NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

You supported the war authorization, which was the key legal authority allowing Bush to go to war. For all you want to talk about UN resolutions, you’re on the wrong side of history and facts for supporting the constitutional basis for an unjustified war.

For all my talk about the UN you say?
“In my view, if we wish to proceed with a sense of legitimacy to our military actions, there is a process that we must go through, and that process includes both the Congress and the United Nations. One down, one to go.” -Ravenman 03-10-2003 02:42 PM
Bush 'pissed all over the ‘one to go’ so what happened to that Ravenman?

The (AUMF ‘the one down’) required Bush to BE ENFORCING the (‘one to go’ Res 1441) to use military force. It says so right here:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to – (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

And now Ravenman thinks it abhorrent and stupid to suggest that Bush defied both the AUMF and 1441 when he decided to end UN inspections in order to disarm Iraq violently and by the means of war.

@Ravenman

03-10-2003 02:42 PM If the UN is to be considered relevant, as President Bush often declares his preference, one cannot do so by figuring out ways to “get past” the UN Charter, or UN resolutions for that matter. I don’t understand how someone can read the totality of the UN Charter and come to some other conclusion than that a country cannot take military action against another unless (a) it is authorized by the Security Council or (b) it is in response to an actual, not a future, threat, and under such a case the matter should immidiately be referred to the Security Council.

In my view, if we wish to proceed with a sense of legitimacy to our military actions, there is a process that we must go through, and that process includes both the Congress and the United Nations. One down, one to go.

But the current situation seems to be that we will proceed with an attack, and some motions are being made to find a loophole in the Charter or UN resolutions that would justify that action. I fail to see how those attempts stand up to scrutiny.

Whether or not one supports a war, it occurs to me that the Korean War was an analagous situation: it was a war that was not explicitly declared/authorized by Congress, and thus was contrary to the expectations of those who drafted the Constitution. This coming war with Iraq will not be explicitly authorized by the UN, and thus will be contrary to the intentions of those who drafted the UN Charter, among them many legends of American statesmanship.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3110887

And what does, “supporting the constitutional basis for an unjustified war” mean? Bush was not being constitutional when he decided to invade Iraq in defiance of 1441 and thus in violation of ALL UNSC relevant Resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush violated the constitutional terms of the AUMF simultaneously with a violation of the UN Charter and you file complaints against me for what Bush and only Bush did.

No one made Bush do what he did.
What is up with that?