• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do the Democrats want to win the war in Iraq?

Do the Democrats want to win the war in Iraq?

  • Total voters
    23
Iriemon said:
My apologies. I thought when you wrote:

"What about all the Democrats who voted to invade in 2003?"

that you were talking about Democrats who voted to invade in 2003.



There was no vote to invade Iraq in 2002 nor 2003. That is not a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...




So the joint resolution to use force vote did not happen, even though I posted a link from the senate that it indeed did.


Why are you misrepresenting facts? Mana for your credibility? :rofl
 
mpg said:
That's exactly what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

That is certainly different than saying he voted for invading Iraq.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So the joint resolution to use force vote did not happen, even though I posted a link from the senate that it indeed did.


Why are you misrepresenting facts? Mana for your credibility? :rofl
Click to expand...

Wrong. Not at all.

.....
 
Iriemon said:
That is certainly different than saying he voted for invading Iraq.
Click to expand...
They voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq as the President saw fit, while the President was pushing for an invasion. That's voting for the invasion. You can't rewrite history.
 
mpg said:
They voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq as the President saw fit, while the President was pushing for an invasion. That's voting for the invasion. You can't rewrite history.
Click to expand...



No he is arguing semantics with you. It is pointless. He is going to say that Authorizing the use of force is not authorizing invasion..... Even though you, I and the rest of the rational people know thats exactly what it means.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Why won't you expound. Please we are all ears and hoping for you to explain how there was no joint resolution t use force in 2002.... :lol:
Click to expand...

Show me where I ever asserted that, and I will respond to your request for an explaination.


:lol:
 
mpg said:
They voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq as the President saw fit, while the President was pushing for an invasion. That's voting for the invasion. You can't rewrite history.
Click to expand...

The president was not pushing for an invasion prior to October 2002, though that was certainly an option he maintained if diplomacy failed.
 
Iriemon said:
Show me where I ever asserted that, and I will respond to your request for an explaination.


:lol:
Click to expand...




Der.... When you stated a few posts up:


There was no vote to invade Iraq in 2002
Click to expand...




Are you denying this now even though it is in black and white (or red and blue)

:lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No he is arguing semantics with you. It is pointless. He is going to say that Authorizing the use of force is not authorizing invasion..... Even though you, I and the rest of the rational people know thats exactly what it means.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your attempts to assist me by suggesting my answer; but I can respond for myself.

However, if I ever had the desire to appreciably lower the quality of my posts, you'd be among the first I'd consider to have answer for me.

But thanks!
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Der.... When you stated a few posts up:

Are you denying this now even though it is in black and white (or red and blue)

:lol:
Click to expand...


I stated: "There was no vote to invade Iraq in 2002 nor 2003."

That is correct.
 
Iriemon said:
The president was not pushing for an invasion prior to October 2002, though that was certainly an option he maintained if diplomacy failed.
Click to expand...
Of the 27 Democratic Senators who voted for the resolution in October 2002, how many of them opposed the invasion in 2003? How many of them supported it?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Was there an authorization to use force?
Click to expand...

Under certain conditions and as the President deemed necessary - read for yourself.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned
 
mpg said:
Of the 27 Democratic Senators who voted for the resolution in October 2002, how many of them opposed the invasion in 2003? How many of them supported it?
Click to expand...

Don't know.
 
Iriemon said:
Under certain conditions and as the President deemed necessary - read for yourself.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned
Click to expand...




Perhaps you can share your opinion on the matter. :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Perhaps you can share your opinion on the matter. :lol:
Click to expand...

My opinion on what? The joint resolution? It speaks for itself. It explained Congress' desire that the President obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions. It gave the president to use force as he determined necessary. That meant if the President determined it necessary to use force against Iraq he could do it. "Force" could mean anything from enforcing airspace to bombing to full scale invasion and occupation to anything in between.
 
Iriemon said:
"Force" could mean anything from enforcing airspace to bombing to full scale invasion and occupation to anything in between.
Click to expand...
He already had the authority for enforcing airspace and bombing.
 
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Click to expand...

So here's a question...

Has Iraq "complied with all relevant Security Council resolutions" yet?
 
Navy Pride said:
I think that if things go well in Iraq then it is bad news for the democrats in the 2008 elections......I know there are democrats like Senator Leiberman and Congressman Baird who want us to succeed in Iraq regardless of the politics but then you have people like Senator Reid and Congressman Murtha who have said the war is lost and our military is broke so I think the question begs to be asked..........
Click to expand...

Of course the democrats do not want to win the war in Iraq,winning would only make them look like all the ***** isolationist,enemy sympathizers and pacifist in the past who wanted the US to sit by while hitler was trying to take over Europe.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
up to and including invasion you say?

Game, set, match.

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

It would only be in your rulebook that "authorization to use force" means the same as agreeing to invade.

You're welcome!
 
jamesrage said:
Of course the democrats do not want to win the war in Iraq,winning would only make them look like all the ***** isolationist,enemy sympathizers and pacifist in the past who wanted the US to sit by while hitler was trying to take over Europe.
Click to expand...

Or those ******s who didn't want to start a nuclear war with Russia.
 
mpg said:
He already had the authority for enforcing airspace and bombing.
Click to expand...

That is true, he didn't need congressional authorization for that.

In Oct 2002, the US and Iraq were engaged in tough negotiations about WMDs and inspections, and voting against the president's authority to use force would have stripped him of leverage in those negotiations. Congress (including the Dems who voted for it though it would have passed regardless), punted and passed the buck of decision making on war to the President. In hindsight, that was a tragic mistake for which I fault the Dems, most of whom bowed to the political pressure caused by 9-11, and didn't stand up and didn't ask the hard questions.

The joint resolution gave the president authority to use force against Iraq if diplomacy failed and he believed it was necessary. It was not, when passed in October 2002, a vote by Congress of approval to invading and occupying Iraq when the Bush Administration did it in March 2003, and IMO it is misleading to contend that it was by saying the "Congress voted to invade in 2003."
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
Or those ******s who didn't want to start a nuclear war with Russia.
Click to expand...

There could never be nuclear war with the USSR........Both sides knew it would be destruction for both sides......That is not the case if a terrorist group gets a nuke.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom