PDA

View Full Version : Politics: The War in Iraq is Illegal, Right?



Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:36
Can somebody explain to me how it is illegal? For example, what laws were broken, etc.

BeSt
08-13-2008, 20:36
It is not illegal, it's just not an official war since Congress never declared war. That's how I remember it at least.

Matriel
08-13-2008, 20:37
I belive the argument is that we never formally declared war and there was just a resolution granting power to the President to user military power.

Or the argument that it was against International law, but the US Constitution doesn't recognize International Law, so that one is just stupid.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:40
I belive the argument is that we never formally declared war and there was just a resolution granting power to the President to user military power.


But this doesn't make it illegal.

Gunther TheBlack
08-13-2008, 20:41
Real wars don't follow any rules/laws so they can't be illegal.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:42
Real wars don't follow any rules/laws so they can't be illegal.

Well that's just as nebulous as the "it's illegal" and "war criminal" arguments.

Matriel
08-13-2008, 20:43
But this doesn't make it illegal.

It does if you feel it violates the War Powers Act.

maskedtears
08-13-2008, 20:44
Whoever has the power makes the rules. End of story.

m0j0mann
08-13-2008, 20:44
I think the main argument of the impeach-Bush crowd is that he went to war nder false pretenses. They basically say he/his staff knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, that Saddam posed no threat, but they went ahead anyway.

That and his supposed expl0iting of international laws in guantanamo.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:45
It does if you feel it violates the War Powers Act.

So the rabid Left's argument is that the War in Iraq violates the War Powers Act, or is this the quasi-Libertarian view?

Matriel
08-13-2008, 20:46
So the rabid Left's argument is that the War in Iraq violates the War Powers Act, or is this the quasi-Libertarian view?

I think it's an educated thought. The War Powers Act is written like shit (like most legislation), left open to interpretation, and also hasn't had any real rulings on it.

Jangang
08-13-2008, 20:46
Can somebody explain to me how it is illegal? For example, what laws were broken, etc.

Its not...

"Illegal" is just the new popular phrase amongst anti-war hippies, and liberals in general.

When they use the word it means precisely jack shit...

Wufiavelli
08-13-2008, 20:49
I belive the argument is that we never formally declared war and there was just a resolution granting power to the President to user military power.

Or the argument that it was against International law, but the US Constitution doesn't recognize International Law, so that one is just stupid.

Isn't international law we sign onto as treaties right under the constitution for legality purposes?

Constitution/treaties/federal/state. I thought was the order could be wrong.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:50
I think the main argument of the impeach-Bush crowd is that he went to war nder false pretenses. They basically say he/his staff knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, that Saddam posed no threat, but they went ahead anyway.

What law was broken here? What makes it illegal?


That and his supposed expl0iting of international laws in guantanamo.

Not related.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:50
Isn't international law we sign onto as treaties right under the constitution for legality purposes?

Constitution/treaties/federal/state. I thought was the order could be wrong.

Yes, for treaties.

Matriel
08-13-2008, 20:51
Isn't international law we sign onto as treaties right under the constitution for legality purposes?

Constitution/treaties/federal/state. I thought was the order could be wrong.

Show me a treaty the US is signatory on that says we can't go to war with whomever we decide...

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:51
I think it's an educated thought. The War Powers Act is written like shit (like most legislation), left open to interpretation, and also hasn't had any real rulings on it.

What part of it do they say it violates?

BeSt
08-13-2008, 20:52
So the rabid Left's argument is that the War in Iraq violates the War Powers Act, or is this the quasi-Libertarian view?

Why would the left care? They're against the rule of law.

Dredgon
08-13-2008, 20:53
There is a war in Iraq?

m0j0mann
08-13-2008, 20:53
What law was broken here? What makes it illegal?

I'm not an expert on it. Google kucinich or something.
If lying in order to go to war isn't a crime though, it really should be IMO.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 20:54
There is a war in Iraq?

I'm using the phraseology in context with the claim.

m0j0mann
08-13-2008, 20:54
There is a war in Iraq?

Goddamn, so many good sig quotes, so little space...

Matriel
08-13-2008, 20:56
What part of it do they say it violates?

Section 4. It is quite the grey area.

shnedit
08-13-2008, 20:56
Can somebody explain to me how it is illegal? For example, what laws were broken, etc.

I hate it when people go on about an illegal war. Its illegal. Thats the point of fucking war. You fucking kill the other guy before he kills you. Fuck laws, its war.

m0j0mann
08-13-2008, 20:59
Personally I think it wasn't so much illegal as it was retarded and douchbaggey.

I'm all for punishing presidents for being retarded douchebags though.

Fro
08-13-2008, 21:10
I belive the argument is that we never formally declared war and there was just a resolution granting power to the President to user military power.

Or the argument that it was against International law, but the US Constitution doesn't recognize International Law, so that one is just stupid.

Yeh amazing how the US can poliece the world without recognising international law.

maskedtears
08-13-2008, 21:12
Yeh amazing how the US can poliece the world without recognising international law.

It's because the government thinks no one is going to do shit about it. We haven't engaged in a real war in forever. We need one to wake up these stupid politicans so they can get back on track. Infact I'm going to e-mail the chinese and tell them that Bush said they need to shut up and eat fried rice.

Fro
08-13-2008, 21:14
It's because the government thinks no one is going to do shit about it. We haven't engaged in a real war in forever. We need one to wake up these stupid politicans so they can get back on track. Infact I'm going to e-mail the chinese and tell them that Bush said they need to shut up and eat fried rice.

Say there olympics suck aswell. That will send them into a rage. Just don't come crying when they wtfpwn america.

Red Morgan
08-13-2008, 21:15
The Iraq War was never officially declared. As they say, it was the authorization of force against another nation.

In 2002, Congress established that the War Powers Act should be the law of the land concerning warfare. The WPA requires clear evidence of an imminent threat. The WPA does not allow war under "gathering" or "potential" threats, since just about anything could be defined as a threat in that case. The president was bound to the WPA, which also requires that the president must decree that the standards were fully met. He never did that.

This is why the war violated our law. Even if you can make the argument that the WPA can be fudged so that we can attack anyone we're afraid of (which it very clearly doesn't allow) the "evidence" about the WMDs was cooked and cherry picked by the administration. Legality really doesn't matter in the Bush administration, since they've essentially ignored the rule of law in this nation for the past 7 years.

maskedtears
08-13-2008, 21:17
Say there olympics suck aswell. That will send them into a rage. Just don't come crying when they wtfpwn america.

Why would I cry. That would be amazing to see. We've never been beaten on our own soil before. And if I survived that would be even more amazing.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 21:25
Section 4. It is quite the grey area.

The reporting part or what?

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 21:25
Yeh amazing how the US can poliece the world without recognising international law.

Yeah, but what International Law was broken, even though it's a moot point.

Red Morgan
08-13-2008, 21:32
Yeah, but what International Law was broken, even though it's a moot point.

It violates the U.N. charter.

"Article 2(4): All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The only exceptions to this rule are if it's an act of self-defense, or if there is a security council vote that allows for war. It met neither of those criteria, as it was a unilateral pre-emptive war.

Matriel
08-13-2008, 21:33
The reporting part or what?

Right. If not a true Declaration of War, it is arguable that Iraq doesn't meet the remaining requirements. I'd say it definitely loses ground that no WMD's were found.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 21:34
The Iraq War was never officially declared. As they say, it was the authorization of force against another nation.

In 2002, Congress established that the War Powers Act should be the law of the land concerning warfare. The WPA requires clear evidence of an imminent threat. The WPA does not allow war under "gathering" or "potential" threats, since just about anything could be defined as a threat in that case. The president was bound to the WPA, which also requires that the president must decree that the standards were fully met. He never did that.

This is why the war violated our law. Even if you can make the argument that the WPA can be fudged so that we can attack anyone we're afraid of (which it very clearly doesn't allow) the "evidence" about the WMDs was cooked and cherry picked by the administration. Legality really doesn't matter in the Bush administration, since they've essentially ignored the rule of law in this nation for the past 7 years.

So the actual argument on it being an illegal war is that Bush didn't show that it was a clear and imminent threat, correct?

Matriel
08-13-2008, 21:36
It violates the U.N. charter.

"Article 2(4): All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The only exceptions to this rule are if it's an act of self-defense, or if there is a security council vote that allows for war. It met neither of those criteria, as it was a unilateral pre-emptive war.

The first Gulf War was never formally ended though, just cease-fired right? In which case the first UN resolution would still be viable no? Of course that's horseshit, but probably legal under UN umbrella.

Not that the UN has any real power anyway, but just playing devil's advocate.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 21:38
It violates the U.N. charter.

"Article 2(4): All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The only exceptions to this rule are if it's an act of self-defense, or if there is a security council vote that allows for war. It met neither of those criteria, as it was a unilateral pre-emptive war.

Wasn't the argument made that it was consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations by enforcing resolution 1441?

Fro
08-13-2008, 21:39
Wasn't the argument made that it was consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations by enforcing resolution 1441?

The UN is so fucked up and worthless that it realy doesn't matter. Illegal or legal it's still turned out to be a royal cockup.

Fluffington
08-13-2008, 21:39
So we expect the government to turn themselves in to themselves and hand out the self spankings?

Red Morgan
08-13-2008, 21:40
So the actual argument on it being an illegal war is that Bush didn't show that it was a clear and imminent threat, correct?

The legality hinges on the fact that he not only didn't show the kind of evidence that the WPA requires, but he didn't make an official declaration that the requirements were met. Congress requires that of the president.


Wasn't the argument made that it was consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations by enforcing resolution 1441?

Yes, but that resolution was pertaining to Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. Even so, a security council vote is required by the U.N., and that was never given.

Red Morgan
08-13-2008, 21:42
The first Gulf War was never formally ended though, just cease-fired right? In which case the first UN resolution would still be viable no? Of course that's horseshit, but probably legal under UN umbrella.

Not that the UN has any real power anyway, but just playing devil's advocate.

While that may be true, ending the cease-fire with an act of aggression is still against the U.N. charter that we signed on to.

Tiberias
08-13-2008, 21:47
The legality hinges on the fact that he not only didn't show the kind of evidence that the WPA requires, but he didn't make an official declaration that the requirements were met. Congress requires that of the president.

Why did they authorize the use of force then?



Yes, but that resolution was pertaining to Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. Even so, a security council vote is required by the U.N., and that was never given.

1441 was to allow UNMOVIC weapons inspectors in to find out if there were any unreported WMDs in Iraq.

Red Morgan
08-13-2008, 22:59
Why did they authorize the use of force then?

They gave him the authorization of the use of force, but still bound him the WPA. Basically, it's like buying a 16 year old a car, but telling him he has to have a license before he can drive it.


1441 was to allow UNMOVIC weapons inspectors in to find out if there were any unreported WMDs in Iraq.

Yes, it was a compilation of complaints about Iraq violating previous resolutions regarding Kuwait.

As John Negroponte said...

This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

All the voting nations unaminously signed on, but only because it was firmly established that this resolution couldn't be used as a pretext for war.

Spart
08-13-2008, 23:07
I hate it when people go on about an illegal war. Its illegal. Thats the point of fucking war. You fucking kill the other guy before he kills you. Fuck laws, its war.

This is what I always think too.

Nexus
08-13-2008, 23:18
America : Amma comin' to takya oil!!!
Iraq : Oh noes, thats not allowed! Tahts ELLEGAL!!
America : *Shrugs and takes oil*

I think its illegal in that sense.

Spineless_DoO
08-14-2008, 00:19
Can somebody explain to me how it is illegal? For example, what laws were broken, etc.

Its pretty common knowledge that the Iraq police action is 100% against the law in every way possible. UN resolutions do not give the federal government the ability to go to war. You cant go to war period without a declaration period. The president is given a small amount of room to move troops in a war type of conflict but he must gain a declaration or pull out immediatly. Its 100% day one stuff here and the answer is yes its illegal.

Tiberias
08-14-2008, 00:43
Its pretty common knowledge that the Iraq police action is 100% against the law in every way possible. UN resolutions do not give the federal government the ability to go to war. You cant go to war period without a declaration period. The president is given a small amount of room to move troops in a war type of conflict but he must gain a declaration or pull out immediatly. Its 100% day one stuff here and the answer is yes its illegal.

You just dribbled all over your keyboard spouting that didn't you? UN resolutions can give federal governments permission to go to war. You can begin an armed conflict period without a war declaration period period.

If it's 100% day one stuff then cite some fucking laws or treaties backing up what you are saying. At least Red and Matriel are putting an effort into this.

Spineless_DoO
08-14-2008, 00:47
You just dribbled all over your keyboard spouting that didn't you? UN resolutions can give federal governments permission to go to war. You can begin an armed conflict period without a war declaration period period.

If it's 100% day one stuff then cite some fucking laws or treaties backing up what you are saying. At least Red and Matriel are putting an effort into this.

Read the constitution moron. The law is clear. There is no court outside of this country that has the ability to permit, control or wage any type of conflict. Its all against the law and that is the problem.

Tiberias
08-14-2008, 00:50
Read the constitution moron. The law is clear. There is no court outside of this country that has the ability to permit, control or wage any type of conflict. Its all against the law and that is the problem.

I'm a moron, I can't read, why don't you just spell out the parts where the illegal happenz? What court is waging war? All is against the law? What is all?

Spineless_DoO
08-14-2008, 00:57
I'm a moron, I can't read, why don't you just spell out the parts where the illegal happenz? What court is waging war? All is against the law? What is all?

The very first thing you learn about the American government is the constitution. If you dont know and I need to spell it out you need to go back to 2nd grade OR simply go to

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=3&title.raw=Constitution%20of%20the%20Unit ed%20States

Put down your drink, turn off the TV and behold what every 10 year old in this country already knows, if they choose to remember. Remember when reading that if the privilage is not granted by the constitution then it does not exist. This covers the UN/Nato and just about every single conflict in our history.

Tiberias
08-14-2008, 01:06
The very first thing you learn about the American government is the constitution. If you dont know and I need to spell it out you need to go back to 2nd grade OR simply go to

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=3&title.raw=Constitution%20of%20the%20Unit ed%20States

Put down your drink, turn off the TV and behold what every 10 year old in this country already knows, if they choose to remember.

Sorry, you obviously don't know fuck-all about this subject and are just spouting things you've read or heard. Cite something for the love of John.

See Red Morgan's response to this thread as an example of how not to look like an ignorant fool.

Reigngod
08-14-2008, 01:29
The Iraq War was never officially declared. As they say, it was the authorization of force against another nation.

In 2002, Congress established that the War Powers Act should be the law of the land concerning warfare. The WPA requires clear evidence of an imminent threat. The WPA does not allow war under "gathering" or "potential" threats, since just about anything could be defined as a threat in that case. The president was bound to the WPA, which also requires that the president must decree that the standards were fully met. He never did that.

This is why the war violated our law. Even if you can make the argument that the WPA can be fudged so that we can attack anyone we're afraid of (which it very clearly doesn't allow) the "evidence" about the WMDs was cooked and cherry picked by the administration. Legality really doesn't matter in the Bush administration, since they've essentially ignored the rule of law in this nation for the past 7 years.

The war violated no law since there technically isnt a "war". "War" was never declared so all this can really be called is a conflict(but a really really big one).

You could also argue that this is just continuing the gulf war of 91 since it never was officially resolved...just a ceasefire in effect.

Saddam brought it all on himself by not allowing the inspectors in. This obviously causes concerns as an innocent person wouldnt care if the inspectors were snooping around. Compiled with the use of chemical weapons and such on his own people...and whatever other top secret info was passed around that none of us have ever had the pleasure of knowing more than likely gave enough concern to enter Iraq. Just because they found nothing during the conflict...doesnt mean they werent there before hand and moved.

As far as Russia trying to act big and bad....I havent heard about a C-17 being shot at by Russian forces yet so they obviously arent man enough to call Geogies bluff when it came to allowing humanitarian supplies into Georgia. We could drop Russia in 7 days with a declared war. The only reason we didnt level Iraq was we werent fighting the whole country and were trying(keyword) to keep civilians from harm and still allow Iraqi forces who defected to fight alongside. Whoever said China would have a chance is a moron. We could dissolve our military and let them try to invade this country. We have enough civilians with military grade firepower in the US to fairly take on any attacking force. I just hope they dont attempt a drop in West Virginia(I wouldnt wish that on anyone).

Spineless_DoO
08-14-2008, 01:35
Sorry, you obviously don't know fuck-all about this subject and are just spouting things you've read or heard. Cite something for the love of John.

See Red Morgan's response to this thread as an example of how not to look like an ignorant fool.

I dont have time to reteach you elementry school stuff. Either get up and do something to better yourself or pls eat a barrel so the rest of the world isnt stuck taking care of you. You should be thanking my for providing you with a link to just about everything you need to know. Everything in that link is valid to this topic. To understand one part without understanding the entire purpose of the constitution is futile.

Osirus
08-14-2008, 01:56
The war violated no law since there technically isnt a "war". "War" was never declared so all this can really be called is a conflict(but a really really big one).

You could also argue that this is just continuing the gulf war of 91 since it never was officially resolved...just a ceasefire in effect.

Saddam brought it all on himself by not allowing the inspectors in. This obviously causes concerns as an innocent person wouldnt care if the inspectors were snooping around. Compiled with the use of chemical weapons and such on his own people...and whatever other top secret info was passed around that none of us have ever had the pleasure of knowing more than likely gave enough concern to enter Iraq. Just because they found nothing during the conflict...doesnt mean they werent there before hand and moved.

this is all irrelevant considering the pretenses under which the conflict was continued; which is horseshit(Matriel) in itself, as a 'continuation' was never indicated at bane time. we baned Iraq because Iraq posed an immenent threat(not), because they had WMD(not), and because they were in league with Al-Koolaida in a cooperative effort to topple two towers(not).

all of which was clearly debunked by the central intelligence agency prior to the invasion/occupation/continuation.

it was a conflict waged under false pretenses ...

however, I will concede that going into Iraq was a continuation ... in the sense that it was a continuation of a family legacy ... what the first did not accomplish, the second persued ... and successfully removed a man from power.

Xzi
08-14-2008, 02:01
Whoever has the power makes the rules. End of story.
Indeed. This works only if the one in power doesn't magically give himself more power, though. It'd be like me being the water boy for the Philadelphia Eagles and one day just declaring, "I'M NOW THE COACH AND THE QUARTERBACK AND THERE ISN'T JACK SHIT YOU DICKS CAN DO ABOUT IT!"

PrimalSign
08-14-2008, 02:15
What we need to determine is whether Bush lied to Congress and to the People of the United States. If he did, and intentionally led us into a costly war under false pretenses, we're gonna smack him down with social control.

You can't expect to get away with leeching taxpayer money and getting troops killed without support from the country. If you earned that support by deceit, you will be punished for it. It's really that simply.

Spineless_DoO
08-14-2008, 02:35
What we need to determine is whether Bush lied to Congress and to the People of the United States. If he did, and intentionally led us into a costly war under false pretenses, we're gonna smack him down with social control.

You can't expect to get away with leeching taxpayer money and getting troops killed without support from the country. If you earned that support by deceit, you will be punished for it. It's really that simply.

He does not have a declaration of war. That is a crime in itself. If you want to find what the whitehouse did wrong there is a long list. IMO its the great deal of false choice that has lead us to this path. Its up to the people to elect real represenatives that dont invite the lobby army into the office.

Matriel
08-14-2008, 02:35
While that may be true, ending the cease-fire with an act of aggression is still against the U.N. charter that we signed on to.

The cease-fire didn't remove the existing resolution to use force against Iraq. Which is part of the reason Clinton indiscriminately bombed the place throughout his Presidency with no one crying about it.

Tiberias
08-14-2008, 02:38
I dont have time to reteach you elementry school stuff. Either get up and do something to better yourself or pls eat a barrel so the rest of the world isnt stuck taking care of you. You should be thanking my for providing you with a link to just about everything you need to know. Everything in that link is valid to this topic. To understand one part without understanding the entire purpose of the constitution is futile.

Just demonstrate your knowledge of the subject in some tiny way and cite some specific thing, I'm begging you.

lafayette
08-14-2008, 02:40
Article. I. Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water


So basicly the WPA by passes the Constitution and gives this power to the president, as long as nobody declares it a "war" and there is a authorization of force.

So if we use the Iraq war resolution to justifiy going in and then staying....



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.


1. Iraq was no threat to our national security, and still itsnt.
2. UN resolutions ?!?!? will find those WMD sooner or later....:bang:

Tiberias
08-14-2008, 02:43
He does not have a declaration of war. That is a crime in itself.

You can't just state that and then not back it up. How is it a crime, what about the war powers act of 1973. FFS you're horrible.


If you want to find what the whitehouse did wrong there is a long list.

Where is the list, link? Something, fuck!


IMO its the great deal of false choice that has lead us to this path. Its up to the people to elect real represenatives that dont invite the lobby army into the office.

What is? What is the great deal of false choice? What does that even fucking mean? Real representatives that don't invite the lobby army? Is that the basis for the crime? Lobbyists?

Slypieguy
08-14-2008, 03:21
I thought the constitutional argument was that only Congress has the power to approve a war, and in this case they delegated that power to the President, which isn't allowed, which makes the war unconstitutional, and unconstitutional is illegal?

lafayette
08-14-2008, 03:26
I thought the constitutional argument was that only Congress has the power to approve a war, and in this case they delegated that power to the President, which isn't allowed, which makes the war unconstitutional, and unconstitutional is illegal?

Thats my take on it, hell even the laws they wrote to by pass the Constitution they dont even follow. :lmao:

Simmy
08-14-2008, 03:27
I don't really consider it a war, I view it as an ongoing conflict in the Iraqi region.

Spineless_DoO
08-14-2008, 03:29
You can't just state that and then not back it up. How is it a crime, what about the war powers act of 1973. FFS you're horrible.



Where is the list, link? Something, fuck!



What is? What is the great deal of false choice? What does that even fucking mean? Real representatives that don't invite the lobby army? Is that the basis for the crime? Lobbyists?

Its clearly stated in the constitution the powers given to the federal government. Without amending it there is NO way via the law in the United states to overide the law of the land. Did you read that link? Even a tiny bit of it? Do you see an amendment that gives the federal branch the ability to wage war without a declaration from congress? I dont.

I hope to god you are not an American. If you are you not only do not deserve to live in my country but you should be deported. You are aparently one of the sheeple who refuses to read the cold hard documents people put up for you. You have no idea about even the most basic roles of government in this country and imo you should be put down like an unwanted kitten.

False choice? You realy have no idea? Open a dictionary.

Main Entry: 1false
Pronunciation: \ˈfȯls\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): fals·er; fals·est
Etymology: Middle English fals, faus, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin falsus, from past participle of fallere to deceive
Date: 12th century
1: not genuine <false documents> <false teeth>
2 a: intentionally untrue <false testimony> b: adjusted or made so as to deceive <false scales> <a trunk with a false bottom> c: intended or tending to mislead <a false promise>
3: not true <false concepts>
4 a: not faithful or loyal : treacherous <a false friend> b: lacking naturalness or sincerity <false sympathy>
5 a: not essential or permanent —used of parts of a structure that are temporary or supplemental b: fitting over a main part to strengthen it, to protect it, or to disguise its appearance <a false ceiling>
6: inaccurate in pitch <a false note>
7 a: based on mistaken ideas <false pride> b: inconsistent with the facts <a false position> <a false sense of security>
8: threateningly sudden or deceptive <don't make any false moves>

Oh and..

Main Entry: 1choice
Pronunciation: \ˈchȯis\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chois, from Anglo-French, from choisir to choose, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German kiosan to choose — more at choose
Date: 13th century
1: the act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
2: power of choosing : option <you have no choice>
3 a: the best part : cream b: a person or thing chosen <she was their first choice>
4: a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options>
5: care in selecting
6: a grade of meat between prime and good
— of choice : to be preferred
synonyms choice, option, alternative, preference, selection, election mean the act or opportunity of choosing or the thing chosen. choice suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely <freedom of choice>. option implies a power to choose that is specifically granted or guaranteed <the option of paying now or later>. alternative implies a need to choose one and reject another possibility <equally attractive alternatives>. preference suggests a choice guided by one's judgment or predilections <a preference for cool weather>. selection implies a range of choice <a varied selection of furniture>. election implies an end or purpose which requires exercise of judgment <doing a tax return forces certain elections on you>.

Easy enough? Just in case you cant find the link here it is again.

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=3&title.raw=Constitution%20of%20the%20Unit ed%20States

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 03:39
Morally incorrect and illegal are two different things. I can tell a little child their stupid. It's not illegal but it's not a very nice thing to do. Just like instigating a fight isn't illegal either.

Slypieguy
08-14-2008, 03:47
I can tell a little child their stupid.

:cool:

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 03:48
:cool:

What...was it supposed to be it's? he's? Or are you just agreeing that they are?

Slypieguy
08-14-2008, 03:56
What...was it supposed to be it's? he's? Or are you just agreeing that they are?

Well the more correct sounding way to say it would be "they're," as that actually makes some sense, but the actual correct wording would be "he or she is..."

Their= plural possessive pronoun
They're= contraction "they+are"
He or she= correct pronoun when referring to a person (singular) of unspecified sex (like "a kid" or "an astronaut")

This has been 4th grade grammar, which isn't taught in the US anymore, with SlyPieGuy.

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 03:57
Well the more correct sounding way to say it would be "they're," as that actually makes some sense, but the actual correct wording would be "he or she is..."

Their= plural possessive pronoun
They're= contraction "they+are"
He or she= correct pronoun when referring to a person (singular) of unspecified sex (like "a kid" or "an astronaut")

This has been 4th grade grammar, which isn't taught in the US anymore, with SlyPieGuy.

I would of figured it out eventually.... :( grammar and spelling aren't my strong points because I went to a libral elementary school for kindergarten till second so they taught us funny. My strong point is reading comprehension.

Slypieguy
08-14-2008, 03:59
I would have figured it out eventually....

"Would of" comes from common use of "would've," which sounds like "would of," but is the contraction for the correct wording, "would have."

:)

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 04:00
:)

Now, whenever you are around, I will have to watch my grammar.

(How was that?! Tell me I did good!)

Simmy
08-14-2008, 04:01
Now, whenever you are around, I will have to watch my grammar.

(How was that?! Tell me I did good!)

You should anyways.

Slypieguy
08-14-2008, 04:02
(How was that?! Tell me I did well!)

:)

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 04:03
You should anyways.

That would require me taking off auto-pilot, which, in turn would lower my potential posts per day index.


:)

You weren't supposed to correct that part... What is, '...' ,called again? I do not remember.

Slypieguy
08-14-2008, 04:06
Ellipsis

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 04:07
Ellipsis

Sweet, you didn't make any corrections. I must be improving.

Slypieguy
08-14-2008, 04:10
Sweet, you didn't make any corrections. I must be improving.

No, I just didn't bother since that one had commas and quotes. It could have gotten confusing to read.

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 04:13
No, I just didn't bother since that one had commas and quotes. It could have gotten confusing to read.

How about the last one?

Reigngod
08-14-2008, 04:13
Article. I. Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water


So basicly the WPA by passes the Constitution and gives this power to the president, as long as nobody declares it a "war" and there is a authorization of force.

So if we use the Iraq war resolution to justifiy going in and then staying....



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.


1. Iraq was no threat to our national security, and still itsnt.
2. UN resolutions ?!?!? will find those WMD sooner or later....:bang:


It makes me laugh out loud tosee you guys defending Saddam and his corrupt regime as though they were victimized and didnt deserve to be overthrown. Really...who gives a crap about the reasons we used...the end result is better than had we not intervened again.

Saddam was a serious nutjob who committed mass torture, chemical weapon abuse(on his own people), and generaly a big douche. He is dead now and the world is just a little bit brighter. Now we need to take out france and we'll have a utopian world.

Funny how all you non americans complain, complain, complain, about the big fat americans abusing power and policing the world, yet who do you go to for support when someone starts to bully you? You are are all just a bunch of sissies and obviously need to be policed by us....otherwise all of europe would wake up one day speaking Chinese. Imaginary God bless America and every troop that has served, been injured, or died to protect every other country in the world who was in a time of need. Screw everyone else.

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 04:15
It makes me laugh out loud tosee you guys defending Saddam and his corrupt regime as though they were victimized and didnt deserve to be overthrown. Really...who gives a crap about the reasons we used...the end result is better than had we not intervened again.

Saddam was a serious nutjob who committed mass torture, chemical weapon abuse(on his own people), and generaly a big douche. He is dead now and the world is just a little bit brighter. Now we need to take out france and we'll have a utopian world.

Funny how all you non americans complain, complain, complain, about the big fat americans abusing power and policing the world, yet who do you go to for support when someone starts to bully you? You are are all just a bunch of sissies and obviously need to be policed by us....otherwise all of europe would wake up one day speaking Chinese. Imaginary God bless America and every troop that has served, been injured, or died to protect every other country in the world who was in a time of need. Screw everyone else.


Don't worry about them. They will start bitching once WWIII comes along and we don't want to participate in their mosh pit of stupidity.

Reigngod
08-14-2008, 04:24
Don't worry about them. They will start bitching once WWIII comes along and we don't want to participate in their mosh pit of stupidity.

Nah, We'll participate. for some reason, Americans seem to be unable to "not care" when there is wrong doings in the world. We'll come in and kick butt...then be told that they "had the enemy right where they wanted them" before we arrived. lol

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 04:26
Nah, We'll participate. for some reason, Americans seem to be unable to "not care" when there is wrong doings in the world. We'll come in and kick butt...then be told that they "had the enemy right where they wanted them" before we arrived. lol

True but first we give loans and take all their money from them when they start pissing us off again. So we still win. :)

losinglife
08-14-2008, 06:19
i wont debate the legality of hte war as there are several great responses already.

But even in the basic form its fucked up. In no way was Iraq a threat to anyone but itself really. Was saddam an asshole who tortured and murderd the civilians of Iraq? Sure... But so are we. Should be have been removed from office? Sure... but he shouldnt have been there to begin with.

We had no right to go in and swing our dicks in Iraqs soup. Its as basic as that.

Uzik
08-14-2008, 06:40
Didn't we never officially end the first gulf war?


Liberal democrats need to cry more IMO.

At least our armies will be well trained for the upcoming war with Russia now! I bet that is why Rumsfield and Cheney really invaded Iraq.

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 07:09
Didn't we never officially end the first gulf war?


Liberal democrats need to cry more IMO.

At least our armies will be well trained for the upcoming war with Russia now! I bet that is why Rumsfield and Cheney really invaded Iraq.

rofl you might be onto something!

Skatlan
08-14-2008, 11:29
It makes me laugh out loud tosee you guys defending Saddam and his corrupt regime as though they were victimized and didnt deserve to be overthrown. Really...who gives a crap about the reasons we used...the end result is better than had we not intervened again.

Saddam was a serious nutjob who committed mass torture, chemical weapon abuse(on his own people), and generaly a big douche. He is dead now and the world is just a little bit brighter.


The world a litle more brighter? Well Saddam wasn't an angel but was more like one than the americans that occupy Irak. I mean more than 1 million dead? He coulden't have killed that number in a life time, and look at the mess and the chaos in Irak, with a government that ahsn't been ellected and wich is a puppet state to america.

First you came under the MASS!! destruction weapons that can go to america in 15 mins! when you hear that you'de say damn these Irakis have some good damn technologies and who khows they even have lightsabers!

Then you said no Saddam is a bitch he kills his peapol we need to spread DEMOCRACY! Yeah baby were the world supermans! Who fucking cares about the Irakis? :bang::bang::bang: Bush and gang just need some cheap oil to get richer and richer to the ass.

I mean the whole thing is a lie, and America right now remenbers me of the roman empire.... but we all khow what happend to the mighty roman empire...

Anyway good look Americans on your road to self destruction!

lafayette
08-14-2008, 11:52
It makes me laugh out loud tosee you guys defending Saddam and his corrupt regime as though they were victimized and didnt deserve to be overthrown. Really...who gives a crap about the reasons we used...the end result is better than had we not intervened again.

Saddam was a serious nutjob who committed mass torture, chemical weapon abuse(on his own people), and generaly a big douche. He is dead now and the world is just a little bit brighter. Now we need to take out france and we'll have a utopian world.

Funny how all you non americans complain, complain, complain, about the big fat americans abusing power and policing the world, yet who do you go to for support when someone starts to bully you? You are are all just a bunch of sissies and obviously need to be policed by us....otherwise all of europe would wake up one day speaking Chinese. Imaginary God bless America and every troop that has served, been injured, or died to protect every other country in the world who was in a time of need. Screw everyone else.


Team America....FUCK YEAH?!

Damwa
08-14-2008, 12:26
It makes me laugh out loud tosee you guys defending Saddam and his corrupt regime as though they were victimized and didnt deserve to be overthrown. Really...who gives a crap about the reasons we used...the end result is better than had we not intervened again.

Saddam was a serious nutjob who committed mass torture, chemical weapon abuse(on his own people), and generaly a big douche. He is dead now and the world is just a little bit brighter. Now we need to take out france and we'll have a utopian world.

Funny how all you non americans complain, complain, complain, about the big fat americans abusing power and policing the world, yet who do you go to for support when someone starts to bully you? You are are all just a bunch of sissies and obviously need to be policed by us....otherwise all of europe would wake up one day speaking Chinese. Imaginary God bless America and every troop that has served, been injured, or died to protect every other country in the world who was in a time of need. Screw everyone else.

:rolleyes:

I know it is below the belt, but seriously..

Nobody is concerned that Saddam Hussein got ousted, we are just concerned 'cause US governments don't have the greatest track-record on putting people into power in foreign countries.

A funny piece of trivia; did you know that when Saddam gassed the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war, US officials were instructed to blame the Iranians? You know; so they didn't make Saddam look bad.
Sure, there is a lot of unwarranted US-bashing, but the US governments' recurring engagement in douche-baggery really doesn't help none.

Zuku
08-14-2008, 14:01
Can somebody explain to me how it is illegal? For example, what laws were broken, etc.

It IS illegal to go to war under false pretenses. Vincent Bugliosi who is a very famous and succesful prosecuting attorney has written a book laying out what would be the prosecution's arguments if G. Bush were ever charged with murder. In fact, Bugliosi has vowed to hunt for a District Attorney willing to charge Bush for murder.

Also Ron Susskind has just published a book charging that Bush, et al. had very strong evidence there were no WMD's in Iraq and chose to hide that evidence. Susskind also charges that the White House ordered the CIA to go to an Iraqi defector, a former general in Hussein's army, to forge a letter stating the lead 9/11 terrorist, Mohammed Attah, met with Iraqi intelligence and that Iraq had tried to acquire yellow cake uranium. Susskind claims this letter was written shortly after the invasion and was planted in Iraq and "found" and used as supporting evidence to substantiate the administration reasons for going to war. It is illegal for the CIA to practice disinformation against the American public.

Slaine
08-14-2008, 14:28
Some people say that the US invaded iraq in the search for oil and cover it up with stoping Saddam and his Men and the search for chemical weaponry

Reckin Crew
08-14-2008, 14:30
The world a litle more brighter? Well Saddam wasn't an angel but was more like one than the americans that occupy Irak. I mean more than 1 million dead? He coulden't have killed that number in a life time, and look at the mess and the chaos in Irak, with a government that ahsn't been ellected and wich is a puppet state to america.

First you came under the MASS!! destruction weapons that can go to america in 15 mins! when you hear that you'de say damn these Irakis have some good damn technologies and who khows they even have lightsabers!

Then you said no Saddam is a bitch he kills his peapol we need to spread DEMOCRACY! Yeah baby were the world supermans! Who fucking cares about the Irakis? :bang::bang::bang: Bush and gang just need some cheap oil to get richer and richer to the ass.

I mean the whole thing is a lie, and America right now remenbers me of the roman empire.... but we all khow what happend to the mighty roman empire...

Anyway good look Americans on your road to self destruction!

the level of stupidity here is quite amazing....good job!

Reckin Crew
08-14-2008, 14:31
i wont debate the legality of hte war as there are several great responses already.

But even in the basic form its fucked up. In no way was Iraq a threat to anyone but itself really. Was saddam an asshole who tortured and murderd the civilians of Iraq? Sure... But so are we. Should be have been removed from office? Sure... but he shouldnt have been there to begin with.

We had no right to go in and swing our dicks in Iraqs soup. Its as basic as that.

this one is pretty close as well....we were as bad as Iraq...i love that one!!

Tiberias
08-14-2008, 14:31
Its clearly stated in the constitution the powers given to the federal government. Without amending it there is NO way via the law in the United states to overide the law of the land.

There is no way via the law in the United States to overide the law of the land? What is this law of the land, is it some magical law that the earth has provided to the United States? The United States law IS the law of our land.


Did you read that link? Even a tiny bit of it? Do you see an amendment that gives the federal branch the ability to wage war without a declaration from congress? I dont.

I'm sorry, which of the 3 branches of government is the Federal branch: Executive, Legislative, or Judicial? Was a war declared? Is that relevant? How does the War Powers Act of 1973 come into play in this situation? Do you know what that is?


I hope to god you are not an American. If you are you not only do not deserve to live in my country but you should be deported.

LOLtastic


You are aparently one of the sheeple who refuses to read the cold hard documents people put up for you. You have no idea about even the most basic roles of government in this country and imo you should be put down like an unwanted kitten.

Should you be killed since you don't even understand what a branch of government is (see above)? What document have you put before me? The constitution? LOL, I'm asking what part man? Demonstrate your knowledge and show me. Are you able? Please explain it. Don't just stumble in here and "yeah duh it's illegal bcuz of teh constitutions of the land oloolol" and expect to be treated as anything but a simpleton by me.



False choice? You realy have no idea? Open a dictionary.

Well you said:
IMO its the great deal of false choice that has lead us to this path.

What the fuck does that sentence mean? It makes no sense in English.



Easy enough? Just in case you cant find the link here it is again.

Just linking me to the Constitution demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, the answer is inside, but you not being able to tell me which part of it is being violated shows you are a moron.

Reckin Crew
08-14-2008, 14:38
Tiberias...Spineless will continue to post bullshit instead of actual facts...he's quite good at it....just reread all his posts on various subjects...all fluff...no substance. DIAF Spineless:p

Keep up the good work Tiberias!!

MattMystrieo
08-14-2008, 14:46
Nah, We'll participate. for some reason, Americans seem to be unable to "not care" when there is wrong doings in the world. We'll come in and kick butt...then be told that they "had the enemy right where they wanted them" before we arrived. lol

You do know in WW2 you lost more men then Britain despite the fact we had been fighting what 6 motherfucking years more.... Thats about how much you "kicked butt"....

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 15:44
You do know in WW2 you lost more men then Britain despite the fact we had been fighting what 6 motherfucking years more.... Thats about how much you "kicked butt"....

If Britain had lost that many maybe they would of won on their own. It's about sacrifice.

Nicolie
08-14-2008, 15:46
What is the war even over? We invade Iraq, we went in & killed the leader. I know he did horrible things to his people, but many leaders do.

Matriel
08-14-2008, 15:52
You do know in WW2 you lost more men then Britain despite the fact we had been fighting what 6 motherfucking years more.... Thats about how much you "kicked butt"....

The UK lost more than twice as much when viewed as a percentage of population. But hey, maybe if you guys had successfully managed 2 fronts instead of getting your asses kicked out of Dunkirk like girls, then maybe it would be comparable.

Surly
08-14-2008, 16:12
The idea that the USSR and Britain alone could have taken down the entirety of the Third Reich is preposterous, even with their costly victories at Kursk and deeper into soviet territory the Third Reich controlled virtually all of Europe.

Oh and another thing about the war powers act that I think has been neglected... it only authorizes the deployment of troops for 60 days without a formal declaration of war.

m0j0mann
08-14-2008, 16:14
If Britain had lost that many maybe they would of won on their own. It's about sacrifice.

Though I make a point of not getting into the retarded "my country is better" debates, I have to quote your very own Gen Patton here:

"No war is won by dying for your country. It's won by making the other bastard die for his."

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 16:14
The idea that the USSR and Britain alone could have taken down the entirety of the Third Reich is preposterous, even with their costly victories at Kursk and deeper into soviet territory the Third Reich controlled virtually all of Europe.

Oh and another thing about the war powers act that I think has been neglected... it only authorizes the deployment of troops for 60 days without a formal declaration of war.

He got the extensions from congress because they didn't want to bring down troop moral or something. After 60 days you have to ask the senate or was it the HoR or maybe even both. I forget.

Matriel
08-14-2008, 16:15
The idea that the USSR and Britain alone could have taken down the entirety of the Third Reich is preposterous, even with their costly victories at Kursk and deeper into soviet territory the Third Reich controlled virtually all of Europe.

Nuh uh. All the shit we gave the Soviets via Lend-Lease doesn't count!!

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 16:16
Though I make a point of not getting into the retarded "my country is better" debates, I have to quote your very own Gen Patton here:

"No war is won by dying for your country. It's won by making the other bastard die for his."

I wasn't getting into a my country is better. I just said that we made an equal sarcrife equivalant of that of the Germans which is why we managed to win. Don't be sensitive.

m0j0mann
08-14-2008, 16:17
I wasn't getting into a my country is better. I just said that we made an equal sarcrife equivalant of that of the Germans which is why we managed to win. Don't be sensitive.

MY quibble was with the "it's all about sacrifice" bit.

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 16:27
MY quibble was with the "it's all about sacrifice" bit.

What does that have to do with my country is better than yours?

m0j0mann
08-14-2008, 16:30
What does that have to do with my country is better than yours?

It doesn't...O.o

maskedtears
08-14-2008, 16:55
It doesn't...O.o

^^ just making sure.

Skatlan
08-14-2008, 18:19
the level of stupidity here is quite amazing....good job!

:eek::eek::eek::eek: I don't see any "stupidity" in my post, maybe you should check yours dumby...bah stupid peapol always react to my messages, i want peapol that think with their head :bang: not with their back...:bang::bang:

Tiberias
08-14-2008, 18:24
:eek::eek::eek::eek: I don't see any "stupidity" in my post, maybe you should check yours dumby...bah stupid peapol always react to my messages, i want peapol that think with their head :bang: not with their back...:bang::bang:

I don't want to speak for him, but all you did is state your opinion as to why you think it's immoral or wrong. You don't address the legality of it at all. And it's "people", FYI.

Reckin Crew
08-14-2008, 19:00
:eek::eek::eek::eek: I don't see any "stupidity" in my post, maybe you should check yours dumby...bah stupid peapol always react to my messages, i want peapol that think with their head :bang: not with their back...:bang::bang:

i know what your going to say next Forest: Stupid is as stupid does

Exultus
08-15-2008, 03:12
What law was broken here? What makes it illegal?

That would depend on if you believe in international law. Conservatives don't believe in international law and anarchists don't believe in law period...

Feyrband
08-15-2008, 03:21
Some people say that the US invaded iraq in the search for oil and cover it up with stoping Saddam and his Men and the search for chemical weaponry

yea even though we dont have more oil and we did stop saddam, those same people still say new bull shit everyday.

Drizden!
08-15-2008, 03:51
It is not illegal, it's just not an official war since Congress never declared war. That's how I remember it at least.

So did anyone else actually pay attention is Civics or Goverment class in highschool?

The war is illegal because the war is unconstitutional.

Under Article 1 Section 8 it is the exclusive power of congress to declare war. Congress illegally transferred the war power to the executive with a simple resolution passed by only a majority vote. This is illegal under the constitution because no where in the constitution does congress have the power to delegate the war declaration process to either of the other two branches. (The federal government can only do what the constitution specifically says its allowed to do. So if its not in the constitution it cannot be done.)

In order to do this LEGALLY you would have to pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 super-majority vote which they did not have for the Iraq resolution.

Most importantly the founders did not grant the executive war powers because they didn't want our presidents to turn into caesars. The power to go to war should have never been put into so few hands.

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 04:19
So did anyone else actually pay attention is Civics or Goverment class in highschool?

The war is illegal because the war is unconstitutional.

Under Article 1 Section 8 it is the exclusive power of congress to declare war. Congress illegally transferred the war power to the executive with a simple resolution passed by only a majority vote. This is illegal under the constitution because no where in the constitution does congress have the power to delegate the war declaration process to either of the other two branches. (The federal government can only do what the constitution specifically says its allowed to do. So if its not in the constitution it cannot be done.)

In order to do this LEGALLY you would have to pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 super-majority vote which they did not have for the Iraq resolution.

Most importantly the founders did not grant the executive war powers because they didn't want our presidents to turn into caesars. The power to go to war should have never been put into so few hands.

*clap* +1 for my faith in my fellow Americans. Why the fuck nobody else seams to remember this shit is beyond me.

SkullPizza
08-15-2008, 05:32
Whoever has the power makes the rules. End of story.

/agree

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 05:33
So did anyone else actually pay attention is Civics or Goverment class in highschool?

The war is illegal because the war is unconstitutional.

Under Article 1 Section 8 it is the exclusive power of congress to declare war. Congress illegally transferred the war power to the executive with a simple resolution passed by only a majority vote. This is illegal under the constitution because no where in the constitution does congress have the power to delegate the war declaration process to either of the other two branches. (The federal government can only do what the constitution specifically says its allowed to do. So if its not in the constitution it cannot be done.)

In order to do this LEGALLY you would have to pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 super-majority vote which they did not have for the Iraq resolution.

Most importantly the founders did not grant the executive war powers because they didn't want our presidents to turn into caesars. The power to go to war should have never been put into so few hands.

It's not a War. It's just labeled that to get people worked up over nothing.

Dhig
08-15-2008, 05:44
It's not a War. It's just labeled that to get people worked up over nothing.


Skirmishes without political influences are not considered a war. If you think there arent any political influences in this you are very wrong.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 05:51
Skirmishes without political influences are not considered a war. If you think there arent any political influences in this you are very wrong.

Did I say that anywhere in this thread? No. Just the fact I said they are labeled as such just to work people up points out the fact I think there ARE political influences at play. It's not a war till congress calls it a war. It's a war on terror in Iraq atleast that is what it's called. If it was called a Battle against Terror in the middle east no one would care, and it would not be on the news all the damn time. Take for example I decided to start picking up trash in the public park. I can call it a War on Litter do I need the Mayors permission to do it? No. Is it really a war? No. Terror isn't a person or a country. Bush just finds it fit to adress it in a place which meets his ends. You don't see people calling the War on Illegal immigration illegal. Why? Because it's not a war. It's not against a country. Even if people are dying every day it's still not considered a war. People nitpick at this crap when it's convienent to them and it has nothing to do with what is politically correct. Don't always believe the label.

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 06:00
It's not a War. It's just labeled that to get people worked up over nothing.

Are you that fucking stupid? Word play does not change the fact that this is by all defonitions a war on all acounts and illegal on all acounts. Its like calling the US a democracy. You running for office?

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance, odds 3
— war·less \-ləs\ adjective

It doesnt matter if its 2 days or 20 years. The legality of it all remains the same.

Sbrafk
08-15-2008, 06:04
Oh and another thing about the war powers act that I think has been neglected... it only authorizes the deployment of troops for 60 days without a formal declaration of war.

I'm pretty sure the ongoing conflict in Iraq will be spun as 'restationing of armed forces and mass movement of military hardware in a foriegn country' kinda deal. I mean, these troops are just there to catch some sun, ya know?

Dhig
08-15-2008, 06:10
Did I say that anywhere in this thread? No. Just the fact I said they are labeled as such just to work people up points out the fact I think there ARE political influences at play. It's not a war till congress calls it a war. It's a war on terror in Iraq atleast that is what it's called. If it was called a Battle against Terror in the middle east no one would care, and it would not be on the news all the damn time. Take for example I decided to start picking up trash in the public park. I can call it a War on Litter do I need the Mayors permission to do it? No. Is it really a war? No. Terror isn't a person or a country. Bush just finds it fit to adress it in a place which meets his ends. You don't see people calling the War on Illegal immigration illegal. Why? Because it's not a war. It's not against a country. Even if people are dying every day it's still not considered a war. People nitpick at this crap when it's convienent to them and it has nothing to do with what is politically correct. Don't always believe the label.

Shall I quote your previous post were you stated it was not a war, just labeled as one to get focus from media?

Doesnt matter what the congress tells the world. It is still a war. The congress is just a bunch of people playing around as they please it seems.
And afaik, US is a part of the world.

Illegal immigrants in US is still on US territory. Iraq is, last time I checked, not American territory. Keep them apart please.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 06:15
Are you that fucking stupid? Word play does not change the fact that this is by all defonitions a war on all acounts and illegal on all acounts. Its like calling the US a democracy. You running for office?

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance, odds 3
— war·less \-ləs\ adjective

It doesnt matter if its 2 days or 20 years. The legality of it all remains the same.

The question is are you stupid?

When did we declare war on any country or state or government? The people the US forces are fighting are terrorists they do not belong to an army. At most they are a coalition which would mean they are bits and pieces of more than one country but they do not actually represent the offical views and attitudes of the countries they may be from. It's not a struggle or competition, yes there are rumors that it's because of oil, but until there is proof that it was for something like that I doubt it can be labeled as illegal.

And no I don't like Bush. But I hate that shitfest being labeled as a war even more. If it was really war we would of done more damage and just blown up every major city in every country involved. In war you shouldn't give a damn about who your blowing up. If they didn't want to die they would get the hell out of the way. Atleast that is how I view it.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 06:17
Shall I quote your previous post were you stated it was not a war, just labeled as one to get focus from media?

Doesnt matter what the congress tells the world. It is still a war. The congress is just a bunch of people playing around as they please it seems.
And afaik, US is a part of the world.

Illegal immigrants in US is still on US territory. Iraq is, last time I checked, not American territory. Keep them apart please.

I know what I said. What is your point?

In the constitution it says war can only be declared by congress. So if congress doesn't say it's war it's not. We are just using military force. Which is still not War.

Last time I checked the Civil War and the Revlutionary Wars were all offical wars. And they were on US soil. Again what is your point?

Dhig
08-15-2008, 06:27
I know what I said. What is your point?

In the constitution it says war can only be declared by congress. So if congress doesn't say it's war it's not. We are just using military force. Which is still not War.

Last time I checked the Civil War and the Revlutionary Wars were all offical wars. And they were on US soil. Again what is your point?


My point is that America is not the world. If your congress says it is not war and the rest of the world says it is. Who is right?

I suggest you do some research on how the conflict in Iraq started first and make your own opinion instead of following a proclamation from the congress.

If you want I could tell you how the war started and why it started.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 06:34
My point is that America is not the world. If your congress says it is not war and the rest of the world says it is. Who is right?

I suggest you do some research on how the conflict in Iraq started first and make your own opinion instead of following a proclamation from the congress.

If you want I could tell you how the war started and why it started.

You didn't say that's what your point was. What do I look like a mind reader? I know America isn't the world. The Americas are half of the world. Whoever has the most power at any given time is the one who decides what is right and what is wrong. Everything is a matter of perception.

How about you stop acting like you are some great omnipotent thinker. I am not following any proclamation I'm just saying it's not a war. I dont' give a rats ass what Congress says. I'm telling you how it is based on the constitution since that is what you based your accusations on. They would have to make an International court to press charges against the US and we haven't done anything drastic enough to get that kind of reaction out of enough people to have that happen. And even if they did I doubt the US as a whole would be punished. More like Bush being exiled and being called an enemy of the free world.

Dhig
08-15-2008, 07:00
You didn't say that's what your point was. What do I look like a mind reader? I know America isn't the world. The Americas are half of the world. Whoever has the most power at any given time is the one who decides what is right and what is wrong. Everything is a matter of perception.

How about you stop acting like you are some great omnipotent thinker. I am not following any proclamation I'm just saying it's not a war. I dont' give a rats ass what Congress says. I'm telling you how it is based on the constitution since that is what you based your accusations on. They would have to make an International court to press charges against the US and we haven't done anything drastic enough to get that kind of reaction out of enough people to have that happen. And even if they did I doubt the US as a whole would be punished. More like Bush being exiled and being called an enemy of the free world.


Does that mean that every war that is going on in the world that hasnt been proclaimed as war from the US congress, arent really wars?
Do other countries have to ask US congress if a war is actually a war?

I dont base anything on your constitution because I dont care a fuck about it.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 07:02
Does that mean that every war that is going on in the world that hasnt been proclaimed as war from the US congress, arent really wars?
Do other countries have to ask US congress if a war is actually a war?

I dont base anything on your constitution because I dont care a fuck about it.

That isn't what I said so stop making shit up. I said that it's a matter of perception. And I was explaining why your previous reasoning was crap. You are just denouncing what you previously used to state that the 'War in Iraq' is illegal. So stop trying to change the topic.

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 07:09
The question is are you stupid?

When did we declare war on any country or state or government? The people the US forces are fighting are terrorists they do not belong to an army. At most they are a coalition which would mean they are bits and pieces of more than one country but they do not actually represent the offical views and attitudes of the countries they may be from. It's not a struggle or competition, yes there are rumors that it's because of oil, but until there is proof that it was for something like that I doubt it can be labeled as illegal.

And no I don't like Bush. But I hate that shitfest being labeled as a war even more. If it was really war we would of done more damage and just blown up every major city in every country involved. In war you shouldn't give a damn about who your blowing up. If they didn't want to die they would get the hell out of the way. Atleast that is how I view it.

We waged war on the Afgan gov. Not terrorists. The government because they harbored them. We waged war on Iraq. The country. The gov. Its leader. Not terrorists. Are you as stupid to say that if we found out there are terrorists types in Canada and we invade Canada, remove there governemnt, replace it and destroy nearly the entire structure of the country its not a war?

It does not matter if people say it was over oil. It wouldnt matter if it was because the Neocons didnt like the way someone dresses. The legality comes in when you read the law itself. It simply and plainly tells us that only congress can declare war. Any type of aggression like the above is an act of war by defonition and according to our very own basic day one governing documents is clearly a crime as it took place. Even if you read the unconstitional laws passed after that illegaly its illegal. It cant get any more obvious. You are just one of the sheep who refuse to read the law and have your represenatives follow it. Its not my fault you dont understand the basic constitutional privilages granted to the federal gov. Its a fucking shame you dont.

Oh and to answer your question we did not declare war. That is the root of the problem from day one.

If you dont like the "shitfest" then you had better start handing out a dictionary. War is war. You dont get to change what a word means because you dont like how it sounds. In legal terms the world war is still clear and define.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 07:13
We waged war on the Afgan gov. Not terrorists. The government because they harbored them. We waged war on Iraq. The country. The gov. Its leader. Not terrorists. Are you as stupid to say that if we found out there are terrorists types in Canada and we invade Canada, remove there governemnt, replace it and destroy nearly the entire structure of the country its not a war?

It does not matter if people say it was over oil. It wouldnt matter if it was because the Neocons didnt like the way someone dresses. The legality comes in when you read the law itself. It simply and plainly tells us that only congress can declare war. Any type of aggression like the above is an act of war by defonition and according to our very own basic day one governing documents is clearly a crime as it took place. Even if you read the unconstitional laws passed after that illegaly its illegal. It cant get any more obvious. You are just one of the sheep who refuse to read the law and have your represenatives follow it. Its not my fault you dont understand the basic constitutional privilages granted to the federal gov. Its a fucking shame you dont.

Oh and to answer your question we did not declare war. That is the root of the problem from day one.

How come you guys keep bringing up the constitution. It means nothing internationally. I was talking about the 'War in Iraq' bit and the naming of it. I never mentioned anything about the Afgan issues. I'm addressing the title of 'War in Iraq'. So what is your point?

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 07:17
You know what fuck all. More Euros on this fucking forum know our constitution better then most of the US posters. Why the fuck are you all so useless? When people from other countries understand the basic founding laws of the land better then you as an American that is some sad shit. Please dont reproduce. Trojan is your friend. At this point im all for doubling the debt to build a 500ft wall accross the Mexican border and after a massive deportation replacing those people with euros. Its a shame for the rest of us US folks who have a fucking clue that you are allowed to live here. GTFO! At this point the utter ignorance is negatively affecting good Americans and it needs to stop.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 07:21
You know what fuck all. More Euros on this fucking forum know our constitution better then most of the US posters. Why the fuck are you all so useless? When people from other countries understand the basic founding laws of the land better then you as an American that is some sad shit. Please dont reproduce. Trojan is your friend. At this point im all for doubling the debt to build a 500ft wall accross the Mexican border and after a massive deportation replacing those people with euros. Its a shame for the rest of us US folks who have a fucking clue that you are allowed to live here. GTFO! At this point the utter ignorance is negatively affecting good Americans and it needs to stop.

Wow dear you are way the hell out of line. Are you upset because you just look like a raving idiot. And what are you going on about with the whole Mexican border crap. You are so bent out over shape about nothing. Unless you want to elaborate and explain each one of those accusations I think you should chill and get a drink.

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 07:21
How come you guys keep bringing up the constitution. It means nothing internationally. I was talking about the 'War in Iraq' bit and the naming of it. I never mentioned anything about the Afgan issues. I'm addressing the title of 'War in Iraq'. So what is your point?

Because the constitution applies at all times to all actions the governing bodies of the USA take. It doesnt matter if its here at home or on the moon so it applies to Iraq and every single thing we do at all times. It means everything internationally in reguards to anything and everything the USA does. If you want to argue if the war is illegal, it does not matter if your english or canadian. The first thing you do is look to the laws of the acting power at hand. In this case being the USA. In this case being privilaged to act only by the constitution and a congress who is also privilaged by the constitution. I as an American with half a brain can say with 100% certanty that the Iraq war was 100% illegal by our own laws. Thats the point. Everyone else outside of the USA would do well to read it and tell these elites in our government to follow it for your own sake. They sure are not listing to us.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 07:28
Because the constitution applies at all times to all actions the governing bodies of the USA take. It doesnt matter if its here at home or on the moon so it applies to Iraq and every single thing we do at all times. It means everything internationally in reguards to anything and everything the USA does. If you want to argue if the war is illegal, it does not matter if your english or canadian. The first thing you do is look to the laws of the acting power at hand. In this case being the USA. In this case being privilaged to act only by the constitution and a congress who is also privilaged by the constitution. I as an American with half a brain can say with 100% certanty that the Iraq war was 100% illegal by our own laws. Thats the point. Everyone else outside of the USA would do well to read it and tell these elites in our government to follow it for your own sake. They sure are not listing to us.

Where should I even start.

Because the constitution applies at all times to all actions the governing bodies of the USA take.
It's a fucking piece of paper. It only has as much power as those who listen to it. If I make a rule and no one listens to it does that make it important no. I do believe the US should follow the constitution. But with the way things are and with the proof we currently have. It technically isn't against the law seeing as Congress 'LET' us go and is letting us stay there as long as it works for their reelection. No one follows our constitution except us.

I as an American with half a brain can say with 100% certanty that the Iraq war was 100% illegal by our own laws.

Elaborate. What have we done that is illegal aside from torture and what not.

On top of that I said that the war in Iraq wasn't illegal based on the examples and text given to me. I never said that it expressed my personal views.

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 07:28
Wow dear you are way the hell out of line. Are you upset because you just look like a raving idiot. And what are you going on about with the whole Mexican border crap. You are so bent out over shape about nothing. Unless you want to elaborate and explain each one of those accusations I think you should chill and get a drink.

How many of you think I am bent out of shape over nothing? Im sure the euro guys on this forum dont think I am for the most part. Most common sense having Americans dont think I am. I know the Canadians are tired of it. Its our responsibility as Americans to set the record straight and prevent these fucking idiots from missrepresenting us. Its what has gotten us into this situtation in the first place. Retards that choose to be ignorant of 2nd grade history. Oh and I have a drink thank you very much:) I am a bit hungry though. Umm pizza otw..

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 07:33
Where should I even start.

Because the constitution applies at all times to all actions the governing bodies of the USA take.
It's a fucking piece of paper. It only has as much power as those who listen to it. If I make a rule and no one listens to it does that make it important no. I do believe the US should follow the constitution. But with the way things are and with the proof we currently have. It technically isn't against the law seeing as Congress 'LET' us go and is letting us stay there as long as it works for their reelection. No one follows our constitution except us.

I as an American with half a brain can say with 100% certanty that the Iraq war was 100% illegal by our own laws.

Elaborate. What have we done that is illegal aside from torture and what not.

On top of that I said that the war in Iraq wasn't illegal based on the examples and text given to me. I never said that it expressed my personal views.

Who or what gives the congress its powers? The constitution. Who gives the federal gov its powers? The constitution. What peice of paper does the supreme court answer to? The constitution. Thus the Iraq war is illegal. Thus Afgan was illegal. Ignoring the law and taking actions that do not follow it is illegal. It doesnt just go away. It becomes a "crime". The congress and the federal gov as a whole failed to follow the law and commited massive criminal actions. Iraq is not the issue. Go to the root. Its the violation of the constitution that is the problem.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 07:37
How many of you think I am bent out of shape over nothing? Im sure the euro guys on this forum dont think I am for the most part. Most common sense having Americans dont think I am. I know the Canadians are tired of it. Its our responsibility as Americans to set the record straight and prevent these fucking idiots from missrepresenting us. Its what has gotten us into this situtation in the first place. Retards that choose to be ignorant of 2nd grade history. Oh and I have a drink thank you very much:) I am a bit hungry though. Umm pizza otw..

I meant over what you thought I said. Not over the situation. God relax and stop being paranoid. And I know that it's our right to exercise our democratic rights to make sure we are represented properly. I am not old enough to vote so it's not my fault. And I know it has but just saying that it's illegal based on this and that isn't going to fix the problem. It's realizing that with the current evidence the case wouldn't hold up in an international court. Much less our courts. Well I hope you enjoy your drink and fill up your tank.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 07:42
Who or what gives the congress its powers? The constitution. Who gives the federal gov its powers? The constitution. What peice of paper does the supreme court answer to? The constitution. Thus the Iraq war is illegal. Thus Afgan was illegal. Ignoring the law and taking actions that do not follow it is illegal. It doesnt just go away. It becomes a "crime". The congress and the federal gov as a whole failed to follow the law and commited massive criminal actions. Iraq is not the issue. Go to the root. Its the violation of the constitution that is the problem.

My point was that other countries don't follow our constitution so even if we call something a war they might not. If we dont' they might. End of story. Like I stated perception. The view is different from every seat, and varies again by who is besides, behind, and infront of you, not to mention your own personal size.

Dhig
08-15-2008, 08:26
My point was that other countries don't follow our constitution so even if we call something a war they might not. If we dont' they might. End of story. Like I stated perception. The view is different from every seat, and varies again by who is besides, behind, and infront of you, not to mention your own personal size.


I thought that was my point? :)

My reaction on your post was that you said that it wasnt a war. It was just labeled as war to get some attention.

I am not american and I dont follow a stupid paper that was written 230 years ago.
So imo the US lead invasion of Iraq was and still is a war. The world was mislead by US and UK, 2003, that Iraq was hiding mass destruction weapons. They said that Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda but that wasnt true either.

US and UK will be mistrusted with whatever they do after what happened.
May it be legal or not in US. Doesnt matter to the rest of the world.

maskedtears
08-15-2008, 08:28
I thought that was my point? :)

My reaction on your post was that you said that it wasnt a war. It was just labeled as war to get some attention.

I am not american and I dont follow a stupid paper that was written 230 years ago.
So imo the US lead invasion of Iraq was and still is a war. The world was mislead by US and UK, 2003, that Iraq was hiding mass destruction weapons. They said that Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda but that wasnt true either.

US and UK will be mistrusted with whatever they do after what happened.
May it be legal or not in US. Doesnt matter to the rest of the world.

It is and I agreed to it. Which is why I said it would be legal then. True but Al-Qaeda was there. So... yeah. Wth are we supposed to be arguing over?

Dhig
08-15-2008, 08:51
It is and I agreed to it. Which is why I said it would be legal then. True but Al-Qaeda was there. So... yeah. Wth are we supposed to be arguing over?


True that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq but there were no connection between them.

War can not be legalised as I see it.
You do it, you take the consequences.

If it looks and smells like shit it problably is shit.


This thread is now about chocolate cookies!

m0j0mann
08-15-2008, 08:56
It was a dick move, one of the biggest dick moves in a long time. And it was only one of Bush's dick moves.

I'm totally fine with Bush and co. being punished for their dickery, whether said dickery was legal or not.
Also, it will a great statement for the power of congress over the president - a power that's been disproportionately diminished under the Bush administration.

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2008, 11:18
It was a dick move, one of the biggest dick moves in a long time. And it was only one of Bush's dick moves.

I'm totally fine with Bush and co. being punished for their dickery, whether said dickery was legal or not.
Also, it will a great statement for the power of congress over the president - a power that's been disproportionately diminished under the Bush administration.

I would gladly hand them over if it was only possible.

Spinewire
08-15-2008, 11:44
After a discussion with my friend i have decided to rename my cock "War Crime"...


Just thought i would throw that out there for you lot.

Thrill_KIll
08-15-2008, 12:27
I always love how people who want Bush's head on a stick citing how he "cherry picked" reasons to go into Iraq, they themselves cherry pick the hell out of the facts about how we wound up there.

I don't like Bush. I would love for us to get out of Iraq. However, I am not going to look like a jackass making shit up for reasons why I am for both.

Ruggulkrek
08-15-2008, 12:32
Who or what gives the congress its powers? The constitution. Who gives the federal gov its powers? The constitution. What peice of paper does the supreme court answer to? The constitution. Thus the Iraq war is illegal. Thus Afgan was illegal. Ignoring the law and taking actions that do not follow it is illegal. It doesnt just go away. It becomes a "crime". The congress and the federal gov as a whole failed to follow the law and commited massive criminal actions. Iraq is not the issue. Go to the root. Its the violation of the constitution that is the problem.

Win.

GRCPan
08-15-2008, 12:40
America wanted more money from oil so the attacked Iraq its simple. But illegal, no, since there is no law about it.

Razel
08-15-2008, 12:44
Originally Posted by Spineless_DoO
Who or what gives the congress its powers? The constitution. Who gives the federal gov its powers? The constitution. What peice of paper does the supreme court answer to? The constitution. Thus the Iraq war is illegal. Thus Afgan was illegal. Ignoring the law and taking actions that do not follow it is illegal. It doesnt just go away. It becomes a "crime". The congress and the federal gov as a whole failed to follow the law and commited massive criminal actions. Iraq is not the issue. Go to the root. Its the violation of the constitution that is the problem.

i doubt bush has ever read the constitution

on a side note... i laughed at a lady yesterday who is a receptionist in a small hick town at a hospital for worrying about some package some terrorist might bring in. For the love of all that is freaky, please tell your parents to not watch the news, specially fox.

Drizden!
08-15-2008, 13:47
It's not a War. It's just labeled that to get people worked up over nothing.

What would you call it?

BRiksins
08-15-2008, 13:47
War can not be illegal! War it is War...

Drizden!
08-15-2008, 13:53
How come you guys keep bringing up the constitution. It means nothing internationally.

Because it is the supreme source of law for our nation. Without it our whole legal system would collapse which would make us a nation ruled by tyrants instead of a nation ruled by law.

In light of the current predicament I am beginning to favor an amendment that would allow for the people to engage in a vote of no confidence to force congress into early elections in these cases where congress flagrantly violates their oath of office.

sorros
08-15-2008, 15:33
we have mercenaries in Iraq. the...Anti-Pinkerson act or something is supposed to keep the US gov't from hiring and private "security" forces, but hey, Iraq is run by them. without mercs, Iraq would destabilize and bye bye american occupation.

Read "Blackwater: The Rise of The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" by Jeremy Scahill. excellent book, quite scary, actually. half of the atrocities with shooting of innocents is really done by mercenaries, and the american forces get blamed for it.

Tiberias
08-15-2008, 20:22
Well, the first couple of pages were very informational and filled with facts, the rest of the thread is an abortion parade celebrating the argument for eugenics.

Rikuno
02-24-2009, 04:15
no

StainlessSteelRat
02-24-2009, 21:58
He does not have a declaration of war. That is a crime in itself. If you want to find what the whitehouse did wrong there is a long list. IMO its the great deal of false choice that has lead us to this path. Its up to the people to elect real represenatives that dont invite the lobby army into the office.

"The Vietnam War was never a constitutionally declared war under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it was a military action Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to initiate with its passing of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Johnson was not the first president, however, to send military personnel to Vietnam."

Impeach Johnson!
Impeach Kennedy!
Impeach Eisenhow!
Impeach Truman!


http://www.museumca.org/picturethis/5_3.html

As far as the US is concerned, the Constitution is the rule of the land. International agreements play second fiddle. So, when it comes down to it, unless Bush broke a US law, there is no impeachment. If we broke some international treaty, take us off your 'Friends' list...or something.

Killuminati
02-24-2009, 22:01
no

thanks for your insight, retard.

Kaer
02-25-2009, 04:45
bah bad link..