dyslexia wrote:Bottom line, al Qaeda attacked the US. Not Iraq.
In response, the US declared war on Islamic Terrorism, not Osama Bin Laden.
Hey! I like this bottom line idea!
the US declared war on Islamic Terrorism but INVADED Iraq. Osama remains busy planning other activities. (nero fiddles while Rome burns)
Osama remains busy keeping his head down.
really, you have video? or just intuition.
dyslexia wrote:the US declared war on Islamic Terrorism but INVADED Iraq. Osama remains busy planning other activities. (nero fiddles while Rome burns)
Hmmmm... let's look at the facts....
Saddam funded terrorism... check.
Saddam used weapons of mass destruction...check
Saddam was believed to still have WMD's... check
Saddam allowed al qaeda to operate within the boundaries of Iraq... check
Saddam's regime has had dealings directly with al qaeda in the past... check
Seems like a good move considering the reasons.
Hmmmm... let's look at the facts....
The US supplied Saddam with WMDs... check.
The US used weapons of mass destruction...check
The US is believed to still have WMD's... check
The US allowed al qaeda to operate within the boundaries of Iraq... check
The US regime has had dealings directly with al qaeda in the past... check
Seems like a good move considering the reasons.
dyslexia wrote:Ticomaya wrote:dyslexia wrote:the US declared war on Islamic Terrorism but INVADED Iraq. Osama remains busy planning other activities. (nero fiddles while Rome burns)
Osama remains busy keeping his head down.
really, you have video? or just intuition.
Which do you have to support your proposition?
I suppose part of the point of one keeping their head down is that they don't want to be seen. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that there is no video of him "keeping his head down." The very fact that OBL is hiding is supportive of my hypothesis.
the nice thing about editing is that you can you can use whatever "facts" you deem desirable to suit your cause while omitting "facts" that don't.
cicerone imposter wrote:Hmmmm... let's look at the facts....
The US supplied Saddam with WMDs... check.
The US used weapons of mass destruction...check
The US is believed to still have WMD's... check
The US allowed al qaeda to operate within the boundaries of Iraq... check
The US regime has had dealings directly with al qaeda in the past... check
Seems like a good move considering the reasons.
C.I., while I admire your facts, what are they referring to? Mine are referring to reason's why we invaded Iraq pertaining to the war on Islamic Terrorism and dyslexia's rather, well, dyslexic post about bottom lines.
What is yours about?
McGentrix wrote:dyslexia wrote:Bottom line, al Qaeda attacked the US. Not Iraq.
In response, the US declared war on Islamic Terrorism, not Osama Bin Laden.
Hey! I like this bottom line idea!
Uhh, maybe not...
Bush Declares War on Iraq
Bush Declares War on Iraq
Bush singles out Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda
I have more....
When did he declare war on Islamic Terrorism?
...or is that this week's justification for war?
dyslexia wrote:the nice thing about editing is that you can you can use whatever "facts" you deem desirable to suit your cause while omitting "facts" that don't.
In academic life, this 'editing' is called falsification of source - I would never trust any writing of such an author.
(And it clearly is against the A2K's Terms of Use as well.)
Cute, but poorly conceived.
McGentrix wrote:
Cute, but poorly conceived.
Not cute..
You stated that Bush declared war on Islamic Terrorism.
He has never stated such a case, nor was that
ever a justification for pre-emptive action against "Kingpin Saddam".
Poorly received.
candidone1 wrote:McGentrix wrote:
Cute, but poorly conceived.
Not cute..
You stated that Bush declared war on Islamic Terrorism.
He has never stated such a case, nor was that
ever a justification for pre-emptive action against "Kingpin Saddam".
Poorly received.
No justification? Maybe to you, yet there we are. Along with many other countries, who unlike you, believed there actually
was justification for pre-emptive action.
The Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Terrorists,
passed by the Senate and House of Representatives on Sept. 14, 2001.
To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched
against the United States.
Quote:Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its
citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to
self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these
grave acts of violence, and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States,
Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of
international terrorism against the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"
Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts
of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the
Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.
I can understand your poor reception, it's your purposeful ignorance that worries me.
The justifications continue to change at a pace that will stun future historians. Even more so when they try to match up the reasons (presently presented) with other nations which were apparently more deeply involved in al Queda's day to day doings and were a greater threat regarding weaponry than Iraq.
My friends, I give you Pakistan. Yes, the present home of our enemy al Queda and it's many adherents and notably the country in the world which has done more for nuclear proliferation than any in history. I am speaking of course of secret proliferation, not the good kind, like when we give nuclear knowhow to the British.
Dr. Kahn, whom George Bush once mentioned as having been brought to justice, has not been brought anything but cool drinks to his lakeside villa.
Now where's that list?:
Harboring terrorists: check : ask the folks in Kashmir too, not just near Afghanistan
WMD: Does threatening India with a nuclear attack count? ok. Check
Still have WMD's that are not exactly OUT of reach of al Queda? check
But Joe, Joe, Joe, an invasion of Pakistan would have been a terrible idea perhaps throwing the whole area into out and out insurrection. Yeah, well, I'm glad we've avoided such a thing happening in Iraq. There we have been greeted throughout the whole country with flowers and oh wait.
Invasion seems not to have one, been necessary despite the more recent embroideries of reasons, and two, been a bad idea on the face of it.
Joe (Iran's nuclear production is only for clean energy) Nation
Isn't the answer to your first question contained in your (edit) third link:
Quote:"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)"
Quote:"Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
OCCOM BILL wrote:Why does it surprise anybody when the occasional soldier commits homicide? Does it not occur to you that many of these same offenders, would be homicidal even if they weren't in Iraq? Homicide offenders in this Country (
2002 statistics) alone totaled 18,249. Fully 7,431 of those offenders were aged 18-24! Now consider that there are 28,899,571 people aged 18-24 in this country (
US Census). That means; that age group alone produces one murderer for every 3,889 Americans aged 18-24... and these are National Statistics that haven't taken into account the disproportionate number of men in Iraq nor the dangerous assignments they carry out. Therefore, just to keep up with the National average, there would need be 25-30 homicide offenders for every 100,000 troops in this age group... each and every year. Personally, considering what these brave men and women are doing on a daily basis, I would expect a higher snap-rate than the national average.
I find it appalling that those of you who wish to demonize the US Military blow relatively low homicide numbers so far out of proportion to reality. The reality is: a percentage of people everywhere are bad people... and these bad individuals are NOT representative of the group. Jeffrey Dahmer was one of the most evil creatures on planet earth... but his deeds tell you nothing about his parents home, let alone Milwaukee, Wisconsin or the United States. A little perspective wouldn't hurt. And it wouldn't kill you to give the brave men and women who populate our Military the benefit of the doubt.
Revel, the last thing you bolded for emphasis in your last post was:
Revel wrote:Previous military court hearings have heard that several troops fired on a group of Iraqi men placing homemade bombs along a road in Sadr City, an impoverished Baghdad neighborhood.
What the hell is wrong with that?... and by extension, what's wrong with you? (Stop trying so hard to blame America first
).
Now that you pointed it out, there is nothing wrong with it, I wonder why they are investigating it? I admit that I was somewhat distracted this morning and just saw, "firing at a group of Iraqis" and completely missed the important part about the Iraqi setting up road bombs. You were right to call me up on it.
I bring up the part about the US doing unlawful things like shooting unarmed and injured people in the hopes that someday people will get a belly full of it and demand that the Iraq experiment be stopped. Sometimes people dying for nothing is more important than protecting our military feelings.
McGentrix wrote:
No justification? Maybe to you, yet there we are. Along with many other countries, who unlike you, believed there actually was justification for pre-emptive action.
YOU said this.
McGentrix wrote:
In response, the US declared war on Islamic Terrorism, not Osama Bin Laden.
I responded by saying that the Bush administration did not declare war on
Islamic Terrorism, as you had stated, rather, they clearly declared war on Iraq.
Fighting Islamic Terrorism was an
ex post facto justification.
My point, simply stated is this: Bush declared war on Iraq
when he should have declared war on Osama bin Laden personally, Al Qaeda collectively, and Islamic Terrorism ideologically.
McG, It should be quite obvious. I'll let the others explain it to you.
