I believe they are talking about things like throwing babies from incubators which they made up.

MM, I would have to do alot of research to find stories about the globe trotting but maybe someone else who remembers that period can chime in...it was between January and September up until the point that he went to Congress for his war powers.

I have not heard Bush blame Colin Powell but the news mentions it every other day...they say the hawks did not want to go to the UN and Powell insisted. By hawks they usually mention the PNAC guys like Cheyney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

The U.S. actually didn't have to go to the U.N. There have only been two conflicts carried out with UN approval, the Korean War and the Gulf War. Precedence was actually on the US side for not going to the UN, and personally I think there would have been less fallout.

I'm not so sure about that. I reviewed the joint resolution that was passed by the House and Senate last October. I'm not sure if this link will work (the searches on the thomas.gov site tend to expire) H.J. Resolution 114 (Public Law 107-243).

The part that led me to believe that the US does need UN approval is this section:


It's that "and" that is the sticking point for me.

Please review it and tell me what you think.

I don't think that the "and" in that clause hinges the two conditions together. However, if you think about it, Bush will need to use 1441 as his justification for going back into Iraq. That is a UN resolution, and he can say that he is enforcing it (this is exactly the legal argument he would make, anyway).

I don't believe the Congress would intend to handcuff the President into defending us ONLY if the UN Security Council gives its approval.

From a parsing standpoint, the semi-colon in the statement makes the two clauses independent, since there are no commas in either clause. Therefore, to understand the clause it would be:

1.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 defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

and

2. 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 enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I think thats how the legal community would interpret that.

amlord,



By what logic? In both the English language and Boolean algebra, and links two conditions together. The conjunction or separates two conditions.

Are we now to suspend the logic of the English language? We'd better not suspend the logic of Boolean algebra--all our computing systems will crash



Not really. All the style guides I've ever worked with (Chicago, Little Brown, et al.) require a comma to separate two main clauses joined together with a conjunction. The use of the semicolon is poor punctuation. Therefore, it means the same thing as a comma--which is, fundamentally speaking, "pause."

- Edited to add smartass remark about the semicolon -

The use of a semi-colon makes the clauses independent. Its the same as using a period and not using the conjunction. Look it up.

Use of Semi-colons

amlord,

I'm afraid your own source contradicts your conclusion. Show me one example of proper English where the form:

main clause - semicolon - "and" - main clause

is acceptable. You alluded to the one time this is acceptable--when one of the clauses uses one or more commas, usually within a series of clauses.

If the drafters of the resolution had a decent editor, a comma would have been used where the semicolon is, and we would not be having this rather silly discussion; we would be discussing whether the resolution restricts the exercise of invasive force.

- edited for grammar -

I know this seems like we are discussing minutia but I feel that "and" is VERY important.

I showed the legislation to one of the attorneys with whom I work and she said that "and" means both clauses need to be met in order for the president to have authorization. If it were otherwise, the word "or" would be there - semicolon or not.

Riddle me this supporters of the War on Iraq, why did Saddam Hussein never give chemical or biological weapons to the anti-Israeli terrorists?

The basis of the U.S. justification for war is that Hussein will eventually transfer WMD to Al Qaeda or the like who will use them against the U.S. or Europe. Even though Al Qaeda, an Islamic fundamentalist organization has sworn the destruction of the secular Iraqi regime (we have this in common with them) there is the possibility that they will overcome their differences and ally with the Iraqis against a common enemy, us. Ok, its strange but not impossible, Hitler and Stalin did reach a truce in the middle of WWII after all. Furthermore, the argument continues, we may never know that Hussein was the ultimate supplier of these weapons and if we don’t act now then another 9/11 will occur. So if we invade them now, toss the regime and clean up the hidden WMD caches the benefits will outweigh the risks, the costs in lives and dollars will be bearable, and the whole world will be a lot safer, and install a shining beacon of democracy to inspire the Middle East, so the argument goes. Fine so far.

A little background: Iraq has been invested in the Arab nations' opposition of Israeli for decades before changing from an ally to an enemy of the U.S. There’s plenty of evidence to show that Hussein supports terrorsts against Israel:

- He’s publicly paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers, it’s well known he’s provided sanctuary and support in Iraq for the anti-Israeli terrorists.
- His public statements against Israeli and calls for the MidEast to unite against Israel are numerous. Look at translations of his speeches. Not one is free of anti-Israeli rhetoric.
- Iraq is the one country in the MidEast that doesn’t recognize the right of Israel to exist.
- Israeli AirForce destroyed an Iraqi reactor in the late 80’s. A regional nuclear arms race comes to world attention. Clearly a state of conflict has existed and gone hot on occasion.
- It’s well known that he has been supporting Hamas, Hezbolah and other Palestinian resistance organizations;
- One example that Iraq has harbored anti-Israeli terrorists; Abu Nidal, an internationally infamous and ruthless Palestinian terrorist mastermind who was killed in Baghdad this summer at his estate by Iraqi security forces during an arrest attempt had been a guest of the state for a decade. One of many I'm sure.
http://www.janes.com/security/internationa...20823_1_n.shtml

It’s easy to make the claim that Hussein has hated Israel longer and with at least as much, if not more intensity that he has the U.S., but in all this time, there hasn’t been a use of WMD against the Israelis let alone WMD supplied by Iraq (to the best of my knowledge). So if we’ve been told the truth about Iraq being an imminent threat to the U.S., and Hussein is a bloodthirsty madman that won’t hesitate to use WMD on his enemies wherever they are, why haven’t Iraqi VX and anthrax attacks been going off in Tel Aviv for the last 20+ years? Has Hussein shown restraint, or been deterred?

Joeshmoe.

Very good question, Joe. Part of an answer can perhaps be found in a few comments by Rahul Mahajan, author of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism:
and
The same would certainly apply to any other fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization in the region. I see it as neither restraint nor deterrence - just good judgement from Hussein's point of view. How the Bush regime and its supporters have managed to get away with this argument at all as a justification for acts of aggression against Iraq is beyond me.

Some of the most interesting arguments in any debate are offered from the least expected quarters. Such is the case in a Village Voice article by Nat Hentoff.

I'd like to see Hentoff and the Columbia prof, DeGenova, go head to head in a debate.

Please explain how your post relates to the original questions posed by saavedra77:

Come to think of it, this WHOLE thread is "Old News" now.

I disagree, just change the tense of the subject to "Is this war justified?"

Originally...

Just to give my updated responses...

1.) Too late... certainly reason for classifying thread as "Old News"

2.) Seems they didn't really go with the original "shock and awe" plan they intended. Between this change and the question of Arab propaganda, it's currently hard to tell... this topic can still be debated I think, as only time (and daily news reports) will tell.

3.) From what I've heard, no. But while many are saying this, nobody is really trying to uphold international law and directly stand up to America.

4.) The friendly folks at the Pentagon and our president assured us that this would be a road map to peace and stability in the region, among other things. The CIA sat quietly in the corner slowly shaking their heads. Meanwhile, protests and anger is flaring up throughout the entire region. American news agencies have claimed these protests are some of the largest ever seen in some of those countries. Anti-American sentiment is sky rocketing and international security has been jeopardized rather than improved. Will life improve at the close of the war...? Personally I doubt it. There seem to be too many people for them to simply roll over after this and say, "oh, well... we didn't really mean all those things we said while torching your flag and calling for your deaths."

There are some issues here still possibly up for debate, but I think they are already covered in separate threads. There isn't any convincing reason (that I see) not to keep this in the Old News now and proceed with discussion in those other threads.