• 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!

White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

Did you know that the Iraq War resolution says it's the war powers act that authorizes it?
So whatever restrictions you think the WP Resolutions impose, these restrictions are imposed on OIF.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution
, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
, all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.​


Wait a minute Simon, are you actually trying to say that the Bush administration acted outside the Act? That they didn't inform congress at every step? Because if so that is total BS.

j-mac
 
But he wasn't willing to work with them to attack the US.

The al Qaeda group Saddam was willing to work with had a stated goal of attacking Americans anywhere in the world and our embassies.

I believe "the world" includes the US.

no operational or collaborative relationship existed

The IPP report blows that opinion out of the water.

Your desperate attempt at "cherry picking" isn't working.
 
Wait a minute Simon, are you actually trying to say that the Bush administration acted outside the Act? That they didn't inform congress at every step? Because if so that is total BS.
j-mac
Not trying to say anything even remotely at all like that.

Grant posted some misinformation. Rather than correct the misinformation, I merely pointed out that even if what Grant said were true, then it did indeed apply to the 2002 authorization to use force.

I included what Grant wrote to try and demonstrate that my post was in response to his post. Here is his post again:
"Imminent threat" only comes into play if a President wants to start a war on an adversary and he has 60 days thereafter to take it to Congress with another possible 30 day extension.
 
What? Wait a minute....read it again pal, I didn't insult you personally. I took aim at your vapid stance of get out of our partners what we can, but when it comes to working with them so that the ME doesn't unravel, then screw them.



bite me.



Again, given the choice I am sure you would agree with me that being self sufficient in terms of our energy would make us all happy, but that isn't reality is it? And since you brought up Israel, what are we supposed to do there? watch Holocaust II?



Gheeze, grow up man, you are not that smart as you think you are.



It has? Then it should be NO problem for you to pull it up and post it so we can all see it? Or is this supposed to be one of those snipe hunts that takes a debate opponent out of the game when you are losing the argument?



No, I would like to improve the parties from within, something you LaRouche voters don't understand.



Oh brother....If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.




I think I just figured it out, you are for a borderless world aren't you?



What was that you said about intellect? You're on display here pal.



Really, care to share what is so promising out there?



THEN WHY AREN'T WE???? Explain that.



Like what? Wind? I tried that, couldn't even move my semi....NEXT!

j-mac

You have a lot of words here, but there's really no information. Petty insults and deflection.
 
I am just reporting what the US Intel services found after "conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches."

Unless that link can disprove what the IPP found it's either irrelevant or outdated.

The IPP report is quite clear.

Saddam was willing to use al Qaeda terrorists who wanted to kill Americans. Speaks for itself.

Nevermind the other terrorist organizations Saddam helped that were killing innocent people.
 
You have a lot of words here, but there's really no information. Petty insults and deflection.

Read it again, I asked alot of questions based on your statements and now not unsurprisingly you gloss over that and disengage, beautiful.

j-mac
 
Unless that link can disprove what the IPP found it's either irrelevant or outdated.
The IPP report is quite clear.
Saddam was willing to use al Qaeda terrorists who wanted to kill Americans. Speaks for itself.
Nevermind the other terrorist organizations Saddam helped that were killing innocent people.
This from the abstract of the IPP report, "these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network" is somehow different than this, "no operational or collaborative relationship existed?"
 
Read it again, I asked alot of questions based on your statements and now not unsurprisingly you gloss over that and disengage, beautiful.

j-mac

I saw a lot of insult and hyperbole, but little to no actual questions. Or are you saying "grow up" and "bite me" are questions?
 
I saw a lot of insult and hyperbole, but little to no actual questions. Or are you saying "grow up" and "bite me" are questions?

Your post to me was actually just as baiting, but I still read through it and addressed the points. Hey, if you have no interest in actually talking with someone that disagrees with your assertions, and you want only those that agree with you, and think you are some genius or something, fine. But that may not be here.

j-mac
 
I haven't made any arguments that address these points. I have only said that the Iraq War, by definition, was a preventive war. No one has shown any evidence to refute this, not even George Bush tried to refute this statement. If you believe preventive war is justified, that's on you. I, however, do not. In my opinion, preemptive war is justified. Preventive war is not.

Hmmm.....you mean Saddam was "innocent until proven guilty"????
 
Hmmm.....you mean Saddam was "innocent until proven guilty"????
That doesn't seem to be at all what tpd said. YMMV.

It seems more like tpd is saying that Iraq was a preventive war instead of a pre-emptive one. Pre-emption rests on the condition that war is started response to an imminent threat. Saying that Iraq was not an imminent threat is different than saying that Hussein was innocent until proven guilty.
 
Your post to me was actually just as baiting, but I still read through it and addressed the points. Hey, if you have no interest in actually talking with someone that disagrees with your assertions, and you want only those that agree with you, and think you are some genius or something, fine. But that may not be here.

j-mac

If you have actual points instead of insult and hyperbole, I'd be happy to debate it with you.
 
Hmmm.....you mean Saddam was "innocent until proven guilty"????

No, that's not what I mean at all. I'm talking about preventive war vs. preemptive war. Neither assumes the object of aggression is innocent. In fact, both assume that the object of aggression, in this case Saddam, is guilty of something. In conclusion, what are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
If you have actual points instead of insult and hyperbole, I'd be happy to debate it with you.

right back at ya buddy. Now could you see your way clear of picking out the questions I asked and address them? Or shall we continue this useless tripe?

j-mac
 
I just wanted to drop a random thought: The US is considering giving weapons to an Islamic country that may be responsible for several terrorist attacks Google Exhibit 1 has a mild stench to ties with Al’Qaeda Google Exhibit 2 and the whole shebang has precedence Google Exhibit 3for bad things to occur a decade or two down the road. Where does this make sense?
 
This from the abstract of the IPP report, "these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network" is somehow different than this, "no operational or collaborative relationship existed?"

Pardon me but read the entire report instead of "cherry picking" it.

The conclusions are irrefuteable.

And yet you still keep trying to wish it away. It's not working.
 
They may be, but they are not what you're trying to say they are.

You're batting a solid zero on your guesses about me and what I think.

I'm quoting the report. If you can refute it go right ahead. So far I'm batting a thousand.

You haven't bothered to come to the ball field yet.
 
I'm quoting the report.
I quoted it as well and others besides.
You say that the words in the reports mean things that they don't.
Kind of like when you had trouble discerning how saying that there were programs to develop certain missiles was not contradicting the assertion that those missiles didn't actually exist.
 
preactive, presumptuous, predictive...

whatever

did you see THIS last week?

Robert Gates: U.S. Troops could stay in Iraq past end date - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

obama's DEFENSE SECTY, his BUSH HOLDOVER

did you see GITMO in may of 09 and last fall and last december and last week?

VINDICATION of dick the darth CHENEY

do you remember the PATRIOT ACT and the DETENTION and the RENDITION?

where's KSM?

what became of the PROSECUTION OF THE CIA?

you chose hope and change, you got BILL KRISTOL

i mean, more power to ya, it's entirely your prerogative

but exactly WHAT have you been looking at the last two years?

y'know, on YOUR tv?

party on, progressives
 
No, that's not what I mean at all. I'm talking about preventive war vs. preemptive war. Neither assumes the object of aggression is innocent. In fact, both assume that the object of aggression, in this case Saddam, is guilty of something. In conclusion, what are you talking about?

Its time you face it. The folks in office have all had benefit of the same intel which was not doctored up by President Bush. It has been around way before President Bush was ever even in office. They (F.I.O.) felt there were threats in the ME and, when finally asked, they voted as a group to give the President the go ahead. They were conservative and liberal. There is no conspiracy here.

Now, lets refresh your memory

These earlier sound-bites echo President Bush's sentiments, however, they are often conveniently forgotten when accusations of "lies" come out. I wonder what evidence convinced them of these things and if it could be the same as that which President Bush was receiving?

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Theres more but why bother?.....

There's really no point to all of this. At the end of the day the liberals are STILL butt-hurt about President Clinton being impeached and want in some ****ed up way to return the favor.
 
Its time you face it. The folks in office have all had benefit of the same intel which was not doctored up by President Bush. It has been around way before President Bush was ever even in office. They (F.I.O.) felt there were threats in the ME and, when finally asked, they voted as a group to give the President the go ahead. They were conservative and liberal. There is no conspiracy here.

Now, lets refresh your memory

These earlier sound-bites echo President Bush's sentiments, however, they are often conveniently forgotten when accusations of "lies" come out. I wonder what evidence convinced them of these things and if it could be the same as that which President Bush was receiving?

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Theres more but why bother?.....

There's really no point to all of this. At the end of the day the liberals are STILL butt-hurt about President Clinton being impeached and want in some ****ed up way to return the favor.

Please explain what any of this has to do with whether or not the Iraq War was a preventive war?
 
Please explain what any of this has to do with whether or not the Iraq War was a preventive war?

The Gulf War never actually "ended" as per say. Hostilities ceased when the coalition forces pushed the Iraqi army out of Kuwait in 1991. A provision of the cease fire was that Iraq have no NBC program. Inspections were agreed upon, to be administered by the UN. Iraq ended up kicking out the UN inspectors, which should have been the trigger for another Gulf War. Instead the UN and the United States waffled around on the subject. No one on either side disputes that Iraq under Saddam DID have an NBC program. The only debate was how extensive it was.

The UN and the US congress both voted for the military incursion into Iraq. The UN did so in a series of their typical bull**** resolutions and ultimatums. ...But they did so never the less.
 
The Gulf War never actually "ended" as per say. Hostilities ceased when the coalition forces pushed the Iraqi army out of Kuwait in 1991. A provision of the cease fire was that Iraq have no NBC program. Inspections were agreed upon, to be administered by the UN. Iraq ended up kicking out the UN inspectors, which should have been the trigger for another Gulf War. Instead the UN and the United States waffled around on the subject. No one on either side disputes that Iraq under Saddam DID have an NBC program. The only debate was how extensive it was.

The UN and the US congress both voted for the military incursion into Iraq. The UN did so in a series of their typical bull**** resolutions and ultimatums. ...But they did so never the less.

Thank you for explaining your position. Nevertheless, with your explanation, which I for the most part agree with, Iraq still remains a preventive war because Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States (i.e. it was not posturing to attack us). It was a preventive war because we went in in order to prevent them from getting enough weapons to attack and getting in the position to attack the United States or others.
 
Back
Top Bottom