What is your opinion?
Poll
Is the IRAQ WAR over yet?
| Yes | 25% | 25% - 8 | ||||
| No | 48% | 48% - 15 | ||||
| More time is needed to truly tell | 25% | 25% - 8 | ||||
| Total: 31 | ||||||
In my opinion, yes. Time to come home. I think all that could be done, has been done.
tbh, I don't think it will truly be "over" for quite a while. but theres not a whole lot that can be done
No, the Iraq War is not over yet...
Anyone else find this thread a bit... strange?
Anyone else find this thread a bit... strange?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Combat operations in the Iraq and places such as are continuing to fight because we're fighting terrorism and you can't win against terrorism.
Maybe that's worded badly, you can't have terrorism "surrender" is more apt. Yeah.
Maybe that's worded badly, you can't have terrorism "surrender" is more apt. Yeah.
War has been over since... 2003. But were still in the midst of security operations and reconstruction. My definition of a "war" is between two governments really.Spark wrote:
No, the Iraq War is not over yet...
Anyone else find this thread a bit... strange?
Considering it isn't a war, but an illegal invasion, no it isn't over. But yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan should be left alone. The only thing we're doing over there anyway is using the marines as a police force.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Cease fire agreement was broken actually, Iraq broke a ton of UN related resolutions. You can't really have an "illegal" invasion if there were legally binding resolutions by the UN that allows military action. And yes, the UNSC P5 members can pretty much do whatever they fuck they want when it comes to peace and security.ROGUEDD wrote:
Considering it isn't a war, but an illegal invasion, no it isn't over. But yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan should be left alone. The only thing we're doing over there anyway is using the marines as a police force.
The war is not over. The current government, military, law enforcement is too weak; the current mindset of the iraqi people is questionable. I don't know how many generations it will take to make a diiference but If we pull out too soon, it will be all for naught.
When was it Bush stood on that aircraft carrier with a big sign saying 'mission accomplished'? Oh, what a glorious CoC you guys had.
But I guess it was over from precisely that date so everyone out there dying is dying for fuck all apparently.
But I guess it was over from precisely that date so everyone out there dying is dying for fuck all apparently.
My point is, Bush launched us into a war without consulting congress. Congress did not declare war. Though, they did give him a "do whatever you want free" card. Thus, an "illegal war". Probably should have clarified that.Cybargs wrote:
Cease fire agreement was broken actually, Iraq broke a ton of UN related resolutions. You can't really have an "illegal" invasion if there were legally binding resolutions by the UN that allows military action. And yes, the UNSC P5 members can pretty much do whatever they fuck they want when it comes to peace and security.ROGUEDD wrote:
Considering it isn't a war, but an illegal invasion, no it isn't over. But yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan should be left alone. The only thing we're doing over there anyway is using the marines as a police force.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Without consulting Congress? Were you living in an alternate reality during that time period?ROGUEDD wrote:
My point is, Bush launched us into a war without consulting congress. Congress did not declare war. Though, they did give him a "do whatever you want free" card. Thus, an "illegal war". Probably should have clarified that.Cybargs wrote:
Cease fire agreement was broken actually, Iraq broke a ton of UN related resolutions. You can't really have an "illegal" invasion if there were legally binding resolutions by the UN that allows military action. And yes, the UNSC P5 members can pretty much do whatever they fuck they want when it comes to peace and security.ROGUEDD wrote:
Considering it isn't a war, but an illegal invasion, no it isn't over. But yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan should be left alone. The only thing we're doing over there anyway is using the marines as a police force.
The invasion started in April '03. So a good six months between the passing of that resolution and the actual commencement of hostilities.The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Way to go with your revisionist history.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-05 12:23:14)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Actually congress didn't need to "declare war" as the cease fire agreement was broken and it was just restarting the old war from 1991. Most of congress was supporting bush anyway during that time, as it was a Republican dominated congress.ROGUEDD wrote:
My point is, Bush launched us into a war without consulting congress. Congress did not declare war. Though, they did give him a "do whatever you want free" card. Thus, an "illegal war". Probably should have clarified that.Cybargs wrote:
Cease fire agreement was broken actually, Iraq broke a ton of UN related resolutions. You can't really have an "illegal" invasion if there were legally binding resolutions by the UN that allows military action. And yes, the UNSC P5 members can pretty much do whatever they fuck they want when it comes to peace and security.ROGUEDD wrote:
Considering it isn't a war, but an illegal invasion, no it isn't over. But yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan should be left alone. The only thing we're doing over there anyway is using the marines as a police force.
Besides Clinton administration has been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis, you don't see anyone complaining.
From Reso 1441
"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."
UNSC resolutions are legally binding.
The CoC can pretty much park the military wherever he wants.
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
The underlined, funnily, was passed under Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The underlined, funnily, was passed under Clinton.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-05 12:26:56)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not a traditional declaration of war. You can argue it's not even constitutional. If you have to sign a resolution to say "Here, Mr. President, decide if you want to go or not.", then not everyone is truly behind it. Just look at the declaration of war on Japan and Germany in world war two. Just one paragraph each, and very explicit.JohnG@lt wrote:
Without consulting Congress? Were you living in an alternate reality during that time period?ROGUEDD wrote:
My point is, Bush launched us into a war without consulting congress. Congress did not declare war. Though, they did give him a "do whatever you want free" card. Thus, an "illegal war". Probably should have clarified that.Cybargs wrote:
Cease fire agreement was broken actually, Iraq broke a ton of UN related resolutions. You can't really have an "illegal" invasion if there were legally binding resolutions by the UN that allows military action. And yes, the UNSC P5 members can pretty much do whatever they fuck they want when it comes to peace and security.The invasion started in April '03. So a good six months between the passing of that resolution and the actual commencement of hostilities.The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Way to go with your revisionist history.
That's a different argument. The war in Iraq is no more legal than the Korean, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and Afghanistan wars by that logic. Let's be consistent here. I don't see any challenges to the resolution's constitutionality sitting on the docket.Phrozenbot wrote:
It's not a traditional declaration of war. You can argue it's not even constitutional. If you have to sign a resolution to say "Here, Mr. President, decide if you want to go or not.", then not everyone is truly behind it. Just look at the declaration of war on Japan and Germany in world war two. Just one paragraph each, and very explicit.JohnG@lt wrote:
Without consulting Congress? Were you living in an alternate reality during that time period?ROGUEDD wrote:
My point is, Bush launched us into a war without consulting congress. Congress did not declare war. Though, they did give him a "do whatever you want free" card. Thus, an "illegal war". Probably should have clarified that.The invasion started in April '03. So a good six months between the passing of that resolution and the actual commencement of hostilities.The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Way to go with your revisionist history.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Most of the wars started through the war powers resolution don't seem to have a good track record. Maybe it's because all of the American people are not behind it? The American people are a force to be reckoned with.
I've seen plenty of Libertarian challenges to the WPR.
I've seen plenty of Libertarian challenges to the WPR.
None of which have succeeded. Besides, the WPR is a limit on the Presidents power to engage in conflict without a formal declaration. Why would one want that repealed?Phrozenbot wrote:
Most of the wars started through the war powers resolution don't seem to have a good track record. Maybe it's because all of the American people are not behind it? The American people are a force to be reckoned with.
I've seen plenty of Libertarian challenges to the WPR.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-05 12:53:47)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Haven't been able to slay the Fed yet, and? That's apparently 'constitutional'. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal legally, but the WPR is used to wage wars by our politicians more than the American people, and that is why we see so much failures in these wars.JohnG@lt wrote:
None of which have succeeded.Phrozenbot wrote:
Most of the wars started through the war powers resolution don't seem to have a good track record. Maybe it's because all of the American people are not behind it? The American people are a force to be reckoned with.
I've seen plenty of Libertarian challenges to the WPR.
World War II isn't even over yet!!
edit: whoever karma'd me, I don't use xfire anymore so just pm me who you are or something lol!!
edit: whoever karma'd me, I don't use xfire anymore so just pm me who you are or something lol!!
Last edited by =NHB=Shadow (2010-01-05 14:49:48)
The WPR is a limit on Presidential power to engage in foreign conflicts. How are you getting that it's used to wage wars? Since when does a Declaration of War have anything to do with the peoples will either? That's also voted on in Congress. There's no popular vote of any kind.Phrozenbot wrote:
Haven't been able to slay the Fed yet, and? That's apparently 'constitutional'. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal legally, but the WPR is used to wage wars by our politicians more than the American people, and that is why we see so much failures in these wars.JohnG@lt wrote:
None of which have succeeded.Phrozenbot wrote:
Most of the wars started through the war powers resolution don't seem to have a good track record. Maybe it's because all of the American people are not behind it? The American people are a force to be reckoned with.
I've seen plenty of Libertarian challenges to the WPR.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What doesn't the people's will have to do with a war? Everyone was behind the war effort during WWII, and we won. There was a significant amount of people who protested Vietnam, and we lost. Notice anything here?JohnG@lt wrote:
The WPR is a limit on Presidential power to engage in foreign conflicts. How are you getting that it's used to wage wars? Since when does a Declaration of War have anything to do with the peoples will either? That's also voted on in Congress. There's no popular vote of any kind.Phrozenbot wrote:
Haven't been able to slay the Fed yet, and? That's apparently 'constitutional'. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal legally, but the WPR is used to wage wars by our politicians more than the American people, and that is why we see so much failures in these wars.JohnG@lt wrote:
None of which have succeeded.
It still doesn't matter and it has zero bearing on the conflicts constitutionality. The only people who would think it is unconstitutional are those suffering under the delusion that we live in a democracy.Phrozenbot wrote:
What doesn't the people's will have to do with a war? Everyone was behind the war effort during WWII, and we won. There was a significant amount of people who protested Vietnam, and we lost. Notice anything here?JohnG@lt wrote:
The WPR is a limit on Presidential power to engage in foreign conflicts. How are you getting that it's used to wage wars? Since when does a Declaration of War have anything to do with the peoples will either? That's also voted on in Congress. There's no popular vote of any kind.Phrozenbot wrote:
Haven't been able to slay the Fed yet, and? That's apparently 'constitutional'. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal legally, but the WPR is used to wage wars by our politicians more than the American people, and that is why we see so much failures in these wars.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The amount protested were hippies who were lazy assholes anyway. The problem with current wars is media irresponsibility, reporting only the bad side. Hell you get more ratings saying "shit one IED exploded today in Iraq" than reporting the reconstruction effort. Notice anything about how in WW2 there was a lot less journalism involved? Most journalists and newscasts are irresponsible pricks who know nothing about the subject.Phrozenbot wrote:
What doesn't the people's will have to do with a war? Everyone was behind the war effort during WWII, and we won. There was a significant amount of people who protested Vietnam, and we lost. Notice anything here?JohnG@lt wrote:
The WPR is a limit on Presidential power to engage in foreign conflicts. How are you getting that it's used to wage wars? Since when does a Declaration of War have anything to do with the peoples will either? That's also voted on in Congress. There's no popular vote of any kind.Phrozenbot wrote:
Haven't been able to slay the Fed yet, and? That's apparently 'constitutional'. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal legally, but the WPR is used to wage wars by our politicians more than the American people, and that is why we see so much failures in these wars.
Even during the end of WW2 loads of Americans wanted it to end by signing a peace treaty with Japan.
you know, apparently it isnt common knowledge that public support for American involvement in WW2 was dwindling fast during the last two years.
Apparently it is also not common knowledge that public support for American involvement in Vietnam was HUGE during the first few years.
Apparently it is also not common knowledge that public support for American involvement in Vietnam was HUGE during the first few years.
Tu Stultus Es