War with Iraq

Is war with Iraq inevitable, despite the apparent cooperation of the Iraqis? Proving you don't have something is impossible (I never did believe that magician when he said he had nothing up his sleeves...), and so the current administration will never be satisfied IMNSHO.

I think that the president should be required by law to send his children into battle when he wages war - it's a lot easier to kill other people's kids when yours aren't at risk.

of course it's inevitable. it's been inevitable since January 20, 2001, when Bush took office. it has nothing at all to do with September 11, or any recent developments. we're going to invade them because Bush is mad that they tried to kill his daddy.

that's why he keeps making excuses - nothing the inspectors or Saddam say or do will ever be good enough for him.

he's probably finishing what "daddy" didn't finish.

I think Bushie has a few words for Pres Junior.

It's definitely envitable. My best friend just got notified he's shipping out December 27th. Merry Flippin' Christmas.

Funny how it's our president waging war, when the Constitution specifically reserves that power to Congress, not the President.

Oh wait, that's right, our government doesn't follow the Constitution any more.

its called the War Powers Resolution adopted BY CONGRESS in 1973...it gives the President the right to send troops in to battle without congress' consent. its a stupid resolution made to cover up the fact that Vietnam was taking place..and should have been abolished shortly after but it wasn't...so yes Dubba is well with in his rights...albeit he shouldn't be.

Actually that is totally wrong. The war powers act of 1973 LIMITS the power of the president to send US troops into battle. It was a REACTION to the Viet Nam war. It requires the president to notify congress that he has sent troops into action and then they have to specifically authorize the troops to stay there. See the full text at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

The president has ALWAYS had the power to send US troops anywhere he wants because the constitution makes him Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Confusingly however, it reserves to Congress the right to "make war" so nobody really knows who has the power to do what.

It is also worth noting that every president since Richard Nixon has held that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infrinement on presidential authority and each president has stressed that they are consulting with congress voluntarily and not because of the requirements of the war powers act.

Point to any place in the Constitution where it says Congress can give away it's power. It doesn't.

And it is not confusing where the power to make war lies: With Congress. The President is C-in-C, but can only send troops to do battle once Congress has declared war.

Read the Federalist Papers, it makes it pretty damn clear the intent is for the President to execute war, but Congress must first declare it.

No, it is confusing because you believe your interpretation and George Bush believes his. Until we get a supreme court ruling on the matter there IS no resolution, Federalist papers or no.

Also, clearly, under current thinking the president does have the power to send US troops into battle, or there would be no purpose to the War Powers Act limiting his ability to do so.

No, it is NOT confusing because words mean what words mean, and both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (while not law, definitely explain the intent of the Constitution) are clear. The President has the power to wage war, but Congress has the power to declare war.

The War Powers Act is just one of many different congressional acts which are unconstitutional, and if we had a judicial branch that actually did it's job it would have been struck down long ago.

Just because someone can and does a thing does not make the thing right.

We're mincing words here. You can say that YOU think it is unconstitutional for the president to wage war without congress's consent (which has been given in the Iraq case anyway) and I would personally agree with your view, but my point is that neither your nor my view matter at all. Only the views of the supreme court justices matter in terms of what is and is not actually and effectively constitutional.

It is the same as my saying that the second amendment talks only about the right to bear arms in a "well regulated Militia". Not personaly. I am sure you disagree with my interpretation of the words in the second amendment. That is fine. You are entitled to. But the point is that again neither of our opinions count for squat. Only what the supreme court thinks *currently* matters in terms of the law. The constitution doesn't have any inheirent meaning. It is a set of words which are INTERPRETED by the Supreme Court. Different courts interpret those words differently at different times. As much as you might like to ascribe absolute meaning to the constitution, as a practical matter, it doesn't have one.

It's not what I think, it's what the Constitution says.

If the courts decided that the Constitution's restriction on freedom of religion only extended to the Christian religion, even though the court INTERPRETED it that way, it would still be WRONG.

There is an absolute meaning to the majority of the Constitution. The fact the courts have interpreted it differently is only evidence of the courts abusing and misusing their power.

*shrug* If the courts said blue was really red, reality and language would prove them wrong, regardless of the practicality of whatever they say.

Slightly unrelated, I know...but...what restriction on freedom of religion?

There are a number of people who believe in "original intent," i.e. a literal interpretation of the constitution, not counting for present day changes in attitudes. A couple of these guys sit on the present court -Thomas and Scalia. These same people tend to believe that the bible is the literal word of God. They like the idea of a fixed, immutable, perhaps devine set of laws.

The point of the War Powers Act was twofold. Yes it was a response to the war in Viet Nam by reiterating the limits of the power of the President to wage long term wars without recieving authority from the Congress, and thus the people, though either a law or a declaration of war. It also spelled out that the President has the authority to respond to agression against the country without waiting for Congress to act. It is a clarification of what the president must do in the latter case in terms of reporting, and how long he may engange in such activity.

And as for the supreme court nullifying it, I didn't check Westlaw, but as far as I know nobody has brought a war powers case before the court for them to decide on it.

And let's not forget the Boland amendment to the WPA, which specifically forbids the President from overthrowing the government of Nicaragua.

"There are a number of people who believe in "original intent," i.e. a literal interpretation of the constitution, not counting for present day changes in attitudes. A couple of these guys sit on the present court -Thomas and Scalia. These same people tend to believe that the bible is the literal word of God. They like the idea of a fixed, immutable, perhaps devine set of laws. "

I don't understand what one has to do with the other. I don't believe in the Bible, yet I do believe in the fundamental and literal interpretation of the Constitution. Words mean what they mean. There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation to the phrases "shall pass no law" or "shall not be infringed".

As for open-for-interpretation words like "reasonable", that is when you have to look at the INTENT of the founding fathers in addition to the LETTER of the law. Crap like the Patriot Act are clear-cut violations of the INTENT of the 4th Amendment, if not the LETTER as well.

The WPA clearly violates the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.

"The WPA clearly violates the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution. "

In your opinion, Andy, Not in fact. Just because you say it is a fact doesn't make it so.

I see this discussion has reached an impass. :\

What I see is, if you're unhappy in this country, then isn't there some other place where you can "set up shop?"

Why should I move from my country of birth?

That's an awfully moronic view "if you're not happy here, go somewhere else." Why should I? Why should I not fight for the ideals this country was founded on? I want my country back, the country of limited government, and freedom.

Or do you think that whatever the government does is fine if it's voted for by a majority of the people?

Sheesh.

Do you carry a weapon?

Exactly what relevance to the topic at hand does your question have?

What does the sun revolving around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun have to do with this topic?

"The right to bear arms or the right to arm bears whatever the hell you want to do."

Sorry Starfox but you just like to go on and on about the gov't and this topic. There must be a NG for you that aren't Fr�heads. Or is this the only audience that seems to give you the attention that you crave?

What relevance does anything have with anything.

Who cares about Fruheads or NG or anything else. I, unlike you, do not need an audience nor attention. I said my piece, others said theirs, sooner or later the whole thread will get Godwin'ed. Just because YOU don't like the thread, why should I stop posting?

Run along now and go play in traffic little girl.

"sooner or later the whole thread will get Godwin'ed."

Godwin'ed? That is one I've never heard. What does Godwin'ed mean, and does it refer in some way to Dan?

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

It's a law stating the longer a discussion thread, the higher the probability of a comparison to the Nazis or Hitler becomes. Was originally meant for Usenet, but I've found it applies to almost any discussion regardless of the medium.

Who cares about Fruheads or NG or anything else. I, unlike you, do not need an audience nor attention. I said my piece, others said theirs, sooner or later the whole thread will get Godwin'ed. Just because YOU don't like the thread, why should I stop posting?

Run along now and go play in traffic little girl.

You seem to since you're quoting definitions that deal with usenet.

And no Andy, I don't need an audience. But I think you do for your government controversies/opinions since you took your d*land forum down.

And if I said the earth revolved around the sun and the Supreme Court said the sun revolved around the earth, which one of us would be right?

"And if I said the earth revolved around the sun and the Supreme Court said the sun revolved around the earth, which one of us would be right?"

Both of you, because according to the Theory of Relativity, technically either description is correct.

Um, yeah, okay.

The theory of relativity relates to apparent motion and length of objects travelling near the speed of light.

You appear to be retarded (wavelength wise) relative to a fast moving object.

No, I understand the theory of relativity quite well enough. My "um, yeah, whatever" was to the fact that you took the discussion out of the reasonable into the silly.

No, I understand the theory of relativity quite well enough. My "um, yeah, whatever" was to the fact that you took the discussion out of the reasonable into the silly.

This whole conversation is getting silly. Take it to usenet.

Then quit reading it. 'Nuff said.

Excelsior!

And if I said the earth revolved around the sun and the Supreme Court said the sun revolved around the earth, which one of us would be right?

Neither.

Because who would be listening to either of you?

And when would you make the papers for a statement like that?

On "15 minute of fame?"

Maybe you could sing it.

" . . . if we had a judicial branch that actually did it's job it would have been struck down long ago."

Actually, the job of the judicial branch is to decide the cases that are presented to it, not to review all new legislation and decide whether or not it's acceptable. And, while the courts are obviously fallible, they do their job by judging those cases with their interpretations of the Constitution. I (or anyone else) may disagree with those interpretations, but that's really not the same thing as saying the courts are neglecting their duties.

Yes, and there WAS a court case on the WPA.

If their interpretation is in blatant conflict with the Constitution, then they ARE neglecting their duties.

*shrug* Truth is not subjective and relative. Since truth can be known, a falsehood can too. Just becuase someone believes something false, does not make it true.

Yes, and there WAS a court case on the WPA.

Whistleblowers' Protection Act?
Sure, there are a lot of court cases for that.

No, the Whey and Protein Act. Think Farm Bill.

You really don't know your court cases do you?

Nor your acronyms.

This coming from you...HA!

And this whole thread coming from you.

if some only knew.

If some only knew...*rolls eyes* Oh puhlease. Like you know me.

Ditto andy.

Oh I thought we were talking about the Works Progress Administration!

Nevermind. ;)

OK, I did a bit of poking around, and I wasn't able to find any information on this War Powers case...what was the issue, and what was the decision?

War also stimulates the economy - that might be what he's going for.

That isn't a bullet in your head son, it's an economic stimulus package....

The new slogan: "Let's give Sadam ESP!"

Actually, it stimulates one sector of the economy. Given the projected $40 billion price tag for an invasion of Iraq, that kinda deficit spending will most likely soften, not strengthen the economy.

depends on who you ask and what historical data you refer to.

You're a computer person/major right?

Not a business major, economic crime or criminal justice? Where would you like me to begin on all three topics?

yeah girlfriend!

One does not need to be a major in something to understand basic Economics 101.

Deficit spending does not a happy economy make.

Who said anything about deficit spending?

There are other aspects to war and money than just the government.

That is in basic Economics 101, 201, 202 etc.

*sigh* I have to admit that reading this thread made me uncomfortable, mostly because even the hint of conflict in what is usually a "play nice with the other kids" place sends me into fits. I know we are all different. different views, opinions, backgrounds and up-bringings... I just don't like to feel like I'm being brow beat'n with someones point of view.

yeah, I agree.
I'm all for religion/politics/other touchy subjects being discussed here, but I think that all sides here need to calm down a bit. I think people should disagree with eachother, and strongly, but everyone is getting too personal here.

Hold on while I edit myself...

by "everyone" I'm talking about the main conflict that's getting out of control. Not, of course, the rest of the topic/forum/site/or even the begining stages of this whole thing.

Again, you go right off the topic again. We were talking about war stimulating the economy, and a part of that war will be the $80 billion (just looked it up, it wasn't $40 bil, but $80 bil) deficit spending necessary for the invasion. Since you replied to that post and one can only assume you were refuting that specific point.

Specific to Iraq, a proposed invasion will most likely weaken the economy, since it is already doing poorly and the government going on a $80 billion spending spree to fund the invasion won't help. The money has to come from somewhere.