Kinross

And it never will. The concept of a full out war is out dated in modern times. Presidents could just call military action but congress wanted a say in the matter and enacted the War Powers Act. Calling the WPR is as close as the US will ever get to a war in modern times.

ZiprHead

What security council resolution authorized Bush's war?

Evangelion

Kinross, if you have started this thread for an rational discussion on Iraq and its alleged WMD, I might have been tempted to join. Instead, you've merely indulged in a rather petty whinge about the Democrats.

As an Australian, I couldn't care less about which side of the House is ruining your country, and your petty partisanship here is nothing short of pathetic. Like so many of your ilk, you come to the forum with the mindnumbingly facile assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal", and/or a Democrat supporter. Political positions between the extreme left and right do not appear to figure in your vocabulary.

If you're going to discuss one of the most significant political catastrophes of our modern age and the implications it has for the future of the 21st Century, you would be well advised to do it intelligently. But if you're simply going to whine about some political party in America which has 0% relevance to the rest of the world, you can expect to receive a few smackdowns.

Do I make myself clear?

Optional

Oh hey wow *mind blown*

Thanks for saying that... It being legalese, I had always just skimmed over the resolution when I saw it in print...

But it looks to me from the actual wording of the resolution that the prez in fact DID NOT have authority from congress to wage war against Iraq.

It talks about working through the UN, which we didn't do, and enforcing UN resolutions, which we didn't do, and taking actions against the terrorists who perpetuated 9/11, which doesn't include Iraq or Saddam as far as we know right now...

Or am I reading it wrong?

-me

Kinross

So you will just sit on the sidelines with Ad Hominem attacks.

Partisanship? I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. If you bothered to read the thread you would see that I was attacking the partisianship on this board.

ad Hominem
What ilk is that?


ad Hominem Care to show where I labled anyone who disagreed with me. Thought so.

What catastrophe was that? A US president got the proper authority of congress to take military action to remove a ruthless dictator who tortured his own people, failed to prove he eliminated his WMD program, and was un cooperative with the UN inspection team, was removed from power? Oh the humanity.

Yet more ad Hominem.

Uh, try reading the thread.

Are you threatening me?

Kinross

You are reading it wrong. Congress supports whats in the first paragraph, authorizes what is in the second.

Evangelion

Actually, Kinross, I confused one of your posts with Laci's. So much of my post does not apply to you.

As for this...

A US president set a new and highly dangerous precedent for trampling US resolutions in pursuit of his personal goals. Having failed to present a case for an (unnecessary) war on the basis of WMD, he changed his tune until he found something that the local audience would listen to. This gave him carte blanche to indulge the American penchant for unilateralism... and the rest is history.

If you don't think there's something wrong with this picture, you need your head examined.

Tristan Scott

1441

Optional

Yes, and what the second paragraph actually says is that congress authorizes shrub to use US militory for the purpose of (1) defending the US against the continuing threat of Iraq, and (2) enforcing relevant UN security council resolutions.

Since there were never any security council resolutions authorizing the use of force, (2) doesn't apply. And since it is looking more and more like the intelligence available pre-war was saying that Iraq DID NOT represent a threat, then (1) doesn't apply. Since only (1) or (2) were authorized by congress, and neither applies, then war was not authorized.

Furthermore, the second half of that second paragraph makes it clear that the president is ONLY authorized to act upon (1) and/or (2) above if (a) he has determined that peaceful/diplomatic means won't work, AND (b) that the use of military force would be a continuation of the fight against the terrorist groups responsible for 9/11.

Since neither (1) nor (2) apply, then pretty much by definition (a) doesn't apply either... And since it was never proven (nor even had any actual evidence) that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, then (b) doesn't apply either.

And if none of (1), (2), (a), or (b) actually applied... It doesn't look like this authorization actually applies...

Which means bush DID NOT have authorization to go to war.

So... Anybody care to correct me on that? I'm sure that if such were really the case, somebody would've mentioned it by now....

-me

Optional

No. 1441 mandated the new inspection regime, and said that if the UN INSPECTORS reported to the security council any material breech, then the UN SECURITY COUNCIL would consider what steps to take next, and warns Iraq that the decision would probably lead to 'serious consequences'.

This does not authorize force. This puts in place a framework in which an authorization of force might eventually take place, but it does not, itself, authorize force.

-me