Skip to comments.
Joint Chiefs Study Plan to Invade Iraq
Newsweek press release via PR Newswire ^
| 12/23/2001
Posted on 12/23/2001 10:31:06 AM PST by GeneD
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
NEW YORK, Dec. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Under heavy political pressure to produce options for military action against Iraq, Newsweek has learned, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been looking at a study that suggests putting 50,000 U.S. troops on its southern border; another 50,000 U.S. troops on its northern border; then sending the two forces towards Baghdad in the middle. But planners doubt that even that force would be enough to take the Iraqi capital.
(Excerpt) Read more at prnewswire.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-128 next last
To: mathurine
"Were you {Buckeroo] comatose when the Islamic folks hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?" -- mathurine I sat in total awe about the WTC brought down on 9/11. I went to work late complaining about my nausea. I don't think anyone wanted this crisis, Muslims and Christians, alike.
None of us wanted this destruction.
To: codeword
i agree with alot of what you said....but i also believe in prophecey and i see the hand writing on the wall so to speak with regards to the muslims and the jews and us. thats not to say the end is tomorrow but it sure is beginning to fit.
102
posted on
12/23/2001 6:10:53 PM PST
by
is_is
To: section9
I really think he should go after Cuba 1 st. they are feeding info to Iran, Iraq,Russia and China
103
posted on
12/23/2001 6:11:56 PM PST
by
LynnHam
To: Buckeroo
. I don't think anyone wanted this crisis, Muslims and Christians, alike. Obviously you did not see the same videos I did of the AVERAGE muslim dancing in the streets for their victory in killing what they thought at the time was 10's of thousands of INNOCENT AMERICANS....
104
posted on
12/23/2001 6:13:59 PM PST
by
is_is
To: Buckeroo
I agree with no one throttleing action outside of my capability to control that same action...Strictly speaking, Buckaroo, old boy, this means you don't agree with anything you don't personally control.
That's a classic case of megalomania.
I realize that a lot of people have addressed you in this thread, but don't let it go to your head!
To: Buckeroo
One of the basic things the Constitution states is that the federal government is to provide for the common defense. The common defense at the moment requires some serious butt-kicking over in the islamic world where these terrorists come from who are the overseas threat to security here.
To: codeword
relax
Let's see others squirm.
To: mathurine
But if the "common defense" is about the usurption of the Constitution, do you endorse it?
To: Buckeroo
Why isn't it written to Constitution as an amendment?
Come to papa and tell me why.
The founding fathers did not see fit to include it, however they
could never have concieved of a power that could destroy our country, in the space of half an hour. Congress recognized that the President must have the authority to respond to any direct threat/attack. It could take days to get congress into session or in agreement, so the Congress gave the President the power to wage limited war in these emergencies.
In the current crisis congress gave the President almost unlimited powers. The President did not ask for a formal decleration of war, which I think was a mistake, and so did a few congressmen.
The Constitution you seem so intent on quoting to form your argument, gives the congress the authority to pass legislation, and in this case they did.
I think the reason or no formal decleration of war is purely political, in that the president and the military have practically unlimited powers, so congress holds them in check, by giving all the power, but with the safety valve installed.
PS. I am probably old enough to be your Papa
To: itsahoot
I don't think you are old enough to be my Papa. Nice try, though.
To: Buckeroo
I don't think anyone wanted this crisis, Muslims and Christians, alike.
Excuse me. Have you never heard of the Islamic Jihad against the great satan(US)? Are you not aware that War has been declared against the United States?
To: itsahoot
I believe buckyboy is ignoring all the relavent facts in this discussion......
112
posted on
12/23/2001 6:36:33 PM PST
by
is_is
To: Buckeroo
I don't think you are old enough to be my Papa.
That's a relief, the thought of me being your Papa kinda turned my stomache anyway. [:<)
To: itsahoot
Congress has for years created the current problem about American government. They essentially enacted "WAR-POWERS" and abdicated their authority about America.
You can suck Truman's words, "I wish this never happened."
To: Buckeroo
Congress has for years created the current problem about
American government. They essentially enacted "WAR-POWERS"
and abdicated their authority about America.
I totally agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the argument you are making. The fact is, this is what they did and so far it is legal. It is the voters responsibility to elect the congress and the President, want to fight this fight, take it up with the voters.
PS. How old are you?
To: itsahoot
I am very old. Don't worry about my chronage. Consider truth. I enjoy truth.
To: Buckeroo
Don't worry about my chronage. Consider truth. I enjoy truth. Fair enough, but it has some influence on your position.
Experience, comes with age, wisdom comes a little differently,
but there seems to be some correlation between the two.
Good night! Been fun.
To: itsahoot
May God bless you about our Saviour's Grace for Christmas.
To: Mitchell
Indeed, I would not be surprised to see such a change! Thanks for the heads up!
To: Buckeroo
Actually, while Congress has the power to Declare Wat there is nothing in the constitution that requires a Declaration of War in order to Wage War. The fact is that with the Senate controlled by Democrats they will never get a declaration of war...2 important issue behind that. 1. They dont weant to give Bush carte blanch to do whatever he wants without ANY oversight. 2. They dont want people effected by terrorist attacks to lose their insurance claims due to an "act of war" which most insurance polisies have small print regarding. (this by the way is straight from Tom Daschel's mouth) Regardless, there is no violation in the Constitution should the president order and armed conflict without a formal declaration of War. There are countless examples of this in our own history (Korea and Vietnam both come to mind not to mention the Gulf War) We survived all of those and our country is still strong and healthy and our constituion is still alive and kicking. It is nothing more than alarmist rhetoric to suggest that our freedom is at stake should GW decide to attack Iraq.
120
posted on
12/23/2001 9:18:45 PM PST
by
Prysson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-128 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson