Iran massing troops on Iraq border

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Depends on who's definition you use.

What's your definition?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Depends on who's definition you use.

What's your definition?

Oh now I got a hunch that's going to depend on what you mean by definition.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now tell me, info, exactly how that helps the discussion of Iran massing troops on the Iraq border?

Conjur was apparently trying to put the blame for this story on Bush. Conjur perhaps believes Bush's intelligence was an element in the causal chain. I don't agree or disagree with those statements, but that's on-topic in my opinion because he's offering an explanation of events. Then you discussed Kerry for a reason I don't understand. I can't answer how that helps the discussion.

Sorry

CkG

Apology accepted.

More like Bush's LACK of intelligence.

Wolfowitz/Cheney relying upon Chalabi, who was apparently a patsy of the Iranian gov't, has put us in a very precarious position of having our armed forces stretched thin and the target of attacks all over Iraq. What would happen should Iran invade? I doubt they would. We'd destroy them but we know Iran has a nuclear program...possibly even a nuclear weapon.

Makes one think, eh?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Michael
There was no "blank cheque" given. That would be an ever greater scandal. You cannot say (with credibility) that the war was not voted on in the House and Sneate and approved.

Again, bleating "Bush Bad!" and working yourself into a frenzy over unsustantiated wire reports is, in my opinion, a sign of a mental disturbance where rational thought has been abandoned. I don't expect better from posters like conjur. Perknose I'm surprised at. I often disagree with his point of view, but it usually has more substance behind it.

Looks like you and CAD are correct, it wasn't blank, it was conditional. It would seem to have been Cashed Fraudulently though.

 

[Michael]

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution."

There is no direct reference to the existence of WMD in what was passed. It said defend againt the threat and enforce the UN resolutions.

Michael

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Depends on who's definition you use.

What's your definition?

I've already stated that some people think feeding a troll is "trolling" itself and some people disagree and don't consider it "trolling". I don't really care at this point - my post was feeding a troll no matter which definition is used.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Michael
"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution."

There is no direct reference to the existence of WMD in what was passed. It said defend againt the threat and enforce the UN resolutions.

Michael

"In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

When did the UN authorize Bush to enforce UN Resolutions?

Where are the Iraqi WMD that threatened the Region, the World, the US?

 

[chrisms]

Take 'em out.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Depends on who's definition you use.

What's your definition?

I've already stated that some people think feeding a troll is "trolling" itself and some people disagree and don't consider it "trolling". I don't really care at this point - my post was feeding a troll no matter which definition is used.

CkG

I think by anyone's defintion of trolling you inforpigeon are doing a very fine job right now.

 

[Michael]

"When did the UN authorize Bush to enforce UN Resolutions?"

Not relevent. It is USA armed forces under USA control.

Where are the Iraqi WMD that threatened the Region, the World, the US?

I personally have a broader definition of what the Iraqi threat was, but I'm eager to have Kerrey ask Bush those very questions in a live debate.

Michael

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Michael
"When did the UN authorize Bush to enforce UN Resolutions?"

Not relevent. It is USA armed forces under USA control.

Where are the Iraqi WMD that threatened the Region, the World, the US?

I personally have a broader definition of what the Iraqi threat was, but I'm eager to have Kerrey ask Bush those very questions in a live debate.

Michael

1) Very relevant. UN Resolutions require UN Approval for Enforcement

2) Doesn't matter what your "definition" is or whether it is broader. The "definition" given, Iraqi WMDs, was the only legitimate "definition" to be applied.

 

[Michael]

1) No

2) No

Michael

 

[LunarRay]

Amazing..
Some folks think so long as the US Congress authorized an invasion of a soveriegn nation and the President acted on this authorization that not-with-standing any other factor the invasion was legal, proper, ethical and beneficial.
Simply Amazing...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Amazing..
Some folks think so long as the US Congress authorized an invasion of a soveriegn nation and the President acted on this authorization that not-with-standing any other factor the invasion was legal, proper, ethical and beneficial.
Simply Amazing...

Isn't it?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Amazing..
Some folks think so long as the US Congress authorized an invasion of a sovereign nation and the President acted on this authorization that not-with-standing any other factor the invasion was legal, proper, ethical and beneficial.
Simply Amazing...

Isn't it?

Well... I am understanding better the basis for some of the posting that has gone on regarding this topic. I had always understood that the debate was on the UN's having granted - Res 1441 - the US authority to act or that the authority existed under Article 51 and all we had to do to satisfy that criteria was produce the basis for our actions.. them elusive WMD and the delivery systems that might constitute the ability to effect the immanent threat we claimed. But, that's not what some were alleging, I guess. Some are saying we, by divine right or manifest destiny as proclaimed by the whispers of God himself have and must exercise the power invested in us by us to thwart all evil as we define it no matter where it may reside.

edit to add a comma

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Maybe since I've been out of the army things have changed (it has been six years ago since I was in), but I doubt we would have considered four Iranian battalions to be a credible military opposition force, much less an occupation force. That amount of Iranian troops wouldn't wield enough combat power to be capable of occupying anything larger than a school gymnasium, much less a country the size of Iraq. Plus we have enough projectable force on just whatever aircraft carrier that's on station in the Gulf at that time to make those four batallions combat ineffective within the space of a day or so.

Iranian battalions are shorted compared to western equivalents. I'm guessing they are probably no more than half of a western regiment if the estimation is even accurate. Hardly a fighting force. More like a humanitarian force to promote knocking off anti-Iranian leaders.

 

[Michael]

"legal, proper, ethical and beneficial"

Legal - yes, already determined in US courts

Proper - define, it is legal, what else does proper mean

Ethical - Needs context. Some would argue that war is never ethical, so would argue that it is

Beneficial - On what time horizon and under what underlying assumptions?

I think that I have a very basic and different point of view on these topics, different enough that we may never see eye-to-eye.

Michael

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Michael
"legal, proper, ethical and beneficial"

Legal - yes, already determined in US courts

Proper - define, it is legal, what else does proper mean

Ethical - Needs context. Some would argue that war is never ethical, so would argue that it is

Beneficial - On what time horizon and under what underlying assumptions?

I think that I have a very basic and different point of view on these topics, different enough that we may never see eye-to-eye.

Michael

Michael, just so I'm on the same page as you regarding all this and perhaps to better contextualize what I may say next, let me ask you this: Are you of the belief that the only authority needed by the President to order an invasion of Iraq as he did in '03 or any other sovereign nation when he deems it appropriate is the approval of Congress regardless and without any other authority from any other source?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
"legal, proper, ethical and beneficial"

Legal - yes, already determined in US courts

Proper - define, it is legal, what else does proper mean

Ethical - Needs context. Some would argue that war is never ethical, so would argue that it is

Beneficial - On what time horizon and under what underlying assumptions?

I think that I have a very basic and different point of view on these topics, different enough that we may never see eye-to-eye.

Michael

Monkeys know fair play genetically, but human beings, owing to the fact that right and ego are often at odds, like to question the meaning of words, pretending thereby, to be innocent of their true inner knowledge and pretending to themselves to be decent.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Monkeys know fair play genetically, but human beings, owing to the fact that right and ego are often at odds, like to question the meaning of words, pretending thereby, to be innocent of their true inner knowledge and pretending to themselves to be decent.

What happens if India decides to pre-emptively nuke Pakistan in self-defense? Say they just got a wiggy vibe from across the border one day and blammo they take 'em out. Wouldn't we have to excuse them for their actions based on the monkey see monkey doo theorem?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Monkeys know fair play genetically, but human beings, owing to the fact that right and ego are often at odds, like to question the meaning of words, pretending thereby, to be innocent of their true inner knowledge and pretending to themselves to be decent.

What happens if India decides to pre-emptively nuke Pakistan in self-defense? Say they just got a wiggy vibe from across the border one day and blammo they take 'em out. Wouldn't we have to excuse them for their actions based on the monkey see monkey doo theorem?

No... No... Dealer... We are not empowered to delegate 'Willy nilly' to any other nation those powers that we alone have been vested with. So there would be no excusing them. It would be an affront to our status and stature in the world community. It would, in fact, require an immediate response on India followed by removal of their government and the occupation and installation of proper thinking people to form a government out of the candidates whom we have sequestered for just such an event.
God choses to whom he whispers not the other way around.

 

[Michael]

LunarRay - It has already been brought to the US legal system and determined that President Bush had authority under US law and our Constitution to start the war. If you're going to argue treaties and international law and such say it is not legal then we're not going to agree. They're not enforceable.

So, yes, under the powers the President has as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution and subsequent laws and as further given authority by the House and Senate of the American people, the war was and is legal under US law.

Moonbeam - What other sovereign nations decide to do to defend themselves is their choice. Should the USA determine that this is a threat to the USA or should the UN actually act on something and decide that it should be stopped, then we would get involved. We're not monkeys, we're human beings, so the rest of your attempt to seem erudite is moot.

Michael

 

[FelixDeCat]

Oh no! Conjur that fvcking idiot Bush hater called Bush a "fvcking idiot"! Oh no!


So I guess you are resorting to that after you realize Bush is going to win BIG in the fall? Iran can mass as many troops as it wants, so long as they dont cross the border. We may always have a military presence in Iraq so it would be wise for them to avoid a military conflict and leave up to the terrorists to do the dirty work.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Michael
LunarRay - It has already been brought to the US legal system and determined that President Bush had authority under US law and our Constitution to start the war. If you're going to argue treaties and international law and such say it is not legal then we're not going to agree. They're not enforceable.

So, yes, under the powers the President has as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution and subsequent laws and as further given authority by the House and Senate of the American people, the war was and is legal under US law.

Moonbeam - What other sovereign nations decide to do to defend themselves is their choice. Should the USA determine that this is a threat to the USA or should the UN actually act on something and decide that it should be stopped, then we would get involved. We're not monkeys, we're human beings, so the rest of your attempt to seem erudite is moot.

Michael

Well.. It seems there are always two sides to most legal disputes. The final authority in this case must have a specific allegation to start the process. The folks bringing the cause must have legal standing to bring it and the member nations with standing have not indicated their desire to push the matter so, therefore, I don't see the matter litigated in the manner which would result in a finding acceptable to you.
There are more basic issue we could discuss but, it would require the use of hypothetical events and that becomes a slug fest. I'll just go along as I do and leave the issue there..

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Michael
LunarRay - It has already been brought to the US legal system and determined that President Bush had authority under US law and our Constitution to start the war. If you're going to argue treaties and international law and such say it is not legal then we're not going to agree. They're not enforceable.

So, yes, under the powers the President has as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution and subsequent laws and as further given authority by the House and Senate of the American people, the war was and is legal under US law.

Moonbeam - What other sovereign nations decide to do to defend themselves is their choice. Should the USA determine that this is a threat to the USA or should the UN actually act on something and decide that it should be stopped, then we would get involved. We're not monkeys, we're human beings, so the rest of your attempt to seem erudite is moot.

Michael

Well then, the expected consequences of your policy (and by extension U.S. policy) will be: Less incentive for other sovereign nations to resolve their disputes peacefully via international orgs and an increased likelihood of those disputes being resolved via violent military confrontations. Monkey see monkey doo, right Michael? Don't come whining to us when it happens.