28 Oct 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe are heading to kill our troops, that is self defense....
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be ...[text shortened]... or restore international peace and security. "
The key here is, [b]for self-defence[/b]
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinYou like to have it both ways. If the US attacks someone in Syria we are 'attacking Syria'. But if an Iraqi living in Syria is aiding the al-Quaida struggle in Iraq - that's not Syrian aid -- that's just some guy acting independently.
Actually, if you are crossing the border of a sovereign nation that we are not at war with you should seek the approval of congress, because what you are doing is precipitating a war. Commanders on the ground do not have that authority.
This wasn't a battlefield decision. It wasn't as if they were pursuing terrorists that crossed the border ahead of t ...[text shortened]... essing that the order to do this didn't come from anyone in Iraq, but from way higher up.
Nobody has precipitated any war -- the existing war is being fought where it needs to be fought -- where the enemy is. The enemy doesn't get to hide in a "neutral" nation and sortie out whenever he pleases.
If the "neutral" nation doesn't like that, they can bloody well neutralize said combatant.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by spruce112358There is no official "existing war." How many times does that need to be pointed out? Your dumbarse president is sending his troops to attack people ignoring the fact that congress has never declared war. Your military cannot invade another country on a whim.
You like to have it both ways. If the US attacks someone in Syria we are 'attacking Syria'. But if an Iraqi living in Syria is aiding the al-Quaida struggle in Iraq - that's not Syrian aid -- that's just some guy acting independently.
Nobody has precipitated any war -- the existing war is being fought where it needs to be fought -- where the enemy is ...[text shortened]... he "neutral" nation doesn't like that, they can bloody well neutralize said combatant.
28 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358By that reasoning we could make an attack in to China or Israel. Do you think that is the case? If you do, then you are dumber than TomTom thinks you are.
You like to have it both ways. If the US attacks someone in Syria we are 'attacking Syria'. But if an Iraqi living in Syria is aiding the al-Quaida struggle in Iraq - that's not Syrian aid -- that's just some guy acting independently.
Nobody has precipitated any war -- the existing war is being fought where it needs to be fought -- where the enemy is he "neutral" nation doesn't like that, they can bloody well neutralize said combatant.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by tomtom232Look up the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". It's in Wikipedia.
There is no official "existing war." How many times does that need to be pointed out? Your dumbarse president is sending his troops to attack people ignoring the fact that congress has never declared war. Your military cannot invade another country on a whim.
"...a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinHow many Iraqis do you think there are in China and Israel openly helping al-Quaida?
By that reasoning we could make an attack in to China or Israel. Do you think that is the case? If you do, then you are dumber than TomTom thinks you are.
I prefer not to use insults, but I find that notion...farfetched.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by spruce112358First, a joint resolution is not declaring war. Second I suggest you read this.
Look up the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". It's in Wikipedia.
"...a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."
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).
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't see what the big deal is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7692153.stm
Well, they would if they had any balls. Which they don't, so they didn't.
They just sneaked in and killed some kids.
Just as well they didn't sign up to the universal declaration for children's rights... 'cause that would have made them hypocrites.
"American soldiers" emerged from helicopters a ...[text shortened]... s of the children's ages.
Gotta love our friendly, neighbourhood, yankees.
28 Oct 08
Originally posted by spruce112358How many do you think are in India, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Turkey? You said "Nobody has precipitated any war -- the existing war is being fought where it needs to be fought -- where the enemy is. The enemy doesn't get to hide in a "neutral" nation and sortie out whenever he pleases." There are Al Queda members all over the world. That is the nature of terrorists - so if Al Queda member in Spain provides intel to someone in Iraq does that mean that we can use force in Spain without consulting with Spain.
How many Iraqis do you think there are in China and Israel openly helping al-Quaida?
I prefer not to use insults, but I find that notion...farfetched.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinAn absolutely rediculous analogy as are most of you analogies.
How many do you think are in India, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Turkey? You said "Nobody has precipitated any war -- the existing war is being fought where it needs to be fought -- where the enemy is. The enemy doesn't get to hide in a "neutral" nation and sortie out whenever he pleases." There are Al Queda members all over the world. That is the ...[text shortened]... omeone in Iraq does that mean that we can use force in Spain without consulting with Spain.
GRANNY.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by smw6869Why is it ridiculous to assume that an Al Queda operative could be operating in Spain, or Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Weren't 11 of the 14 9/11 terrorists Saudis?
An absolutely rediculous analogy as are most of you analogies.
GRANNY.
So, yes, you are right, completely ridiculous to think of a scenario where someone in Saudi Arabia was assisting Al Queda. That really is out of the question. Couldn't ever happen.
Or could it?
Granny, you really have gone over the edge. You used to be somewhat amusing. Now you are just another right-winged nut case. You, DSR, Eladar and generalisimo should start a club.