Authorization of Iraq War

[AlexRS]

In case you still think Congress thought we should attack Iraq...

Here is the resolution that was passed:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

( obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. 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 Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

( PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

© 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( of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

( To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

© To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[gchwood]

But if he perceived Iraq to be a threat than it was authorized which make this thread moot

[Kilmer17]

Yes, it is plain to see that Congress approved and authorized the use of force and war.

[AlexRS]

Yes, it is plain to see that Congress approved and authorized the use of force and war.

... to force Saddam into following UN resolutions

Oct. 11, 2002 Congress authorizes use of force against Iraq.

Nov. 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, for the first time in almost four years.

Feb. 22, 2003 Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.

Mar. 1, 2003 Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.

Mar. 17, 2003 All diplomatic efforts cease when President Bush delivers an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country within 48 hours or else face an attack

[AlexRS]

But if he perceived Iraq to be a threat than it was authorized which make this thread moot

Yes, the war was legal.

Was it necessitated?

If so, how?

[gchwood]

Personally I think that he should have been taken out of power in '92 so yes it was necessary. No one can argue that Iraq is worse off now that he is out of power (at least rationally)

[AlexRS]

Personally I think that he should have been taken out of power in '92 so yes it was necessary. No one can argue that Iraq is worse off now that he is out of power (at least rationally)

Who cares about Iraq?

The United States of America is worse off now.

Care to argue about that one?

[stevenaa]

OMG :doh: Queue Chom in 3....2....1....

[gchwood]

Who cares about Iraq?

The United States of America is worse off now.

Care to argue about that one?

Well I am fairly certain the Iraqi people care about Iraq. But as far I can see the American People are better off now than they were in '03 when the war started. Unemployment down, DOW up, Personal net worth up, Interest rates up (guess that is good and bad), no further attacks on American soil, I think the US is in pretty good shape altogether

[AlexRS]

But as far I can see the American People are better off now than they were in '03 when the war started. Unemployment down, DOW up, Personal net worth up, Interest rates up (guess that is good and bad), no further attacks on American soil, I think the US is in pretty good shape altogether

You make war sound like a worthy investment!

[Redskins Diehard]

All I want to know is if we should start Patrick Ramsey or Mark Brunnel at QB, and if we should keep LaVar.

Oh sorry, I thought the title of the thread "Click on me and beat a dead horse"

[twa]

You make war sound like a worthy investment!

Nothing like a good war to get things cooking in the economy

Cuts unemployment,raises demand for manufacturing(we still make our own weapons)....Hell if you didn't have to pay the added debt, life would be good

[Renegade7]

Well I am fairly certain the Iraqi people care about Iraq. But as far I can see the American People are better off now than they were in '03 when the war started. Unemployment down, DOW up, Personal net worth up, Interest rates up (guess that is good and bad), no further attacks on American soil, I think the US is in pretty good shape altogether

Hmm, so I guess this first strike thing really works then, right? I mean, if it's that easy to fix the economy, why don't we just keep starting wars with people? Plenty of countries out there were could cream in under a month. Hey if it puts food on people's tables, why not? Nothing wrong with that, right? :doh: :doh: :doh:

[twa]

Hmm, so I guess this first strike thing really works then, right? I mean, if it's that easy to fix the economy, why don't we just keep starting wars with people? Plenty of countries out there were could cream in under a month. Hey if it puts food on people's tables, why not? Nothing wrong with that, right? :doh: :doh: :doh:

You know I read a study the other day that showed how many more Iraqi's are are alive today based on how many Sadam would have killed .

Seems like it was thousands,even counting all the civilians killed in the war so far.

That was pretty wierd saving lives by war.

[Renegade7]

You know I read a study the other day that showed how many more Iraqi's are are alive today based on how many Sadam would have killed .

Seems like it was thousands,even counting all the civilians killed in the war so far.

That was pretty wierd saving lives by war.

Like Iraq is the only country with a bloodthirsty regime/dictator. :doh: Africa's got plenty of them. I'd bet they wouldn't be blowing themselves up because they hate us so much. Africa could use some help with the whole humanitarian thing, but all I see is Iran, Iran, Russia. I don't want to hear another thing about how many people people we saved when they're countries with innocent people having even less then in Iraq. You have any idea how people have AIDS in Africa?

[twa]

Like Iraq is the only country with a bloodthirsty regime/dictator. :doh: Africa's got plenty of them. I'd bet they wouldn't be blowing themselves up because they hate us so much. Africa could use some help with the whole humanitarian thing, but all I see is Iran, Iran, Russia. I don't want to hear another thing about how many people people we saved when they're countries with innocent people having even less then in Iraq. You have any idea how people have AIDS in Africa?

You know how much we give to african countries?

And yes,unfortunately radical islam is prevelant enough in Africa that they will blow themseles up there too.

How about the UN doing something other than sending rapist down to help? :doh:

[Renegade7]

You know how much we give to african countries?

And yes,unfortunately radical islam is prevelant enough in Africa that they will blow themseles up there too.

How about the UN doing something other than sending rapist down to help? :doh:

You and I both know the money we give to those nations aren't going to the people. Yet the US and the UN keep sending money to seem like they're helping. Which country are you talking about? I hope you aren't talking about Ethiopia or Mozambique, or Angola.

[AbleDanger]

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

( obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Violation of UN resolutions by Iraq until the very end = legal authority to invade Iraq.

End of story.

[Crazyhorse1]

Personally I think that he should have been taken out of power in '92 so yes it was necessary. No one can argue that Iraq is worse off now that he is out of power (at least rationally)

According to some sources, death toll in Iraq is up to 300 thousand and perhaps millions to go when civil war settles in.

Country is already bankrupt and pre-war levels of virtually nothing have been reached; potential of further devastation and starvation excellent.

25 million or so Iraqi women lack human rights they had under secular government of Saddam.

Iraq's future is too uncertain for you to make such a silly claim. Iraq could have a 25 year civil war killing millions. It could become so weakened it could be destroyed as a state by Iran and a large percentage of its population massacred. It could slide back into the dark ages with another leader like Saddam or into the furture with am imported bomb for its tormentors. Try to think of some of these things. God knows the Republican leadership won't.

[AlexRS]

Violation of UN resolutions by Iraq until the very end = legal authority to invade Iraq.

End of story.

??

Of course we had a legal authority

That was never the question

Was the war necessary?

[AbleDanger]

??

Of course we had a legal authority

That was never the question

There are those who are questioning whether or not it was legal.

Was the war necessary?

Absolutely.

[jpillian]

25 million or so Iraqi women lack human rights they had under secular government of Saddam.

There aren't even 25 million people TOTAL in Iraq, let alone 25 million women.

[chomerics]

Absolutely.

Under what premise can you say that the war was "absolutely" necessary?

Look at the dates Alex posed, and look at the time of the year, make no mistake, the vote was pushed through RIGHT BEFORE an election, as they were scaring the crap out of Americans for power. Remember, it's not if but when. . .mushroom cloud. . . nuclear weapons. . . terrorism AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA EFFIN DIE!!!!!!

That was EXACTLY what they fed to the American people, and the people in POWER got their wish. NOBODY mentions PNAC, and their letter on an invasion of Iraq in 1998 why? Do you guys not want to go there?

Well, for the few uninformed, here are their OWN words. . .

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.. . .

Elliott Abrams--- National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs --- President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Richard Armitage --- Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State

John R. Bolton--- Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.

Richard Cheney--- Bush Administration Vice President PNAC Founder

Seth Cropsey--- Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau

Paula Dobriansky --- Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs

Francis Fukuyama --- President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University

Bruce Jackson --- U.S. Committee on NATO President

Zalmay Khalilzad --- U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S.Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005

Lewis Libby--- Bush Administration Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.

Peter W. Rodman--- Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security

Donald Rumsfeld --- Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu

Randy Scheunemann --- U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz--- World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005

Dov S. Zakheim--- Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corp.

Robert B. Zoellick--- Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

That was written in 1998. . . can anyone seriously tell me a group that wanted to invade Iraq in 98 wouldn't have used 9-11 as an opportunity to do it in 2001 three years later?

Hell, everyone that has come out of the administration says what is going on, and what they were doing, yet people still believe the BS comng from their mouths, and through time, the leakers are vindicated and found out to be correct. From Richard Clarke, To Paul O'Neil, Joseph Wilson, Christine Whitman, George Will look at everyone screaming at the top of their lungs about what these nitwits are doing to our country!!! Yet, people still defend them, it is absolutely a freakin joke. . .

Well, for those who don't know about this group, which basically IS the Bush Administration, here is the paper they wrote BEFORE 9-11.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

In it they mention this. . .

Further, the process of transformation,

even if it brings revolutionary change, is

likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a

new Pearl Harbor.

So the Bush Administration said PRIOR to 9-11, that a 9-11 type tragedy was needed for their imperialistic global domination stragedy, and that is what they did. Why is it so hard for you people to see? If it walks like a duck, quacks ike a duck, swims like a like a duck and flies like a duck, I don't call it a dog, and attack the person who says it is a duck, yet that is the tack repubs often take. . . but why am I not surprised

[AbleDanger]

Under what premise can you say that the war was "absolutely" necessary?

Based on the premise that Saddam was a clear enemy of the United States who was contributing to the same anti-American sentiment that brought down the WTC, was impeading our ability to pursue terrorist cells in his own country, may have been working directly with Al Qaeda, may have been pursuing illegal weapons programs and was in possesion of illegal weapons, and was allowed to get away with violationing UN resolutions far too many times for far too long. In retro-spect, the world is a far better place without Saddam Hussein's regime and without anyone profiting from or suffering as a result of the oil-for-food scandal.

[AlexRS]

Was the war necessary?

Absolutely.

Here is the timeline of events leading up to the war.

Saddam was scared and he started to comply with Inspectors under the threat of imminent invasion by the US.

Then we invaded.

Saddam was complying, time for invasion was running out.

What's your theory?

Why did we attack on Mar 19, 2003?

Oct. 11, 2002 Congress authorizes use of force against Iraq.

Nov. 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, for the first time in almost four years.

Feb. 22, 2003 Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.

Mar. 1, 2003 Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.

Mar. 17, 2003 All diplomatic efforts cease when President Bush delivers an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country within 48 hours or else face an attack.