Iraq: Stay or Leave? - Page 4

Chase · 03-14-2008, 07:33 PM

A win-win situation. Now work on a little gratitude, ha ha ha.

PuyoPiyo · 03-14-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase

A win-win situation. Now work on a little gratitude, ha ha ha.

LOL it's not a win-win, I only agree with the freedom of speech, that's it. Not the wars, still... Sorry.

Secretblend · 03-14-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

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

Congress did vote to go to war. Here is the link.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Byrdie714 · 03-14-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend

Congress did vote to go to war. Here is the link.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

I don't think that is the same as an Declaration of War....

Quote:

A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

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

Byrdie714 · 03-14-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

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

Capitol Questions

Secretblend · 03-14-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

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.

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

webexplorer · 03-14-2008, 11:00 PM

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?

Reba · 03-14-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

...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.

Please clarify for me. Regardless of ethnicity, are you an American citizen, or are you not?

Byrdie714 · 03-15-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend

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

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'.

GarnetTigerMom · 03-15-2008, 10:56 AM

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.

Pacman · 03-15-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

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'.

Yup, I was recalled about my history class, the president has powers to control the soldiers, congress is other story because of work on bill then let president to sign in or veto it.

Barbaro · 03-15-2008, 11:03 AM

Byrdie714 is technically correct that there was no declaration of war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

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?

It takes two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate override the President's veto. The US Constitution says so.

Pacman · 03-15-2008, 11:05 AM

I wish that US and other countries would invade Iran instead of Iraq because of long history about happened in 1979 and too much abuse on human rights, that need to be fixed and restore this country (Iran) to pre-1979, also there's other suggest about Sudan, I just found about Sudan is bad as Iran does.

Iraq war seems totally endless to me now but they are really needed focus on Bin Laden's issue, that found in Pakistan or Afghanistan and been for 7 years without caught Bin Laden, he must hide so difficultly.

Barbaro · 03-15-2008, 11:12 AM

Pacman-

Iran has gotten nuclear bombs, so it may lead to a nuclear war. So, you want the US and other Western countries to invade Iran? I think US is not in the position to invade Iran right now.

Pacman · 03-15-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

Well not if we cooperate with each other, not being so selfish and disrespectfuly. For example, the relationship between US and UK, they was used to be hateful each other in the past, but now they are in pretty good relationship and never war with each other since. Other example, Germany. In the history, many of countries hate Germany big time, but today Germany have many countries that Germany have pretty good relationship with and doesn't war since.

You got it wrong... The wars cause much of global warming by causing pollution from bombing, shooting, many kinds of vechiles, planes, ships, destroying the lands, nuclear bomb, many things could rise the global warming.

Also don't you know that there are more people who died don't get involved with the wars than those who died from the wars.

Well, I used to be anti-war but switch to neutral after found alot of history, also depends on kind of wars.

I don't support Iraq war but more neutral on Afghanistan war because of WTC and Al-Qaeda, if we want end the war in Afghan then that means we are give up for Bin Laden then he would win and make create more terrorist against USA, can be crash on US Bank Tower in LA or Sears Tower in Chicago, if we never know about happen in future. I just want keep war in Afghan until Bin Laden has caught and destroy the Al-Qaeda

Pacman · 03-15-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barbaro

Pacman-

Iran has gotten nuclear bombs, so it may lead to a nuclear war. So, you want the US and other Western countries to invade Iran? I think US is not in the position to invade Iran right now.

Yup, it's too late now but it was my wishes.

I don't know about Iran has nuclear war, would be nuke on Iran?

Barbaro · 03-15-2008, 11:32 AM

Iran claims they have not doing anything about it since 2003. Hmm.. Would I nuke Iran? What if Iran nukes first? Would it be too late? Let's send the spies there. I hate rhetoric.

As for Sudan, Human Rights claims that China has been sending the arms to Sudan for oil. UN didn't do anything to prevent China from sending the arms to Sudanese President in Darfur to fuel more violence and more death. Of course, China denies it. So, wanna tell China to quit sending the arms to Sudan?

Byrdie714 · 03-15-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarnetTigerMom

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.

You can't have peace without war, you can't have war without peace.

Byrdie714 · 03-15-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

I wish that US and other countries would invade Iran instead of Iraq because of long history about happened in 1979 and too much abuse on human rights, that need to be fixed and restore this country (Iran) to pre-1979, also there's other suggest about Sudan, I just found about Sudan is bad as Iran does.

Iraq war seems totally endless to me now but they are really needed focus on Bin Laden's issue, that found in Pakistan or Afghanistan and been for 7 years without caught Bin Laden, he must hide so difficultly.

I wouldn't go that far.....

Afterall, how do we know that our military isn't establishing bases in Iraq to get ready to invade Iran?

Pacman · 03-15-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

I wouldn't go that far.....

Afterall, how do we know that our military isn't establishing bases in Iraq to get ready to invade Iran?

You don't understand what I said.

I means that I just rather for USA to invade Iran over Iraq, if it went back to 2003 but too late, we are struck with Iraq now.

PuyoPiyo · 03-15-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

Well, I used to be anti-war but switch to neutral after found alot of history, also depends on kind of wars.

I don't support Iraq war but more neutral on Afghanistan war because of WTC and Al-Qaeda, if we want end the war in Afghan then that means we are give up for Bin Laden then he would win and make create more terrorist against USA, can be crash on US Bank Tower in LA or Sears Tower in Chicago, if we never know about happen in future. I just want keep war in Afghan until Bin Laden has caught and destroy the Al-Qaeda

Actually I am not 100 percent anti-war (that's why I agree with Liebling about only support war for defense), but I do support war for defense or revenge like the WTC attack you mentioned to. I would never never support war to just invading other countries and controlling other countries, we should just leave them alone and ignore them, as well as do other countries.

webexplorer · 03-15-2008, 07:47 PM

It's a war if we must do unless a foreign military invade our country. Like Japan that attacked in Hawaii. The World War I was firsthand that helped our allies to invade Germany because it was a massive war. But, World Trade Towers, unfortunately, is completely different because it was a small group of terrorists.

In the future, foreign oil companies will run out of oil in 25 years or 50 years especially Saudi Arabia. We need to start independent energies any possible that work with like windpowers, hydro dams, solar panels, many new design of energy.

I understand that the news wanted us to think that we should attack Iran. What about Saudi Arabia? What about Turkey that won't let our soldiers to find Bin Laden? Did we lose the war in Afghanistan? Probably, yes because George said that he needs more troops there. He didn't say how many bodies were killed there. I guess that he covered it up so we have no way to know about it.

shel90 · 03-15-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

It's a war if we must do unless a foreign military invade our country. Like Japan that attacked in Hawaii. The World War I was firsthand that helped our allies to invade Germany because it was a massive war. But, World Trade Towers, unfortunately, is completely different because it was a small group of terrorists.

In the future, foreign oil companies will run out of oil in 25 years or 50 years especially Saudi Arabia. We need to start independent energies any possible that work with like windpowers, hydro dams, solar panels, many new design of energy.

I understand that the news wanted us to think that we should attack Iran. What about Saudi Arabia? What about Turkey that won't let our soldiers to find Bin Laden? Did we lose the war in Afghanistan? Probably, yes because George said that he needs more troops there. He didn't say how many bodies were killed there. I guess that he covered it up so we have no way to know about it.

I agree..we need to stop being so dependent on oil. Need to find alternative energy sources.

View Poll Results: Should we stay or should we go?
As long it takes, we stay	21	32.31%
Get hell out of Iraq	44	67.69%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

03-15-2008, 10:56 AM	#100 (permalink)
GarnetTigerMom Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 4,583	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. __________________ GarnetTigerMom "The rain may be falling hard outside, But your smile makes it all alright. I'm so glad that you're my friend. I know our friendship will never end." -- Robert Alan

03-15-2008, 11:05 AM	#103 (permalink)
Pacman dunno dunno Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 12,171	I wish that US and other countries would invade Iran instead of Iraq because of long history about happened in 1979 and too much abuse on human rights, that need to be fixed and restore this country (Iran) to pre-1979, also there's other suggest about Sudan, I just found about Sudan is bad as Iran does. Iraq war seems totally endless to me now but they are really needed focus on Bin Laden's issue, that found in Pakistan or Afghanistan and been for 7 years without caught Bin Laden, he must hide so difficultly. __________________ Oh damn, don't mess with me

03-15-2008, 11:12 AM	#104 (permalink)
Barbaro doomsday clock's clicking Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: dæləs Posts: 239	Pacman- Iran has gotten nuclear bombs, so it may lead to a nuclear war. So, you want the US and other Western countries to invade Iran? I think US is not in the position to invade Iran right now. __________________ We know what we are but not what we may be. -Author:Shakespeare

03-15-2008, 11:32 AM	#107 (permalink)
Barbaro doomsday clock's clicking Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: dæləs Posts: 239	Iran claims they have not doing anything about it since 2003. Hmm.. Would I nuke Iran? What if Iran nukes first? Would it be too late? Let's send the spies there. I hate rhetoric. As for Sudan, Human Rights claims that China has been sending the arms to Sudan for oil. UN didn't do anything to prevent China from sending the arms to Sudanese President in Darfur to fuel more violence and more death. Of course, China denies it. So, wanna tell China to quit sending the arms to Sudan? __________________ We know what we are but not what we may be. -Author:Shakespeare

03-14-2008, 07:33 PM	#91 (permalink)
Chase Retired on ex-mod pension Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Albany, Oregon Posts: 2,066	A win-win situation. Now work on a little gratitude, ha ha ha.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

03-14-2008, 11:00 PM	#97 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,140	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?

03-15-2008, 07:47 PM	#112 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,140	It's a war if we must do unless a foreign military invade our country. Like Japan that attacked in Hawaii. The World War I was firsthand that helped our allies to invade Germany because it was a massive war. But, World Trade Towers, unfortunately, is completely different because it was a small group of terrorists. In the future, foreign oil companies will run out of oil in 25 years or 50 years especially Saudi Arabia. We need to start independent energies any possible that work with like windpowers, hydro dams, solar panels, many new design of energy. I understand that the news wanted us to think that we should attack Iran. What about Saudi Arabia? What about Turkey that won't let our soldiers to find Bin Laden? Did we lose the war in Afghanistan? Probably, yes because George said that he needs more troops there. He didn't say how many bodies were killed there. I guess that he covered it up so we have no way to know about it.