Posted on 07/19/2009 9:32:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Those’re all quotes about AQ being in Iraq now, not before. He says their global base is in Pakistan. They’re going to go wherever we are on what they consider “holy ground”. And they’ll just get new members along the way. He also says they’re shifting to Afghanistan and yet there is lots of violence in Iraq and it’s no longer mostly against U.S. troops. In fact, I heard from an someone heading there that it’s intentionally not against U.S. troops ‘cause they don’t want us coming back. So, we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait because of AQ? No way. And his army was financed by AQ? Who could possibly claim anything of the sort?
By definition, the word "war" means a use of force against a nation. As I said before, you can look that up in your Websters.
An authorization is a declaration.
Those are the constitutional requirements and they are met.
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]
Yes.
As I said to you in a previous post: ...once we were in Iraq, it became apparent that Al Qaeda was also in Iraq. But that didn't mater to Ron Paul. Paul wanted us to retreat from Iraq, even though Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq.
Great Post Sir. And thank you for your service.
I have the same feelings about the wars. I went to Iraq, and lost 3 of my very close friends.
I would rather have my friends back.
But then again, I am glad for the Iraqi people too. I just hope they don’t squander it.
I think going forward the US should shift towards an original foreign relations policy.
RP is right.
My friend, your service was infinitely greater than mine and I am deeply sorry for the loss of your friends. I hope the Iraqi people appreciate what they’ve been handed and hope they hold on to it. Sadly, it doesn’t seem like we’re doing to well holding on to our republic!
Thank you and all the best.
So an authorization to incarcerate all citizens who bear arms makes Constitutional. Go farther down:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.—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.
It says the president is authorized to use the armed forces as he see necessary...etc. They DO NOT have constitutional authority to do this whether they did it or not. Especially troubling is the “as he sees necessary” bit. What if he saw it necessary to bomb banana plantations because he thought they were the source of a lot of big spiders. That is why Congress must declare war. Our military is not the president’s sidearm or means to HIS ends. There is a world of difference between the representatives of the congressional districts saying “We will use military force against XYZ” and the same bunch saying “We say the president can use military force against XYZ” Don’t you see that? One says “The people say this” the other says “We’ll let the king do it”.
So we were there for the wrong reasons and that justifies us staying on a sovereign (used to be) countries grounds and fighting a war because our enemy is there? That wouldn’t fly in a any courtroom...
What?
Al Qaeda murdered several thousand of our citizens.
The democratically elected government of Iraq and their armed forces plus our armed forces fought and beat Al Qaeda in Iraq no thanks to those who wanted to retreat like the Democrats and Ron Paul.
What are you talking about.
Congress declares war. The President as Commander in Chief executes the war and commands the forces as necessary.
Especially troubling is the “as he sees necessary” bit. What if he saw it necessary to bomb banana plantations because he thought they were the source of a lot of big spiders.
What??
That is why Congress must declare war.
You are going around in circles. Congress did declare war and the CIC then commanded the forces as necessary, which matched the wording in the authorizatin, which met the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
There is a world of difference between the representatives of the congressional districts saying “We will use military force against XYZ” and the same bunch saying “We say the president can use military force against XYZ”.
Congress only declares war. Congress does not command the military and tell it to use its weapons.
Don’t you see that? One says “The people say this” the other says “We’ll let the king do it”.
By that comment I see that you similar to Paul are a libertarian and NOT a consitutionalist.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t take out AQ. But defeating them in Iraq won’t cut it ‘cause they’re in who knows how many countries. And now the Iraqis are starting to fight each other, which is why my buddy is headed over there. And AQ is gathering strength in the same place they’ve been all along.
Okay then, Petraeus called Iraq the central front for Al Qaeda, while you sir think we should should have retreated from Al Qaeda in Iraq because Al Qaeda is "everywhere".
I'll have to agree with the Gen. on this.
They did not declare war. You know they didn’t because they wanted to be able to hang this on Bush’s head if and when it went awry.
I need to go to bed soon because I need to work while I still have a job, but even if they had declared war, what would the justification be? That Saddam was planning on invading the U.S.? C’mon! Even if he was developing WMD’s, Iraq is a sovereign nation - why can’t anyone see that? We can hate them, fear them, guard against them etc. all we want but the United States should never, EVER, start a war.
Bush had more Congressional authorization for Afghanistan and Iraq than Jefferson did when he went after the Barbary Pirates.
I should mention to you that yes, I am a Libertarian. I differ from RP on the subject of torture, believing that a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist and no reasoning will work with them. I do not view them as enemy soldiers. I would view Saddam’s army as soldiers however.
And the Libertarian (at least those I know) philosophy on defense is simple enough. Friendship and commerce with all nations, entangling allegiances with none, but scratch the United States and you cease to exist. We don’t do that now, we have these silly police-type actions that costs lots and lots of American lives.
You are attempting to prove a fact by stating another opinion. "They", wanted to "hang" the war on Bush is your opinion, it's not a fact.
I need to go to bed soon because I need to work while I still have a job, but even if they had declared war, what would the justification be? That Saddam was planning on invading the U.S.? C’mon!
Now you are using a straw man fallacy to try to make your point. The supposed justification for the war, whether one believes it to be a valid justification or not, was the threat of WMD. The President never justified the war by saying that the threat from Sadaam was an invasion. I've heard Ron Paul use this very same straw man fallacy, too.
Even if he was developing WMD’s, Iraq is a sovereign nation - why can’t anyone see that? We can hate them, fear them, guard against them etc. all we want but the United States should never, EVER, start a war.
My friend, you are a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian. Let's agree to disagree. Have a good night.
Don’t worry, he never does.
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.