deny that is to piss on the sacrifices made my our military who accomplished the feat at great cost...but hell, that's what libs do....

No, that's what W did. He squandered the victory and alienated the Iraqi people by failing to give the Iraqi's jobs rebuilding their own country, and by attempting to pillage and confiscate the oil wells, and other national resources. The Iraqi's outsmarted W, kept the oil and wrote their own Constitution. W also fired Saddam's army but let them keep their weapons. The officers of Saddam's army are the military leaders of ISIS.

W fucked up completely with his dumb, pointless and expensive wars. He should not have invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan. He squandered the good will of the world after 9/11 and taught a whole new generation of Middle Eastern youth to hate America, and with good reason.

That you blame Obama for this mess is proof that you have no understanding what really happened over there.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

easyt 14178221

After being too incompetent to safe-guard our victory in Iraq (Iraqi liberation by allowing ISIS to march into Iraq unopposed to begin taking over the country our military had liberated at great cost)

Which President do you give credit to for liberating Iraq at great cost? Bush or Obama.

 

[Tehon]

There is no qualification to giving the President authorization. That is why it is not a condition.

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

And then the justification is given as to why Congress just authorized the President to use force.

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.

There is no requirement or any framework built to set up a condition. It is a simple justification.
If you are still having difficulty maybe you could ask your mom for some help.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Tehon 14179020

There is no qualification to giving the President authorization. That is why it is not a condition.

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

And then the justification is given as to why Congress just authorized the President to use force.

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.

There is no requirement or any framework built to set up a condition. It is a simple justification.

Sure there is. You are blind to it. You are blind to in order to:

What you posted is definitely a condition because it is one statement to be read as this:

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.


What do you think 'in order to' actually means here?

it means quite clearly that Bush was being authorized to use military force against Iraq for two reasons, conditions, stipulations and no others.

Your interpretation falsely allows Bush to use military force against Iraq for any reason or justification that he determines necessary and appropriate bearing no responsibility or requirement or condition that he enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Why is condition (2) in the document if is not stipulating exactly what military force is potentially being authorized for?

Your interpretation makes no sense at all.

It does not take a college degree to know that Bush did not invade Iraq
in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. That makes it also very apparent that Bush was not authorized by this document to use military force against Iraq when the authorization is read correctly.

That means Hillary did not receive from Bush what she voted for. She cannot be held responsible for Bush's deviation from this document.

You have been so focused on Hillary's vote that you missed the violation and misuse of this document that Bush committed right before your very eyes.

It is called being fooled by Dubya. It is tragic that you are.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Tehon 14179020

There is no requirement or any framework built to set up a condition. It is a simple justification.

If there were a justification at the time the AUMF was voted into law there would have been no need to seek a diplomatic solution which Bush did and lived with for five months. You can't explain how Congress passed an AUMF based upon a justification that had not happened yet.

What was the justification for war that did arrived on March 17, 2003 that complied with the language provided in the AUMF as written and passed? You cannot even find a valid justifiable event that actually occurred in compliance with the AUMF and that Bush could reasonably determine to make war necessary.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Tehon 14177160

We didn't win anything in Iraq. It was a monumental failure morally, and ethically and further diminished our reputation in the world. It was also a huge failure fiscally. We didn't win a goddamn thing and Iraq was in ruins.....it was a ******* disaster when Bush left office.

I agree with that. Have said all that hundreds of times in the past. Your problem is that you think that is what Hillary Clinton voted for as if Bush said so right up front. Bush is a liar and that is why he got an AUMF that stated Bush would not have the authority to do what he did. He did not enforce all UN Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. Had he done so there would have been no war. The threat from WMD would have been resolved peacefully by the end of summer 2003.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You are just as ignorant as fooledbyw. The two of you perfectly represent the ignorance of partisanship which has led us to our current sorry state of affairs.

Ignorance is all yours. You are ignorant of what the AUMF actually told Bush what he was authorized to do, and ignorant of the fact that Bush started a war not only in defiance and non-compliance with UNSC Resolutions but in non-compliance with the AUMF itself. So you believe Bush acted improperly to start a war in Iraq but you believe Bush acted properly and was in full compliance with the AUMF.

But you can't tell me that Bush enforced all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq as that specific condition was one of the only two reasons Congress, through the AUMF as written, gave him the authority (in order to) take our nation to war against Iraq. Hillary Clinton is not complicit because Bush lied to her and all the rest of us.

You are so kind to Bush when you excuse his lie just to feel all warm and fuzzy with Bush in a non-partisan kumbaya never ending moment. Attacking Hillary makes Bush less of a monster so right wing idiots like easyt65 can keep their dream about Bush being the great liberator of Iraq in a necessary war for which the Democrats voted in full favor. Idiots like that translate your non-partisan claims as proof that Bush was absolutely correct and was fully authorized by Congress from both sides of the aisle to invade Iraq.

The document says no to that concept. You on the other hand say yes to that concept. It is a failure of the mostly highly partisan far left to confront Bush for what he truly is - a liar. I'm not afraid to say it. Bush lied to us about his intentions on Iraq and still is getting away with it thanks to you and idiots like easyt65.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 14179020

There is no qualification to giving the President authorization. That is why it is not a condition.

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

And then the justification is given as to why Congress just authorized the President to use force.

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.

There is no requirement or any framework built to set up a condition. It is a simple justification.

Sure there is. You are blind to it. You are blind to in order to:

What you posted is definitely a condition because it is one statement to be read as this:

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.


What do you think 'in order to' actually means here?

it means quite clearly that Bush was being authorized to use military force against Iraq for two reasons, conditions, stipulations and no others.

Your interpretation falsely allows Bush to use military force against Iraq for any reason or justification that he determines necessary and appropriate bearing no responsibility or requirement or condition that he enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Why is condition (2) in the document if is not stipulating exactly what military force is potentially being authorized for?

Your interpretation makes no sense at all.

It does not take a college degree to know that Bush did not invade Iraq
in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. That makes it also very apparent that Bush was not authorized by this document to use military force against Iraq when the authorization is read correctly.

That means Hillary did not receive from Bush what she voted for. She cannot be held responsible for Bush's deviation from this document.

You have been so focused on Hillary's vote that you missed the violation and misuse of this document that Bush committed right before your very eyes.

It is called being fooled by Dubya. It is tragic that you are.

What do you think 'in order to' actually means here?

I know what it actually means. It is a subordinating conjunction used to express purpose. In this case the purpose is used as a justification for the granting of authority, thereby negating your whole fallacious argument.

I know that this is over your head. Using your own definition of condition we can clearly see that you are lacking the ability to comprehend. Your definition supports my position.


"Condition as defined in Law: An uncertain future act or event, the occurrence of which determines the existence or extent of aninterest or right, or liability or obligation; or which initiates, halts, or terminates theperformance of a duty."

Do you understand that a condition creates an obligation. The failure of said obligation halts or terminates the performance or duty. There was no framework in the document to terminate the authorization once given therefore there was no condition. Just how stupid are you anyway.

 

[Tehon]

Your interpretation falsely allows Bush to use military force against Iraq for any reason or justification that he determines necessary and appropriate bearing no responsibility or requirement or condition that he enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Absurd isn't it. Now you know why Hillary's judgement has been called into question.

You will come to understand this once you admit to yourself that my interpretation is in fact correct.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Absurd isn't it. Now you know why Hillary's judgement has been called into question.

You will come to understand this once you admit to yourself that my interpretation is in fact correct.

Your interpretation cannot possibly be correct. You ignore very critical language in the AUMF as if it does not exist.

You cannot explain how Bush adhered to the AUMF by defying UNSC resolutions instead of enforcing them. You need to explain why Bush did not do what the AUMF told him to do. So you cannot be correct. That is impossible.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

There was no framework in the document to terminate the authorization once given therefore there was no condition. Just how stupid are you anyway.

There is no reason to terminate the authorization if Bush had in fact needed to enforce UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq.

Bush needed to comply first. Had he done so there was no invasion. That is what you miss.

 

[Tehon]

You need to explain why Bush did not do what the AUMF told him to do.

What did the AUMF tell Bush to do?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Tehon 14185426

You need to explain why Bush did not do what the AUMF told him to do.

What did the AUMF tell Bush to do?

That is easy:

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.