Congress to Vote Resolution Against Iraq

Worlnetdaily ^ | December 11, 2001 | Jon Dougherty

[Native American Female Vet]

"To PLAN terrorism is also included in the Congress' Resolution."

Would you please point that out to me?

[BplusK]

The text says:
"To use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines PLANNED, authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks..."

I saw on TV pictures of an Airplane near Baghdad where Saddam has taught terrorists how to take over an airplane and use it as a weapon. Is not such a training some sort of planning, aiding or harboring terrorists?

My question is still the same: why Saddam would train terrorists and stock mass destruction weapons if he never PLANNED to use them against us? Is he doing all of that just for the pleasure of doing it? Just to have fun?

[madfly]

Bump

[hsszionist]

Tick, Tick, Tick,.............

[freefly]

There really isn't anything to add to post 13.
It does an excellent job of explaining why this resolution should be voted down.
Of course, I can see why the bureaucrats would support it.
It takes the heat off of them -they don't have to stick their neck out by coming up with legislation of their own.
Instead, they have the UN resolution to point at.
BTTT!

[freefly]

"To use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines PLANNED,
authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks..."

The CIA has been training and aiding "terrorist" squads for decades all over the world.
Not to mention our Special Forces which are specifically for training and working with guerrilla forces.
We shouldn't even get into Kosovo and our backing of the KLA...a group that made the Palestinians look pretty weak.

"Is not such a training some sort of planning, aiding or harboring terrorists?"

I guess it depends on who is asking the question and who they are asking.

"why Saddam would train terrorists and stock mass destruction weapons if he never PLANNED to use them against us?"

Why do we stock "mass destruction weapons"? Why do we "train terrorists"?
(One man's guerilla/freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.)

Backing a UN resolution to make it legal to attack someone who "supports terrorism" is a great way to burn ourselves.
As we've seen regularly, the UN is NOT our friend.
Giving legitamacy by supporting it's resolutions when they appear to favor us will eventually bite us in the back.
There are other ways to deal with Saddam that are more appropriate.
Post 13 said it well.

[madfly]

BUMP

[Native American Female Vet]

You wrote "To PLAN terrorism is also included in the Congress' Resolution."

I asked Would you please point that out to me?

Your reply The text says: "To use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines PLANNED, authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks..."

There is no authorization for use of force for anyone that plans terrorism it is only for those that PLANNED 9/11.

"I saw on TV pictures of an Airplane near Baghdad where Saddam has taught terrorists how to take over an airplane and use it as a weapon. Is not such a training some sort of planning, aiding or harboring terrorists?"

Of course it is, if it can be proved his plans are for the US or are related to 9/11. Congress made no provision for use of force for anything that is not related to 9/11.

"My question is still the same: why Saddam would train terrorists and stock mass destruction weapons if he never PLANNED to use them against us? Is he doing all of that just for the pleasure of doing it? Just to have fun?

Logic would say yes his plans are for the US. Without proof his plan is for the US and if it is not related to 9/11 we cant just go bombing and invading sovereign countries no matter how much we want to. No matter how you try and spin it the President only has specific statutory authorization for use force against those that PLANNED 9/11. Anyhting else he has to go back to Congress for authorization. If you dont like it you better tell Congress.

[madfly]

BUMP

[BplusK]

You are right, as far as the public knows, we can see Saddam training terrorists and stocking mass destruction weapons, but we don't know for sure that this is all designated against America (although secret information may be more specific). However, America and Israel seem to be the primary targets.
Because of such a situation the US Government has demanded that the UN inspectors return to Iraq to ascertain how strong a threat Saddam poses. Saddam refuses. Here now comes the new Resolution in Congress, labeling Saddam as an Agressor against America (since he refuses to comply with UN regulations). This is the first step toward a final solution: either Saddam complies or he will be assumed guilty and treated as such (other steps will follow).
By "treated as such" I mean that the Congress and the American government will not make any difference between Saddam and any other states or people, etc., who have planned, aided, etc. in the attacks of September 11.
This type of behavior happens all the time while administrating justice. The police may ask a suspect to open his house for inspection. If he refuses, then, a warrant is issued and force is used if the suspect still resists. Saddam is a suspect and he refuses UN inspectors to come to his country... Then, force will be used to make sure that he does not pose a threat for us (or for anyone else) in the future. More investigation must be done about the past (connection between Saddam and September 11), but a certain "prevention" must be established for the future. If Saddam (a definite suspect) refuses to cooperate, then strong measures must be implemented (totally innocent people don't mind "inspections"!!!).

[ChaseR]

Thank you for working on this Teacher. BTTT