That's part of exactly what I'm getting at...
Annapolis is Pointless
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
That's part of exactly what I'm getting at...
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Actually, it wasn't Constitutional.
Further, Iraq was no threat the United States of America. Our laws, and our Treaties ~ which are bound by the force of law ~ do not permit taking the first act of aggression. And please, don't argue that Iraq was a threat. If you believe that, your living with Alice, in Wonderland; a war, a decade of sanctions, and daily bombardments from the no fly zone ensured they were no threat to anyone but themselves. And please don't tell me that the United Nations Sactions were being violated, while simultaneously arguing against it existance (the top 10 floors should be taken off)
The only arguement for 'it was legal' is that we have won. And that only works if we win. (Permanent Bases, who us?). Seems to me that is far from certain. World financial powers are looking more and more the the Euro.
I'll probably get spanked for answer your rhetorical questions.
On topic. Annapolis is to be the Crowning Jewel in President George W. Bush's presidency. He launched a war to remake the Middle East. Now, he brings those in the Middle East together to establish that promise. From the summit, we have an agreement in principle to reach Final Status by the End of 2008.
Yes ... Annapolis will be THE great achievement of this Administration. Those who so vigourously supported President Bush through his time and office can wear Annapolis as symbol of all of his achievements.
Article I - Section 8
The Congress shall have the power .....
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules cancerning captures on land and water.
The Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to give away its own responsibilities. An Authorization of Use for Military Force in Iraq is not a declaration of war. The Congress shall have the power .....
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules cancerning captures on land and water.
Further, Iraq was no threat the United States of America. Our laws, and our Treaties ~ which are bound by the force of law ~ do not permit taking the first act of aggression. And please, don't argue that Iraq was a threat. If you believe that, your living with Alice, in Wonderland; a war, a decade of sanctions, and daily bombardments from the no fly zone ensured they were no threat to anyone but themselves. And please don't tell me that the United Nations Sactions were being violated, while simultaneously arguing against it existance (the top 10 floors should be taken off)
The only arguement for 'it was legal' is that we have won. And that only works if we win. (Permanent Bases, who us?). Seems to me that is far from certain. World financial powers are looking more and more the the Euro.
I'll probably get spanked for answer your rhetorical questions.
On topic. Annapolis is to be the Crowning Jewel in President George W. Bush's presidency. He launched a war to remake the Middle East. Now, he brings those in the Middle East together to establish that promise. From the summit, we have an agreement in principle to reach Final Status by the End of 2008.
Yes ... Annapolis will be THE great achievement of this Administration. Those who so vigourously supported President Bush through his time and office can wear Annapolis as symbol of all of his achievements.
Actually, the War Powers Resolution in 1973 states that the President can authorize the use of military forces for 60 days without a declaration of war. Granted, we are far beyond the 60 days, however, this shows a certain precedent. Also, Congress has authorized every use of military force since WWII, all without a declaration of war. This issue has never been contested in court, but again, sets precedent, at least until legally challenged.
Therefore one cannot say that the use of military forces in Iraq is illegal.
Article 51 of the U.N. Charter:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The U.N. does know about it, and is doing nothing, therefore we are legally correct.
And I do consider actions that were taken by Saddam Hussein and his regime to be threats to the U.S. you can certainly try to argue against that, but I suppose that is for a different thread.
And one can certainly state that the United States should not be a part of the U.N. and still make this argument, since, as you say, it is the law. Even if one does not agree with it.
I do not understand what you are trying to say here.
I do not give negative rep. A person is entitled to their opinion.
Every President has to have at least one.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
That's because you are so bigoted against Muslims that you have deliberately not been paying attention. More Muslims than you can shake a stick at have been demonstrating against and speaking against terrorism. You don't want to see it.
If you want to quibble and prevaricate on your usage of "en mass", then I would point out to you that hundreds of millions of members of any religion are unable to all convey their message to you at once due to their lack of access to broadcast media. There are around 200 million or so Christians in the US. When was the last time you saw 100 million of them all speak up about, say, how Eric Rudolph was wrong to bomb abortion clinics?
