On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.

Politics > Politics-USA > On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"Harry Hope"
Date:	20 Mar 2006 09:25:46 PM
Object:	On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/33763/
March 20, 2006.
On the Third Anniversary
It is time to declare that the horrors we have visited upon Iraq are
not being done in our names, with our consent or our approval.
By Cindy Sheehan
"More fighting and sacrifice will be required to achieve this victory,
and for some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is
strong."
-- George Bush, Radio Address, March 18, 2006
On March 19, 2003, George Bush "shocked and awed" the world by his
premature, if not wholly unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
I can remember that night when he came on to tell us that he had begun
his war crimes against Iraq in earnest.
I was sitting on my couch sobbing for the innocent people of Iraq and
for our children who had been put in harm's way by their careless
commander in chief.
I was also terrified on a personal and primal level for my son, Casey.
As a mother, that terror came from a deep and up to then, unreachable
and unknown place in my soul.
I hoped that the predictions of swift and easy victory by the various
neocon liars would be true, but I knew in my heart that such a "cake
walk" would not be possible.
When the 4th Infantry Division from Ft. Hood captured Saddam in
December of 2003, I was hoping against hope that our troops would be
coming home soon, since they got the person who took Osama's place as
Bush's "most wanted."
Again, I selfishly prayed that Casey would not have to go over to the
mess for his scheduled deployment in March of 2004.
Many people in Bush's circle told us that the paths of our troops
would be strewn with flower petals instead of improvised explosive
devises and that chocolates, not bullets, would be tossed at them.
No amount of praying, hoping, or kidding myself stopped the invasion
from happening, or brought a swift conclusion to the war.
Right around the 1st anniversary of the invasion, Casey and the 1st
Cavalry left for Iraq.
After Casey had been there for five days, he and seven other soldiers
were killed on April 4, 2004, in an ambush in Sadr City by the Mahdi
forces loyal to Moqtada al Sadr.
Shortly after Casey was killed, power was transferred from Jay Bremer
to a puppet government and Bremer skulked out of Iraq in the middle of
the night with $8.8 billion missing from the Coalition Provisional
Authority.
Bremer came home to a Presidential Medal of Freedom and Casey came
home in a cardboard box.
We picked him up from SFO at the United Airlines loading dock the day
before Easter that year.
Casey was awarded medals that were pinned on the uniform that covered
his lifeless chest.
George Bush said today that the war was going to take more fighting
and more sacrifice.
I want to know who is fighting.
I want to know if the members of the executive and legislative
branches that are so willing to leave our troops in the middle of
sectarian violence and a militarily undefeatable resistance are
willing to send their children over to the desert to take the place of
the at least 72% of soldiers who want to come home.
Are they willing to go over there themselves to fight?
George Bush didn't finish his commitment to the country when he went
AWOL from the Alabama National Guard; why hasn't he been called back
up to go and fight and die in his own "noble cause"?
I have heard of other men and women his age who have been called back
up.
This is not our children's fight.
As in all war, the only people who benefit are the war profiteers.
I would also like to know who is making sacrifices in this country
besides the soldiers and their families.
Where are the shared sacrifices of the past?
There was a USA Today poll recently which said that at least 50% of
our population has "cried" because of the war and so many more have
put magnets on their cars.
I wonder how many of our citizens wake up everyday with broken hearts
and holes in their lives that can never be filled.
I wonder how many wake up missing arms and legs, or both?
I wonder how many can't sleep because they are afraid of the
nightmares that haunt even their waking hours.
In one of George Bush's canned speeches to another hand-picked
audience, he assured another poor, unfortunate Gold Star Mother that
he would make sure her son didn't die in "vain."
He is still insisting on killing more people because he has already
killed so many.
I realized a hard fact of life shortly after Casey was killed:
He died in vain.
He and so many more of his buddies would be alive if their commander
in chief and the war machine weren't so greedy, heartless and
incompetent.
As the country of Iraq disintegrates more everyday, and the bodies
pile up in the morgues faster than they can be buried, it is time to
honor the sacrifices of our young people who were misused, ill-used
and killed in Iraq by bringing their still living buddies home
immediately.
The Iraqi people know that the violence won't stop until the occupiers
leave.
The insurgency cannot go on without targets.
It is time to realize that no matter how hard the Pentagon works at
its propaganda machine, terrorism cannot be stopped by killing
innocent people.
Terrorism can only be stopped by analyzing what is causing the
terrorism and changing behavior accordingly.
Buddhists say that everyone dies twice.
Once when his/her body dies and once when the last person who
remembers him/her dies.
I want Casey and his buddies to live forever.
I want the memories of our children who have been killed in this war
to be honored by remembering them as the last casualties of the
military industrial complex -- not as pawns used in an evil game of
corporate greed run amok and governmental corruption and
cold-heartedness gone unchecked.
Finally, today George Bush said that the temptation to abandon "our"
commitments is strong.
I never made a commitment to preemptive war.
I didn't authorize Congress to abrogate its responsibilities to
declare war.
I didn't give the orders to invade a country that was no threat to the
USA.
I didn't give the orders to use depleted uranium in Iraq.
I wasn't the one who devoted myself to torture and imprisoning people
without due process.
I didn't lie to the world about the reasons for the invasion.
I have no commitments to honor in Iraq but I believe George Bush's
commitments are criminal and they should be abandoned as swiftly as
humanly possible.
Most of us are not war criminals; these are not our commitments.
It is time for all of us who don't want to be linked or identified
with the criminal cabal in DC to stand up loudly and repudiate the
behavior of the ones who would lead the world to disaster.
It is time to declare stridently that these crimes against humanity
are not being done in our names, or with our consent or approval.
We need to strive together everyday to bring our troops home and turn
our mourning into celebration and our depression into joy.
Honor the dead.
Protect the living.
End the war.
__________________________________________________________
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	21 Mar 2006 12:56:06 AM

Harry Hope wrote:

Did your congressman vote for war in public law 107-243? If he did
then its in your name.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	21 Mar 2006 07:27:11 AM

Mark Fox wrote:

Harry Hope wrote:

Did your congressman vote for war in public law 107-243? If he did
then its in your name.

The authorization for the use of force? The US hasn't declared war
post-WWII, just ask the Harvard Law Review. Fox, are you able to
produce a *single* quoted paragraph from a *single* source? Nope,
you'll produce an entire "bibliography", but are unable to select *one*
paragraph from *one* source of your "bibliography", outside of quoting
yourself, of course.
-Thufir
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	21 Mar 2006 06:41:45 PM

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:

Harry Hope wrote:

Did your congressman vote for war in public law 107-243? If he did
then its in your name.

The authorization for the use of force? The US hasn't declared war
post-WWII, just ask the Harvard Law Review...

Hey, moron, how many times does public law 107-243 use the word "war"?

...Fox, are you able to produce a *single* quoted paragraph from a *single* source?

I posted a link to the law you idiot. The fact that you are too stupid
to read it is not my problem.
For those of you with short attention spans and who have not actually
read the declaration of war against iraq, here is a summary of the
facts specifically called out in the law on October 16th, 2002 and
approved by John Edwards,
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer and
Joe Biden when they voted for war with Iraq:
"September 11...underscored the gravity of the threat
posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction
by international terrorist organizations"
"Iraq's support of international terrorist groups
combined with its development of weapons of
mass destruction is in direct violation of its obligations
under the 1991 cease-fire."
"The United Nations Security Council authorizes
the use of all necessary means to compel Iraq
to cease activities that threaten international
peace and security, including:
1. development of weapons of mass destruction
2. obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections
3. repression of its civilian population
4. threatening its neighbors"
"The current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
willingness to attack the United States
by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former
President Bush and by firing on many thousands
of occasions on United States Armed Forces
engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council"
"Members of al Qaida are known to be in Iraq"
"Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens"
"Iraq's repression of its civilian population constitutes
a continuing threat to the peace, security,
and stability of the Persian Gulf region"
"President Bush made it clear that
the Security Council resolutions will be enforced
or action will be unavoidable"
"It is in the national security interests of the
United States to restore international peace
and security to the Persian Gulf region"
"It should be the policy of the United States
to support efforts to remove from power the
current Iraqi regime and promote the
emergence of a democratic government
to replace that regime"
All these facts are clearly stated in Congress' declaration of war
against Iraq (Public Law 107-243)
Read the law for yourself at:
http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf
If you ever do decide to learn to read and think for yourself then here
is the source material showing the US Congress declaring war and the
United Nations Security Council authorizing invasion of Iraq.
First declaration of war against Iraq (Public Law 102-1)
http://www.milnet.com/public-law-102-1.html
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
Declaration of war against 9/11 terrorists (Public law 107-40)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_pu...
Second declaration of war against Iraq (Public law 107-243)
http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf
UN Security Council resolution 678 authorizing member states to use
"all necessary means" against Iraq to restore peace and security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
UN Security Council resolution 1441 declaring Iraq in violation of its
obligations under previous UNSC resolutions, specifically referencing
resolution 678 and then declaring Saddam a threat to peace and
security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
Oh and by the way, the UN recently and unanimously approved the
coalition troops staying in Iraq through 2006. Gosh?? I wonder how
the UN managed to do this since you claim that Kofi Annon (the
secretary) is in charge of the UN and he says the war in Iraq is
illegal. LOL!.
Check out this article from Reuters:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2...
I'll also throw in this CNN article about how the new Iraqi
constitution was approved by 78% of almost 10 million Iraqi voters.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.constitution/
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	21 Mar 2006 07:11:28 PM

Mark Fox wrote:

hawat.thufir@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:

Harry Hope wrote:

Did your congressman vote for war in public law 107-243? If he did
then its in your name.

The authorization for the use of force? The US hasn't declared war
post-WWII, just ask the Harvard Law Review...

'2.7 How do I mark text I left out?
Text you left out when quoting should always be marked with "[...]" or
"(...)", while the first is much more common. Another possibility that
has become more and more common is to use "<snip>".
Many people tend to simply cut out the lines to which they are not
referring to without marking this change. This is usually not ment to
be impolite, but rather to save the author some time. Everybody can get
the entire original text by following the referenced articles.
But if you leave out parts of a sentence, you definitely should mark
this as described above. '
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1>

Hey, moron, how many times does public law 107-243 use the word "war"?

...Fox, are you able to produce a *single* quoted paragraph from a *single* source?

I posted a link to the law you idiot. The fact that you are too stupid
to read it is not my problem.

...
Exactly my point, in that you're unable to select a *single* source,
and, furthermore, select a *single* paragraph from a source other than
yourself, Fox, to support your claim that the US has declared war
post-WWII. Stop editing my posts.
-Thufir
.

User: "can_o_worms"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	21 Mar 2006 07:59:03 PM

On 21 Mar 2006 16:41:45 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote:

hawat.thufir@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:

Harry Hope wrote:

Did your congressman vote for war in public law 107-243? If he did
then its in your name.

The authorization for the use of force? The US hasn't declared war
post-WWII, just ask the Harvard Law Review...

Hey, moron, how many times does public law 107-243 use the word "war"?

...Fox, are you able to produce a *single* quoted paragraph from a *single* source?

I posted a link to the law you idiot. The fact that you are too stupid
to read it is not my problem.

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war.

For those of you with short attention spans and who have not actually
read the declaration of war against iraq,

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war. It is simply an
authorization for use of force We have not declared a war since
WW2.

here is a summary of the
facts specifically called out in the law on October 16th, 2002 and
approved by John Edwards,
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer and
Joe Biden when they voted for war with Iraq:

"September 11...underscored the gravity of the threat
posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction
by international terrorist organizations"

"Iraq's support of international terrorist groups
combined with its development of weapons of
mass destruction is in direct violation of its obligations
under the 1991 cease-fire."

"The United Nations Security Council authorizes
the use of all necessary means to compel Iraq
to cease activities that threaten international
peace and security, including:

1. development of weapons of mass destruction
2. obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections
3. repression of its civilian population
4. threatening its neighbors"

"The current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
willingness to attack the United States
by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former
President Bush and by firing on many thousands
of occasions on United States Armed Forces
engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council"

"Members of al Qaida are known to be in Iraq"

"Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens"

"Iraq's repression of its civilian population constitutes
a continuing threat to the peace, security,
and stability of the Persian Gulf region"

"President Bush made it clear that
the Security Council resolutions will be enforced
or action will be unavoidable"

"It is in the national security interests of the
United States to restore international peace
and security to the Persian Gulf region"

"It should be the policy of the United States
to support efforts to remove from power the
current Iraqi regime and promote the
emergence of a democratic government
to replace that regime"

All these facts are clearly stated in Congress' declaration of war
against Iraq (Public Law 107-243)

Read the law for yourself at:

http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf

If you ever do decide to learn to read and think for yourself then here

is the source material showing the US Congress declaring war and the
United Nations Security Council authorizing invasion of Iraq.

First declaration of war against Iraq (Public Law 102-1)
http://www.milnet.com/public-law-102-1.html

Public Law 102-1 is not a declaration of war.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

Public Law 105-338 is not a declaration of war

Declaration of war against 9/11 terrorists (Public law 107-40)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_pu...

Public law 107-40 is not a declaration of war

Second declaration of war against Iraq (Public law 107-243)
http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf

Public law 107-243 is not a declaration of war

UN Security Council resolution 678 authorizing member states to use
"all necessary means" against Iraq to restore peace and security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

The U.N. is supposed to vote to sanction a war.
They voted it down.

UN Security Council resolution 1441 declaring Iraq in violation of its
obligations under previous UNSC resolutions, specifically referencing
resolution 678 and then declaring Saddam a threat to peace and
security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

Oh and by the way, the UN recently and unanimously approved the
coalition troops staying in Iraq through 2006. Gosh?? I wonder how
the UN managed to do this since you claim that Kofi Annon (the
secretary) is in charge of the UN and he says the war in Iraq is
illegal. LOL!.

The Iraq invasion didn't have a U.N. authorisation which actually
does make it illegal, strictly speaking, according to our Constitution
which says we are obligated to honor all treaties with foreign
entities.
That is why SotDam is not on trial at the Hague as was Milosevic.

Check out this article from Reuters:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2...

That article is not still up:
"We're sorry... this story is not currently available"

I'll also throw in this CNN article about how the new Iraqi
constitution was approved by 78% of almost 10 million Iraqi voters.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.constitution/

--
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Frank Zappa
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	22 Mar 2006 06:04:04 AM

can_o_worms wrote:
...

For those of you with short attention spans and who have not actually
read the declaration of war against iraq,

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war. It is simply an
authorization for use of force We have not declared a war since
WW2.

...
What proposition does Fox's claim that the US declared war on Iraq
serve to establish?
-Thufir
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	22 Mar 2006 06:37:50 AM

can_o_worms wrote:
...

For those of you with short attention spans and who have not actually
read the declaration of war against iraq,

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war. It is simply an
authorization for use of force We have not declared a war since
WW2.

...
What proposition does Fox's claim, that the US declared war on Iraq,
serve to establish?
--
'"There was no declaration of war during the Civil War, there was no
declaration of war during the Korean conflict, the Vietnam War, the
Gulf War, or any of Bill Clinton's wars.... There's one
commander-in-chief, not 535 of them.... To Democrats, the Constitution
is an obstacle, and why is it an obstacle? It's because the
Constitution spells out our freedoms. The Constitution limits
government."
- Rush Limbaugh'
<http://www.kcrp.org/getquote.asp?id=1618>
Kenton County Republican Party
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	22 Mar 2006 06:59:20 AM

can_o_worms wrote:

"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote:

hawat.thufir@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:

Harry Hope wrote:

Did your congressman vote for war in public law 107-243? If he did
then its in your name.

The authorization for the use of force? The US hasn't declared war
post-WWII, just ask the Harvard Law Review...

Hey, moron, how many times does public law 107-243 use the word "war"?

...Fox, are you able to produce a *single* quoted paragraph from a *single* source?

I posted a link to the law you idiot. The fact that you are too stupid
to read it is not my problem.

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war.

It is according to the war powers act of 1973. You really should learn
how to read.

For those of you with short attention spans and who have not actually
read the declaration of war against iraq,

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war. It is simply an
authorization for use of force We have not declared a war since
WW2.

That's why the Congress passed the war powers act of 1973. You really
should learn how to read. The declaration of war against iraq
specifically says that it meets the requirements of the war powers act
of 1973.

Public Law 102-1 is not a declaration of war.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

Public Law 105-338 is not a declaration of war

Declaration of war against 9/11 terrorists (Public law 107-40)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_pu...

Public law 107-40 is not a declaration of war

Second declaration of war against Iraq (Public law 107-243)
http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf

Public law 107-243 is not a declaration of war

UN Security Council resolution 678 authorizing member states to use
"all necessary means" against Iraq to restore peace and security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

The U.N. is supposed to vote to sanction a war.
They voted it down.

The Iraq invasion didn't have a U.N. authorisation which actually
does make it illegal, strictly speaking, according to our Constitution
which says we are obligated to honor all treaties with foreign
entities.

That is why SotDam is not on trial at the Hague as was Milosevic.

Check out this article from Reuters:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2...

That article is not still up:

"We're sorry... this story is not currently available"

Google snipped the last part of the link. Damn that google.

I'll also throw in this CNN article about how the new Iraqi
constitution was approved by 78% of almost 10 million Iraqi voters.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.constitution/

--

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Frank Zappa

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	22 Mar 2006 09:47:40 AM

Mark Fox wrote:
...

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war. It is simply an
authorization for use of force We have not declared a war since
WW2.

...
That Public Law ______ meets the requirements of the war powers
resolution doesn't meant that Public Law ______ is a declaration of
war.
-Thufir
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	23 Mar 2006 06:45:17 AM

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war. It is simply an
authorization for use of force We have not declared a war since
WW2.

..

That Public Law ______ meets the requirements of the war powers
resolution doesn't meant that Public Law ______ is a declaration of
war.

-Thufir

It does in any sane person's mind.
If you don't think it does then explain what the practical difference
is. What happens during a declaration of war that doesn't happen
during a resolution that "meets the requirements of the war powers
resolution"?? Be specific and show your work. This is a pop quiz. We
want legal facts and legal sources not whimsical comments by some idiot
liberal congressman who just hates Bush and has no idea what he is
talking about.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	23 Mar 2006 07:46:43 AM

Mark Fox wrote:
...

That Public Law ______ meets the requirements of the war powers
resolution doesn't meant that Public Law ______ is a declaration of
war.

-Thufir

It does in any sane person's mind.

If you don't think it does then explain what the practical difference
is. What happens during a declaration of war that doesn't happen
during a resolution that "meets the requirements of the war powers
resolution"?? Be specific and show your work. This is a pop quiz. We
want legal facts and legal sources not whimsical comments by some idiot
liberal congressman who just hates Bush and has no idea what he is
talking about.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"A state of actual war may exist without any formal declaration of it
by either party, and this is true of both a civil and a foreign war."
-The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1863)
The US Supreme Court, SCOTUS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll go through my sources with you one by one, Fox. Fox, do you
acknoweldge that the above is true? Yes, it's pedantic to walk through
this at a snails pace, but there you are. If you like, I could simply
post my bibliography, then you post your bibliography--but that's
rather pointless. Let's take this one source at a time, at a snails
pace. Let me know when you're ready for the next source, Fox,
otherwise I'll assume that you accept the above quote as factual. For
what it's worth, I think I've already posted just about everything I
have to say on the matter and this is just rehashing, but let's settle
this.
If you would like to quote a source, please do by all means, Fox.
Again, please avoid the bibliography and select *one* paragraph from
*one* source to refute the above point, if you so choose.
-Thufir
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	23 Mar 2006 07:35:42 PM

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

That Public Law ______ meets the requirements of the war powers
resolution doesn't meant that Public Law ______ is a declaration of
war.

-Thufir

It does in any sane person's mind.

If you don't think it does then explain what the practical difference
is. What happens during a declaration of war that doesn't happen
during a resolution that "meets the requirements of the war powers
resolution"?? Be specific and show your work. This is a pop quiz. We
want legal facts and legal sources not whimsical comments by some idiot
liberal congressman who just hates Bush and has no idea what he is
talking about.

You have posted a non sequitur. The statement above is not relevant to
the issue at hand which is the question of what is the difference
between a declaration of war and an authorization for the use of force
that meets the requirements of the war powers resolution of 1973.

...it's pedantic to walk through
this at a snails pace, but there you are.

If you weren't such a blithering idiot you would skip the non sequiturs
and just get to the point (if you had one)

If you would like to quote a source, please do by all means, Fox.

read the declaration of war against iraq, here is a summary of the
facts specifically called out in the law on October 16th, 2002 and
approved by John Edwards,
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer and
Joe Biden when they voted for war with Iraq:
"September 11...underscored the gravity of the threat
posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction
by international terrorist organizations"
"Iraq's support of international terrorist groups
combined with its development of weapons of
mass destruction is in direct violation of its obligations
under the 1991 cease-fire."
"The United Nations Security Council authorizes
the use of all necessary means to compel Iraq
to cease activities that threaten international
peace and security, including:
1. development of weapons of mass destruction
2. obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections
3. repression of its civilian population
4. threatening its neighbors"
"The current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
willingness to attack the United States
by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former
President Bush and by firing on many thousands
of occasions on United States Armed Forces
engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council"
"Members of al Qaida are known to be in Iraq"
"Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens"
"Iraq's repression of its civilian population constitutes
a continuing threat to the peace, security,
and stability of the Persian Gulf region"
"President Bush made it clear that
the Security Council resolutions will be enforced
or action will be unavoidable"
"It is in the national security interests of the
United States to restore international peace
and security to the Persian Gulf region"
"It should be the policy of the United States
to support efforts to remove from power the
current Iraqi regime and promote the
emergence of a democratic government
to replace that regime"
All these facts are clearly stated in Congress' declaration of war
against Iraq (Public Law 107-243)
Read the law for yourself at:
http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf
If you ever do decide to learn to read and think for yourself then here
is the source material showing the US Congress declaring war and the
United Nations Security Council authorizing invasion of Iraq.
First declaration of war against Iraq (Public Law 102-1)
http://www.milnet.com/public-law-102-1.html
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
Declaration of war against 9/11 terrorists (Public law 107-40)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_pu...
Second declaration of war against Iraq (Public law 107-243)
http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf
UN Security Council resolution 678 authorizing member states to use
"all necessary means" against Iraq to restore peace and security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
UN Security Council resolution 1441 declaring Iraq in violation of its
obligations under previous UNSC resolutions, specifically referencing
resolution 678 and then declaring Saddam a threat to peace and
security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
Oh and by the way, the UN recently and unanimously approved the
coalition troops staying in Iraq through 2006. Gosh?? I wonder how
the UN managed to do this since you claim that Kofi Annon (the
secretary) is in charge of the UN and he says the war in Iraq is
illegal. LOL!.
Check out this article from Reuters:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2...
I'll also throw in this CNN article about how the new Iraqi
constitution was approved by 78% of almost 10 million Iraqi voters.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.constitution/
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	23 Mar 2006 08:12:19 PM

Mark Fox wrote:
...

...
Fox, it's not a non-sequitor, it's a premise. If you dispute this
premise then there's no point in making the argument, Fox. Do agree
that a state of war can exist without a declaration of war, Fox, yes or
no?
'2.7 How do I mark text I left out?
Text you left out when quoting should always be marked with "[...]" or
"(...)", while the first is much more common. Another possibility that
has become more and more common is to use "<snip>".
Many people tend to simply cut out the lines to which they are not
referring to without marking this change. This is usually not ment to
be impolite, but rather to save the author some time. Everybody can get
the entire original text by following the referenced articles.
But if you leave out parts of a sentence, you definitely should mark
this as described above. '
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1>
-Thufir
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	24 Mar 2006 07:45:28 AM

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

..

Fox, it's not a non-sequitor, it's a premise. If you dispute this
premise then there's no point in making the argument, Fox.

You haven't completed your premise. You run away when challenged for
some practical examples of how a declaration of war is different from
an authorization for the use of force. The number six is the same as
saying "half a dozen". Your pea sized mind doesn't seem able to grasp
this simple concept.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	24 Mar 2006 07:59:53 AM

Mark Fox wrote:

hawat.thufir@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

..

Fox, it's not a non-sequitor, it's a premise. If you dispute this
premise then there's no point in making the argument, Fox.

Not at all, Fox. Fox, this is but one premise. Seriously, let's stay
on topic with *this* premise, Fox. Do you dispute this premise, Fox,
that the SCOTUS is correct that a state of war can exist without a
declaration of war?
-Thufir
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	26 Mar 2006 08:21:49 AM

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

..

Fox, it's not a non-sequitor, it's a premise. If you dispute this
premise then there's no point in making the argument, Fox.

Non sequitur. Yawn.....
The UN and the UN Congress authorized war and the President is waging
that war. End of story.

-Thufir

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	26 Mar 2006 11:57:01 AM

Mark Fox wrote:
...

Non sequitur. Yawn.....

The UN and the UN Congress authorized war and the President is waging
that war. End of story.

...
Let's stay focused on this premise of mine, Fox, then, once this is
resolved, we'll move on.
-Thufir
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	26 Mar 2006 12:29:28 PM

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

Non sequitur. Yawn.....

The UN and the UN Congress authorized war and the President is waging
that war. End of story.

..

Let's stay focused on this premise of mine, Fox, then, once this is
resolved, we'll move on.

Your premise so far is that an authorization for the use of force is
not a declaration of war. Its an irrelevant distinction. Its like
saying that half a dozen is not the same as the number six. You have
failed to show how the different words have any difference in practice.
We are getting tired of waiting for your competent reply. All we hear
is incompetent noise from you and your ilk.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	26 Mar 2006 12:36:13 PM

Mark Fox wrote:

hawat.thufir@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

Non sequitur. Yawn.....

The UN and the UN Congress authorized war and the President is waging
that war. End of story.

..

Let's stay focused on this premise of mine, Fox, then, once this is
resolved, we'll move on.

My premise is exactly what the SCOTUS decided, word for word.
-Thufir
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	26 Mar 2006 03:21:42 PM

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:

wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

Non sequitur. Yawn.....

The UN and the UN Congress authorized war and the President is waging
that war. End of story.

..

Let's stay focused on this premise of mine, Fox, then, once this is
resolved, we'll move on.

My premise is exactly what the SCOTUS decided, word for word.

Isn't it a little early in the day to start lying again?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	26 Mar 2006 04:01:40 PM

Mark Fox wrote:

hawat.thufir@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:

hawat.thufir@gmail.com wrote:

Mark Fox wrote:
..

Non sequitur. Yawn.....

The UN and the UN Congress authorized war and the President is waging
that war. End of story.

..

Let's stay focused on this premise of mine, Fox, then, once this is
resolved, we'll move on.

My premise is exactly what the SCOTUS decided, word for word.

Isn't it a little early in the day to start lying again?

Where have I lied?
-Thufir
.

User: "can_o_worms"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	22 Mar 2006 08:24:05 AM

On 22 Mar 2006 04:59:20 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote:

The authorization for the use of force? The US hasn't declared war
post-WWII, just ask the Harvard Law Review...

Hey, moron, how many times does public law 107-243 use the word "war"?

...Fox, are you able to produce a *single* quoted paragraph from a *single* source?

I posted a link to the law you idiot. The fact that you are too stupid
to read it is not my problem.

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war.

It is according to the war powers act of 1973. You really should learn
how to read.

Read This:
SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed
Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United
States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war
or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by
the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
(end of quote)
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

For those of you with short attention spans and who have not actually
read the declaration of war against iraq,

Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war. It is simply an
authorization for use of force We have not declared a war since
WW2.

Actually I've already had this debate on numerous occasions.
It's you guys who came up with the idea that PL 107-243 is a
"declaration of war" that need to "learn to read"......dumbass.
Public Law 107-243 is not a declaration of war.
I think this "debate" has probably run it's useful course.
--
"Never argue with a dumbass. You'll waste your time and annoy
yourself"
My Dad
.

User: "Boy Toy"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	21 Mar 2006 04:10:28 PM

On 21 Mar 2006 05:27:11 -0800,

wrote in message
<1142947631.518146.205980@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

Mark Fox wrote:

Harry Hope wrote:

Did your congressman vote for war in public law 107-243? If he did
then its in your name.

Here is a good source which can be used to back up any argument. The
definitive bibliography: http://catalog.loc.gov/

-Thufir

User: "NeoLibertarian"
Title: Re: On the Third Anniversary: Not In Our Names.	20 Mar 2006 10:42:11 PM

Harry Hope wrote:

Fine. America didn't have your permission.
--
NeoLibertarian
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Re: Our third world banana republic voting system -- Bush GOP motto: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
Foster care is no place for many Arizona kids: Arizona is removingat least a third more children than it should, to all our detriments.
Re: Our third world banana republic voting system -- Bush GOP motto: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
Our third world banana republic voting system
Re: The Second And Third Commandments And Judge Roy Moore
Re: The Second And Third Commandments And Judge Roy Moore
Re: The Second And Third Commandments And Judge Roy Moore
THIRD-PARTY PREZ IN 2004???

Re: Third world food? You have no choice, says Congress
America - The New Third-World Country
~ THIRD WORLD RESISTANCE & WESTERN INTELLECTUAL SOLIDARITY ~
Third place for Blair...Bye bye George W. Bush.
Australia ranks third best!
Re: So, how is this Kerry comment during the third debate "slanderous"?
forget taxes,soc sec, judges - white males elected Bush to kill third world people

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER