• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine recruiting station under attack... again

While I disagree with the vandalizing there is a similar action found in Jesus clearing the Temple with a whip. The purpose of the Temple was to offer reconciliation with God and find Peace in Atonement. However, the client-kings crapped all over that through endless means of extortion, deception and slavery. The purpose of a Recruiting station is to offer Americans the chance to Serve in the Military and protect our Nation. Like the Temple, those who run our military have engaged in deception (Iraq/Afghanistan), Slavery (Stop-
Loss...which is a fancy term for "You can't leave until we say you can.), and extortion (Support Our Military or you HATE our Troops!)

So while I don't agree with nor condone the vandalism, it's a bit of a stretch to dismiss it simply as communist whackos. It isn't anti-American to have at least some intellectual breathing room, is it?
 
SkyCore said:
The purpose of a Recruiting station is to offer Americans the chance to Serve in the Military and protect our Nation. Like the Temple, those who run our military have engaged in deception (Iraq/Afghanistan), Slavery (Stop-
Loss...which is a fancy term for "You can't leave until we say you can.), and extortion (Support Our Military or you HATE our Troops!)
Click to expand...
As some would say -- Epic Fail.

Stop-loss is part of the contract you sign when you join. You know, when you join, that you can have your contract extended, indefinitely.

Nice try, tho.
 
Ikari said:
I see no valid reason for having been in Iraq, nor do I think it foolish to continually protest bad and improper government action.
Click to expand...

Valid Reason #1:
It puts US troops on Iran's western border to complement the threat we pose on the easter/southern border with Afghanland.

Valid Reason #2:
Hussein's harboring of terrorists. Want to deny this? Want to pretend it's not true? Explain Abu Nidal's presence in Iraq. Pretend Hussein wasn't aware of him.

Valid Reason #3: Given the intel at the time, WMD's was a valid concern.

Valid Reason #4: Hussein's repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreements and his repeated attacks on US aircraft enforcing those agreements.

Valid Reason #5:
The President of the United States talked us into a corner and left no room for backing down. Always a foolish thing, as anyone who's read "The Origins of War" can see clearly.

Valid Reason #6:
Hussein had not legitimate claim to the throne and anyone using force had as legitimate reason to over throw him as he did when he took it. Therefore "valid reasons" weren't necessary. This is good, because #5 sucks as a reason.
 
Goobieman said:
As some would say -- Epic Fail.

Stop-loss is part of the contract you sign when you join. You know, when you join, that you can have your contract extended, indefinitely.

Nice try, tho.
Click to expand...




Lol. There was a response to 1/3 of the post and that qualifies as "Epic Fail?" Is the hyperbole pipe being passed around?

Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract. It is something that can be instituted or withdrawn at anytime, which is why Second of Def Gates has recently rescinded the program. If it was "part of the contract" it would not be carte blanche. There is a part of the contract for IRR committments (inactive ready reserves) which means once your enlisted term is up and you've left the military it can call you back to active duty for up to 8 years after your last date of service.

No matter how many decorations are used, Stop-Loss is Slavery, pure and simple.
 
SkyCore said:
Lol. There was a response to 1/3 of the post and that qualifies as "Epic Fail?" Is the hyperbole pipe being passed around?
Click to expand...
I addressed the only part of your argument that wasnt based on simple partisan opinion. THAT, I ignored for the blah-blah-blah that it was.

Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract.
Click to expand...
Have you read your service contract?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Later on...




Damn, figure it out.

Once we crossed the Rubicon...or the Tigris in this case....we were committed. The consequences of breaking Iraq and then running away, as you recommend, are clearly more harmful to our interests than remaining to repair the damage done.

It's that simple.

It's so simple I'm going to allow you the grand experience of identifying what the consequences of the course you proposed would have been.
Click to expand...

We've broken many countries and ran away, or trained death squads, or participated in coups. The idea is to stop it. Saddam wasn't going to do anything, nor was there substantial proof he would. He was running his mouth to seem like a big man, but dollars to donuts says he liked being in charge and would have done more to stay in charge. We need to quit messing around in other people's business, so what are the consequences for us not going into Iraq? There's a despot in charge...fine, we're obviously ok with despots in general cause we do nothing about Africa. We save money, American lives, and could properly focus on Afghanistan.

I don't see how you think we're doing good through half-assed imperialism.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Valid Reason #1:
It puts US troops on Iran's western border to complement the threat we pose on the easter/southern border with Afghanland.

Valid Reason #2:
Hussein's harboring of terrorists. Want to deny this? Want to pretend it's not true? Explain Abu Nidal's presence in Iraq. Pretend Hussein wasn't aware of him.

Valid Reason #3: Given the intel at the time, WMD's was a valid concern.

Valid Reason #4: Hussein's repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreements and his repeated attacks on US aircraft enforcing those agreements.

Valid Reason #5:
The President of the United States talked us into a corner and left no room for backing down. Always a foolish thing, as anyone who's read "The Origins of War" can see clearly.

Valid Reason #6:
Hussein had not legitimate claim to the throne and anyone using force had as legitimate reason to over throw him as he did when he took it. Therefore "valid reasons" weren't necessary. This is good, because #5 sucks as a reason.
Click to expand...


#1--Imperialism is not a "valid" anything.

#2--so what? The #1 financier of terrorism in the world is Saudi Arabia. If we are reacting to the "terror threat" why did we go after one of the smallest fish in the pond?

#3--i didn't think anyone sober still tried to make that argument. The CIA Chief of Europe went to the White House in August/Sept 02' to point out there was no valid evidence of WMD and even Rumsfeld said in Oct 02' one of the problems of invading iraq is that WMD may not be found. But all of that aside, common sense tells us the Bush admin knew there were no WMD. Can anyone guess how?

#4--the cease fire agreement was made with the UN, not the US and it never authorized a military response without UNSC approval. So in the desperation of trying to defend the invasion peeps always undermine their own position when referencing the cease fire.

#5--ummm...okay.

#6--even if true, so what? We had no legitimate reason to invade iraq or afghanistan so that means Russia can invade us, right? Or is this howdy doody double standard time?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Valid Reason #1:
It puts US troops on Iran's western border to complement the threat we pose on the easter/southern border with Afghanland.
Click to expand...

We can get in other places. Wanting to invade another country which can't directly threaten America isn't justification for occupation of different country which couldn't directly threaten us.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Valid Reason #2:
Hussein's harboring of terrorists. Want to deny this? Want to pretend it's not true? Explain Abu Nidal's presence in Iraq. Pretend Hussein wasn't aware of him.
Click to expand...

Not widespread, no terrorist camps in operation. You'll have to prove otherwise. Hearsay and coincidence don't justify invasion and occupation. You're gonna need real data. And if that's the case, why ain't we going after Saudi Arabia...oh, wait...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Valid Reason #3: Given the intel at the time, WMD's was a valid concern.
Click to expand...

Invented data is not proper justification, and there was nothing Saddam could do to use those WMD against us even if he had them, nor is there any indication he'd ever use them against the United States (it would be incredibly dumb to do such a thing).

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Valid Reason #4: Hussein's repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreements and his repeated attacks on US aircraft enforcing those agreements.
Click to expand...

This could be handled through the UN since y'all seem to love that institution so much. These aren't reasons for invasion, overthrow of a government, and imperialistic occupation.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Valid Reason #5:
The President of the United States talked us into a corner and left no room for backing down. Always a foolish thing, as anyone who's read "The Origins of War" can see clearly.
Click to expand...

Running one's mouth is not proper justification for war. Actual threats and attacks to soveriegnty can be; not all war goes to overthrow of government and imperialistic occupation. Everything depends on the reality and nature of the threats and/or actions.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Valid Reason #6:
Hussein had not legitimate claim to the throne and anyone using force had as legitimate reason to over throw him as he did when he took it. Therefore "valid reasons" weren't necessary. This is good, because #5 sucks as a reason.
Click to expand...

That's not our concern (and we helped put Saddam's party in charge). Government derives it's authority from the governed, thus it is the Iraqi people whom gave credibility to the Iraqi government. The course and leadership of Iraq was not, is not, rightfully up to us. If the Iraqi people had a problem with Saddam, they should have revolted. It is their problem and their duty, not the US. Less you want to show me where in the Constitution it says that the US military is to "spread democracy".
 
SkyCore said:
#4--the cease fire agreement was made with the UN, not the US and it never authorized a military response without UNSC approval. So in the desperation of trying to defend the invasion peeps always undermine their own position when referencing the cease fire.
Click to expand...
False. For all the meaning it has, the UN ratified the cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq. The cease-fire was on 2-28; the UN resolution passed on 4-3.

The agreement itself was between the members of the coalition and Iraq, not the UN and Iraq.

When the terms of a ceae-fire are broken, the cease fire may be held by any or all of the parties to be no longer in effect; the default position is that the parties involved may, without further comment, resume hostilities.
 
Last edited:
SkyCore said:
While I disagree with the vandalizing there is a similar action found in Jesus clearing the Temple with a whip. The purpose of the Temple was to offer reconciliation with God and find Peace in Atonement. However, the client-kings crapped all over that through endless means of extortion, deception and slavery. The purpose of a Recruiting station is to offer Americans the chance to Serve in the Military and protect our Nation. Like the Temple, those who run our military have engaged in deception (Iraq/Afghanistan),
Click to expand...


How were Iraq and Afganistan a "Deception" are you one of those conspiracy types?

Slavery (Stop-
Loss...which is a fancy term for "You can't leave until we say you can.), and extortion (Support Our Military or you HATE our Troops!)
Click to expand...


As one who served, and one who was "Stop-lossed", I can tell you it was clearly part of the contract when I signed up. One signs up for 4 active, 4 IRR, stop loss is a call on the IRR.

When and where did you serve again?


So while I don't agree with nor condone the vandalism, it's a bit of a stretch to dismiss it simply as communist whackos. It isn't anti-American to have at least some intellectual breathing room, is it?
Click to expand...


It is anti-american to attack the military and the troops with the spray paint you paid for with your parents credit cards.
 
SkyCore said:
#1--Imperialism is not a "valid" anything.
Click to expand...


Imperialism? have we annexed Iraq yet? I must have missed that.


#2--so what? The #1 financier of terrorism in the world is Saudi Arabia. If we are reacting to the "terror threat" why did we go after one of the smallest fish in the pond?
Click to expand...

The saudi government? I missed that as well.

#3--i didn't think anyone sober still tried to make that argument. The CIA Chief of Europe went to the White House in August/Sept 02' to point out there was no valid evidence of WMD and even Rumsfeld said in Oct 02' one of the problems of invading iraq is that WMD may not be found. But all of that aside, common sense tells us the Bush admin knew there were no WMD. Can anyone guess how?
Click to expand...


If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)


#4--the cease fire agreement was made with the UN, not the US and it never authorized a military response without UNSC approval. So in the desperation of trying to defend the invasion peeps always undermine their own position when referencing the cease fire.
Click to expand...


1441.


#6--even if true, so what? We had no legitimate reason to invade iraq or afghanistan so that means Russia can invade us, right? Or is this howdy doody double standard time?
Click to expand...
io


What? The taliban harbored the group that killed 3000 of our countrymen. Iraq violated the cease fire, and the criminal UN was making bank off of the sanctions. What world are you living in?



Please, your silly cindy sheehan nonsense has been debunked for years.
 
Ikari said:
Ridiculous. Nothing is ever going to be accomplished if we operate purely off of emotionalized, knee jerk reactions and refuse to think about problems.
Click to expand...

I always love when libertarian types come out and say something along this line and then go on a "Bush Lied! We went to war for Oil! He's shat on the constitution! Out of Iraq IMMEDIETELY! Get out get out get out!"

Yeah, don't do anything knee jerk, reactionary, emotionalized, and without thinking about the rpoblems. :roll:

The vast majority of libertarian types I've spoken to about this NEVER seem to take into account the potential issues with an immediete quick withdraw from Iraq, let alone the "lets pull out of every base everywhere over the entire globe imemdietely" that became popular to peddle. Their reasons rarely are purely logic based, usually with screaming charges of "They're killing the constitution!" or "Illegal! Illegal! Our founders would roll in the graves".

Bull**** about not doing things without thinking about the problems or with emotion invested in it. Its doing things they don't like that has emotions involved, or doing things they don't like without agreeing with what THEY think are problems.

Its all rationalized bull**** that every side does but Libertarians always seem to act like they're ****ing titan upon mount olympus when it comes to things, untouchable by what the common little peons down below do.

Ikari said:
Not widespread, no terrorist camps in operation. You'll have to prove otherwise. Hearsay and coincidence don't justify invasion and occupation. You're gonna need real data. And if that's the case, why ain't we going after Saudi Arabia...oh, wait...
Click to expand...

Lets play devil's advocate here. Most libertarians seem to be for all drugs being legalized, yes? Yet so often, the big movement isn't "Legalize All Drugs!"...its legalize marijuana. Why? Because they don't make an EMOTIONAL decision but one based on reason. The most likely and easiest drug to initially get legalize would likely be marijuana AND if you focused on ALL drugs you'd likely margianlize the support you'd get leaving you without legalized marijuana or anything else. As such, they focus on the most likely one at first, hoping that if you legalize that one it'll lay the groundwork and foundation to move to the ones that would be far more difficult in teh future.

Likewise, while Saudi may be much larger bank roller of terror, or even Iran, through a rational accessment of the situation it could be said that the risk of going at them first outweighed the reward of your utlimate goal (in this case the assumed "war on terror"). Instead you look towards Iraq.

You have violation of numerous U.N. treaties over the year.
You do have proof of at least some interaction with terrorism whether that's harboring them knowingly (maybe not by Saddam but by the government as a general entity) or sponsoring terrorist acts abroad in say Israel.
You do have numerous intelligence reports that you could use for justification of a potential thread.
It provides the best tactical position for furthering the war on terror. (much like marijuana is the best tactical position for expanding the legalization)

Now, does that mean its JUSTIFIED? Not necessarily. Are all those things rock solid? Absolutely not. BUT this idiotic slapstick EMOTIONAL response of "OMG Saudi!" as a way of attempting to blow the War in Iraq out of water is illogical and ignorant and in the case of libertarians simply and fully dishonest and hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Uhm zyph,


Good post, but the whole bush lied people died was the sheehan lib crowd. ;)
 
SkyCore said:
Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract.
Click to expand...

back_of_dd_form_4-1.JPG


in case the above is too small for you to read-

10. MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATION FOR ALL
MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COM-
PONENTS, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.
a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial en-
listment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part
of that service not served on active duty must be served
in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.



There is a part of the contract for IRR committments (inactive ready reserves) which means once your enlisted term is up and you've left the military it can call you back to active duty for up to 8 years after your last date of service.
Click to expand...

Its is not 8 years after your last date of service. It is 8 years total, part of your enlistment is active duty and part of it is inactive,so if you serve 3 years active duty then your inactive service is 5 years,if you serve 5 years inactive service then your inactive service is 3.


No matter how many decorations are used, Stop-Loss is Slavery, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

A slave is someone who is owned by someone else.Those who serve in the military are not owned by anyone.Nor are they working for free.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Uhm zyph,

Good post, but the whole bush lied people died was the sheehan lib crowd. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, I found those same people often in the Ron Paul forums I'd visit. Now granted, Paul seemed to not just draw in Libertarians but pulled in liberals who were unhappy with Obama or Hillary war stance in the primaries and Republicans unhappy with the other candidates on everything other than the war, so it could've been others than truly "libertarians"...however, was more the general mindset than actual statements. Numerous libertarians on the forum and in other places were firmly in the "pull out immedietely" crowd. Still, I'll accentuate that better instead of possibly confusing in an edit.
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh, I found those same people often in the Ron Paul forums I'd visit. Now granted, Paul seemed to not just draw in Libertarians but pulled in liberals who were unhappy with Obama or Hillary war stance in the primaries and Republicans unhappy with the other candidates on everything other than the war, so it could've been others than truly "libertarians"...however, was more the general mindset than actual statements. Numerous libertarians on the forum and in other places were firmly in the "pull out immedietely" crowd. Still, I'll accentuate that better instead of possibly confusing in an edit.
Click to expand...




I always found it odd the number of libs that supported Paul. I just chalked them up as idiots. These people obviously had no idea what they stood for. ;)
 
The liberals that loved him simply because of the war boggled my mind as much as the conservatives that would say that Ron Paul wasn't a "real" conservative because he didn't agree with the War in Iraq. Made me shake my head and just chuckle at all involved.
 
Zyphlin said:
The liberals that loved him simply because of the war boggled my mind as much as the conservatives that would say that Ron Paul wasn't a "real" conservative because he didn't agree with the War in Iraq. Made me shake my head and just chuckle at all involved.
Click to expand...

'

exactly..... My personal problem with paul is that he was a bit too extreme in his isolationist stance and the legalization of crack and heroin. Even this Libertarian "conservative" does not see these as a good idea. :lol:
 
Goobieman said:
I addressed the only part of your argument that wasnt based on simple partisan opinion. THAT, I ignored for the blah-blah-blah that it was.


Have you read your service contract?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I did. The one I signed in 1979 said that my ass was theirs for some time after the completion of the mimimum enlistment term, depending on the "needs of the service".

Anyone know why that clause is in that contract?

Of course you do. In the Revolution units would pack up and march home when their terms of enlistment were completed, regardless of what was needed of them in the near future, making the outcome of the Revolution that much more uncertain. Recruiting was a bitch at the time, seriously.

But the troops were still volunteer troops, just like today. Today's troops volunteer, and that clause, or something similar, is in their contract. If they don't like it, they don't have to volunteer. It's not slavery.

Slavery is when the Democrats kept insisting the nation implement a draft. How stupid is that?
 
I said

bilbus said:
Argue all you want before the war, and after the war is over. But when we are in a conflict shut up and support our solders.
Click to expand...


The left fought their hardest to get us to lose the war.

How many times have we heard General betrayus.
Talk of surrender
pulling out
Lost cause
Calling our solders murders

You can be unhappy about the war, but when we are at war you should do your best to help it succeed.
 
SkyCore said:
#1--Imperialism is not a "valid" anything.
Click to expand...

The United States is not an imperialist nation. Your rebuttal to that effect is irrelevant.

SkyCore said:
#2--so what? The #1 financier of terrorism in the world is Saudi Arabia. If we are reacting to the "terror threat" why did we go after one of the smallest fish in the pond?
Click to expand...

Reason #1. The #1 national supporter of international terrorism is Iran.

SkyCore said:
#3--i didn't think anyone sober still tried to make that argument. The CIA Chief of Europe went to the White House in August/Sept 02' to point out there was no valid evidence of WMD and even Rumsfeld said in Oct 02' one of the problems of invading iraq is that WMD may not be found. But all of that aside, common sense tells us the Bush admin knew there were no WMD. Can anyone guess how?
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, I didn't beleive anyone still breathing could claim they're supporting the troops while stabbing them in the back and hampering them in the completion of their mission.

Whatever, fact of the matter is that the intel at hand with the Administration was that WMD's in Iraq were a possible threat.

No, I don't waste time keeping track of all the propaganda bull**** the pacifist socialists leak out all over the place, I just deal with the facts and I'm not going to bother tracking down if what you just said is actually true, or just some Sheehan Delusion. It doesn't matter, becuase it's only one of the many valid reasons.

SkyCore said:
#4--the cease fire agreement was made with the UN, not the US and it never authorized a military response without UNSC approval. So in the desperation of trying to defend the invasion peeps always undermine their own position when referencing the cease fire.
Click to expand...

Since it was the US getting their American airplanes painted with enemy radar, since the UN doesn't have any troops of it's own, since the UN is a corrupt POS tool hampering US sovereignity at every turn, since the UN is a totally irrelevant and useless committee....Hussein was violating a cease fire agreement with the US, and the US had the right to respond in a meaningful way if it so chose.

SkyCore said:
#5--ummm...okay.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's pretty much it for that. I do recommend that book, though.

Among other things, it shows what a complete incompetent boob Kennedy was over the Bay of Pigs.

SkyCore said:
#6--even if true, so what? We had no legitimate reason to invade iraq or afghanistan so that means Russia can invade us, right? Or is this howdy doody double standard time?
Click to expand...

Well, you just failed the ability to reason independently test.

Last time I checked, the United States doesn't have a government established by gangsters. Maybe you know more about the Democrats than those of us not in the club are privy to?
 
Ikari said:
We can get in other places. Wanting to invade another country which can't directly threaten America isn't justification for occupation of different country which couldn't directly threaten us.
Click to expand...

The justification is that no justification is necessary for a free nation to choose to topple a nation run by thugs.

Period.

Ikari said:
Not widespread, no terrorist camps in operation. You'll have to prove otherwise. Hearsay and coincidence don't justify invasion and occupation. You're gonna need real data. And if that's the case, why ain't we going after Saudi Arabia...oh, wait...
Click to expand...

Abu Nidal wasn't "hearsay". Nor was his murder at that time a "coincidence".

Those are facts, and hence "real data".

Ikari said:
Invented data is not proper justification, and there was nothing Saddam could do to use those WMD against us even if he had them, nor is there any indication he'd ever use them against the United States (it would be incredibly dumb to do such a thing).
Click to expand...

Only if it's known to be a fabrication when it is used.

Ikari said:
This could be handled through the UN since y'all seem to love that institution so much. These aren't reasons for invasion, overthrow of a government, and imperialistic occupation.
Click to expand...

The UN is as effective as a hard-on on an ox.

There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.

Ikari said:
Running one's mouth is not proper justification for war. Actual threats and attacks to soveriegnty can be; not all war goes to overthrow of government and imperialistic occupation. Everything depends on the reality and nature of the threats and/or actions.
Click to expand...

Read the book.

There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.

You don't know what reality is.

Ikari said:
That's not our concern (and we helped put Saddam's party in charge).
Click to expand...

And we removed Saddam's party from power. How poetic.

Ikari said:
Government derives it's authority from the governed, thus it is the Iraqi people whom gave credibility to the Iraqi government.
Click to expand...

Right.

Hussein garnered 99% of the vote, and the dissenting 1% were murdered. That gave his regime complete credibility in your eyes.

Not in people who's eyes are open, but you didn't see any problems with what Hussein did.

BTW, you've stated, in the space of two sentences, that the US put Hussein in power, and that Hussein had the blessings of the Iraqi people. Now, if Hussein had the blessings of the Iraqi people, he had no need of US power to ascend his throne. So one of your statements is clearly incorrect, if not both of them. Which one are you going to admit was false?

Ikari said:
The course and leadership of Iraq was not, is not, rightfully up to us.
Click to expand...

So you're claiming that the US didn't help put Hussein in power, is that it?

Ikari said:
If the Iraqi people had a problem with Saddam, they should have revolted.
Click to expand...

What did your hero Mao say? Oh, yeah, political power comes from the mouth of a gun.

You really never have studied the faintest shreds of the real history of the Twentieth Century, have you? Do you honestly believe the Russians wanted to become Stalin's slaves? That Mao had to have legitimacy, because he managed to hang onto power all that time? That Pol Pot was right, becuase the people in Cambodia didn't succeed in revolting? That the people of Germany were happy under Hitler and the Gestapo? That the people in the Warsaw Block countries were happy because they didn't revolt?

Ikari said:
It is their problem and their duty, not the US. Less you want to show me where in the Constitution it says that the US military is to "spread democracy".
Click to expand...

Never said that. I said it wasn't wrong to intervene where necessary. What the Constitution does say is that the Congress has the power to declare war. It does not specify ANY limitations on what the basis of the declaration might be. The Congress did declare war on Iraq to all intents and purposes, so the Constitutional requirements were met.

Oh, and BTW, liberals aren't allowed to use the Constitution in their arguments. No one likes to see someone else's used toilet paper waved in their face.
 
Goobieman said:
False. For all the meaning it has, the UN ratified the cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq. The cease-fire was on 2-28; the UN resolution passed on 4-3.

The agreement itself was between the members of the coalition and Iraq, not the UN and Iraq.

When the terms of a ceae-fire are broken, the cease fire may be held by any or all of the parties to be no longer in effect; the default position is that the parties involved may, without further comment, resume hostilities.
Click to expand...



"The Security Council passed Resolution 687 as part of the cease-fire arrangements ending operation Desert Storm."
http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm

Please show us where the UN Authorized military actions may resume unilaterally? Iam not asking for a Limbaugher Cheese style re-writing of the Resolution. Just cite from the Resolution the authorization of unilateral military action.

As for the Stop Loss. There's some hair splitting happening. Yes, I am aware under the contract Stop Loss may be put into effect but my point was it's not a static part of the Contract. Iow, the US may keep Troops in the military for however long it wants. As I already said, Stop Loss is Slavery. That can't be dismissed by "provisions" of a Contract. If it was a static part of the contract it would always be in effect, but as Gates just demonstrated, it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom