President Bush

[amandaissingle]

Bush is not responsible for the war in Iraq ppl are just looking for someone to blame! My dad's in Iraq but I still think the war is the right thing to do.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by amandaissingle

Bush is not responsible for the war in Iraq ppl are just looking for someone to blame! My dad's in Iraq but I still think the war is the right thing to do.

Then please back up your statements and explain why.

[amandaissingle]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Then please back up your statements and explain why.

President Bush doesn't say oh let's start a war and then it happens, he has to submit the idea to the senate and they vote on it.It's a process that takes a while to complete. And I think the war is a good thing because were doing a good thing to try and help the Iraqies.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Although Wikipedia doesn't give much if any information on inspections after the beginning of the invasion, I only got reports of inspections [possibly months] after the invasion began. That doesn't add up to me. Also:

Not to sound pig-headed, but I'd like to know if they got this information before or after the invasion. I'm guessing that it was before, but I might be wrong.

Reports of the complete destruction of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program predate the invasion, predate 9/11 and predate Bush being "elected" president in the first place. They've known that was was left of his nuclear program was destroyed since Clinton was President.

I never said that I supported that action. Hell, I don't really support the war in general.

Also, I've brought this up before, but I think that if we had Saddam's next-in-command(s) rule the country under the watch of the US/U.N. (Either/or), Iraq might be just a tad bit more stable. Unfortunately, his next-in-command(s) are either battling against us or are dead.

The failed missile attack that pre-dated the invasion of Iraq was -explicitly- planned to -assassinate- the second and third in command (Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay) as well as try to kill Hussein, as there were reports that he was there visiting his sons at the time. In addition to their deaths, Ali Hassan al-Majid (The minister of Defense during the war, and probably the next closest person to "second-in-command") has been sentenced to death, and after an appeal in about three weeks, will certainly hang.

The way that I interpreted the information, the overthrowing of Saddam meant that the Sunnis and Shia weren't divided anymore, and started going at each other to contribute to the fighting that was already going on.

Hrm...I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this...but the general lack of law and order in Iraq after the overthrow contributed to all kinds of increased violence, looting, and other criminal behavior. The country has -always- been split Sunni/Shi'a/Kurd, but now that the US is all about "free western democracy" and letting the Iraqis suddenly put forward candidates and hold some kind of western style election, it shouldn't really come as a -surprise- to anyone that centuries old religious conflict being let out from under the tight secular authority threatens to result in widespread violence. Yet another reason why it was suggested so many times that the US would require a larger number of forces to keep the peace.

Again, I'm not supporting this war at all, and I think we could've made great attempts to avoid it. But I'm not sure if there's much else we can do about Iraq right now. Pulling out, although it sounds immoral, would sound like a great idea to me. The Iraqi people can lead themselves, whether they want to rule the country by slaughter or not; it's the lesser of two evils.

However, I'm not sure if the U.N. will approve of us pulling out, and they probably don't.

Well, since the UN didn't want you in there in the first place, I don't see how they'd object to a withdrawl. It isn't like the US listened the first time, why would they listen now?

But rather like Vietnam before it, I suspect this will end with another nebulously declared American victory, a withdrawl of troops, and problems that continue to last for years afterwards....hooray?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by amandaissingle

President Bush doesn't say oh let's start a war and then it happens, he has to submit the idea to the senate and they vote on it.It's a process that takes a while to complete. And I think the war is a good thing because were doing a good thing to try and help the Iraqies.

Overthrowing the one leader that was keeping the inner turmoil of the nation in check, replacing him with basically nobody, and completely failing to accomplish any goals of the reconstruction that were promised doesn't sound very helpful.

Tens of thousands of dead civilians, millions in destroyed property and infrastructure, a looming civil war, and renewed religious strife don't sound very helpful.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by amandaissingle

President Bush doesn't say oh let's start a war and then it happens, he has to submit the idea to the senate and they vote on it.It's a process that takes a while to complete. And I think the war is a good thing because were doing a good thing to try and help the Iraqies.

The President can command troops to go anywhere, but only Congress can declare war. According to a teacher of mine, there have only been four wars in American history where Congress actually declared war. I *think* two of them were the War of 1812 and World War II, but I forget the others. Maybe WWI and and the Civil War, I don't know.

Of course, he had no source for that, and thus neither do I, so think of that anyway you want. My point is just that since the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he can command the troops to go anywhere. To actually declare "war," Congressional consent is required.

[purebloodtexan]

Also, the Preisdent doesn't have to give in to Congress. He can believe in war to his very bones.

[ljw5021]

Originally Posted by devonin

Perhaps you'd like to follow the rules of the forum, and I don't know...-support- your claim that people are making fallacious arguments with perhaps some kind of evidence? Or even explanation?

I'm not going to teach the class over the forums. It just has to do with assumptions that people know the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, without studying it.

[purebloodtexan]

Also, the four wars that Congress actually declared were:
-War of 1812.
-Civil War.
-WWII.
-Vietnam.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by ljw5021

I'm not going to teach the class over the forums. It just has to do with assumptions that people know the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, without studying it.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. But the rules of the forum are pretty clear that if you want to forward a claim, you need to support your claim with evidence. And basically saying "Wow, you guys are completely wrong" is a pretty heavy statement to be making with no evidence to back it up.

[purebloodtexan]

Actually, I'm a bit shaky about Vietnam. I was told that we were attacked on U.S. soil (Not the Continental U.S.) and officially announced our involvement in the war.

I'll check further into Wikipedia once I get out of the shower.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Also, the four wars that Congress actually declared were:
-War of 1812.
-Civil War.
-WWII.
-Vietnam.

Wow, I completely forgot about Vietnam somehow. Thanks.

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Actually, I'm a bit shaky about Vietnam. I was told that we were attacked on U.S. soil (Not the Continental U.S.) and officially announced our involvement in the war.

I'll check further into Wikipedia once I get out of the shower.

As soon as you said it, it rang a bell, so I think you're right. I'll check if I can remember to.

[devonin]

I think you're thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin attacks, where some US ships conducting intelligence operations were "attacked" by what was claimed to be Vietnamese torpedo boats.

This led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of congress that basically gave LBJ permission to carry out military actions in the south pacific without asking for a formal declaration of war.

The problem is that the attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin were sketchy at best, and plenty of historians have theorized that the attacks were exaggerated if not invented entirely as an excuse to start upping military actions in the area.

LBJ got a resolution passed through congress and the senate that said...let me go get an exact quote for you: [It authorized the president] "to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."

Which basically meant that the entire process of the Vietnam war could have been carried out without any declaration of war on the part of the United States, because South Vietnam was "requesting assistance"

As an aside the actual list of formal congress declarations of war in the United States is:

War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War 1
World War 2

There were however a whole bunch of "Military Engagements" that were authorized by congress, but that were not formal declarations of war. Vietnam is in this group, along with the Persian Gulf war, and more recently Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq)

[purebloodtexan]

Don't forget about Gothic Serpent and other actions that we executed in Africa.

[albaneenesk8r]

George bush is a douche

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by albaneenesk8r

George bush is a douche

Read the rules.

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird in the Rules Thread

1. Only post if you can contribute something to the topic/debate. This means no more: "What <insert name> Said" , or "I agree/disagree".

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird in the Rules Thread

4. Since this is a Critical Thinking Forum use evidence to back up your statement if needed. This means no more: "The Bible says so." Actually find the verse that says so (just an example).

You failed to follow both of these rules. Next time, try posting something worthwhile.

[amandaissingle]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

The President can command troops to go anywhere, but only Congress can declare war. According to a teacher of mine, there have only been four wars in American history where Congress actually declared war. I *think* two of them were the War of 1812 and World War II, but I forget the others. Maybe WWI and and the Civil War, I don't know.

Of course, he had no source for that, and thus neither do I, so think of that anyway you want. My point is just that since the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he can command the troops to go anywhere. To actually declare "war," Congressional consent is required.

but since we're currently in a war w/ iraq doesn't that mean that congress declared war?

[devonin]

No... Operation Iraqi Freedom is not actually a war. It is a Military Operation.

As such, no formal declaration of war has ever been made, which lets the American government skirt neatly around plenty of restrictions and issues that they would otherwise face.

[amandaissingle]

Originally Posted by devonin

Overthrowing the one leader that was keeping the inner turmoil of the nation in check, replacing him with basically nobody, and completely failing to accomplish any goals of the reconstruction that were promised doesn't sound very helpful.

Tens of thousands of civilians, millions in destroyed property and infrastructure, a looming civil war, and renewed religious strife don't sound very helpful.

But at least we're trying to help and that's more than I can say for anyone else in this world.

[devonin]

Trying to help in a way that makes things worse isn't a very good way to try and help. If that's the help you offer: Civil war, homelessness and death, perhaps you should stop trying to help people?

If nothing else, waiting to help people until they, you know, actually -ask- for your help might be advised also.