• 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!

Is America at war, or not?

Answer the question, why is it necessary at this point?

Oh nothing real important, it was just used as a pretense for two invasions/occupations (both of which are still being waged) on countries that never attacked us.
 
If I understand correctly what you are referring to, because the context of the Iraq war comment was in regards to the failed war on terror which includes both Iraq and Afghanistan.

You said:

For starters, they are not war criminals, since we have never officially declared war.

I explained why you're painfully wrong on both counts, and you responded with a misunderstanding of the AUMF- Iraq. What I'm trying to point out to you is that even if the AUMF-Iraq were somehow not a declaration of war, the AUMF-Afghanistan was. Accordingly, your original statement is demonstrably false.
 
No, they did not.

The Congress didn't issue an AUMF?

They authorized the president to make the decision to invade
if it was discovered that Iraq posed a threat to the US. Bush made the decision, which was not tantamount to a declaration of war by Congress.

:roll: First of all I was referring to the AUMF of September 18, 2001. And second of all that is not what the AUMF against Iraq says at all. It makes no mention of "if it is discovered" in fact it clearly states that it was already found that Saddam was a threat:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;


In fact Congress voted against the Levin amendment which would have proposed what you said the AUMF proposed:

Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (Senate) October 9, 2002 - Proposed Amendments-text


And even that authorization to let Bush make the decision to invade was based on doctored intel.

Then why did the Senate Intelligence Report on Pre-War Intelligence find that the intelligence wasn't doctored and that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts?

http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf

And this is pertinent to our invasion of Iraq without a threat being demonstrated in what way?


Who the hell was talking about Iraq besides you? You dropped a link that had something to do with the military commissions which were established by the President in 2001, not the military commissions which were established by Congress with the military commissions act which in no way violates the separation of powers or the Constitution.
 
Oh nothing real important, it was just used as a pretense for two invasions/occupations (both of which are still being waged) on countries that never attacked us.

Afghanistan did attack us and Saddam perpetrated several acts of war against the U.S.. Furthermore; the evidence for Bin Ladens roll is found in the 9-11 Commission Report, there is absolutely no need to create a third indictment when he has already been indicted on capital charges.
 
What I'm trying to point out to you is that even if the AUMF-Iraq were somehow not a declaration of war, the AUMF-Afghanistan was. Accordingly, your original statement is demonstrably false.

That was based on the premise we were going after OBL which was quickly abandoned. The people and Congress were skeered and the administration used that to their own ends.

I've never understood the fear by the most powerful nation on the planet to a rag-tag group of criminals. But we have played into the plans of OBL perfectly, which is why he is winning.
 
That was based on the premise we were going after OBL which was quickly abandoned.

Um once again you are wrong about what was stated in an AUMF at least you ****ed up the right AUMF this time. I suggest you actually read these things before you comment on them. The AUMF of 2001 doesn't even mention Bin Laden specifically. Furthermore; the last time I checked we're still in Afghanistan.

The people and Congress were skeered and the administration used that to their own ends.

I've never understood the fear by the most powerful nation on the planet to a rag-tag group of criminals. But we have played into the plans of OBL perfectly, which is why he is winning.

Non-sequitor much?
 
Afghanistan did attack us and Saddam perpetrated several acts of war against the U.S.. Furthermore; the evidence for Bin Ladens roll is found in the 9-11 Commission Report, there is absolutely no need to create a third indictment when he has already been indicted on capital charges.

No, al Qaeda, made up of mostly Saudis, attacked us. If Afghanistan is the big threat, why do we have more troops in Iraq? Its role, not roll btw. Without charges against OBL and the greater priority for Iraqi oil than going after him, it makes you wonder if they have enough evidence that would stand up for charges to be brought against him for 9/11.
 
That was based on the premise we were going after OBL which was quickly abandoned. The people and Congress were skeered and the administration used that to their own ends.

I've never understood the fear by the most powerful nation on the planet to a rag-tag group of criminals. But we have played into the plans of OBL perfectly, which is why he is winning.

Entirely non-responsive.

Thanks, that was the push I needed.

Am I mistaken or does this Tribunal hold absolutely 0 legal powers under International law? Isn't it a group of ****ing hippies playing court?

I was waiting to see if she figured out, but since I'll be waiting a long time...

1) You're correct that the tribunal has absolutely no authority

2) She's wrong when she said the tribunal indicted Bush. The tribunal didn't do ****. That was actually a complaint filed by none other than Ramsay Clark. It had absolutely no legal effect. You or I could go file a complaint against anyone.

3) She got the wrong Bush. That was a complaint against HW, Dan Quayle, etc. for the First Iraq War.

:lol:
 
Um once again you are wrong about what was stated in an AUMF at least you ****ed up the right AUMF this time. I suggest you actually read these things before you comment on them. The AUMF of 2001 doesn't even mention Bin Laden specifically. Furthermore; the last time I checked we're still in Afghanistan.

Last time I checked, we have roughly twice as many ****ing troops in Iraq than we do in Afghanistan. Shows you where our priorities are doesn't it?
 
Yes

war noun
/wɔːr//wɔːr/ [C or U]

armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of this
nuclear war
a war film/grave/hero/poet
If this country goes to (= starts to fight in a) war we will have to face the fact that many people will die.
Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939 as a result of the invasion of Poland.
War broke out between the two countries after a border dispute.
They've been at war for the last five years.
He died in World War 1/the Vietnam war.
 
Only by Bush's designation, which was reversed by Obama.

No he hasn't, he has only stated that civilian trials will be held for five of the detainees while further announcing the military tribunals of five other detainees.


All but two of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi.

And your point? The government of Saudi Arabia is at war with AQ. The Taliban government in Afghanistan on the other hand collaborated with them and AQ had a seat in the Taliban government.

Most of the funding for Al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi government?

Almost all of the suicide bombers in Iraq also came from SA.

Are they members of or financed by the Saudi government.

Never heard of the al-Qaeda being part of the Afghanistan government.

Well what you haven't heard would fill a warehouse because AQ had a seat on the Taliban ministry of defense and there was even an AQ detachment of the Taliban's military known as the 055 brigade.

They were not even in Iraq until we invaded.

And your point?

Not according to the Pentagon report who found no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. They did not get along.

First of all I didn't say AQ proper. And second of all you don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about. I suggest you read 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 and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.


Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun


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:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6

We killed far more innocent Iraqis than the accused terrorists killed Americans.

We don't target civilians.

Should we have a trial or a military tribunal for our crimes?

Um no because using human shields does not make one immune from counterattack I suggest you brush up on your international law:

Both Protocal 1 and article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that "the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict," according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129-130).

Article 51 (7) of Protocal 1 states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to sheild military objectives from attacks or to sheild, favour, or impede military operations." And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that "the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflict, 495, 511."

Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that "utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune operations is recognized as a war crime by Article (2) (b) (xxiii)". (Dinstein, p. 130)


It is those unlawful combatants who do not wear uniforms and intentionally hide among civilian sectors, target civilians and use civilians as human shields who are guilty of war crimes not us. Furthermore; when our soldiers do commit war crimes they are in fact tried by military tribunal or more accurately by court martial the rules of procedure for which are almost identical to those found in the military commissions.
 
I was waiting to see if he figured out, but since I'll be waiting a long time...

Well I'll be ****ed, she finally got something right. My mistake.
 
Last time I checked, we have roughly twice as many ****ing troops in Iraq than we do in Afghanistan.

And your point? The boy king messiah to this date is still dithering away on a troop increase in Afghanistan.

Shows you where our priorities are doesn't it?

Way to respond to my points. :roll:
 
1) You're correct that the tribunal has absolutely no authority

2) She's wrong when she said the tribunal indicted Bush. The tribunal didn't do ****. That was actually a complaint filed by none other than Ramsay Clark. It had absolutely no legal effect. You or I could go file a complaint against anyone.

Ramsey Clark the dick sucker of genocidal tyrants the world over. I hate that sick ****.

3) She got the wrong Bush. That was a complaint against HW, Dan Quayle, etc. for the First Iraq War.

:lol:

:lol:
 
No, al Qaeda, made up of mostly Saudis, attacked us.

Oh jumping ****ing christ on a cracker I hate repeating myself.

Once again AQ was part and parcel to the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, they had a seat on the Taliban's ministry of defense, there was a special detachment of the Taliban military known as the 055 brigade which was made up exclusively of AQ fighters, AQ even eliminated the leader of the Taliban's principle adversary, the Northern Alliance, one Ahmad Shah Massood AKA the Lion of Panjshirs, Bin Ladens son is married to Mullah Omars daughter and the Taliban granted AQ a safe haven in which to train and from which to launch attacks. The Taliban government were co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks.

When people claim that the Taliban didn't attack us it's like saying that if the CIA decided to bomb a building in; say, Saudi Arabia, that it wasn't the U.S. government attacking them.

If Afghanistan is the big threat, why do we have more troops in Iraq?

Because there wasn't a ready made army willing to fight with us in Iraq like there was the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

Its role, not roll btw. Without charges against OBL

Once again there is no need for a third indictment at this point and he has already been indicted in Spain.

and the greater priority for Iraqi oil than going after him,

The last time I read the Iraqi Constitution it read:

Article 108:

Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.

Article 109:

First: The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments shall undertake the management of oil and gas extracted from current fields provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner in proportion to the population distribution in all parts of the country with a set allotment for a set time for the damaged regions that were unjustly deprived by the former regime and the regions that were damaged later on, and in a way that assures balanced development in different areas of the country, and this will be regulated by law.

Second: The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people using the most advanced techniques of the market principles and encourages investment.

it makes you wonder if they have enough evidence that would stand up for charges to be brought against him for 9/11.

Evidence like say a confession? Meh do yourself a favor and read the 9-11 Commission Report.
 
any such permission that your Congress gave was under the false information issued from the Executive.

What false information did Bush issue the Congress? The POTUS relied on the National Intelligence Estimate constructed by all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community which verified everything Bush was saying and the Senate Intelligence Report on Pre-War Intelligence Phase 1 found that the administration did not in anyway pressure the intel analysts.
 
Last edited:
Oh, well if you say so...



And even if that mattered (which it doesn't) what the **** does that have to do with the AUMF Afghanistan?



And how exactly does that change the fact that they were duly enacted?

perhaps you enjoy being lied to by your leader. i don't. how does one duly enact the lies that Bush told. everyone of those troops in Iraq ans Afghanistan should be put on trial for following a bad order. every last one of them.

duly enacted or not. the laws in Nazi Germany were duly enacted as well. now make your case.
 
Yep all of the members working on the official inquiries are in on the conspiracy dontcha know. :roll: For the facts you have to go to prison planet.

where did i say that? i said that the government lies.

do you believe every last word Obama says?
 
So AQ was not responsible for the 9-11 attacks? Lemme guess it was the reptilian shape shifters in the study with the genesis arc?

wow did i say any of hat either. you seem to have problems with understanding.

i don't know if AQ was or not. that is why there will be a trial.

have you ever heard of presumption of innocence. or do you like to fry them before you try them?
 
What false information did Bush issue the Congress? The POTUS relied on the National Intelligence Estimate constructed by all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community which verified everything Bush was saying and the Senate Intelligence Report on Pre-War Intelligence Phase 1 found that the administration did not in anyway pressure the intel analysts.

oh stop it. you are just getting silly now. the entire world knows that that information was cooked. why don't you know. oh yeah it is the gospel according to GWB.
 
perhaps you enjoy being lied to by your leader.

Which lies exactly? Bush simply repeated what he was told by all 16 members of the intelligence community in the national intelligence estimate. He didn't lie he was given the best information available of the time, a lot of which turned out to be incorrect. That is not a lie as a lie implies intent to deceive.

i don't. how does one duly enact the lies that Bush told. everyone of those troops in Iraq ans Afghanistan should be put on trial for following a bad order. every last one of them.

You want to try the troops who liberated the people of Iraq and want a genocidal tyrant like Saddam to still be in power. That's just ****ing sick. GFYS.

duly enacted or not. the laws in Nazi Germany were duly enacted as well. now make your case.

lol call me when we start implementing a parallel to the nuremburg laws.
 
oh stop it. you are just getting silly now. the entire world knows that that information was cooked. why don't you know. oh yeah it is the gospel according to GWB.

The entire world knows? The entire world? Really now that's an interesting blanket statement. Tell me sweetheart had you ever even ****ing heard of the NIE or Senate Report on Pre-War Intelligence prior to this conversation? Nope didn't think so. The NIE was produced by all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community the findings of which were backed up by foreign intelligence agencies; such as, MI6, DGSE, BND, Mossad and the FIS.
 
Which lies exactly? Bush simply repeated what he was told by all 16 members of the intelligence community in the national intelligence estimate. He didn't lie he was given the best information available of the time, a lot of which turned out to be incorrect. That is not a lie as a lie implies intent to deceive.



You want to try the troops who liberated the people of Iraq and want a genocidal tyrant like Saddam to still be in power. That's just ****ing sick. GFYS.



lol call me when we start implementing a parallel to the nuremburg laws.

Bush cooked the WMD story. Powell couldn't even sell that sack of happy horse**** anymore so he bailed out.

i don't see the US troops as liberators. i see them as an invasion force. if they enlisted they should be tried for following the orders to invade. at least all the high command should be brought to trial.

it was said that a soldier should refuse to follow an unjust or wrong order. if you know it is wrong. well they know it is wrong and the courts should be filled with the vaunted troops of the invasion force. you cam wave your little hand with the flag for the rest of your life. it doesn't make those enlisted troops right.

yeah following orders was no excuse for the Nazi's. so these troops are just as responsible for te death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.
 
Bush cooked the WMD story. Powell couldn't even sell that sack of happy horse**** anymore so he bailed out.

Once again Bush was just going off of what the NIE said and the NIE said that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD and that he had reconstituted his WMD programs. The NIE was produced by all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community the findings of which were backed up by foreign intelligence agencies; such as, MI6, DGSE, BND, Mossad and the FIS.

i don't see the US troops as liberators. i see them as an invasion force.

Then I got a purple finger for you.

purplefingerwoman.jpg


if they enlisted they should be tried for following the orders to invade. at least all the high command should be brought to trial.

On what charges?

it was said that a soldier should refuse to follow an unjust or wrong order.

Actually it's an unlawful order. What was the unlawful order?

if you know it is wrong. well they know it is wrong and the courts should be filled with the vaunted troops of the invasion force. you cam wave your little hand with the flag for the rest of your life. it doesn't make those enlisted troops right.

So in your world you would have the genocidal tyrant Saddam set free and arrest the men who removed him from power. Sick just ****ing sick.

yeah following orders was no excuse for the Nazi's. so these troops are just as responsible for te death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.

The Nazi's followed unlawful orders.
 
Back
Top Bottom