[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Tat is a completely dishonest misrepesntation of the Pentagon's findings the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists (including AQ affilliates) and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:
Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:
Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism
Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests: [QUOTE]
I donít see how I have misrepresented anything. I would think if I had, then certainly the newspapers I got the info from would have already been sued by the government for libel. One of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq was supposedly linked to AQ, and this report says it ainít so. And did I read correctly that you think our intelligence on WMDís was correct?
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Not to mention the fact that Saddam had fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone on an almost daily basis, was in material breach of numerous U.N. resolutions, was in fact harboring AQ operatives who had attacked the U.S. on our own soil, and had even once attempted to assasinate our former head of state one George Herbert Walker Bush. [QUOTE]
It's funny that you mention the no fly zones. The no fly zones were established by the US, UK, and France, and cover about half of Iraq and of course Iraqi aircraft are not allowed to fly in them. They cited UN Resolution 688 as their authority to establish the no fly zones, but it says nothing about them, and the UN Secretary General declared them illegal. So what you have here are illegally enforced no fly zones over a sovereign country, and you are telling me that Saddam was the aggressor here? We bombed Iraq pretty much constantly for twelve years, flew some 40,000 sorties, and Saddam is to blame for firing at (and missing every time) our fighter planes? As for the assassination plot, itís very iffy whether or not Saddam was behind it. We bombed the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation, and a report known as the Duelfer report suggests Saddam is likely not to have been behind the plot. Who exactly was being harbored by Saddam?
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Bull**** the Iraqi Constitution was written by the Iraqi's and that Constitution was ratified by the Iraqi people in a nation wide referendum. [QUOTE]
We had our hand all over that constitution. Paul Bremer, who was the US governor of Iraq wouldnít let them make Islam THE source of legislation. He instead allowed them to make it A source of legislation. Furthermore, if spreading democracy was our goal, you sure couldnít tell it was by our policies after the mission was ďaccomplishedĒ: washingtonpost.com: Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Prove that the U.S. encroached on the writing of the Iraqi Constitution or that we did anything to make the elections anything less than free and fair. [QUOTE]
Already proved Paul Bremer had the last say on what went into it. Have you ever wondered why they didnít just amend the old constitution? As for the elections, I donít know, although there were investigations into anomalies. Plus, they didnít get to vote for individuals, they had to vote for ethnic groups. Thatís just the way the ballot was set up.
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]It's called representative democracy not direct democracy, the dually elected represenatives of the Iraqi people have not demanded our withdrawal, however, we have come to an agreement whereby U.S. troops have to be out by I believe 2011. [QUOTE]
Youíre absolutely right, they donít have to represent the people at all, just like our Congress doesnít have to listen to us when 80% of us wanted them to vote against the bailout. Maybe the next election will make a difference.
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]We were bound by treaty. [QUOTE]
Unless Iím mistaken, we didnít have a treaty with anybody in Korea until after the armistice was signed.
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]There was an AUMF which tantamount to a declaration of war as the Constitution does not specify what type of legislation the Congress must write. [QUOTE]
Obviously you and I are going to disagree about whether or not an AUMF is sufficient or that it is okay for Congress to let the president decide when to go to war and for what reason. After studying the history of our Constitution and the debates surrounding it, I have to conclude that the founders never wanted the war making power vested in the executive, whether it was delegated or not. But even regardless of that, I have to wonder how you or anyone could think that our participation in either Korea or Vietnam had anything to do with defending America.
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Both had an AUMF.
Both Iraq wars were completely unconstitutional. The first one was a UN baby and had nothing to do with the defense of America. The second one was in large part a result of the first one, and authorization of the second one relied quite heavily on matters relating to the first one. For Afghanistan I would have preferred using a letter of marque and reprisal instead of invading a whole country.
[QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]That was a limited engagement, did the U.S. require a formal declaration of war for the quasi-war with the French under John Adams? Was one of our Founding Fathers an imperialist? [QUOTE]
It was a limited engagement that was unconstitutional. We were not attacked and our military wasnít used to protect Americans. As for the Quasi War, perhaps you didnít read into it enough, or else you wouldnít have accused Adams of being imperialist. Our actions against the French were defensive. Furthermore, John Adams didnít take any unilateral action whatsoever. Congress passed a series of acts and Adams complied with them.