More people killed in Washington DC than Iraq, time to pull out of D.C!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, I'll just wait for you (or the other neo-con commanders) to tell me why that wasn't a realistic plan. Waiting...
I believe I cannot state it any better than Sen. J. Lieberman did on Oct 2, 2002:

Senator Lieberman: "There is no more fateful, important, or difficult responsibility that the Constitution gives members of Congress than to decide when, whether, and how to authorize the President as Commander-in-Chief to go to war. Mr. President, in your eloquent, powerful, and convincing statement this morning, you have reminded us, and I believe the American people, about why this is such a circumstance.

I have felt for more than a decade now that every additional day that Saddam Hussein is in power in Iraq is an additional day of danger for the Iraqi people, for his neighbors in the region, particularly for the people and military of the United States of America, and indeed for the people of the world. And that is why I am grateful for the opportunity to stand with my colleagues from both parties, and both Houses, and with you, Mr. President, in offering this resolution to authorize you to take military action to protect the region and the world from Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and to enforce the resolutions that are relevant of the United Nations.

There are those who say that this represents hurried or precipitous action, that we should give Saddam and the Iraqi government another chance. The record shows that for the last 10 years, we have tried -- the world has tried -- in just about every way -- diplomatic, economic and otherwise, except military, in the end -- to convince Saddam Hussein to live by the rules of international law and civilization. They've not worked.

The moment of truth has arrived. For Saddam Hussein, this is his last chance, and the best chance for the international community to come together behind the rule of law, and to show that resolutions of the United Nations are worth more than the paper that they are written on.

I am truly hopeful that the broad bipartisan support that I see here today behind you, Mr. President, as our Commander-in-Chief, will strengthen the work of your Secretary of State and your administration at the United Nations. I am convinced, as impressive as this group is here today, though there will be a serious debate ahead in both Houses of Congress, and amendments will certainly be offered in the Senate -- as is the right and responsibility of those who disagree with this amendment -- that in the end, those who disagree with this resolution -- in the end, this resolution will pass in the Senate with a very large, bipartisan majority.

And that, today, is the best hope for a stronger America and for a life for the American people that is safer."


linky to full text

International Laws Violated.

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.
Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. ?All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.? [UN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]

Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.
Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force.

Violation. The United States and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Bush administration chose not to take the issue to the council because it knew that a resolution to use force against Iraq would not pass.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one ?until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war.

Violation. The US and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq - calling it a preemptive defense strike, a concept with no legal meaning - despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US Although the US claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was developing these weapons, and that Iraq intended to use these weapons against the US, the US failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims. UN weapons inspectors who examined suspected banned weapons facilities in Iraq found no support for the US assertions. The US also alleged that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups and would likely provide these organizations with weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was presented to the UN to support the accusation.

Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928.
Summary of Article 51. The Kellog-Briand treaty, ratified by the United States in 1929, requires that all disputes be resolved peacefully. It prohibits war as an instrument of foreign policy. [Kellog-Briand Treaty of 1928] As a testament to this fact, in 1932, the secretary of state, Henry L. Stimson stated, ?War between nations was renounced by the signatories (including the US and Britain) of that Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter when nations engage in armed conflict... we denounce them as law breakers.? [cited in Dawn, 11/13/01]

Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

US laws violated.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the US in 1945, are the ?supreme law of the land.? The article reads:?This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.?

Violation. The United States Congress violated Article VI of the Constitution when it passed Joint Congressional Joint Resolution 46 [S.J. Res 46] 'authorizing' the President to order "the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The President then violated this article when he ordered the commencement of the official invasion of Iraq.

The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Summary. The resolution authorized the President to use military force only against those countries and groups responsible for the September 11 attacks. The resolution stated: ?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.? [Joint Congressional Resolution 23, 9/18/01]


Evidence that President Bush did not have legal authority to send US troops to invade Iraq under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. The Bush administration failed to make any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the September 11 attacks. Public admissions by Bush administration officials that there was no evidence that Iraq played a part in the September 11 attacks.

President George W. Bush. He admitted there was no such evidence. During a January 31, 2003 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Blair at the White House, the two leaders were asked by a reporter, ?One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?? Bush answered succinctly, ?I can't make that claim.? [US President, 1/31/2003] "


Summary: The United States' official March 17, 2003 invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq cannot be justified by either U.S. or International law. It follows therefore that the United States government should be held liable for all loss of life - whether it be civilian or military; US, British, or Iraqi - and damage to property resulting from this blatant act of aggression.

linky
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Nice post GrGr. Yeah, you know I just can't support an illegal foreign war. I don't care what the soldiers think about it. I'm entitled to my beliefs. They're mine and I'm stickin' to 'em. :)
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
well, why don't you read the actual resolution before you take the word of a website that lists its address as a P.O Box in Chico, California.

link to actual text or resolution authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq

as for the opinion that the iraq resolution/war is "illegal" - why don't you read the following

legal basis for invasion of iraq

the "center for cooperative research" appears to be the web site of a single individual.

i beg to differ with that individual's interpretation of the facts.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Look, you're giving me conflicting advice: I can have an opinion, but if it's negative I need to STFU. It's OK to have an opinion about Iraq, but stop all your bitchin'.
actually, perhaps you should review what i said, like many here you are real good at responding to what you have paraphrased, but pretty sucky at responding with any amount of logic to what i have actually said.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why don't you just make it real simple and tell me (and everyone else here) what attitude is OK to have and how I should act and feel about soldiers/Iraq/Bush/etc.? Should I be attending more pro-war rallys? Should I fly more than two U.S. flags on my house and have more than three pro-U.S. stickers on my vehicle...Just lay down the law clearly and without ambiguity so we can all comply.?
i have made it as simple as i can, if it is not simple enough i apologize. it is good to see your skill with sarcasm has grown a bit, why i bet in a month or two(with practice) you make it to the junior high school level! too bad the same cannot be said with your reading comprehension skills though..oh well, you cannot win them all as they say.



Originally posted by: DealMonkey
PS: It's MORALE not MORAL, genius.
well since you want to get anal retentive on spelling, either is correct(although both spellings are sometimes followed by an accentuation mark). sorry to disappoint you, i bet pointing out that spelling error really made you feel a little better about yourself! better luck next time! besides, i have plenty of typos for you to point out to fuel that ego. perhaps my lack of using capitalization? perhaps in the future(to avoid any etymological misunderstandings) i should use the term "esprit de corps"?

oh, and have a nice day! :D




 

trikster2

Banned
Oct 28, 2000
1,907
0
0


I really hate statistics like this.

It's like comparing apples and plumquates.

Unless you are counting deaths per american the statistics mean nothing.

Is the washington D.C. population similar to the population of U.S. soldiers in iraq? Do most americans know/care?

Has anyone of the einsteins on this forum taking the trouble to do the actual math? What is the death, per capita or whatever of DC vs Iraq.

Also you need to find out if the DC statistics included PG county. A lot of bad DC statistics do as it is in the local area and has tons of crime to help make scary stats.

 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Americans are oil stealing thugs killing women and children in their sleep for cash.
your self-loathing identifies you as a liberal...
your lack of conscience identifies you as a neocon...
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Americans are oil stealing thugs killing women and children in their sleep for cash.
your self-loathing identifies you as a liberal...
What is so Liberal about his statement? It sounds more like an Extremist POV. Just because his Extremist POV is different than your Extremist POV that doesn't necessarily make him a Liberal. He could be a Islamic Extremist which is no where near being Liberal...in fact if that were the case His POV would be even more of an Extremist Conservative POV than yours.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
your lack of conscience identifies you as a neocon...
According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality."


well, i guess i am a neoconservative, for as i have stated before...i too was once a Moonbeam....

with regards the first part of that statement, i believe only a true liberal elitist like He Who Shall Remain Nameless or his wife, The Senator Who Shall Remain Nameless can actually claim to have an absolute lack of conscience. Alas, I feel guilt, shame, and yes, i confess, i do have a conscience.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
well, i guess i am a neoconservative, for as i have stated before...i too was once a Moonbeam....
And then you died... Hell, even Moonbeam will tell you that.
 

OmegaRedd

Banned
Sep 14, 2003
143
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Americans are oil stealing thugs killing women and children in their sleep for cash.
your self-loathing identifies you as a liberal...
And your moral compass is out of order,lying,murder and stealing are crimes but america calls it a war on terrorist. While spending billions of tax dollars to do it and getting americans killed. Freedom indeed.:confused:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY