Invading Iraq After 9/11 Is Like Invading Mexico After Pearl Harbor

[Gold9472]

Discuss...

[dz]

more likely targets after 9/11:
1) Saudi Arabia
2) Pentagon/CIA headquarters

but, we had to keep those terrorists from attacking us at home.. and im sure thats what weve accomplished :roll:

[Gold9472]

Well, technically, 9/11 was a murder. Granted, the murder of 3,000 people, but a murder nevertheless... So... who do we hold accountable in a murder? An ENTIRE country, or the ones responsible for the atrocity?

[dz]

http://www.theillustrateddailyscribble.com/daily.scribble.jpgs.05/06.13.05.cheney.dean.top.jpg

[Good Doctor HST]

Well, technically, 9/11 was a murder. Granted, the murder of 3,000 people, but a murder nevertheless... So... who do we hold accountable in a murder? An ENTIRE country, or the ones responsible for the atrocity?

I agree, 9/11 was a murder, NOT an act of war. As Gore Vidal says, bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 is like bombing Sicily when the Mafia killed and terrorized U.S. citizens. Makes no sense.

Unless there are ulterior motives besides bringing justice......

[Gold9472]

I agree, 9/11 was a murder, NOT an act of war. As Gore Vidal says, bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 is like bombing Sicily when the Mafia killed and terrorized U.S. citizens. Makes no sense.

Unless there are ulterior motives besides bringing justice......

A snippet of something I wrote a while back...

"Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, and they knew that before going in. America is not safer as a result of this war. Because of it, we've now become more of a target than ever before. So retaliation can't be the reason. If retaliation were the reason, we would have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

The only "positive" things that have come out of this war is that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and American companies in the Middle East are making billions. However, the U.S. Government installed a CIA operative as the leader of Iraq. That's essentially what Saddam Hussein was at the time of his coronation. So that positive negates itself.

That leaves money. Money is the only positive that has come out of this war, and it's all gone to the wrong people. That isn't justification for a war against a country that never attacked the United States in any way, shape, or form. Surely, the American public would know better than to go to war for just money. No moral person would be willing to sacrifice lives for money.

So that leaves a big question. How did this administration get permission to go to war with a country that was in no way threatening to us, and benefits only a select few? Maybe they allowed 9/11 to happen. Maybe they didn't. I will say this. We would not have gone to war if it didn't. I can show you page after page of incriminating evidence that show this administration wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11 took place. They just didn't have a reason. 9/11 gave them that reason.

If my reasoning has any legitimacy, the families of 9/11, and the people of America deserve to know about it. The 9/11 Commission is a sham. The proof exists. They just refuse to release it."

[Good Doctor HST]

So that leaves a big question. How did this administration get permission to go to war with a country that was in no way threatening to us, and benefits only a select few?

Because ever since Abraham Lincoln, presidents have had the ability to go over Congress's head and declare war courtesy of Executive Decision. It helps when the public is easily frightened by strange looking dark men that are different; then the rest of the check/balance triumvirate (House, Senate) are shamed into supporting bombing weirdo countries.

[Gold9472]

But the President can only do that for 90 days I believe... Congress would have to declare "War" in order for those efforts to continue...

[Gold9472]

The War Powers Resolution

In 1973 United States involvement in the Vietnam War (1959-1975) rekindled an old argument over whether a president has the authority as commander in chief to send U.S. troops into combat, thereby usurping Congress’s power to declare war. The resulting War Powers Resolution attempted to restrict the president’s ability to order military deployments by calling for the president to consult with Congress before sending troops into hostilities, to make periodic reports on the status of hostilities, and to end unauthorized hostilities after 60 days. The resolution, which Congress has rarely enforced, passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto and became law in November 1973. Its key provisions are excerpted below. Herbert S. Parmet

[Gold9472]

Sorry... 60 days...

[Good Doctor HST]

Presidents have declared war on Germany, Japan; Korea; and Vietnam without Congress's prior approval. They just go with the flow. Include Desert Storm too. Congress surrendered wartime decisions to the Executive Branch. I honestly don't know the logistics; I just know what I've seen on the internet and different books.

Or, check out this from MSN Encarta on who can declare war:

"The president of the United States (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571294/President_of_the_United_States.html) has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html) has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq."

......Um..... can somebody say dictatorial powers?

[Gold9472]

Did you see what I posted on the previous page?

[Gold9472]

Heh... I think we got our information from the same place...

[Gold9472]

Does what the Supreme Court say supercede the actual law?

[Gold9472]

The Supreme Court stated VERY recently that they didn't want to overturn the law in regards to Medicinal Marijuana because it was Congress' responsibility...

[Good Doctor HST]

It looks like a dangerous precedent was set during the Korean War, when Dean Acheson convinced jelly-spine Truman that the U.N. was the way to go in securing war with North Korea, instead of Congress. Congress finally let the Executives run things, and we've never looked back.

[Gold9472]

But I thought the law I just posted said the President can only declare "war" for 60 days, and then needs to seek Congress' approval?

[Good Doctor HST]

The Supreme Court stated VERY recently that they didn't want to overturn the law in regards to Medicinal Marijuana because it was Congress' responsibility...

Neither side wants to look bad. Therefore, blame must be squarely placed anywhere besides whoever's placing said blame.

[Gold9472]

Neither side wants to look bad. Therefore, blame must be squarely placed anywhere besides whoever's placing said blame.

Right... but I'm saying that what's good for one law isn't good for another... they're being hypocritical.

[Good Doctor HST]

But I thought the law I just posted said the President can only declare "war" for 60 days, and then needs to seek Congress' approval?

Answer to your question, from CNN archives:

How do they do it (declare war)? They issue a report "consistent with" the resolution rather than "pursuant to" it, and claim that whatever actions they have so far taken have not triggered the 60 day grace period. They maintain, in short, that a war is not a war in order to bypass the statute.
While Presidents acknowledge the War Powers Resolution's existence, none have conceded its constitutionality -- because to concede it would be to limit their own power and increase that of Congress. And the federal judiciary has avoided becoming part of this political struggle between its co-equal branches -- leaving presidents to do what they like, without having to appear before any court other than that of public opinion to justify their actions.

[Gold9472]

So they let the President do whatever the hell he wants REGARDLESS of the law? Um, hello... there's his "Defense" against bombing Iraq before the war. Fuck.

[Gold9472]

The question on the table then is... should one person have that authority?

[Good Doctor HST]

Yeah, and it's been that way for a very long time. All of the notable wars and "police actions" are started by our Commander-In-Chief... Even if Congress disagrees with action against other evil countries, they can be easily shamed into it by "pubilc" opinion polls about fighting enemies.... (think John Kerry voting for war before voting against it)

[Good Doctor HST]

The question on the table then is... should one person have that authority?

A resounding FUCK NO!

[Gold9472]

In my opinion, no one man/woman should have that authority. This is a "Democracy" supposedly... everything should be decided "Democratically".

Yes, I know it's a "Republic/Fascist" state...

[Gold9472]

A resounding FUCK NO!

I think in regards to the military, there is a "Chain Of Command". I think it belongs there. It serves a purpose. You are given an order, and you follow it. No "Democracy".

However, in "Civilian Life", Democracy is everything. In this country anyway... at least it used to be.

I think the President's title of "Commander In Chief" should be taken away, and that MAYBE he be consulted about military action. If he thinks it's a good idea, then the people should vote on it.

I dunno... it's a complicated topic.

[Good Doctor HST]

I think the big problem is Congress as a whole are too chicken to go against the grain. The goal of most politicians (Senators, Representatives) is to stay in office as long as possible. Be lifetime politicians. Therefore, whatever choice is popular, or thought so, that's the choice that will be made, regardless of Democrat or Republican (both the same essentially).....

[Gold9472]

Yep... it's always about the next election...