JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #2,581
JRK and Kaz are falling apart.
Guys, deep breaths, and take your meds.
Guys, deep breaths, and take your meds.
Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
- Thread starter JRK
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2,582
The failed stimulus cost the same as the Iraqi war. The Iraqi war in the long term is saving us money. We have closed bases in Saudi as well as Kuwait and the amount we were supporting the UN has went down as I recall
I have no idea what #5 means, that's some liberal, never mind. It means nothing. congress approved it, we invaded accordingly
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,696
- 17,633
- 2,250
SLANDER SLANDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hardball_Refuge
Member
- Oct 12, 2011
- 42
- 6
- 6
SLANDER SLANDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #2,590
Deep breaths, JRK, deep breaths.
- Thread starter
- #2,592
Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
[edit]Doe v. Bush
Main article: Doe v. Bush
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion and this challenge failed. Judge Lynch summarized the claims for illegality as: "They argue that the President is about to act in violation of the October resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion—that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."
Judge Lynch summarized the position of the United States Government as: "The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference. Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat."
The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judge Lynch wrote "this issue is not fit now for judicial review" and that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[64]
With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
[edit]Doe v. Bush
Main article: Doe v. Bush
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion and this challenge failed. Judge Lynch summarized the claims for illegality as: "They argue that the President is about to act in violation of the October resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion—that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."
Judge Lynch summarized the position of the United States Government as: "The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference. Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat."
The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judge Lynch wrote "this issue is not fit now for judicial review" and that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[64]
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #2,594
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source, JRK.
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
Wow! I make a joke about God telling us to go to war and you start swearing - then tell me to "chill the Fck out"???? Massive whackjobbery!
The war is over. What exactly did we win?
The loss of our surplus and creation of the biggest deficit in history.
The most corrupt regime in the world (according to non-US sources.
A government which took all our money because they rfused to spend any of the money we gave them on their own country.
A country that is now aligning itself with Iran and Syria.
A country that is now aligning itself economically with China.
American lives and bodies.
Yeah. Big win.
Only the brain-washed and intentionally ignorant would call that a win.
Oh. And chill dude. Was that the Christian or secular version of fck you were using?
Hardball_Refuge
Member
- Oct 12, 2011
- 42
- 6
- 6
Principles of the Just War
1.A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2.A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3.A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4.A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5.The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6.The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7.The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
*The board won't let me cite the URL: "You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 15 posts or more."
1.A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2.A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3.A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4.A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5.The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6.The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7.The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
*The board won't let me cite the URL: "You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 15 posts or more."
- Thread starter
- #2,597
what surplus? that in the late 90s the GOP congress gave us?
big deficits came with big democratic elections
you got some proof to back up that claim about links to Iran after yesterday?
who is not working with China?
I am going to tell you again kid
chill out
the name calling is pre school, no-one will ever take you serious. if your worried about this countries debt, Obama is your problem, not GWB
Brain washed? can tell you this bud, Who ever brain washed me has allot more class than you do
Just because we dis agree does not make you have to say all those things you called me. and as far as those soldiers who died volunteering to fight a war so you could use there sacrifice to make a point
I would not do that if i was you, them Marines take there war business pretty seriously. They did not go over there by choice so you can say they should not have been over there seems to me
but you go ahead and pretend that's your sacrifice to do what you want to with it, not I
God bless all of them
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
what surplus? that in the late 90s the GOP congress gave us?
big deficits came with big democratic elections
you got some proof to back up that claim about links to Iran after yesterday?
who is not working with China?
I am going to tell you again kid
chill out
the name calling is pre school, no-one will ever take you serious. (The word you're looking for here is "seriously" not serious.) if your worried about this countries (The word here would be countrys' not countries - which means more than one country. Is English your first language? If not, I understand these simple mistakes and am happy to help with this. I'm a helper! It's what I do. I help.)debt, Obama is your problem, not GWB (Yes. That would be why I am probably voting Romney in 2012. But I'm not so brain-washed that I can't see the mess Bush created. Only the sheeple follow that herders' belief)
Brain washed? can tell you this bud, Who ever brain washed me has allot more class than you do
Just because we dis agree does not make you have to say all those things you called me. and as far as those soldiers who died volunteering to fight a war so you could use there (The word is "their". Are you SURE we shouldn't be checking your papers?) sacrifice to make a point One of the things that I served in uniform to protect was the right to criticize my government. So you canif you don't like it. BTW, you've never criticized Obama's decisions concerning Afghanistan, Libya etc...? Good for you! You're special!
I would not do that if i was (The word is "were". Geez dude, how long have you lived here?)you, them (those) Marines take there (their)war business pretty seriously. I know. I played with them in Pendleton.
They did not go over there by choice so you can say they should not have been over there seems to me
but you go ahead and pretend that's your sacrifice to do what you want to with it, not I (um, this sentence makes sense to you, right? Must be a foreign thing...)
God bless all of them
Nice straw man. I state that the result of the Iraq war was not an over-all positive. You try to make it about Marines. People with weak points always try to change the subject.
So you threw the first volley and now you're getting emotional because I returned fire? Poor baby. What is that old saying about being able to dish it out?
I am chilled! What you seem unable to grasp is that the rest of us aren't angry - we're laughing at you
You're (or as your would put it "your") pretty entertaining. It's fun to see people actually buy into the bs fed to them by The Machine.
- Thread starter
- #2,599
well # 1 was meet when Blix stated on 1-27-2003 Saddam still had 6500 munitions, 8000 liters of anthrax and nerve gas after 10 years of resolutions
#2 was meet, the US congress did just that 10-2002
#3 was meet, see #1
#4 has been meet, a man who had killed 1 million Iraqis and would not adhere to Un resolutions is gone, a republic took its place, Improvement? night and day
#5, peace is established, far fewer people are being murdered in Iraq than here. If you claim there is no peace in Iraq then what is it we have here?
#6 okay, done
#7 Did a good job there also
whats the problem?
you see there is 1/2 of the truth there to your 1/2. Everything i have said is true
- Thread starter
- #2,600
what surplus? that in the late 90s the GOP congress gave us?
big deficits came with big democratic elections
you got some proof to back up that claim about links to Iran after yesterday?
who is not working with China?
I am going to tell you again kid
chill out
the name calling is pre school, no-one will ever take you serious. (The word you're looking for here is "seriously" not serious.) if your worried about this countries (The word here would be countrys' not countries - which means more than one country. Is English your first language? If not, I understand these simple mistakes and am happy to help with this. I'm a helper! It's what I do. I help.)
Brain washed? can tell you this bud, Who ever brain washed me has allot more class than you do
Just because we dis agree does not make you have to say all those things you called me. and as far as those soldiers who died volunteering to fight a war so you could use there (The word is "their". Are you SURE we shouldn't be checking your papers?) sacrifice to make a point One of the things that I served in uniform to protect was the right to criticize my government. So you can
I would not do that if i was (The word is "were". Geez dude, how long have you lived here?)you, them (those) Marines take there (their)war business pretty seriously. I know. I played with them in Pendleton.
They did not go over there by choice so you can say they should not have been over there seems to me
but you go ahead and pretend that's your sacrifice to do what you want to with it, not I (um, this sentence makes sense to you, right? Must be a foreign thing...)
God bless all of them
Nice straw man. I state that the result of the Iraq war was not an over-all positive. You try to make it about Marines. People with weak points always try to change the subject.
So you threw the first volley and now you're getting emotional because I returned fire? Poor baby. What is that old saying about being able to dish it out?
I am chilled! What you seem unable to grasp is that the rest of us aren't angry - we're laughing at you
You're (or as your would put it "your") pretty entertaining. It's fun to see people actually buy into the bs fed to them by The Machine.
why is it you libs take all of this stuff so personal?
Change the subject? I am so tired of this subject
Whining, Crying, facts mean nothing. You served? good for you. that gives you a right to use that sacrifice those kids made any way you want to?
You want to know how I feel on this matter, start from the beginning
You want to talk to me like like man talks to another man, anytime, any day
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Buffett’s Q4 Playbook: Trimming Tech, Doubling Down on Energy?- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 0
-
-
The real cause and reason for attack of Sept. 11, 2001- Started by Stryder50
- Replies: 2
-
