Iraq: Stay or Leave?

Should we stay or should we go?

  • As long it takes, we stay

    Votes: 22 32.8%

  • Get hell out of Iraq

    Votes: 45 67.2%
  • Total voters
    67
Status
Not open for further replies.
QFT, Chasie!
 
Aleser said:
I don't believe in war, nor in fighting. The so called "war" against invisible targets in Iraq is leading nowhere and to nothing but pain and suffering.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. War is Evil!
 
webexplorer said:
That's not good. It's too stressful for him to be in a danger zone.

It would be good idea for Bush and Dick to stand there instead our soldiers.
Click to expand...

:lol: AGREE!!

Liebling:-))) said:
Ditto!

I am an anti-war. :cool:

I only support troops for DEFEND our countries, not ATTACK other countries.
Click to expand...

Agree!

Byrdie714 said:
:roll: Obviously the Kaiser and Hitler thought differently.
Click to expand...

Because it depends on the citizens. We, American citizens, were the most embrassement in the worldwide today for voting Bush to war, while Germany didn't!
 
Puyo, we, American citizens, didn't vote for the troops to go to the war. The Congresses did.

Plus, the German forces aren't part of the operation IN Iraq. They are the part of the NATO troops in Afghanistan.
 
Texan Guy said:
Puyo, we, American citizens, didn't vote for the troops to go to the war. The Congresses did.

Plus, the German forces aren't part of the operation IN Iraq. They are the part of the NATO troops in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Actually Congress hasn't declared war in Iraq. The President can use his powers to send in military troops where hostilities are according to the War Powers Act of 1973.

It's the same scenario of Korea and Viet Nam.

The War Powers Act of 1973
 
PuyoPiyo said:
Because it depends on the citizens. We, American citizens, were the most embrassement in the worldwide today for voting Bush to war, while Germany didn't!
Click to expand...

I'm a U.S. citizen and not at all embarrassed by our right to vote and that we abide by the will of the majority.

I'm most proud that people like PuyoPiyo can voice their negative opinions safely in this public forum, no matter how much against the majority those opinions may be.

In many Arabian locales today, he would be tracked down, condemned as a traitor without trial, and have his head sawed off with a dull knife.

I have seen many similar places first hand, and can give URLs to many documented videos of those practices continuing as we speak.

I'm proud most of our troops volunteer to combat those crimes against humanity. Reading rants of those who think freedom come free is just another price we pay for freedom.
 
Chase said:
I'm a U.S. citizen and not at all embarrassed by our right to vote and that we abide by the will of the majority.

I'm most proud that people like PuyoPiyo can voice their negative opinions safely in this public forum, no matter how much against the majority those opinions may be.

In many Arabian locales today, he would be tracked down, condemned as a traitor without trial, and have his head sawed off with a dull knife.

I have seen many similar places first hand, and can give URLs to many documented videos of those practices continuing as we speak.

I'm proud most of our troops volunteer to combat those crimes against humanity. Reading rants of those who think freedom come free is just another price we pay for freedom.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
Chase said:
I'm a U.S. citizen and not at all embarrassed by our right to vote and that we abide by the will of the majority.

I'm most proud that people like PuyoPiyo can voice their negative opinions safely in this public forum, no matter how much against the majority those opinions may be.

In many Arabian locales today, he would be tracked down, condemned as a traitor without trial, and have his head sawed off with a dull knife.

I have seen many similar places first hand, and can give URLs to many documented videos of those practices continuing as we speak.

I'm proud most of our troops volunteer to combat those crimes against humanity. Reading rants of those who think freedom come free is just another price we pay for freedom.
Click to expand...

That's wonderful that you are proud, and I am glad that I am proud to express my opinion :)
 
A win-win situation. Now work on a little gratitude, ha ha ha.
 
Chase said:
A win-win situation. Now work on a little gratitude, ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

LOL it's not a win-win, I only agree with the freedom of speech, that's it. Not the wars, still... Sorry.
 
Who has the power to declare war: Congress or the President? Springfield, OR - 5/12/00
The Constitution (Article I, section 8) grants Congress the power to declare war. However, it also names the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2.) As a result, the executive and legislative branches have often had conflicts over the power to send troops into hostilities, whether called "war" or not. For example, neither the war in Korea (1950-1953) nor the war in Vietnam (1965-1973) were ever formally declared a "war."

The War Powers Act in 1973 was enacted to promote better cooperation between the President and Congress. It states that the President must consult Congress prior to committing U.S. troops. He must report any troop commitments to Congress within 48 hours of their deployment, and must end any troop deployment if Congress has not formally declared war or given its approval by resolution within 60 days. Under some circumstances, the President may extend that period for an additional 30 days if necessary to withdraw troops safely. The Act also grants Congress the ability to pass a resolution directing the President to remove U.S. troops from foreign soil, within a stated timeframe.

Presidents have not always consulted Congress prior to sending troops abroad. Court cases brought to clarify the division of power between the two branches over troop deployment have been more advisory than definitive, urging the President and Congress to work together more cooperatively.

This area is far from settled. Overall, the President seems to have maintained the upper hand. He takes military action first and informs Congress second, which is then caught between supporting U.S. personnel en route to or en site in dangerous territory, or taking the time to debate and pass a resolution either declaring war or requiring troops to be withdrawn. Congress has declared war formally only four times: (1) the War of 1812; (2) the Spanish-American War; (3) World War I; and (4) World War II. A fifth instance, the War with Mexico, 1846-1848, is sometimes included in this list. President Polk had notified Congress on May 11, 1846 that "war exists" with Mexico, after initiating hostilities on April 25. Congress passed a joint resolution recognizing that fact two days later, and allocated resources. Two years later, it passed a resolution condemning the war as "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."

In recent years, troop actions in Grenada, Panama, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Zaire, and the Sudan were all undertaken at the initiation of the President, without prior vote of Congress
Click to expand...

Capitol Questions
 
Byrdie714 said:
I don't think that is the same as an Declaration of War....



There is a difference between the two unless the lines have gotten 'muddled' so to speak.
Click to expand...

The difference doesn't matter. The fact is that congress voted to go to war in Iraq.
 
Secretblend is correct.


The Congress people voted and approved it. Then, it passed to the president. The president has to sign it for the approval or veto it.

If the Congress people disapproved it, then they would never pass it to the president.

The result is that it is really Congress people AND the president's fault that cost us billions of dollars. Our economy is in the turmoil.

Let's say that a president disapproved it. The bill sends back to the Congress, and they have to revise it. Then, it sends back again to the president. If no luck, then I am not sure - a 2/3 vote of Congress can be overridden without the president's signature. Is that correct?
 
Aleser said:
...It's my family. It's my country. As an Iraqi-American, I have been stuck in the position of living in a country that is willingly killing one I equally consider home. And I hope, pray, that one day it'll be over. That mothers can get their children home. That those in Iraq don't have to be afraid of the war surrounding them. Insha'Allah, it'll happen.
Click to expand...
Please clarify for me. Regardless of ethnicity, are you an American citizen, or are you not?
 
Secretblend said:
The difference doesn't matter. The fact is that congress voted to go to war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't matter. The only difference is the formality of it.

One can send military troops in without a 'declaration of war'. The other is sending troops in with a 'declaration of war'.
 
I understand that we have wars to fight for our country. But war is also stupid. A man name Hermann Hesse once said, " "The greatest threat to our world and its peace comes from those who want war, who prepare for it, and who, by holding out vague promises of future peace or by instilling fear of foreign aggression, try to make us accomplices to their plans."

War still stupid with so much killing. I hate to see women and children getting killed in the cross fire too, so killing each other is not gonna make things better. Do you remember what Dwight D. Eisenhower once said in history? He said, " "When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing." So I agree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top