Discuss...
Discuss...
more likely targets after 9/11:
1) Saudi Arabia
2) Pentagon/CIA headquarters
but, we had to keep those terrorists from attacking us at home.. and im sure thats what weve accomplished :roll:
Well, technically, 9/11 was a murder. Granted, the murder of 3,000 people, but a murder nevertheless... So... who do we hold accountable in a murder? An ENTIRE country, or the ones responsible for the atrocity?
I agree, 9/11 was a murder, NOT an act of war. As Gore Vidal says, bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 is like bombing Sicily when the Mafia killed and terrorized U.S. citizens. Makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold9472
Unless there are ulterior motives besides bringing justice......
A snippet of something I wrote a while back...Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Doctor HST
"Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, and they knew that before going in. America is not safer as a result of this war. Because of it, we've now become more of a target than ever before. So retaliation can't be the reason. If retaliation were the reason, we would have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
The only "positive" things that have come out of this war is that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and American companies in the Middle East are making billions. However, the U.S. Government installed a CIA operative as the leader of Iraq. That's essentially what Saddam Hussein was at the time of his coronation. So that positive negates itself.
That leaves money. Money is the only positive that has come out of this war, and it's all gone to the wrong people. That isn't justification for a war against a country that never attacked the United States in any way, shape, or form. Surely, the American public would know better than to go to war for just money. No moral person would be willing to sacrifice lives for money.
So that leaves a big question. How did this administration get permission to go to war with a country that was in no way threatening to us, and benefits only a select few? Maybe they allowed 9/11 to happen. Maybe they didn't. I will say this. We would not have gone to war if it didn't. I can show you page after page of incriminating evidence that show this administration wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11 took place. They just didn't have a reason. 9/11 gave them that reason.
If my reasoning has any legitimacy, the families of 9/11, and the people of America deserve to know about it. The 9/11 Commission is a sham. The proof exists. They just refuse to release it."
Because ever since Abraham Lincoln, presidents have had the ability to go over Congress's head and declare war courtesy of Executive Decision. It helps when the public is easily frightened by strange looking dark men that are different; then the rest of the check/balance triumvirate (House, Senate) are shamed into supporting bombing weirdo countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold9472
But the President can only do that for 90 days I believe... Congress would have to declare "War" in order for those efforts to continue...
The War Powers Resolution
In 1973 United States involvement in the Vietnam War (1959-1975) rekindled an old argument over whether a president has the authority as commander in chief to send U.S. troops into combat, thereby usurping Congress’s power to declare war. The resulting War Powers Resolution attempted to restrict the president’s ability to order military deployments by calling for the president to consult with Congress before sending troops into hostilities, to make periodic reports on the status of hostilities, and to end unauthorized hostilities after 60 days. The resolution, which Congress has rarely enforced, passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto and became law in November 1973. Its key provisions are excerpted below. Herbert S. Parmet
Sorry... 60 days...