Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apration
Further more, I am grateful to Tony Blair and the citizens of the U.K. for supporting the U.S. in this. I think the U.K. could have very easily been a future target for these poeple.


Yes, in the past, it could have been. Now, it is a target. We were under absolutely no obligation to fight in Iraq but did so anyway and in doing so, created new enemies for Britain. And who will they target? Not Tony Blair, but the British people, the majority of whom did not support the war.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Aelita
As such, arguments "let's invade coz we want more oil" are not appealing to culturally developed humans.


I find it quite appealing, and so does Ann Coulter:


Ann Coulter
Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their coc aine is delivered to them?



Read carefully, I said it's not appealing to culturally developed humans.



Here's a link off one of the banner's on the Ann's page. It appears to be one of those MLM/Amway/Pyramide Scheme. The banner says the program works well for a "conservative renegade".






[edit on 18-5-2005 by Aelita]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I am against the war,

My country's troops killed, put in danger and sent several thousand miles because some one "thought" there was a threat.

My country's people where lied to and decieved about the war and the reasons behind it.

There are worse people and worse countries in the world, we chose iraq for a few reasons other than the ones originally listed....



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I'm against the war in Iraq..

To those who believe in liberation of Iraqi citizens will still capture the "hearts and minds." well, you're simply living in a propoganda pipe dream of an exsistance. Get a grip on reality people. The US and Israel are raunchy allies, why would Muslims/Islamic religious faithfuls praise the so called "liberation" by their sworn enemies? Why would Iraqi's accept zionist liberation from a coalition headed by the son of a former president, one who happend to kill plenty of Iraqi's to begin with during his own single-term presidency?

I've said it all along, this is nuts. We have been lied to, and lead into a war which could potentially end the existance of mandkind.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Interesting indeed; the tally now stands at

10 FOR
15 AGAINST
2 UNDECIDED.

It would be intersting to do a breakdown by country of origin (I assume most people here are either Americans or Britons) to find out if there's any correlation between nationality and feeling about the war. However, I believe (and my colleague HAL9000 would undoubtedly confirm) that the small size of the sample would render any conclusion statistically insignificant.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The U.S. Congress did approve this war, and the Constitution gives the full authority to authorize war to the Congress and the full authority to wage war to the President.


Sorry not to be rude, but you are simply incorrect...Heres why.

Firsst off the congress authorized the PRESIDENT to declare war. However they did not DECLARE war. Under PL 107-243, (H.J.Res.114):

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Authorized the President to use armed force to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce all relevant U.N resolutions regarding Iraq. Became public ;a": October 16, 2002.

pg.5
fpc.state.gov...

If the president had the Authority to declare war then it would not have been nec to draft this resolution.

Now here is Article 1, sec 8 Of the US constitution, which clearly states what powers the congress is responsible for:

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

www.usconstitution.net...


So you see the president DOES NOT have the power to declare war under the U.S constitution. Besides that if you read Res-114 it clearly gives the president power to declare war in the event that Iraq was posing an immenent threat to the Nation, NOT TO "Spread Democracy"

Basically the president, and congress have both been in flagrant violation of not only the constitution, but also in violation of the illegal resolution which initially gave the president that power (to declare war).


[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I'm very much against the war in Iraq.

1. It has divided the American people, keeping us at each other's throats while disgusting legislation is being snuck into bills that politicians must otherwise vote for.

2. It is not nor ever has been about protecting America. It's about an addiction to a drug called money/power. War and conflict are very profitable.

3. It has woken me up from my comfortable dream in which America was a bastion of freedom and hope.

4. It has given the real terrorists the power to influence policy.

5. It has given the rest of the world an excuse to pursue WMD.

There are more reasons, but the more I write, the more depressed I become.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I am totally against the war in Iraq for 3 reasons:

1. We are there to take over the oil fields to make the Bush family more rich. (Remember the Bush family is in the oil buisness)

2. Saddam never posed a threat to us. I don't believe he had WMD's that could take out cities in the U.S.

3. We are doing more harm than good over there already. We are now making more enemies than friends by staying and not leaving.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Bush family = Greed, oil, and War to get both



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The authorization for military action was a defacto declaration of war. It was completely legal under the War Powers Act of 1973.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The authorization for military action was a defacto declaration of war. It was completely legal under the War Powers Act of 1973.


Which is still in violation of the constitution. Come on we aren't talking Rocket surgery here. Most if not all constitutionalist will tell you that this is not what was outlined by our founding fathers. I know there are acts, and measures, blah, blah, blah.That does not mean they are within the framework of the constitution though.

[edited for jocularity]

[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Which is still in violation of the constitution.


Well someone should sue in the Supreme Court to invalidate. The fact is Congress hasn't wanted to formally declare war since World War II, prefering to pass such resolutions authorizing military action. If this is unconstitutional, it's the fault of the Congress and they should get some more backbone and start really declaring war. But, I think the Supreme Court would consider the Iraq act a legal declaration of war under the Constitution, since it basically did declare war, just gave some discretion to the President on when to start it and to cancel it if Iraq had come into compliance.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The Constitution is only a piece of paper when your talking about an over powered government that can bend the rules.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I have to say, as I have many times before. I am against the War.
It has been hard knowing my son was over there, not knowing if he was OK or not.
Watching the news , listening to the radio, checking the web for any information etc. Hanging on to every snippet of information drives you mad, but its something you do.

I think i speak for all parents who have had family serving or are about to, that it is very difficult to support a War that has been found to be unjust.

I will say this again too, i support the troops to the hilt. This is bound to cause some offense to some people, but I have my reasons, as do most people.


cjf

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The U.S. Congress did approve this war, and the Constitution gives the full authority to authorize war to the Congress and the full authority to wage war to the President.


Sorry not to be rude, but you are simply incorrect...Heres why.

Firsst off the congress authorized the PRESIDENT to declare war. However they did not DECLARE war. Under PL 107-243, (H.J.Res.114):

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Authorized the President to use armed force to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce all relevant U.N resolutions regarding Iraq. Became public ;a": October 16, 2002.

pg.5
fpc.state.gov...

If the president had the Authority to declare war then it would not have been nec to draft this resolution.


Djohntso77 is aboslutly correct in his statment in and of foundation of fact.


Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Now here is Article 1, sec 8 Of the US constitution, which clearly states what powers the congress is responsible for:

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

www.usconstitution.net...

So you see the president DOES NOT have the power to declare war under the U.S constitution. Besides that if you read Res-114 it clearly gives the president power to declare war in the event that Iraq was posing an immenent threat to the Nation, NOT TO "Spread Democracy"


The president of the United States only needs to procure a formal declaration of ‘War’ under certain situations as defined by the ‘War Powers Act’ of 1973 which negates most of your points. You are confusing declarations of 'war' with 'formal declarations of war' by the US.



WPA 1973 Copy WPA 1973: Abbriviated for space:

Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-- ……………

4. (c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.


Read from your own “sited” source which supports the above:




H.Res. 612 Reaffirmed that it should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and
to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime. Passed in the House: December 17, 1998

H.Con.Res.137 Expressed concern for the urgent need of a criminal tribunal to try
members of the Iraqi regime for war crimes.
Passed in the House: January 27, 1998

P.L. 107-243 (H.J.Res. 114). To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
against Iraq. Authorized the President to use armed force to defend
the national security of the United States against the threat posed by
Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.
Became public law: October 16, 2002



Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Basically the president, and congress have both been in flagrant violation of not only the constitution, but also in violation of the illegal resolution which initially gave the president that power (to declare war).


Not to be obtuse, are you saying the President can declare war but can’t, but wait he can, but with the approval of congress, wait that's not it,oh no he can’t, they can, wait they are both wrong? Your pushing the implied act of ‘spreading democracy’ by fitting that in to your statements perhaps as your message; no where in your displayed facts demonstrate a single hint of this intent, and if so how

The above does not include the changes to:

Executive Order 13074--Amendment to Executive Order 12656
(many more available)

Which grant even more rights to the President of the United States in the light you focus.

The congress of the United States can grant these powers based in their constitution under the general authorities granted under what has been called ‘The Elastic Clause'. (refer to your own link) The original constitution of the US can be modified and powers redistributed long after the original was inked in upon ratifiaction.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
originally I was for it, but its over now, they are no longer a threat to us
if they ever were. and those people don't know how to be democratic, all
they know is fighting they have been fighting for a long time. all they want
to know now is who do we fight. anyway I'm against it.


cjf

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The authorization for military action was a defacto declaration of war. It was completely legal under the War Powers Act of 1973.


Which is still in violation of the constitution. Come on we aren't talking Rocket surgery here. Most if not all constitutionalist will tell you that this is not what was outlined by our founding fathers. I know there are acts, and measures, blah, blah, blah.That does not mean they are within the framework of the constitution though.
[edited for jocularity]

[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]


The ‘War Powers Act’ is law and was properly ratified by the Senate and House of Representatives, November 7, 1973 Under the constitutional authority granted by Article I. Section 8.:


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.




.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by cjf]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Once again, I bet the people for the war can't justify the fact that 100,000 civilians have died alone



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Am I for the war in Iraq? NO.

I think that President Bush had good intentions. Do we really know the reasons we're there, probably not. Probably never will, but for now, I'm going to believe in my country and what we stand for.

I'm going to support our troops 1000 percent. I pray for the safety of each and every man and woman there, as well as each and every Iraqi citizen.

God Bless the U.S.A.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
I'm going to support our troops 1000 percent. I pray for the safety of each and every man and woman there, as well as each and every Iraqi citizen.

God Bless the U.S.A.


I am sorry if I am out of line but I truly find the above statement Assenine. How in the hölle do you pray for peoples safety during a war? War is the act of systematic destruction of life, and property, there is nothing safe about it.

That's like walking in the rain, and praying not to get wet....









 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join