To american users

[MrPresident]

its not worth a wait of 2 weeks for the chance to avoid a horrific war

Time will achieve nothing. There is absolutely no point in giving Saddam anymore time. In fact time is a terrible thing to give Saddam. That means more time to build up his defences, more time to prepare his forces, more time for him to kill his own people, more time for the Iraqis to live under a brutual dictatorship. The sooner we act the better. The UN must not become a League of Nations in which it is incapable of enforcing its own resolutions. The UN said Saddam must disarm in 1991, it is now 2003...Time has run out.

The claim that it does is angering a lot of people because (...well, besides being a bald-faced lie) to accept the statement that such resolutions authorize force

What the hell is a "serious consequence" if not war?

 

[ellie]

@mrpresident

Your missing the point. There IS NO resolution authorising war

please read the document , it states the council will convene and decide what action will be taken. Or go back a few posts and look at a document actually authorising force (liberation of kuwait).

Blindly pointing to the words "serious consequences" time after time wont change the fact that claiming 1441 authorises war is a blatant lie.

quote
____
The UN must not become a League of Nations in which it is incapable of enforcing its own resolutions.
_____

if the UN enforces its own resolutions then blair and bush will be breaking resolutions they signed as they both signed 1441 which does NOT authoise war, yet DOES recognise the soveriegnty of iraq.

Its funny how when he was commiting his worst atrocities noone cared, yet now its a reason to be willing to destroy the UN for the sake of a couple of weeks. The US reaction when he gassed the kurds?. Granting him another billion dollars.


Finally , british public opinion, 75% oppose a war without UN approval
68% approve a UN backed action
50% consider bush a bigger threat to peace than hussein.
blair approval rating 29%
Source: Gallup.

It seems blair is doing the opposite to what the majority of tthe public want

Ellie

 

[amadeus]

United Nations approval?

You mean to say that our defense hinges on the decisions of Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon?

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
United Nations approval?

You mean to say that our defense hinges on the decisions of Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon?

No, because they don't have a veto in the Security Council. It actually means our defense hinges on France, Russia, China and Britain.

 

[joespaniel]

Originally posted by ellie
[BIts funny how when he was commiting his worst atrocities noone cared, yet now its a reason to be willing to destroy the UN for the sake of a couple of weeks. [/B]

We both know that in a few weeks, there will be even MORE opposition to the war, not acceptance.

France is equally guilty of "destrying the UN" by accepting money from a dictator then preaching "peace" on his behalf. Iraq has made political contributions to French politicians since the 1970's.
I suppose that $40 billion dollar oil deal isnt a factor either?

Or the $100-200 billion Saddam owes Russia and China?

Their goals are just as transparent as Bush.

While I cant defend a US political move to exert power in the middle east, I will admit it.

The anti-war side should admit that France, Russia and China are just as disgusting. They would happily be on-board if it wasnt for the money.

 

[ellie]

Nod joespaniel chiracs motives and putins motives ar suspect.

Germany is the only one able to claim moral high ground really.

Ellie

 

[amadeus]

You mean the same Germany who's firms have continued selling banned items to Iraq?

 

[vonork]

would it not be amusing if they all were doing the good cop, bad coop rutin...

 

[DarkerMotives]

Israel has both Congreess and Bush in their pocket so it doesnt really matter...

If they want to push for war its not gonna be held back by bush.

 

[DarkerMotives]

or vice versa

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
You mean the same Germany who's firms have continued selling banned items to Iraq?

Interesting. Please direct me to some links of this so I can see for myself.

 

[History_Buff]

Originally posted by ellie
A war without declaration of war..hmmm

Its happened before. Technically, as CinC, he can order the troops to do whatever the hell the damn-well wants. He could order them to invade Ohio if he wanted to. And I believe WWII went on for sometime between the US and Japan before either side declared war.

 

[Switch625]

Not so, Buff. The Japanese formal declaration of war was supposed to arrive just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. They goofed: it arrived after the attack was over. The responding declaration of war from the United States was made on December 8, 1941.

 

[alamo]

What do you call it when an OT thread goes OT?

Just to be clear, only congress can DECLARE war, meaning committing the full resources of the US to a war.

The president can COMMAND troops to engage in battle at any time, usually in the name of self-defense.

The War Powers act imposed the deadline for the President to gain congressional approval for the use of military force or withdraw and stand-down said force.

However, in theory Congress can at any time convene hearings, compell witnesses to testify, pass binding resolutions, and revoke the expenditures necessary to sustain military operations.

In these circumstances I do not expect Congress to assert their authority until it becomes clear on which side of the issue they can safely take. Congress was completely AWOL when the action in Afghanistan was started. Only when it became clear that it would not be a complete quagmire did they get around to authorizing the use of force.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Switch625
Not so, Buff. The Japanese formal declaration of war was supposed to arrive just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. They goofed: it arrived after the attack was over. The responding declaration of war from the United States was made on December 8, 1941.

We can blame the good old International Date Line for that!

 

[SewerStarFish]

Okay I've seen the Congress declares War thing alot lately:

For the record: post 9/11 The US Congress authorized the President to use force against those responsible. It left open the definition of responsibilty. Now while one may argue the wisdom of that, Congress did vote on it. The Constitution does not require Congress to use the word "war" it also says:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
and
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Further, the cessation of hostilites with Iraq in 1991 was provisionally accepted. Since Iraq has failed to fufill its provisions the authorization for that action is still in force.

So while you might wish to dissent from the administration's stance, please understand it is acting within the law.

 

[MrPresident]

The responding declaration of war from the United States was made on December 8, 1941.

Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Free France, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom all declared war against Japan before America...late as usual.

What do you call it when an OT thread goes OT?

A discussion.

Israel has both Congreess and Bush in their pocket so it doesnt really matter...

Germany is the only one able to claim moral high ground really.

Now there's a sentence I thought no one would ever say (or write).

No, because they don't have a veto in the Security Council.

You have to get a majority in the security council to pass a resolution. So Rmsharpe's comment that your defence rests on those countries is correct. However their defence is also in your (America's) hands and I am sure some people are very scared about that.

Blindly pointing to the words "serious consequences" time after time wont change the fact that claiming 1441 authorises war is a blatant lie.

Yes but if the UN security council doesn't authorise "serious consequences" when Saddam is clearly not fully complying then aren't they going against their own resolution?

 

[ellie]

The whole point is they determine what the consequences are to be, as a group, not billy the kid, oops i mean president bush.

Ellie

 

[MrPresident]

The whole point is they determine what the consequences are to be, as a group, not billy the kid, oops i mean president bush.

You made a good point please don't ruin it by insulting the President of the United States. It makes you appear childish and therefore people are more prepared to dismiss your argument. Also even if you don't repect the current President then remember that you are talking about the office of the Presidency not just the person who occupies it. It doesn't cost anything to show respect.

 

[ellie]

Shrug, was a joke, but i view him as a very dangerous man indeed, acting like a cowboy.

Its no reflection at all upon what i think of americans. Ive met quite a few and found them very nice people.
Do i feel someone who i think is going to get a number of americans and english people killed is worthy of respect?

No

Ellie