spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I don't know how much I support Chavez, but it's just an indication of how awful Bush is. I'm not fucking moving, I'm just going to vote Democratic.TimeTraveler said:
UN Applauds Terror Over Civilization
- Thread starter mayagaia
- Start date
i can think of a good reason, and that is the future.TimeTraveler said:
this planet has just so much natural resources and without a governing body we are left to slaughtering each other over them. to be frank i would like to see a world government. now that's HUGE
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Churches, and notably the evangelical mega-churches that supported Bush don't pay taxes, that is plenty.
The ACLU protects churches and the government by keeping them separate.
Also, Bush's new church agency won't do anything to fight the ACLU.
But there's a War on Christmas, right?
The ACLU protects churches and the government by keeping them separate.
Also, Bush's new church agency won't do anything to fight the ACLU.
But there's a War on Christmas, right?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...se_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq
Iraq Resolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq)
Jump to: navigation, search
AUMF may refer to several authorizations to use military force granted by the United States Congress. In 2001 Congress issued another authorization, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists as a direct result of September 11, 2001.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
The Resolution cited several factors to justify action:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President determined that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions.
Members of Senater who voted against:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Robery Byrd (D-WV) Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Mark Dayton (D-MN) Dick Durbin (D-IL) Russ Feingold (D-WI) Bob Graham (D-FL) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Patty Murray (D-WA) John Redd (D-RI) Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Paul Wellstone (D-MN) Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Iraq Resolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq)
Jump to: navigation, search
AUMF may refer to several authorizations to use military force granted by the United States Congress. In 2001 Congress issued another authorization, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists as a direct result of September 11, 2001.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
The Resolution cited several factors to justify action:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President determined that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions.
Members of Senater who voted against:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Robery Byrd (D-WV) Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Mark Dayton (D-MN) Dick Durbin (D-IL) Russ Feingold (D-WI) Bob Graham (D-FL) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Patty Murray (D-WA) John Redd (D-RI) Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Paul Wellstone (D-MN) Ron Wyden (D-OR)
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Yup, it's true, but that doesn't make it right.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
But it make's it legal, and you only have your opinion that it isn't right.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Whoa, Bush did something legal? Give that guy a medal! LOL!
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Read our constitution, and learn something about how our 3 branches of government work, and yes every thing that the President has been doing is in accordance with our laws, and ruling as they come down from the courts.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Not violating the FISA. Not the torture.
Besides, with the cons controlling congress, there are no checks and balances, but that is soon to change.
It's funny that all you can brag about is that he allegedly didn't violate the law. He's still incompetent to lead the nation.
Besides, with the cons controlling congress, there are no checks and balances, but that is soon to change.
It's funny that all you can brag about is that he allegedly didn't violate the law. He's still incompetent to lead the nation.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
The first post illustrated just how idiotic the right is now. Neither Chavez nor Cindy Sheehan support terror. Somehow if you don't like Bush, you support terror? It's designed to make Bush look like he's doing a good job of fighting terrorism, which he is not. Where's the port protection or border security? Where are new codes for high-rise buildings? Why does the Taliban still exist? Why is Bin Laden free?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It may not be illegal, but it's retarted.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Show me in the law were President has violated the laws, the legal statutes.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
A prosecution for violating our laws would be nice, but I'm not against Bush specifically for that. He's a bad president, even if he did act within the law, which a federal court recently determined that he didn't with respect to FISA.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
And that is your opinion, it is not provable, and only history will be able to judge this period in time.
The geneva condition does not, by it's very fucking definition, apply to terrorist fucks. Read the damn thing. I don't understand why it's even brought up... well, I do, and it's because it's political ammunition.
They don't wear uniforms, they aren't part of an army. They don't get geneva convention protection. That's it.
They don't wear uniforms, they aren't part of an army. They don't get geneva convention protection. That's it.
The Geneva convention isnt about the fucked up. Its about what we the "civilised" people hold ourselves up to. Or else where is the moral high ground?
A minority 40%.
No, we have Bush, you support Bush.
Why does one have to move if they may support Chavez? Chavez doesn't hate the United States, only it's government, like most Americans do. And hey, Bush supports Israel and also supports Kingdom of Saud.
Government doesn't equal country. Governments hinder freedoms if anything.
- N