State of the Union (WAR?) - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2003, 12:20 AM   #16
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Re: Re: Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


This is the problem. We have an executive branch that has effectively abused a loophole that allowed the president to authorize military force without Congressional approval in cases of emergencies and "police actions." And it isn't just Bush who has done this. Like someone mentioned, it has been 60 years since we've had a true war declaration. The only thing that will change this is if we can get the Supreme Court to rule that this abuse is unconstitutional, which I heavily doubt will happen.

Melon
Supreme Court... unbiased... LOL

The biggest joke... Presidential Pardons. LOL
__________________

__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 03:54 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:01 PM
I can't remember, but this issue has been to the Supreme Court I believe. If it has, they obviously came down on the side of the Executive Branch. I think the technical difficulties involved with sudden modern war, Nuclear War, where there is only minutes to make a decision in addition to the United Nations police actions, have in some ways made the "declaration of war" less of a priority. Regardless, congressional approval which is what a "declaration of war" essentially is, is often still given.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2003, 03:27 PM   #18
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox




Ummmm....I am lost.....
It's called a compliment.

sigh.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 01-26-2003, 12:44 PM   #19
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 07:01 AM
Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...881215,00.html

The article above basically is saying that after the State of the Union, when President Bush will make a forcefull case for war, Prime Minister Blair will visit. It is after this visit that the military action against Iraq will begin.
I'm worried and a little depressed about the fact that we are going to bomb Iraq. I just don't feel good about it, and I don't like the way it's going down.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 01-26-2003, 02:04 PM   #20
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Re: Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


I'm worried and a little depressed about the fact that we are going to bomb Iraq. I just don't feel good about it, and I don't like the way it's going down.

They talk about cruise missiles... like it's a water balloon fight.

Pretty disgusting, uncalled for, unprovoked, and actually... a complete lack of respect for human life.
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 01-26-2003, 03:31 PM   #21
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 07:01 AM
Re: Re: Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

Quote:
Originally posted by Elvis



They talk about cruise missiles... like it's a water balloon fight.
Exactly. "And a fucked up world it is too."
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 01-26-2003, 10:47 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Elvis,

Who do you accuse of talking about Cruise Missiles like its a water balloon fight?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 11:03 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
But it does look like the French, Russians, and anyone else who desires to protect Saddam might in fact get their wish for another resolution. We all know where Saddam stands on this issue.
STING - it's not a case of "[protecting] Saddam" as much as it's a case of protecting the Iraqi people against an unjustified act of aggression.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 11:09 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The Iraq situation is not an IMMINENT danger situation in which the president needs to react without consulting Congress.

...

As for the President keeping them appraised, you are right and wrong. He was recently criticized for not following the spirit of the resolution. One article I read said Rumsfeld "scrambled" to put a briefing together to appease the Congress. I will find the link if you need me to, just can;t now.
That's quite similar to the way I feel about the British Prime Minister and his lack of consultation with our House of Commons. We don't elect a PM to make decisions without any consultation with our representatives in the House of Commons, and yet Tony Blair has said that there won't be a vote in the Commons if *he* decides to go ahead and attack Iraq. I think it's absolutely wrong for a Prime Minister to make a huge decision like this by himself. If recent reports are true then not only does a majority of the Commons disagree with him, but also a majority of his own cabinet! In those circumstances I can't help but think that he's avoiding consultation simply because that consultation would involve people expressing disagreement with him and possibly voting against his preferred course of action.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 03:06 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Fizzing,

Saddam signed a Ceace Fire Agreement in 1991 in which he agreed to give up all his weapons of mass destruction or face a resumption of military action that was moving toward Baghdad at that time. Thats a fact, and the facts clearly show that Iraq has not lived up to the agreements which they signed. It is incumbent upon Iraq to meet its obligations that it agreed to. If it does not, a US and coalition military will do it for them.

Iraq has failed to account for thousands of Chemical shells( in addition to other weapons) and until they do, it is a serious violation that justifies military action to enforce the conditions of the Ceacefire Agreement and 16 other UN resolutions. Those resolutions and the Ceacefire Agreement were meant to be complied with immediatly, not possibly 12 years later.

Only Saddam and his regime will benefit if the USA and UN fail to do what the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement calls for given the current situation.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 06:20 PM   #26
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Only Saddam and his regime will benefit if the USA and UN fail to do what the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement calls for given the current situation.
That and an approximate 500,000 Iraqi's. It's all well and fine to return to "voilating this resolution, violating this cease fire agreement" but the cost in lives makes it untenable without further proof or provocation.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 07:47 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Scarletwine,

Did you ever consider the cost of not enforcing the 1991 Ceace Fire Agreement or the UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules? The cost of not enforcing these resolutions will eventually be far greater than enforcement with military force.

Proof? Iraq is obligated under international law to prove that they do not have WMD Weapons! Where are the 15,000 Chemical shells that Iraq had when the inspectors were forced out in 1998? If they were infact destroyed during the time when inspectors were not on the ground from 1998-2002, where is the evidence of their destruction? It is up to Iraq to hand over these types of weapons which they did have back in 1998 or else prove that they were destroyed. The "Dog ate my homework excuse" will not work. Failure to give up these and other weapons or prove that they were destroyed will lead to military enforcement of the 1991 Ceacefire agreement and 16 other UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules that Iraq is currently violating. The risk(to both civilians in other countries and Iraq) of not disarming Saddam are far greater especially over the longterm than, if need be, forcing him to disarm with military force now.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 07:53 PM   #28
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Scarletwine,

Did you ever consider the cost of not enforcing the 1991 Ceace Fire Agreement or the UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules? The cost of not enforcing these resolutions will eventually be far greater than enforcement with military force.

Proof? Iraq is obligated under international law to prove that they do not have WMD Weapons! Where are the 15,000 Chemical shells that Iraq had when the inspectors were forced out in 1998? If they were infact destroyed during the time when inspectors were not on the ground from 1998-2002, where is the evidence of their destruction? It is up to Iraq to hand over these types of weapons which they did have back in 1998 or else prove that they were destroyed.
Yeah, and if they don't show some good dated photos of shells being melted down, and fast, we're gonna bomb the fuck out of them with every weapon of mass destruction we can get our hands on, nuclear included. We said we would and we will. (recent report about US using nukes on bunkers a real possibility?!?)

Im actually beginning to see the light here: whether or not Iraq actually has WMD is irrelevant. If they do, not only are their WMD destroyed, but Bush gets to get rid of alot of his own the easy way. If they don't, oh well, that'll be a few thousand less of Bush's WMD the world has to worry about.

Sounds win-win to me.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 08:20 PM   #29
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:01 AM
Sting2,

Yes I have considered the cost of not enforcing the peace agreement, however I see no need for the type of urgency displayed by the administration.
Middle Eastern peace would be better served by enforcing the withdrawl of Israel from the west bank as called for by UN resloution ?(something). As would our standing among the people of Islam.
There is time to take care of Sadaam. Much better to have the support of the international community.

edited to say
But enough of beating this dead horse.
Unfortunately what will be will be.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-27-2003, 09:05 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Scarletwine,

Evidence of the destruction of Iraqi Chemical shells would not be in the form of dated photo's but the massive remains that would exist if 15,000 Chemical shells were destroyed. Their destruction does not mean they disappear into thin air. There would be plenty of physical remains that the UN teams could look at if they did in fact destroy these shells. Either their still intact in which they must hand them over or they were destroyed and the physical remains must be shown to the UN inspectors. Those are the only two possible outcomes if they are trying to comply. The shells intact or the physical remains of their destruction.

The only weapon of mass destruction that the USA has in active use are nuclear weapons. The USA since 1945 has always reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in any situation. The main reason for this is the deterent effect that such weapons have. Other than that, the weapons are extremely difficult to use to accomplish purely military goals given their widespread destruction. There are several new Conventional Weapons that have just been recently developed that would be as effective or in some cases far more effective than nuclear weapons in destroying bunkers and taking out electronic equipment with EMP.
Bottom line, nuclear weapons will not be used because it is to difficult to contain their destructive effects.

The urgency in doing something is that Saddam's WMD potential grows every day and if Saddam were to get a nuclear weapon, that would complicate the situation enormously. The risk of military action against Saddam once he has a nuclear weapon would dramatically increase and its not the US military that would recieve a hit from that nuclear weapon, it will be civilians in Tel Aviv, Kuwait City, or elsewhere in the region.

In addition, sanctions designed to prevent Saddam from becoming a strong conventional military power are breaking down because of smuggling along Iraq's borders. In 1999, the value of smuggling to Iraq was 300 million, today it is 3.5 Billion a year. If something is not done, Saddam will eventually rebuild the military strength he lost in the first Gulf War, and this time he will likely have a nuclear weapon or several nuclear weapons. One way or the other, this cannot be allowed to happen.

A mass destruction attack from Iraq or terrorist supported by Iraq could kill millions.

The USA is working to have a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians but this will take time. The mere fact that Israely troops are stationed in the West Bank threatens No one but terrorist seeking to kill people. The UN resolution passed against Israel ordering them to withdraw from the West Bank was passed under CHAPTER VI rules of the United Nations. Under Chapter VI rules, enforcement can only come about through diplomatic means. All resolutions against Iraq were passed under Chapter VII rules which require the use of force to bring about compliance with the stated resolutions.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com