Thread: According to Ron Paul the war in Iraq is Illegal?

Well the president needs a declaration of war to declare war. And bush didn't have one (he declared it as some sort of emergency or not necessarily a war). Thus, it is illegal. Not much more complex than that.

The president does not have the ability to declare war, only congress does.

They can bypass that by declaring it a police action instead, which was the case in the Korean War, Vietnam War, and now in Gulf War 2. It is technically not unconstitutional because congress does have the power to stop it (they can chose not to fund it or deploy troops.)

A great example of this is going on right now. Congress said that Bush doesn't have the power to build permanent bases in Iraq. Bush thinks he has the ability to override that decision and is trying to do it anyway. Congress isn't giving him the money to do so.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The president does not have the ability to declare war, only congress does.

They can bypass that by declaring it a police action instead, which was the case in the Korean War, Vietnam War, and now in Gulf War 2. It is technically not unconstitutional because congress does have the power to stop it (they can chose not to fund it or deploy troops.)

A great example of this is going on right now. Congress said that Bush doesn't have the power to build permanent bases in Iraq. Bush thinks he has the ability to override that decision and is trying to do it anyway. Congress isn't giving him the money to do so.

A police action? Can you expand on this. Was iraq really a situation where such a "police action" was waranted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action

That's the information on Police Action.

No, Saddam Hussein authorized assassination of Bush's father in the late eighties. We were going there regardless if it was warranted or not.

The Iraq Occupation(its not a war in the least) is 100% illegal because as the said, only congress can declare war...

The Army is in Iraq because of 4 things.
1) Bush Jr. was pissed off at Hussein for making Bush Sr. look like a fool/authorizing an assassination attempt.
2) Oil.
3) Contracts for Halliburton and those other companies that Cheney has influence/stock in to rebuild Iraq afterwards.
4) Social Control


Iraq is and was none of our business. Plain and simple. We need to deal with our own shit before we try to police the world.

The Constitution says, "Congress shall have the power to declare war." It does not say that some document titled "Congressional Declaration of War" has to be used. It also does not say that the President cannot declare it also. The president is Commander in Chief of the military. He is the top ranking military official. He gets to declare war, just as Congress does. However, Congress did vote on authorization for this war, and they voted FOR it. The fact that they didn't use some document with a specific title that the Constitution does not call for means nothing.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

The Iraq Occupation(its not a war in the least) is 100% illegal because as the said, only congress can declare war...

The Army is in Iraq because of 4 things.
1) Bush Jr. was pissed off at Hussein for making Bush Sr. look like a fool/authorizing an assassination attempt.
2) Oil.
3) Contracts for Halliburton and those other companies that Cheney has influence/stock in to rebuild Iraq afterwards.
4) Social Control


Iraq is and was none of our business. Plain and simple. We need to deal with our own shit before we try to police the world.

You overlooked the real list. Violation of our ceasefire, especially on terrorism grounds, especially for 12 years, was our business. The fact that the Hussein regime had engaged in international terrorism was our business. The fact that the Hussein regime had engaged in WMD terrorism within Iraq was our business. The fact that six governments and officials in the U.N. reported stockpiles of WMD's, which we legitimately worried might end up in the hands of terrorists who want to make Americans extinct, was our business. Genocide is the whole world's business. Individual terrorists who have it in them to kill us "infidels" are our business. The need to democratize key parts of the Middle East as a preventative measure against a future of nuclear terrorism is our business. Dictatorships have no right to exist, and any time one exists, it is the whole world's business.

Gee, I remember a little 'Police Action' when I was younger. It was called the Vietnam War and really left a mark on country, bot on it's people and it's image with the rest of the world.

We really need to stop playing police sometime.

If I recall correctly, Congress voted on this:

From the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:

[QUOTE]
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(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.


Congress, in other words, gave the president blanket authority to do whatever he wants with the US Armed Forces. All he has to do is cite his efforts as eliminating the threat posed by Iraq, since the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions is now moot. I assume Congress didn't use the language of a declaration of war because it would restrict the president's power to redefine the threat posed by Iraq. A declaration of war would imply the US was fighting Saddam's government, and a subsequent declaration of war may have been necessary to fight a subsequent enemy. It isn't very declarative if it relies on the president to decide who must be fought.

Congress could, of course, end the war by its own means, and the President, by no means, has any authority to declare war on his own. The constitution clearly states among congress' powers:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

In Article 2:

...The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

The President is Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, (by implication) the Air Force, and the Militia (usually referred to as the National Guard) during a war and at no other time. The US is always at war nowadays, so most of the time that responsibility is never in question.

Originally Posted by Seeker

Gee, I remember a little 'Police Action' when I was younger. It was called the Vietnam War and really left a mark on country, bot on it's people and it's image with the rest of the world.

We really need to stop playing police sometime.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Congress could, of course, end the war by its own means, and the President, by no means, has any authority to declare war on his own. The constitution clearly states among congress' powers:

When he does it completely on his own, he can just pull out his "police action" trump card and carry on. I call that declaring war, but it is not done with an official and formal war declaration, and even then it would not have to be titled that on a piece of paper. What the president can also do on his own is "recognize a state of war" and send in the military. That is exactly what happened with the current Iraq war. He asked for Congressional approval and got it, but I think that was just to make Congress have to join in the responsibility. The way Bush characterizes the action, he inadvertently says Congress was not necessary. It is such a loophole game.

Of course, Bush also interprets the Constitution such that Article 2 gives him authority to determine what his authority is under Article 2.

The constitution is pretty clear on authority during wartime. It says nothing of a "police action" exception or of an ability to "recognize a state of war." I think it's implicitly assumed in the latter case that imminent war is pretty obvious and that congress would have a say in it.

The president does not have the ability to declare war. The constitution is very clear in this kind of stuff. Congress has the duty to raise the army, pay for it, and decide when it shall and shall not be used. Building bases in iraq would fall under the power of congress.

The president is the leader of the army. If he wants to invade something, he has to come to congress and ask for their permission. One of the biggest complaints people have about congress is that they said they are ignoring their job. Which they are. They cant just say, "Do what you will and we support you." While legally it might be questionable and in a grey area, morally it is wrong.

It was a war built and founded on lies. Thats enough to say that it was bullshit, ASIDE from the fact that it is illegal, and fucked up Bush's term more than he already has.

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was hiding?
Where is alqaeda?
How did saddam just 'surrender', anybody that knows him and what he has done, knows that he would not go down without a fight (under the tables deal anyone?)?

AND, since we removed the 'threat' (saddam) why are we still there (oil)?

Final question, to add to the stupidity of bush, the war, and the image of the USA...
After the US invaded Iraq illegally, are the people of Iraq really living better, than since they were under the tyrant and evil Saddam Hussien? Or do they despise America for trying to control their lives and their oil, and make them live in fear of bombings and suicide attacks?

Bush wants to go to Iran now.

Iran > Iraq --->

AND

Iraq drained America and the economy ---->

THEREFORE

Iran will win in a war with America, and if they dont win, they will at least cripple the American economy and oil prices will be $7.00 a gallon.

^^ lol lol lol. oil, oil, oil. Seriously, the reason we are not out yet is because if we left it would fall in to an extreme civil war. There is nothing stable about that country if we were to leave right now. If you think its bad now, just see what chaos ensumes if we were to pull out right now.

also, bush isnt going to start a new war just before he is thrown out of office.

Originally Posted by moe007

It was a war built and founded on lies. Thats enough to say that it was bullshit, ASIDE from the fact that it is illegal, and fucked up Bush's term more than he already has.

What were the lies?

If Iraq and Afghanistan become great countries, which I think they will, Bush is going to have a phenomenal legacy.

Originally Posted by moe007

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was hiding?

Probably buried somewhere in an enormous desert. No telling for sure.

Originally Posted by moe007

Where is alqaeda?

All over the world. We keep capturing and killing their members, including many people in leadership positions.

Originally Posted by moe007

How did saddam just 'surrender', anybody that knows him and what he has done, knows that he would not go down without a fight (under the tables deal anyone?)?

He was not so big and bad when he was by himself in a hole in the desert.

Why would the U.S. government make an under the table deal with him when he no longer had anything to offer? He was nothing by the time he was caught.

Originally Posted by moe007

AND, since we removed the 'threat' (saddam) why are we still there (oil)?

The problem was not merely Saddam. It was his government. We are still there to get the new government off the ground enough that it can stand on its own. The oil does not belong to us. It belongs to Iraq.

Originally Posted by moe007

Final question, to add to the stupidity of bush, the war, and the image of the USA...
After the US invaded Iraq illegally, are the people of Iraq really living better, than since they were under the tyrant and evil Saddam Hussien? Or do they despise America for trying to control their lives and their oil, and make them live in fear of bombings and suicide attacks?

They are in a transition phase, but they are living better. Some places are very stable and far better than they were under the Hussein regime, but other places are still unstable. Even the unstable areas have voting rights and great hope for the future. They vote in higher percentages than we do, despite the death threats. There was no hope under the Hussein regime. It seems that most Iraqis are very glad the Hussein regime is gone but do not like the temporary occupation by another nation. They knew what to expect under the Hussein regime, but we are something new and mysterious to them. That scares them, and the fact that a completely diffferent nation has so much control of them bothers them. When the new government can stand on its own, that will no longer be a problem, but there will still be nutbags who despise democracy and want to get in the way of it.

Originally Posted by moe007

Bush wants to go to Iran now.

He has not indicated that he "wants" to do that, but he does recognize that it is a possibility. A severely anti-American Islamofascist terrorist government trying to get nukes is a big problem, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by moe007

Iran > Iraq --->

AND

Iraq drained America and the economy ---->

THEREFORE

Iran will win in a war with America, and if they dont win, they will at least cripple the American economy and oil prices will be $7.00 a gallon.

Our economy is not drained. We are the wealthiest nation in the world.

Iran would win a war with us about like an elementary school football team would beat the New York Giants.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What were the lies?

If Iraq and Afghanistan become great countries, which I think they will, Bush is going to have a phenomenal legacy.

The lies that Saddam had WMDs, and was a threat to US entities in the gulf and the surrounding regions. Or that Osama Binladen was hiding in Afghanistan, which he might have been, but a government like ours that has intelligence and technology that is unprecedented, still has not found the man that looks like a caveman and still rubs stones together for fire..
We bombed and raided every village in Afghanistan and still have not found our caveman. The country is in civil war (as with Iraq) And we havent pulled out, NOT because that would cause FURTHER civil war, but because that would be a slap in our army's face, and we would lose the precious oil that lies under both countries. (that supposedly belongs to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, but who knows)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Probably buried somewhere in an enormous desert. No telling for sure.

Really? Come on now, you really believe that Saddam hid them underground in the desert? And that the greatest country in the world, the biggest strongest and more technologically advanced specialists could not find ONE WMD?
....
"no telling for sure."
Well, when you tell a nation that theres WMD that we need to go and invade a country for, then after you destroy their country so that for another 100 they will be rebuilding it, you say "opps we were wrong, we couldnt find anything but its underground we promise." that doesnt make sense.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

All over the world. We keep capturing and killing their members, including many people in leadership positions.

We went to "purge" them out of Iraq and Afghanistan, they are stronger than ever, with more people joining their manpower every day.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He was not so big and bad when he was by himself in a hole in the desert.

Hmm awkward situation dont you think? What happened to his national guard? His PERSONAL guard? A man that had not one palace, but PALACES plastered with gold, and had BILLIONS of dollars in cash, wouldnt hide in a random hole.
Are you sure he wasnt in the hole just for the cameras? Where YOU there? Did you see him get out of the whole? ... As far as I know, everything we see on the news is what they WANT us to see.

Go to histroy and read about what this man has done, and how he thinks. There is no way in hell that he would hide in a hole, without any guards, and then surrender everything just like that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would the U.S. government make an under the table deal with him when he no longer had anything to offer? He was nothing by the time he was caught.

Im not saying they would make a deal with him, but they would with his associates. His guards. As i said above, theres no way he was hiding alone.
But im sure his guards would love some extra cash, in exchange for giving him up.

And getting HIM was symbolic, it had no meaning. We won, we destroryed their country. If he hid in the hole and DIED, it would have made no difference. But we needed to plaster the picture of him looking disheveled all over the news, to show how big and strong we are.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The problem was not merely Saddam. It was his government. We are still there to get the new government off the ground enough that it can stand on its own. The oil does not belong to us. It belongs to Iraq.

His government isnt doing any better without him, or with America's help. There are still daily bombings, and people are living in chaos.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are in a transition phase, but they are living better. Some places are very stable and far better than they were under the Hussein regime, but other places are still unstable. Even the unstable areas have voting rights and great hope for the future. They vote in higher percentages than we do, despite the death threats. There was no hope under the Hussein regime. It seems that most Iraqis are very glad the Hussein regime is gone but do not like the temporary occupation by another nation. They knew what to expect under the Hussein regime, but we are something new and mysterious to them. That scares them, and the fact that a completely diffferent nation has so much control of them bothers them. When the new government can stand on its own, that will no longer be a problem, but there will still be nutbags who despise democracy and want to get in the way of it.

Yes Iraq is in a transitional phase, but they are doing worse than they were before Saddam. There would have been less destruction and they would have sustained a better economy if they just let Saddam live to his death.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He has not indicated that he "wants" to do that, but he does recognize that it is a possibility. A severely anti-American Islamofascist terrorist government trying to get nukes is a big problem, wouldn't you say?

Bush and his cabinet have showed interest in a war with Iran on multiple occasions.

Yes it is a big problem, BUT are they not allowed the right to use nuclear technology as a resource? They too, need energy to live. Or is that only allowed for the West? When Iran's oil reserves extinguish, they are going to need an alternative energy source.

They have repeatedly claimed to only use nuclear technology as a resource, not as a weapon. And the UN will monitor their use of it. So why not?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Our economy is not drained. We are the wealthiest nation in the world.

Its not? Lets think here.

The dollar is plummeting more and more everyday. Gas has now hit $5.00 a gallon in some states. Milk is $4.00. But the civilians still make the same amount of money.

How can somebody who makes $45,000 a year, and has a wife and 3 kids, live with the skyrocketing prices? He cant afford gas for that car he has that makes 17 miles a gallon, he has to buy another car, that makes 20+ miles a gallon. Since he put aside more money for gas and a car, he las less to spend on his family. Milk and what not, have also risen. Therefore he has even LESS money to use. After all expenses paid (gas, food, electricity, mortgage, water, etc payments) he has little to no money to spend. Before our economy started to drop, this same scenario, would have the man still end up with a little bit of cash.

Many businesses are shutting down because of less and less customers. people no longer have the extra money to spend on things that they WANT, but dont NEED.

We are three Trillion dollars in debt to China. Good job wealthiest nation in the world.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Iran would win a war with us about like an elementary school football team would beat the New York Giants.

But why are the Giants picking on the elementary kids?

Now that Afghanistan is mentioned, I have a question about the Taliban.

the USA is partially responsible for the Taliban coming to power. The USA armed and trained the people who would later become the Talbian during the Soviet Invasion. As i understand it the USA had a good relationship with the Taliban Government. If you watched Farenheit 9/11 you will know that the Taliban visited and toured the United States alittle bit before 9/11. So at the time of 9/11 did the United States and the Taliban have diplomatic relations? Why didn't the USA ask the Talibans help in rooting out Al Qaeda instead of just invading pointlbank?

If I were to explain what I think happened; with thorough explanations and potent evidence, I would write a documentary about it.

But briefly, I think 9/11 was planned.

Now that Afghanistan is mentioned, I have a question about the Taliban.

the USA is partially responsible for the Taliban coming to power. The USA armed and trained the people who would later become the Talbian during the Soviet Invasion. As i understand it the USA had a good relationship with the Taliban Government. If you watched Farenheit 9/11 you will know that the Taliban visited and toured the United States alittle bit before 9/11. So at the time of 9/11 did the United States and the Taliban have diplomatic relations? Why didn't the USA ask the Talibans help in rooting out Al Qaeda instead of just invading pointlbank?

Ditto for Iraq. The US fully backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and decided not to remain a friend after the war was over. The US has a nasty habit of befriending nefarious organizations and betraying them. I wouldn't say they don't often deserve betrayal, but the US would do better not to befriend them in the first place.

Suffice it to say that the policymakers in the military have a myopic, short-term view of what "America's best interests" are. Politicians/policymakers would often prefer the public to remain ignorant of their past transgressions, and occasionally prop up a tyrant to conceal his tyranny.

The Taliban was a trusted ally against Communism, so they got cheap weapons from the US. When the Soviets left, the Taliban was well-armed in an impoverished country, and the result was predictable. The US didn't care about Afghanistan any further than it was necessary to fight Soviet Russia, just like it didn't care about Iraq any further than it was necessary to fight Iran, or to secure a potentially-destabilizing oil resource(or whatever their objective is at this point).

These "wars", on Iraq, on Terror, on Afghanistan, on Drugs, are here -as has been the case with every major war/crisis in the past century- in order to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and to slowly erase every single one of our civil liberties.

UM and TKDyo are drinking the Kool-Aid, Saddam was a puppet, so was bin Laden.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

UM and TKDyo are drinking the Kool-Aid, Saddam was a puppet, so was bin Laden.

kool-aid is quite good but idk what you mean by that in the figurative sense

Originally Posted by tkdyo

kool-aid is quite good but idk what you mean by that in the figurative sense

"Drinking the Kool-Aid"
The idiomatic expression, "drinking the Kool-Aid", was originally a reference to the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who, in the early 1960s, traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal in the U.S. until 1966). Those who drank the "Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test". "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view. These events were described in Tom Wolfe's 1968 classic, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

Currently the term is mostly associated with the 1978 cult suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the Peoples Temple, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year, he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Flavor Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called the "Jonestown Massacre", a large majority of the 913 people later found dead drank the brew. (The discrepancy between the idiom and the actual occurrence is likely due to Flavor Aid's relative obscurity, compared to the easily recognizable Kool-Aid.) The precise expression can be attested in usage at least as early as 1987. The saying "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" now commonly refers to the Jonestown tragedy, meaning "Don't trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side," or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly." Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly is famous for using the term in this manner.

"Drink the Kool-Aid," is now also corporate-speak for immersing oneself in a cultlike culture. Appearing in the 1980s and later applied to many a dotcom staffer, the persistent expression clearly wasn't just the flavor of the month. The authors of Hard Drive (John Wiley, 1992), a book about Microsoft, quoted one employee observing of his coworkers, "If Bill [Gates] said drink Kool-Aid, they would do it." And The New York Times cited one analyst who said of certain Time Warner executives: "The AOL guys have got to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and get on the team."

Having "drunk the Kool-Aid" also refers to being a strong or fervent believer in a particular philosophy or mission -- wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.

.

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.."

Sir Peter Ustinov.

Look, Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Back when the USSR was in power, we funded the Taliban and supported them 100%, giving them weapons and arms to go fight the Soviet Union.
But America is a bridge burner. Now we dont like them any more, and they are 'terrorists'

Trust me, im sure if they had missles , and high tech helicopters that can bomb people from a distance, they wouldnt go for the suicide bombings.


Same with the people of Iraq, Palestine, and any other country that is being illegally occupied right now.

The people of that country, do not have the luxury of f-16 bomber planes, and high tech machine guns and rockets. But they do have homemade cheap bombs.

Its a delivery system, America uses overnight FedEX Air, "terrorists" use UPS Groundshipping.

The only thing is that the guy who uses the groundshipping gets killed in the process, but to him, that is something he is willing to do.



People call HIzbullah a terrorist organization. Because they stood their ground, and defended their country against illegal occupiers...
They defeated the greatest army in the world, the Israeli army.

Do you remember what happened in the beginning of the Israel-Lebanon war?
The Bush administration got on TV and said, "give us 2 weeks and we will eradicate these terrorists"

2 weeks passed, and more Israeli soldiers were getting killed.
So Israel, couldnt find and kill the "terrorists" so they reverted to destroying the civilian population, and the countries infrastructure, so that they will spend every penny for the next 500 years, rebuilding their country.
They bombed schools, bridges, libraries, business institutions, mosqes; ALL claiming that Hizbullah was using those target areas and they needed to be destroyed.
Is that not terrorism?
After 4-6 weeks, they had to negotiate with terrorists, which before they were very sure that they only needed 2 weeks to get them out of Lebanon, and no negotiation was going to happen.

When America(in Iraq) or Israel(in Palestine and Lebanon) do what they did, destroy a countries infrastructure and kill many civilians; then claim "collateral damage", they end up with alot of people who have lost their parents, children, uncles aunts, grandparents etc.
I dont blame them for wanting to blow their selfs up in order to get a kill or two off the enemy.