We MUST INVADE IRAQ RIGHT NOW!! (see this link)

if he went…

Gah!

I’m sorry to reiterate a tiled old message, but this statement is utter crap. You mean to say “even a dime to anti-US terrorists”, since many countries, the US included, collude with and fund terrorists.

Look, the legislative and executive branches are–by the design of the constitution–at odds over warmaking powers. The president is the commander in chief, but the congress has sole power to declare war and has the sole power to appropriate funds. The executive branch will always assert executive primacy, the legislative branch will always assert legislative primacy.

Which means that, in practice, the president can’t do anything without the implicit or explict authorization of congress, and congress pretty much defers to the president. So you get these scenarios: “I, as president, have no need to ask the congress for anything. But even though I don’t NEED to, it just so happens–in this particular case–that I WANT to.” And: “Congress has the sole power to authorize military force. And I want the president to know that we in congress are 100% in favor of authorizing military force whenever and wherever he asks us to.”

The REAL reason that the president will get a congressional resolution of some kind is to put congresscritters on the record. Without an up or down vote you remove a lot of flip-flops. “This war is a failure, and I was always against it.” “I was always in favor of this brilliant success.” Your vote for or against the use of force will be a matter of public record that could either come back to haunt you, or prove you were right.

The reason why Bush and his legal council say that he doesn’t need congressional approval to go to war is because Hussein has not stuck to the conditions imposed for ending the Gulf War. Therefore, going to war at this point would be an extention of the prior one and therefore already approved. If he wanted to wage a new war, then he’d need Congressional approval.

I’m not judging the position, merely passing it along. I note however that, by his own argument, he really truly is trying to finish daddy’s work for him

Tough choice. If we’re not going to get Saddam then we should exit Middle Eastern affairs and hope he forgets about the West since he’ll probably have nukes for playperties pretty soon. If we do strike/invade, the world’s economy could be seriously affected
causing worse clamor here in the States economy not to mention what effect that would have on politics or personal political futures.

What’s the big deal about Saddam getting nukes? Did the west do anything to stop undemocratic and terrorist-sponsoring Pakistan getting them? To say nothing of China.

I can only say this:

I had no idea there were whales in the Persian Gulf.

Tripler
Well lift my abaya and spank me silly.

let us just say that this silent short-movie says more than words:D

Does it seem to anyone that the Bush Administration is going to get a lot farther a lot faster in drumming up support for war on Iraq if it abandons the Marvel Comic Books language, the slogans and catch phrases and the imputations of lack of patriotism and just explains its reasons and objectives in ordinary and comprehensible language? Pointing and shouting “evil, evil, evil,” again and again doesn’t persuade me that the power, prestige, lives and treasure of the United States ought to be put on the line. The Vice-presidents personal convictions don’t mean much either when we are not clearly told what the factual basis of those convictions is.

The triumph of the first Bush Administration was in putting together an international coalition for the Gulf Campaign. At this point it doesn’t look like any of our allies in that effort share the administration’s appetite to go after Iraq again. The President has the burden of persuasion on this thing—he had better get to work on it at home and abroad. Other wise he is likely to go down in history as just another saber rattling adventurer in the same class as Napoleon the Little.

I’ve got a question for you, Mr. C. (or do you actually prefer “barbarian”?). Are you young enough to be one of the soldiers at the front? Will you volunteer? Or are you one of those in the more geezerly position of being too old to be drafted, who can sit back in your easy chair, regard the U.S. and Iraq, and say, “Okay, guys, let’s you and him fight.”?

You do realize, don’t you, that if we do get into this it won’t be another Gulf War? Saddam Hussein isn’t going to send troops out into the desert to meet an unbeatable enemy this time. He isn’t stupid enough to fall into that trap again. If there is an all-out war with Iraq, American forces are going to have to fight street-to-street in Baghdad. The 1000-to-1 losses will be ours this time around. Do you really want to see thousands of Americans brought home in body bags to satisfy GWB’s desire not to be a wimp?

I’m just shy of sixty myself, and I won’t have to go. But I don’t want to see anyone else go either. We should be using our resources to ferret out the terrorists in our own country, rather than spending billions of dollars and who knows how many lives to punish Iraqui civilians for having an evil man in control of their government. They can’t vote him out of office, and to assume that they all think with one mind and support him wholeheartedly is unfounded.

If GWB does go through with this, he will have killed any support we have in the Middle East and created enemies where we now have at least some friends. The war he proposes is stupid (as if you could expect anything else from this president), because it is counterproductive. It won’t achieve any of our goals, but will create solidarity among enemies and potential enemies.

Ooops, …seams that there is a new video on this link now. The original one was about Iraq

In his defense [sub]like he needs my help[/sub], Mr Cynical is a fine gentleman, and like me, he wears BDUs. While his post may seem abrasive to you, he’s got a point that I’ve felt for awhile: Saddam hasn’t been sitting idly by on his tooties, waiting for the US to slap him on the hand. He’s been known to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on his enemies and on his own people. I can’t think of anything more dangerous than a knucklehead like this with that kind of power. What scares me more is that he conceivably could supply this technology elsewhere. Consider it putting a proverbial finger in a dike, trying to contain a leak.

I understand you are just shy of sixty, so I expect you’ve seen the Vietnam-era pictures. If this is ringing in your head, then good! It’s people like you that keep us from charging into something without thinking about it. But I have to respectfully, yet completely diagree with your statement that it will be “counterproductive”.

I challenge you to think about counterproductivity after four nights of terror, sitting in a bunker in Kuwait from 9/11 to 9/14, hearing missile warning sirens along with the words “confidence is high”. Zap him. Zap him now, and find out what he lent to others to zap us with.

Tripler
I’m off my soapbox.

I don’t doubt your sincerity, Tripler, or that of Mr_Cynical, but I think you are comparing the Gulf War with what may come following a renewed attack. The two are not comparable. In your war (I gather from your remarks that you were there), you essentially met the Iraqui troops in the desert where they were easily overwhelmed by superior soldiers and superior equipment. In your war you actually had the support of Saddam’s Arab neighbors, even to the extent of having bases on Saudi soil.

This time around, however, you will see that support disappear. This time you will have to take the fight to Baghdad with ground troops, unless you expect to nuke that city. This time around you may well find Saudi, Syrian, and possibly even Egyptian and Iranian troops at your back (and I don’t mean as a rear guard). You may also have unleashed such wild cards as Pakistan and North Korea, who will no doubt be delighted to see America distracted and focused on killing one hornet while ignoring the swarm.

Assasinating Saddam is a great idea. Attacking the Iraqui people because they have a bad (okay, evil) leader is a bad idea. That policy will only increase the animosity of the Muslim world against America without making us one whit more secure from terrorism, in my opinion.

Just a point, I was talking about this past year. I was over there during Sept. 11, 2001.

My point is this: I would much rather rattle the saber of war at the expense of public opinion, if it means he’ll come to his senses and let UN inspectors back into Iraq. Hussein has used WMDs on his enemies and even his own people. I understand his Arab neighbors are extremely hesitant (to say the least) to support the US stance on the issue, but I would much rather prefer a few nations pissed off at us because we want to remove a serious threat, than have a few hundred thousand dead (whether they be Arab or American) because this powerhungry fool developed an atomic or nuclear weapon.

Your opinion of me may be pretty lowdown and dirty, but you’ll be alive to hold that opinion.

Tripler
My question still stands: just what technology has or will he give to whom?

One last thought, I forgot to put into that previous post.

There was one point in history where we signed an inspection agreement with another nation, and didn’t check up on it for a variety of reasons.

And that Versailles Treaty bit us right in the ass.

Tripler
I’m covering our collective asses.

I don’t think I characterized you at all, except to acknowledge that you sincerely believe that war is the right course. I just respectfully disagree. Saddam Hussein isn’t going to come to his senses, because he is not a sensible man. He is most likely insane. If he has the MWDs he is suspected of having, it isn’t likely, especially given all the time he’s bought, that inspectors are going to find any evidence now if he does let them back in.

I don’t doubt that he could give (or has given) chemical, biological or even nuclear devices to terrorists to use against us. But if we attack his country, killing many innocent civilians, we will only increase the number of those terrorists who will be only too glad to deliver them. In the meantime we will lose the already tenuous support of all the countries in the region who already don’t need much of a push to throw their support to a fellow Muslim, even if he is a wild-eyed crazy sonofabitch.

I would support wholeheartedly a carefully orchestrated mission to kill Saddam himself and give dissident elements in his own country the chance to topple his regime entirely. It would be better, of course, if it could be made to look as if the assassination was entirely domestic. But ridding the world of this monster is a worthy goal, however it is accomplished.

I think we agree essentially that Saddam Hussein needs to be removed. We just disagree as to the means. Killing Saddam is fine if we can do it without the collateral damage. But every innocent killed in an invasion will probably cause two new suicide bombers arise.

Why do you say that, incidently? It’s not like Hussein has 1000 equally armed and trained soldier to every one of ours. Look at the kill-to-death ratio for the soldiers in Mogadishu, fer cryin’ out loud… something like a few dozen of our guys killed and over a thousand Somali armed citizens bit the dust.

I’m not too worried about the US casualties that would no doubt occur in such an invasion, although they would probably be higher than any recent conflicts.
I’m more worried about the civilian Iraqi casualties and the resulting reaction in the middle east. Any fanatical groups now have a perfect rallying cry and the number of terrorists out there hellbent on spilling american blood increases massively.
I’m also not comfortable with using the possibility that he might be doing something that could possibly threaten out national security at some point in the future - maybe - as a reason to invade a country and kill people. I demand evidence.
As for the “he’s an evil, insane man, he’s used WMD on his own people, we should liberate them” argument. Fair enough, but how about getting some UN agreement on this before steaming in and acting alone. If we are going to act as the “world’s policeman” then we should at least follow the world’s conventions.
By invading Iraq and therefore causing untold death and suffering to a nation without any solid evidence we would be reducing ourselves to Saddams level. I’m no fan of the man but we don’t need to emulate him.

Aaaand…This point was brought up in another thread on the subject - surely Saddam has a valid reason to A bomb washington DC right now. Using the current “logic” it would simply be preemptive defense against the possible attack that the US might launch against the Iraqi people. As a matter of fact he’s got more evidence that we’ll attack him than vice versa.

You’re probably right, SPOOFE, I probably overstated the ratio. The “hyperbole monster” seizes me whenever I am too viscerally invested in a topic. It’s just that I have a really bad feeling about what Bush may be getting us into, and I am sure that the casualties we will suffer in urban fighting, as opposed to fighting in the open desert, will be much higher than before. You certainly can dispute the 1000-1 ratio, but it’s obvious that Iraqui troops are better trained and better equipped than the ragtag “army” of the warlords of Mogadishu. Saddam’s troops won’t be exposed as they were in the desert. Rather they will be on familiar ground, fighting a foreign enemy, while our troops will be exposed, vulnerable, and facing determined, even fanatical opposition. I don’t like the odds.

I don’t believe for a moment that a frontal assault is the only, or even the best way to go. What I do believe is that GWB is making ready to massage his ego with the lives of American soldiers. If he had to actually lead the troops, putting his own life at risk, I don’t believe we would be having this discussion.

I had a well-researched reply full of links written last night, then the hamster ate it. So I chased him down, cut his head off, fired up the old Foreman Grill, and ate him with rice.

Burp.

Now back to Fighting Ignorance.

Baldwin

He doesn’t need Congressional Authority. Congress is the sole governmental body that has the power to declare War, (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8), which they incidentally have not done since 1941. The President has the power to wage war, as Commander in Chief (US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2).

But the President can commit US Forces without Congressional authority for a period of up to 90 days. Try reading the War Powers Resolution of 1973(also known as the War Power Act), for beginners. Focus your mind on Section 2.©(2), which works on

(bolding mine) Next scroll down to Section 5(b), which says clearly states the President can commit forces UNILATERALLY for up to 90 days.
Next we look at http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/const.html]Public Law 102-1 (H.J. Res. 77), enacted by the 102nd Congress in January 1990, which says, in part

Neat trick here, if you scroll down on that page to Section 2©(1) it says

See how it all ties together?
Lest you think this is a warmongering Republican abuse of a decade old law, check the signator of this letter from 1998, citing Public Law 102-1 to unilaterally attack Irag and send troops into the region.

By the way, it is fully within the power of Congress to repeal or modify Public Law 102-1, thereby making it harder to attack Iraq. But they haven’t done that, it would be bad press.