We had our hand all over that constitution. Paul Bremer, who was the US governor of Iraq wouldn’t let them make Islam THE source of legislation.[/quoe]
Prove it.
He instead allowed them to make it A source of legislation. Furthermore, if spreading democracy was our goal, you sure couldn’t tell it was by our policies after the mission was “accomplished”:
washingtonpost.com: Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq
Oh gee we didn't want to allow the elections to go forward only a couple of months after the war had started while Iraq was still in complte anarchy. Well golly gee. :roll:
Already proved Paul Bremer had the last say on what went into it.
You didn't prove that at all, you just claimed it.
Have you ever wondered why they didn’t just amend the old constitution?
"The old Constitution?" Probably because it was a national socialist constitution.
As for the elections, I don’t know, although there were investigations into anomalies.
They were certified as free and fair by international observers.
Plus, they didn’t get to vote for individuals, they had to vote for ethnic groups. That’s just the way the ballot was set up.
No they had to vote for party lists it's not our fault that those parties divided along ethnic lines.
You’re absolutely right, they don’t have to represent the people at all, just like our Congress doesn’t have to listen to us when 80% of us wanted them to vote against the bailout. Maybe the next election will make a difference.
They represent the people but it is not direct democracy which is the entire point of representative democracy, IE the representatives sometimes do what may not be popular but rather what is in the nations best interests.
Unless I’m mistaken, we didn’t have a treaty with anybody in Korea until after the armistice was signed.
The U.N. treaty IE the U.N. charter which the U.S. ratified, once the security council determined that action must be taken for the defense of South Korea the U.S. was bound by a collective defense treaty.
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.
I guess that would be why they granted an AUMF to Adams for the quasi war against the French.
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.
It was about protecting American interests namely the containment of Communist expansionism.
Both Iraq wars were completely unconstitutional.
Both had AUMF's.
The first one was a UN baby and had nothing to do with the defense of America.
It had an AUMF sir, and once again the U.S. has ratified the U.N. charter.
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.
:roll: ya let's write a letter of marque and reprisal for every single member of AQ who was living in Afghanistan at the time, I mean that would have worked out great except there were thousands of them and probably didn't even know the names of most, whose name were they going to sign on the letter of marque and reprisal? OBL is that it? Are you asserting that if OBL was eliminated that the threat of the global Jihad would be dimished one iota? Bloody genius.
It was a limited engagement that was unconstitutional. We were not attacked and our military wasn’t used to protect Americans. As for the Quasi War, perhaps you didn’t read into it enough, or else you wouldn’t have accused Adams of being imperialist. Our actions against the French were defensive.
So were our actions against Grenada, they were building a run way capable of supporting Soviet heavy bombers and we needed to protect U.S. students who were in danger due to the illegal coup de'ta that had taken place. And do you really think that the founders would have been opposed to the U.S. restoring a fallen democracy that fell within our sphere of influence? I highly doubt it.
Furthermore, John Adams didn’t take any unilateral action whatsoever. Congress passed a series of acts and Adams complied with them.
Congress passed an act granting authorization for the U.S. Navy under Adams to attack French vessels IE the very first AUMF in the history of this republic.
Somehow I don’t think it is constitutional for us to help overthrow the government of another sovereign nation.
Really? And why is that?