Attacking Iraq

[AL]

Prophetic words. Iraq stated today that it is willing to allow weapons inspections to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction. As if that will change anything. I bet the U.S. doesn't give a damn and is just looking for some excuse - any excuse - to bomb the shit out of Iraq. Planning for the invasion may have begun as early as 9/11, once Bush II realized he'd then have free reign to do what he wants militarily.[/quote]

lets see here it shouldnt change anything. Lets not forget that Iraq has played the inspection game before. Oh you can't look here, but not here, Something to hide.............YES. Try looking up all the UN resolutions Iraq broke after the Gulf War. Lets not forget that in 1998 Bill Clinton and the Democrats wanted to invade Iraq. Iraq has also attached a hitch to its statement. It will not allow UN inspectors to look at everything. Iraq says you cant look at civilian structures. Wake up, here we go again. When will people like you wake up and see that Iraq is indeed hiding weapons of mass destruction. Maybe you should go back to school and get some education in common sense. When some dumb ass terrorist plants VX gas in the US provided courtesy of Iraq, I hope its next to your stupid ass and not mine. I bet your the type of person to say hey lets disarm our military, and pray for love and peace.

One other thing, what excuse are you talking about. Gee do we want Iraqs oil, we have done without it for 11 years now, or do we just want some desert property to develope real estate?

[Alyrium Denryle]

No no no. You see Azeron. most of us realize that bush is a fucking idiot.

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/

We also arent little fascists like you.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

ok... I hate to say it, but Bush is just using Iraq as a diversion. He has no intention whatsoever of actually invading and taking Hussein out, as Saddam is one of his daddies' boyz! Think about it... iirc, Saddam gained power in 1979, just 2 years after GHW Bush finished his term as director of the CIA. there is information that the CIA did in fact assist Saddam in his bid for power during Bush's term. Later, Don Rumsfeld himself negotiated with Saddam to supply the chem weaps that were used v Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, without which Iraq might well have lost -- yes folks, WE supplied Saddam with the first of the very weapons we accuse him of making! Then, during the Gulf War, yes, we pushed him out of Kuwait, and then proceeded to STOP, after which Halliburton, then under now VP Dick Cheny, was contracted to not only rebuild the Kuwaiti fields, but the Iraqi ones too (ostensibly so that Iraq might make its' reparations and not starve) -- Cheny made over $24 million Personally on that deal!

Frankly, I beleive this is all just a smokescreen so that Bush can divert attention away from his closest allies in the oil biz: the Saudi Royals and other elites such as the Bin Laden family itself, which are the real source of all the money going to fund radical islamic groups worldwide. The Bin Laden group in particular is partnered with the Bush family in a number of ventures -- notably the Carlyle group & United Defense... the familiies even use the same bankers, and in the aftermath of 911, the majority of the family was allowed to leave the country on a Saudi Royal jet, when no other civilian traffic was allowed to fly (and I mean NO other... this was within the 1st week after the towers fell)

were they detained for questioning -- NO
were they investigated -- NO
were their assets frozen (after all it was a member of their family, whom they publicly support, if only for reasons of 'faith' -- NO!
have ANY Saudi assets been frozen -- even those which we KNOW are terrorist funders -- NO!
(except for the small fry, who are always expendable for public relations purposes)
when the families of the victims of 911 brought suit against the Saudis for funding terrorists, WHO apologized to WHOM?

I rest my case.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

ok... I hate to say it, but Bush is just using Iraq as a diversion. He has no intention whatsoever of actually invading and taking Hussein out, as Saddam is one of his daddies' boyz! Think about it... iirc, Saddam gained power in 1979, just 2 years after GHW Bush finished his term as director of the CIA. there is information that the CIA did in fact assist Saddam in his bid for power during Bush's term. Later, Don Rumsfeld himself negotiated with Saddam to supply the chem weaps that were used v Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, without which Iraq might well have lost -- yes folks, WE supplied Saddam with the first of the very weapons we accuse him of making! Then, during the Gulf War, yes, we pushed him out of Kuwait, and then proceeded to STOP, after which Halliburton, then under now VP Dick Cheny, was contracted to not only rebuild the Kuwaiti fields, but the Iraqi ones too (ostensibly so that Iraq might make its' reparations and not starve) -- Cheny made over $24 million Personally on that deal!

Frankly, I beleive this is all just a smokescreen so that Bush can divert attention away from his closest allies in the oil biz: the Saudi Royals and other elites such as the Bin Laden family itself, which are the real source of all the money going to fund radical islamic groups worldwide. The Bin Laden group in particular is partnered with the Bush family in a number of ventures -- notably the Carlyle group & United Defense... the familiies even use the same bankers, and in the aftermath of 911, the majority of the family was allowed to leave the country on a Saudi Royal jet, when no other civilian traffic was allowed to fly (and I mean NO other... this was within the 1st week after the towers fell)

were they detained for questioning -- NO
were they investigated -- NO
were their assets frozen (after all it was a member of their family, whom they publicly support, if only for reasons of 'faith' -- NO!
have ANY Saudi assets been frozen -- even those which we KNOW are terrorist funders -- NO!
(except for the small fry, who are always expendable for public relations purposes)
when the families of the victims of 911 brought suit against the Saudis for funding terrorists, WHO apologized to WHOM?

I rest my case.

Everyone underestimates the intelligence of President Bush purely on partisan political attacks made during his presidential campaign; your accusations are much more credible however.

But for a moment I would ask you to consider the position of Iraq within the Middle East - Having borders with not only with NATO member Turkey and our ally the Emirate of Kuwait (Which remains yet a highly conservative and potential dangerous arab Gulf State), but also with fundamentalist Iran, fellow Fascist state Ba'athist Syria, the unreliable and Palestinian-majority populated Jordan, and our true principle enemy in the region, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, with its billions in oil money going to fund a fanatical sect of Islam and propagate it throughout the body of the Islamic faith.

Saddam Hussein had the position from which to dominate the Middle East in the 80s; that is why he was so powerful, besides his impressive military. His military is weak now; and so the House of Saud and others would prefer Saddam to remain in that position, over that position being controlled by the American military.

Imagine the awesome influence that the United States of America could wield over the region were we to, say, arrange for the basing of troops and aircraft in Iraq with the new government. We could free up the troops and planes from useless cold war relic bases in Europe - And that would give us the sort of hammer over the whole Middle East that we could use to control terrorism, or, yes, advance our own interests, completely at our will.

Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran is highly unstable, with a populace that absolutely hates the Ayatollahs in charge, and where mass demonstrations have in recent months been bloodily put down on important constitutional dates (Anniversary of creation of constitutional monarchy in 1906, etc).

If we engage in the overthrow of the Iraqi Ba'athist regime we demonstrate to the Iranian people of our will and ability to follow through with our commitments; and it gives us a long border with Iran garrisoned with U.S. troops which would allow us to supply the Iranian resistance against their government. This circumstance likely means that the Islamic Republic of Iran would collapse from the inside without U.S. Miltiary intervention soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, thus eliminating two of the regimes of President Bush's so-called "axis of evil", one without a fight.

Most importantly, our military action is in fact legitimate. Due to Iraqi violations of the cease-fire, all coalition countries from the Second Persian Gulf War are technically currently in a state of hosilities with Iraq; the Second Persian Gulf War has never ended - There was simply a cease-fire. By violating that cease-fire Saddam allows us to resume the war at any time - And we have U.N. approval for it ipso facto, since the cease-fire was a U.N. document, making such a war wholly legal under the U.N. charter.

The only question currently is if Saddam Hussein's current proposal for renewal of the inspections will fully meet all of the original U.N. terms laid out in the cease-fire. If it does not, then the USA has legitimate cause for resuming the conflict. (The U.N. could not modify the terms without U.S. approval.)

So, effectively, the impending war against Iraq remains a legitimate and just war, and one that moreover is being waged for valid and intelligent strategic reasons - We are going to seize the enemy's vital terrain, and from that dictate terms, intervene in important locations, or engage in the overthrow of governments as we see fit to control the menace of terrorism.

There was a comment by a British officer that "if you control the periphery, you control Asia, and if you control Asia, you rule the world." That is what we need to do now - Not necessarily operate directly against our true targets, but rather take on those states that we can, and thereby influence and dominate our true enemies for our own purpose, and defence, the greatest of which is indeed the Wahhabist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Skelron]

Your point Duchess has one flaw, the part about using a past cease fire (The second persian Gulf war) Bush has stated either personally or through his office, that older UN Resolutions have a 'sell by date'. He claimed this sell by date as reason for not chasing up, and/or confronting in the same manner, all the country's that have not met the condition's of a UN Security Council resolution. If he suddenly brings up this resolution he is left having to answer,'What makes this resolution different from those that have past their sell by date?' No Bush needs a new resolution calling for Saddamn to meet the conditions of the UN, else he has no excuse for war.

[Next of Kin]

By the Duchess of Zeon

So, effectively, the impending war against Iraq remains a legitimate and just war,

Hardly. Why take them out now? Why didn't the U.S. finish the job 12 years ago. Why now, with corporate scandals facing the prez and his vice prez are the US so focused on Iraq? Has the U.S. offered any proof to these weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam has them then by all means he must go but the US hasn't shown any proof.

Once the U.S. invades then what? Are they prepared to commit troops for another twenty years for the region to stabilize?

[Skelron]

Spanky: Yah that behead women who have the audacity to be rapped thing was way over my head. Hopefully it will stay that way

et al: Buhdists are poor, why don't they cause terrorism? You would think Ghandi was the biggest threat to civilization that ever occurred since he was so poor.

the argument that poverty causes terrorism is non sequitor. lacking evidence, easily refuted from the abundence of evidence where it doesn't. However, where there are despotic governments, terrorism and internal unrest are a major part of society.

Who said it did, your the one that said that Despotic Governments cause Global Poverty, I answered that they did not. I went on to say that our attidude made Terrorism, the way we interfere in anything that we want to globally. As an example of this I brought up an example, of a country whoose name I can't remember, where British and American intellagence agenices overthrew a legitimate government, not on any Ideological, they support communism grounds. (It was during the Cold War, but many of our current troubles stem from our activities at this time) But because the ruler of the country wouldn't allow foreign Business interests in. During this Revolution, where we set up a dictatorship, many hundreds where killed, there unmarked Graves where eventually on the news I believe. These deaths where known to be occuring during the revolution, but the governments at the time didn't care and provided such things as Escorts using local fleet assets.

Afterwards a big conferance was called basically carving the countrys assets up amoung foreign investors... This is just an example of how the west has treated the world... and I don't think we have learnt our lessons.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Your point Duchess has one flaw, the part about using a past cease fire (The second persian Gulf war) Bush has stated either personally or through his office, that older UN Resolutions have a 'sell by date'. He claimed this sell by date as reason for not chasing up, and/or confronting in the same manner, all the country's that have not met the condition's of a UN Security Council resolution. If he suddenly brings up this resolution he is left having to answer,'What makes this resolution different from those that have past their sell by date?' No Bush needs a new resolution calling for Saddamn to meet the conditions of the UN, else he has no excuse for war.

The problem is that the resolution creating the cease-fire has to be binding as a cease-fire on all the countries; if it is for a limited duration then its expiration would also cause a resumption of hostilities. Essentially, the U.N. acted as the office by which peace was achieved between multiple warring parties; the Coalition on one hand and Iraq on the other. If the U.N. cease-fire expires, like with any other, then according to the laws of war, a state of hostilities once again exists automatically.

I am curious of hearing first of all where you heard about Bush's claim in this regard. Certainly Bush is demanding that the U.N. enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant; but I do not believe he has claimed in any fashion that they have a fixed time limit to applicability.

In regard to this particular cease-fire, no time limit is required on enforcement; there is no enforcement to be done. Rather, it is that once Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, a state of hostilities was theoretically renewed between Iraq and the Coalition States. This has allowed the USA, since then, to conduct military operations against Iraq within the bounds of the U.N. charter whenever it desires, until a peace or another cease-fire is arranged.

A State of War has effectively existed, therefore, between the USA and Iraq since 1991.

Even if your argument is correct, it does not I believe apply to the cease-fire, because the cease-fire is a normal functioning U.N. resolution today. Even though it is violated, when violated that means that the hostilities have resumed; or, in its violation, the cease-fire document ipso facto, allows for the resumption of the war.

So, really, the cease-fire is not, well, not being enforced - It is simply that nobody has chosen to wage more than an aerial campaign against Iraq in the time since it was violated, and hostilities resumed. This has now changed; and all the debate over war with Iraq is superflous material for a public uneducated in legal matters and overcome with leftist complaints, because the USA and Iraq are already at war, and have been without end since 1991, and in a renewed (theoretical) state of hostilities since 1998.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

By the Duchess of Zeon

So, effectively, the impending war against Iraq remains a legitimate and just war,

Hardly. Why take them out now? Why didn't the U.S. finish the job 12 years ago. Why now, with corporate scandals facing the prez and his vice prez are the US so focused on Iraq? Has the U.S. offered any proof to these weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam has them then by all means he must go but the US hasn't shown any proof.

Once the U.S. invades then what? Are they prepared to commit troops for another twenty years for the region to stabilize?

It seems to me that the democrats have received equal campaign contributions from major corporations that are now rocked with scandals, as the republicans have, and that the investigations into direct scandal by Cheney and Bush have come to nothing.

Honestly, the accusations against Cheney and Bush are nothing in comparison to some of the accusations levied against Presidents in the 19th century - Presidents who continued on in office. And yet these appear to be quite without merit; and so, like those of earlier times, appear to be primarily a function of slander.

People need to, I think, stop taking everything they hear about political figures seriously. The idea of "nice politics", with the insinuation after that being that everything reported about politicians is the truth (Since you are, of course, being nice, and therefore anything you uncover must be the Real Deal, as you would never not be nice unless it was the truth) is a rather massive exagerration.

Politics were if anything worse back in the day; when Democrats called out "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, Continental Liar from the State of Maine!" and Republicans countered it by calling the Democrat Party the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion!" And today all we do is call the president an ape and call the Senate majority leader a pinko commie. We're so polite these days, and some things never change.

Next, a WMD can be biological, chemical, or nuclear. We know Saddam has chemical weaponry and the capability to make biological weaponry (In fact he probably has Anthrax available to him currently of a similiar type to the one used in the mail attacks last year). So of course he has WMDs. The question is if he has nuclear weaponry. Well, he did have the capability to build a nuclear bomb - Osirak. Whatever you think of the Israelis you can thank them for blowing of Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80s. The question is if Saddam has regained the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons, or if not, how close he is to doing so.

The job was not finished twelve years ago because much of the Arab world and indeed the world at large was opposed to it. Remember the Soviet Union was still around then and could still to a measure oppose our efforts - They tried to arrange a negotiated peace between the Coalition and Iraq, for example.

Even the Kingdom of Jordan was opposed to the war in Iraq, one of the Arab States considered moderate and even friendly to the USA than Saudi Arabia these days, and with an Iraqi border. King Hussein fiercely opposed the war and supported Saddam; he didn't want infidels in Baghdad, a former capital of one of the more illustrious of the Caliphates, and honestly none of the other Arab States did, either.

The only question really was why we didn't keep on going to al-Basra, take that city, and cut off and annihilate the Republican Guard, which we could have done. We didn't need to take Baghdad; we could have potentially eliminated Saddam right there by eliminating the Republican Guard if we had advanced to al-Basra, which might have been politically feasable.

I think there may have been two possible reasons.

1. Old Arab Hands in the State Department thought that Saddam Hussein could be useful against in the future against the Islamic Republic of Iran and didn't want him gone.

2. The Arab States had their own reasons for wanting Saddam Hussein around - To focus our attention on him, etc - And were quite content with having him weakened. It also meant we would sell high-tech arms to them to help defend them from Saddam.

The first one doesn't necessarily excuse the regime; but it doesn't have to. The current Bush is not his father; a cursory examination of various policies foreign and domestic alike can demonstrate that, despite similiarities.

As for stabilizing the region after we go in - Well, like I said, we can just close down useless cold war relic bases in Europe to provide the troops and planes necessary to do so. Then the troops for the commitment are easily provided.

And initially I think the destabilization will be good. Like I pointed out I believe it might cause the Islamic Republic of Iran to collapse soon enough. We may achieve many of our goals without fighting additional conflicts; though I fear additional wars similiar to the one we undertake in Iraq will be inevitable, possibly on a large scale.

The threat of the fanatical ideology of Wahhabism spreading through Islam - And the heart of that threat, in Saudi Arabia - Must be challenged and defeated, and it may be possible that the only way to do that is with direct force, though if we control Iraq and gain a friendly Iran we have a chance to avoid that terrible necessity.

[Skelron]

Your point Duchess has one flaw, the part about using a past cease fire (The second persian Gulf war) Bush has stated either personally or through his office, that older UN Resolutions have a 'sell by date'. He claimed this sell by date as reason for not chasing up, and/or confronting in the same manner, all the country's that have not met the condition's of a UN Security Council resolution. If he suddenly brings up this resolution he is left having to answer,'What makes this resolution different from those that have past their sell by date?' No Bush needs a new resolution calling for Saddamn to meet the conditions of the UN, else he has no excuse for war.

The problem is that the resolution creating the cease-fire has to be binding as a cease-fire on all the countries; if it is for a limited duration then its expiration would also cause a resumption of hostilities. Essentially, the U.N. acted as the office by which peace was achieved between multiple warring parties; the Coalition on one hand and Iraq on the other. If the U.N. cease-fire expires, like with any other, then according to the laws of war, a state of hostilities once again exists automatically.

I am curious of hearing first of all where you heard about Bush's claim in this regard. Certainly Bush is demanding that the U.N. enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant; but I do not believe he has claimed in any fashion that they have a fixed time limit to applicability.

You know I'm not 100% sure, it's one of two sources, either BBC News 24 or the Daily Express newspaper. As for whether Bush actually said it himself, or a member of his office did I'm not sure. I'm leaning to option two. Actually thinking about the context of where I got the info, I the source was the daily Express... (hay it was a few days ago that I heard/read this, and I had forgotten about it till I read your point)

In regard to this particular cease-fire, no time limit is required on enforcement; there is no enforcement to be done. Rather, it is that once Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, a state of hostilities was theoretically renewed between Iraq and the Coalition States. This has allowed the USA, since then, to conduct military operations against Iraq within the bounds of the U.N. charter whenever it desires, until a peace or another cease-fire is arranged.

No No I don't think I quite made it clear, he wasn't talking about Resolutions that had a date due by, but one that through shear age was worthless now, despite the problems that the resolution was passed to prevent still being inforce, simply that Bush takes an interest wouldn't therefore be enough to revive the resolution.

A State of War has effectively existed, therefore, between the USA and Iraq since 1991.

Even if your argument is correct, it does not I believe apply to the cease-fire, because the cease-fire is a normal functioning U.N. resolution today. Even though it is violated, when violated that means that the hostilities have resumed; or, in its violation, the cease-fire document ipso facto, allows for the resumption of the war.

If this was the case, then Bush would not need to go through the UN, I am sure someone in his cabinet, or in the British Cabinet considered this, no he needs a new resolution to back his war, not just the enforcment of an old one.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know I'm not 100% sure, it's one of two sources, either BBC News 24 or the Daily Express newspaper. As for whether Bush actually said it himself, or a member of his office did I'm not sure. I'm leaning to option two. Actually thinking about the context of where I got the info, I the source was the daily Express... (hay it was a few days ago that I heard/read this, and I had forgotten about it till I read your point)

Well, if you can find it, I would be interested in seeing the exact quote, though it is not a great hurry.

No No I don't think I quite made it clear, he wasn't talking about Resolutions that had a date due by, but one that through shear age was worthless now, despite the problems that the resolution was passed to prevent still being inforce, simply that Bush takes an interest wouldn't therefore be enough to revive the resolution.

Oh; I understand that perfectly. But it would also make absolute no sense (Because it would render virtually everything the UN has done irrelevant, and some of it is beneficial - Furthermore, it would turn international law into total chaos), unless he is referring to UN resolutions that have not been enforced becoming worthless after a period of time.

And what I was saying, essentially, is that the cease-fire has been enforced; in the sense that everything has proceeded normally and according to the law of nations. There have even been hostile actions between the coalition States and Iraq. So the cease-fire certainly hasn't been rendered null-and-void; and indeed one could say that it already was when it was violated, as that brought about a renewed state of hostilities, so what is the point of voiding it ex post facto?

If this was the case, then Bush would not need to go through the UN, I am sure someone in his cabinet, or in the British Cabinet considered this, no he needs a new resolution to back his war, not just the enforcment of an old one.

The reason why he is going through the U.N., it seems quite apparent, is to maximise the amount of world popular support for the war that he can get. Simply because the USA has legal grounding for the war doesn't mean that we would get the support of anyone other than the UK, Australia, Turkey, and Kuwait - And the latter two only with extensive favours.

(EDIT: Can't forget the Aussies... Sorry guys!)

[Azeron]

Last time I read the consitution, it had nothing about the congress needing the UN/Nato approval to attack anyone. If congress or the president did act as if we did, they would be violating our consitution which specifically requires our government to wiegh the problems are our responses ourselves from our perspective and our needs. Besides to do otherwise is foolish.

The security needs of the US are the US's determination, not bruussels. Europe is increasingly becoming useless, and non-essential to our security. All they can do is intimidate thier own people, forget about influencing other nations.

With the changing security threats now coming from south east asia, and the middle east, it makes no sense to spend money defending europe, let alone maintaining a costly alliance with them. I see a withdrawal coming after this war with Iraq, as we get ready to deal with syria and iran. sa we establish more and more of a preasence in the middle east, I see no reason to keep the quarter of a million troops we have there, there.

If europe decides to defend itself after that, its up to her. But after the disgraceful actions of the Nato euro members (not england) I don't see a reason why we should spill another drop of blood for them, let alone another penny.

Let them find out the hard way, that thier methods are foolish.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Last time I read the consitution, it had nothing about the congress needing the UN/Nato approval to attack anyone. If congress or the president did act as if we did, they would be violating our consitution which specifically requires our government to wiegh the problems are our responses ourselves from our perspective and our needs. Besides to do otherwise is foolish.

The security needs of the US are the US's determination, not bruussels. Europe is increasingly becoming useless, and non-essential to our security. All they can do is intimidate thier own people, forget about influencing other nations.

With the changing security threats now coming from south east asia, and the middle east, it makes no sense to spend money defending europe, let alone maintaining a costly alliance with them. I see a withdrawal coming after this war with Iraq, as we get ready to deal with syria and iran. sa we establish more and more of a preasence in the middle east, I see no reason to keep the quarter of a million troops we have there, there.

If europe decides to defend itself after that, its up to her. But after the disgraceful actions of the Nato euro members (not england) I don't see a reason why we should spill another drop of blood for them, let alone another penny.

Let them find out the hard way, that thier methods are foolish.

Read the Constitution again, Azeron. Any treaty with a foreign power has the same authority as law within the USA. Since the U.N. is a binding compact between multiple foreign powers, the U.N. charter and U.N. resolutions have the same authority as law within the USA. You may not like it, but that is a fact of the current situation in regard to international law.

[Azeron]

Duchesses its you who need to reread the Constitution. Congress cannot delegate its constitutional duties to another state PERIOD

Sure they can make trade aggreements, but they can;t hand over legislative authority or war making policy. That would require an amendment to do that

[phongn]

Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. " (emphasis mine).

The obligations under international treaty are legally binding by our own Constitution.

[Azeron]

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;


Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Under which enumerated power of congress, does congress have the right to delegate any of its powers to a foriegn entity, not inferior to an appropriate US constitutional entity?

[Shaka[Zulu]]

I was going to dissect your reply to my post, Duchess... unfortunately my comp crashed halfway thru... will try again tomorrow -- maybe.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Under which enumerated power of congress, does congress have the right to delegate any of its powers to a foriegn entity, not inferior to an appropriate US constitutional entity?

None; under Article VI instead:

Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. "

The supreme Law of the Land. That means that any treaty we sign is equal to the Constitution. That includes the U.N. Charter, Azeron, because it was a compact between Sovereign States.

[Skelron]

Under which enumerated power of congress, does congress have the right to delegate any of its powers to a foriegn entity, not inferior to an appropriate US constitutional entity?

Probs in the same way that Parliament in Britain remains the supreme body, by reserving the right to leave the EU, it therefore remains the supreme Body. Congress can Vote to leave the UN, (It would be stupid to do so, but then again so would Parliament to leave the EU) Therefore it has not given up power.

[Azeron]

First we are not the EU or a parlimentary democarcy. We are far more sophisticated than that.

Duchesses that is a blatant misreading of the constiution, and you know it. The constitution also says in the same paragraph that laws are supreme law of the land (if you follow the english), yet laws are subject to reivew as for compliance wit hthe constiutions and are clearly not held as an amendment of the consitution. But by your reasoning, any treaty passed by the senate regardless of its compliacne with the provisions nad established responsibilites specifically delegated to the congress would be effective amendments to the constiution.

Your reasoing is faulty. Treaties fall under the smae category as laws, as meaning when complying within the parameters established by the constitution act with the authorized force of the constitution. Whne not, they are invalid. Therefore congress cannot delegate any of its roles to any agency or entity that is not directly repsonsible to it.

Otherwise civil rights could be thrown out with a simple treaty with China.

[Admiral Piett]

[/quote] Everyone underestimates the intelligence of President Bush purely on partisan political attacks made during his presidential campaign; your accusations are much more credible however.

But for a moment I would ask you to consider the position of Iraq within the Middle East - Having borders with not only with NATO member Turkey and our ally the Emirate of Kuwait (Which remains yet a highly conservative and potential dangerous arab Gulf State), but also with fundamentalist Iran, fellow Fascist state Ba'athist Syria, the unreliable and Palestinian-majority populated Jordan, and our true principle enemy in the region, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, with its billions in oil money going to fund a fanatical sect of Islam and propagate it throughout the body of the Islamic faith.

Saddam Hussein had the position from which to dominate the Middle East in the 80s; that is why he was so powerful, besides his impressive military. His military is weak now; and so the House of Saud and others would prefer Saddam to remain in that position, over that position being controlled by the American military.

Imagine the awesome influence that the United States of America could wield over the region were we to, say, arrange for the basing of troops and aircraft in Iraq with the new government. We could free up the troops and planes from useless cold war relic bases in Europe - And that would give us the sort of hammer over the whole Middle East that we could use to control terrorism, or, yes, advance our own interests, completely at our will.

Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran is highly unstable, with a populace that absolutely hates the Ayatollahs in charge, and where mass demonstrations have in recent months been bloodily put down on important constitutional dates (Anniversary of creation of constitutional monarchy in 1906, etc).

If we engage in the overthrow of the Iraqi Ba'athist regime we demonstrate to the Iranian people of our will and ability to follow through with our commitments; and it gives us a long border with Iran garrisoned with U.S. troops which would allow us to supply the Iranian resistance against their government. This circumstance likely means that the Islamic Republic of Iran would collapse from the inside without U.S. Miltiary intervention soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, thus eliminating two of the regimes of President Bush's so-called "axis of evil", one without a fight.

Most importantly, our military action is in fact legitimate. Due to Iraqi violations of the cease-fire, all coalition countries from the Second Persian Gulf War are technically currently in a state of hosilities with Iraq; the Second Persian Gulf War has never ended - There was simply a cease-fire. By violating that cease-fire Saddam allows us to resume the war at any time - And we have U.N. approval for it ipso facto, since the cease-fire was a U.N. document, making such a war wholly legal under the U.N. charter.

The only question currently is if Saddam Hussein's current proposal for renewal of the inspections will fully meet all of the original U.N. terms laid out in the cease-fire. If it does not, then the USA has legitimate cause for resuming the conflict. (The U.N. could not modify the terms without U.S. approval.)

So, effectively, the impending war against Iraq remains a legitimate and just war, and one that moreover is being waged for valid and intelligent strategic reasons - We are going to seize the enemy's vital terrain, and from that dictate terms, intervene in important locations, or engage in the overthrow of governments as we see fit to control the menace of terrorism.

There was a comment by a British officer that "if you control the periphery, you control Asia, and if you control Asia, you rule the world." That is what we need to do now - Not necessarily operate directly against our true targets, but rather take on those states that we can, and thereby influence and dominate our true enemies for our own purpose, and defence, the greatest of which is indeed the Wahhabist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.[/quote]

This makes perfect sense on paper but in practice this is the recipe for disaster.Do you really believe that the iranians progressists will be so happy to side with an US which has filled the region with its garrisons? Nah...
They may hate the ayatollahs but this does not mean that they will be happy to have the US Army at the gates.And in anyway such policies can only boost consesus towards terrorism,albeit they could make financing it a bit harder.Considered the nature of terrorism the tradeoff is not worth.

[Doomriser]

lets see here it shouldnt change anything. Lets not forget that Iraq has played the inspection game before. Oh you can't look here, but not here, Something to hide.............YES. Try looking up all the UN resolutions Iraq broke after the Gulf War. Lets not forget that in 1998 Bill Clinton and the Democrats wanted to invade Iraq. Iraq has also attached a hitch to its statement. It will not allow UN inspectors to look at everything. Iraq says you cant look at civilian structures. Wake up, here we go again. When will people like you wake up and see that Iraq is indeed hiding weapons of mass destruction. Maybe you should go back to school and get some education in common sense. When some dumb ass terrorist plants VX gas in the US provided courtesy of Iraq, I hope its next to your stupid ass and not mine. I bet your the type of person to say hey lets disarm our military, and pray for love and peace.

One other thing, what excuse are you talking about. Gee do we want Iraqs oil, we have done without it for 11 years now, or do we just want some desert property to develope real estate?

Fuck you. I saw on the History Channel, no less, how the CIA used the UN weapons inspection teams as a way to gather intelligence on Iraqi military capabilities. That's a major reason why Iraq tends to refuse these inspections. Secondly, if the U.S. really wanted to go after a warmongering state in the Middle East that has violated countless UN resolutions, killed Americans without provocation and has nuclear weapons, they'd go after Israel. And maybe you should go back to school and take history class; you'd find out that most of the chemical weapons Saddam was supplied with came from . . . the U.S.

[MKSheppard]

Fuck you. I saw on the History Channel, no less, how the CIA used the UN weapons inspection teams as a way to gather intelligence on Iraqi military capabilities. That's a major reason why Iraq tends to refuse these inspections. Secondly, if the U.S. really wanted to go after a warmongering state in the Middle East that has violated countless UN resolutions, killed Americans without provocation and has nuclear weapons, they'd go after Israel. And maybe you should go back to school and take history class; you'd find out that most of the chemical weapons Saddam was supplied with came from . . . the U.S.

WOW Doomriser!

(hands doomriser the big shiney award marked "Naiviety")

Took you THIS long to realize that we put CIA specialists into UN inspection
teams? Shit man, that's what the KGB did all the time during the Cold War.
99% of the entire Soviet journalist corps also wore KGB uniforms during
their time off from heavy journalism.

Everybody else uses the media as a cover for their intell services except
the USA.

Uhm "killed americans without provocation", uhm, USS Stark anyone?

As for the Chemical weapons and other shit, most of the equipment came
from GERMAN companies. In fact, that's how we got the plans for
Saddam's bunkers and military complexes, from the German coporations
that BUILT them...

[Doomriser]

I knew about the CIA spies, MKS, I was just explaining it to another person. And the History Channel is seen as a less biased source than the groups I had heard it from. As for the chemicals, U.S., Germany, whatever. The chemicals come from the West and the U.S. certainly didn't stand in Saddam's way of acquiring them. They were friends then.

[MKSheppard]

The chemicals come from the West and the U.S. certainly didn't stand in Saddam's way of acquiring them. They were friends then.

At the time, Saddam was standing against teh crazed Islamic fundies from IRAN,
who you remember, did cause a little unpleasantness at our Embassy....