"The Spice Oil must flow."

This is why the Brits, US and Aussies faught to get Hussein out.

Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

The casualties of the war were 4,000 US slodiers dead, 50,000 Iraqi soldiers dead and 125,000 Iraqi citizens dead. The citizen deaths were largely the result of insurgents.

It was worthwhile and in the end the means were justified. The WMD allegations were supported by every international intelligence agency and in fact were promolgated by SH himself. The fact that none were found in no way diminishes the value of ending the regime of one of the most evil despots of this century.

To see how SH compares check out Link (new window)

IamKaiserSoze!!! - it's strange how none of those things were mentioned when the war was first getting started. I remember something about 9-11, 9-11, WMD, 9-11 at the time with nothing mentioned about the war being for Iraq's people until years later. Revisionist history at it's finest?

Also, the ends do not justify the means. It just doesn't work that way. I could kill a man and harvest his organs to save the lives of a dozen sickly people - just because in the end a dozen people live who would have died does not justify killing that one man. I could present you with a million other examples of the means justifying the ends that would make your intuitions balk... but instead I'll leave you with this: just because you want the war to be justified does not mean you should compromise your principles.

Subby: "pie tastes good"

Well since it's Britain, I have to assume you mean boiled cabbage pie, or cod pie, or something equally disgusting.

/Would try cod pie

Well, pie *does* taste good...

Talon: IamKaiserSoze!!! - it's strange how none of those things were mentioned when the war was first getting started. I remember something about 9-11, 9-11, WMD, 9-11 at the time with nothing mentioned about the war being for Iraq's people until years later. Revisionist history at it's finest?

Also, the ends do not justify the means. It just doesn't work that way. I could kill a man and harvest his organs to save the lives of a dozen sickly people - just because in the end a dozen people live who would have died does not justify killing that one man. I could present you with a million other examples of the means justifying the ends that would make your intuitions balk... but instead I'll leave you with this: just because you want the war to be justified does not mean you should compromise your principles.


I was promoting US involvement while Clinton was in office based on the murderous regime of Hussein and the damaged caused not only to his people, the Iranians and Kuwaitis, but also Israel and the potential for Turkey. There is no revision of history going on here, only restatement of facts. I respect your opinion that no means ever justify an end that results in even one death, but I also believe differently. I believe the world has some evil players that need to occasionally be dealt with.

It is a shame that only a few countries rose to this occasion in 2003. Is it a coincidence that the leaders of France, Germany and Italy (who chose the isolationist path) were all voted out of office and replaced with more conservative leaders?

The revisionist history was the art of portraying the war as simply a search for WMD and conveniently dismissing the years of murder, war, support of terrorism (pre Al Quaida) and violation of UN sanctions which were cited to Congress and the rest of the world as the grounds for the war.

I was promoting US involvement while Clinton was in office based on the murderous regime of Hussein and the damaged caused not only to his people, the Iranians and Kuwaitis, but also Israel and the potential for Turkey. There is no revision of history going on here, only restatement of facts. I respect your opinion that no means ever justify an end that results in even one death, but I also believe differently. I believe the world has some evil players that need to occasionally be dealt with.

Which is why you are so vociferous about going into Zimbabwe right?

Tigger: I was promoting US involvement while Clinton was in office based on the murderous regime of Hussein and the damaged caused not only to his people, the Iranians and Kuwaitis, but also Israel and the potential for Turkey. There is no revision of history going on here, only restatement of facts. I respect your opinion that no means ever justify an end that results in even one death, but I also believe differently. I believe the world has some evil players that need to occasionally be dealt with.

Which is why you are so vociferous about going into Zimbabwe right?

I think there are other candidates as well. Do you think we have sufficient resources to goteof them concurrently? Are you saying If we don't do them all at the same time you cant justify any?

IamKaiserSoze!!!:

Revisionism redacted.


You must have had that tripe all loaded up and ready to go from some other thread, where I am sure you were destroyed.

Repeating lies does not make them true. We were told it was a slam dunk that WMDs were in Sadaam's possesion and that inaction would result in a "mushroom cloud". Also, we would be greeted as liberators, the war would pay for itself, and would be over in a matter of weeks with minimal casulties.

You obviously bit on this ham-fisted sales job, and continue to believe it long after the lies have all been uncovered.

Sucker.

secretagentwang: Subby: "pie tastes good"

Well since it's Britain, I have to assume you mean boiled cabbage pie, or cod pie, or something equally disgusting.

/Would try cod pie

Stargazy pie?

UberDave: Well, pie *does* taste good...

This.

/I'm going to try and bake a pecan pie with chocolate for christmas
//But I'll make one this weekend, just to try it out

Is this like when insiders investigate climate change?

/Just asking
//DRTFA

what kind of pie are we talking about here? this being Britain and all.

The editorials read as follows - "Quite!" "Indeed!" "Get back in queue!" "Splendid!" "Poppycock!"

Tatsuhiko: The editorials read as follows - "Quite!" "Indeed!" "Get back in queue!" "Splendid!" "Poppycock!"

Don't forget "Bollocks!" and "He's daft!"

And need I remind you, if any ungentlemanly conduct is discovered, we shall send a stern letter of reproof. I promise harsh words.

UberDave: Well, pie *does* taste good...

I like pie.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: This is why the Brits, US and Aussies faught to get Hussein out.

Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

The casualties of the war were 4,000 US slodiers dead, 50,000 Iraqi soldiers dead and 125,000 Iraqi citizens dead. The citizen deaths were largely the result of insurgents.

It was worthwhile and in the end the means were justified. The WMD allegations were supported by every international intelligence agency and in fact were promolgated by SH himself. The fact that none were found in no way diminishes the value of ending the regime of one of the most evil despots of this century.

To see how SH compares check out Link (new window)

Don't try to play the rational card in Fark.

dr.zaeus: UberDave: Well, pie *does* taste good...

I like pie.

Terrorists hate us for our pie selection.

IamKaiserSoze!!!:
It is a shame that only a few countries rose to this occasion in 2003. Is it a coincidence that the leaders of France, Germany and Italy (who chose the isolationist path) were all voted out of office and replaced with more conservative leaders?

Well, Sarkozy, the conservative that France elected, opposed the invasion. Italy's Romano Prodi, the socialist who replaced conservative Berlusconi for a couple of years, was also against the war (just like Berlusconi was when the war started). I think Merkel might have been for the war, so you maybe have one out of three there chief, but overall I'm going to go with a yes, it was a coincidence.

Chiller Theatre: Is this like when insiders investigate climate change?

/Just asking
//DRTFA

It's more like Isreal checking for Isreal/Palestine war crimes.

It says "pie tastes good" because they never found the CAKE.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: This is why the Brits, US and Aussies faught to get Hussein out.

Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

The casualties of the war were 4,000 US slodiers dead, 50,000 Iraqi soldiers dead and 125,000 Iraqi citizens dead. The citizen deaths were largely the result of insurgents.

It was worthwhile and in the end the means were justified. The WMD allegations were supported by every international intelligence agency and in fact were promolgated by SH himself. The fact that none were found in no way diminishes the value of ending the regime of one of the most evil despots of this century.

To see how SH compares check out Link (new window)

Ok, so, you suggest that there should be a unilateral right to dethrone dictators that commit mass murder and rule poorly. Think twice about whether this is a good new rule for international order: what if China decided to invade the Phillipines based on the fact that Gloria Arroyo 'disappears' dissidents into the dark, or if Russia decided to intervene in one of its Central Asian neighbours in order to depose a tyrant. Is this a good basis for stability in the international system? Really?

There is a reason why these sorts of interventions require community consensus, and that reason is legitimacy. The role of the UN Security Council is to collectively legitimize these sorts of operations, and when you can't convince China and Russia to back you on this sort of thing, the right way to go about it is to work on them with incentives and reassurances, not go it alone and just confirm their darkest fears. Collective legitimacy means that nobody's particular interests underlie the intervention (well, besides the interests of great power consensus), which eliminates all the talk of oil profits etc.

In addition, it is an established fact that Saddam Hussein, while being a despot, an aggressive expansionist, and a mass murderer, provided a secular society within which many groups enjoyed more protections than they do now, such as Christians and homosexuals. I, for one, would prefer a secular tyrant to a religious democracy. With secularism comes tolerance over time, whereas divisive ideologies such as religion just create rollercoasters of sectarian vengeance and hatred. The first goal of any society should be order and the preservation of life, and it is difficult to claim the present government is doing better than Saddam at this.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: The revisionist history was the art of portraying the war as simply a search for WMD and conveniently dismissing the years of murder, war, support of terrorism (pre Al Quaida) and violation of UN sanctions which were cited to Congress and the rest of the world as the grounds for the war.

First off, the USA knew perfectly well that Saddam had, at one time, weapons of mass destruction. Because the USA had the farking receipts. Funny how you never heard a whole helluva lot about the trial of Saddam until he was swinging by his neck, huh? Because he could SERIOUSLY embarass the US on the world stage by pointing the fact they supported him right up until he invaded Kuwait.

Gave him billions in funds, sold him "dual use" chemicals. Hell, man, the CIA gave Saddam lists of his enemies' locations when he first came to power and he proceeded to use the lists to massacre those opponents.

And, as sometimes happens when you, the United States of America, support violent, brutal, repressive dictators, it comes back to DESERVEDLY bite you in the ayse. I'm thinking of Pol Pot, Suharto, and pretty much all of Central and South America (Somoza, Pinochet, etc.).

So spare me your hilarious dismissal of "revised" history. The United States of America supported Saddam Hussein's brutal regime for many, many decades until he went "rogue" and didn't follow his orders anymore.

And then, to top it off, after Gulf War I ended, the USA persuaded some of the people to rise up against Saddam so they could overthrow him, but once Saddam started killing the people with attack helicopters and massive ordnance (again, AFTER the Gulf War), the USA totally abandoned them to their fate, and thousands died. Why in the WORLD any Iraqi in his/her right mind would trust the USA at this point is completely beyond me.

I believe the world has some evil players that need to occasionally be dealt with.

I agree. Some countries are very aggressive militarily. and spend exorbitant amounts of their taxpayers' money to bomb people overseas into bloody messes, and they throw fine young people into the meat grinder so that massive corporations can have insane profits and their citizens for the most part are docile and stupid and wave their little flags and send their sons and daughters off to die for nothing.

And the sad thing is, the only people who can really stop it all are those same people who are sending their kids off to die needlessly.

Violated how many UN resolutions? This from the same cowards that allow sharia to rule in their country? The cowards who let the iranians capture their soldiers/ sailors and put their heads up their asses? This should turn out well.

UN resolution 1441, nuff said

apeiron242: IamKaiserSoze!!!: This is why the Brits, US and Aussies faught to get Hussein out.

Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

The casualties of the war were 4,000 US slodiers dead, 50,000 Iraqi soldiers dead and 125,000 Iraqi citizens dead. The citizen deaths were largely the result of insurgents.

It was worthwhile and in the end the means were justified. The WMD allegations were supported by every international intelligence agency and in fact were promolgated by SH himself. The fact that none were found in no way diminishes the value of ending the regime of one of the most evil despots of this century.

To see how SH compares check out Link (new window)

Don't try to play the rational card in Fark.

It's not the rational card, dipstick: It's the propaganda card.

Tor_Eckman: IamKaiserSoze!!!:

Revisionism redacted.


You must have had that tripe all loaded up and ready to go from some other thread, where I am sure you were destroyed.

Repeating lies does not make them true. We were told it was a slam dunk that WMDs were in Sadaam's possesion and that inaction would result in a "mushroom cloud". Also, we would be greeted as liberators, the war would pay for itself, and would be over in a matter of weeks with minimal casulties.

You obviously bit on this ham-fisted sales job, and continue to believe it long after the lies have all been uncovered.

Sucker.

Ignoring the fact just makes you an asshat...
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. >

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) > Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

Joe Blowme: Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility forattacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, includingthe attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be inIraq;

I always laugh at that one, and most of them.

Because, Joe, if you start running around gasping and pointing and saying "OMIGOD that country is ignoring UN Resolutions WE NEED TO INVADE" you should realize that ISRAEL make you look like a bunch of farking simpletons or liars.. How many are they up to, now? 97 Resolutions that they're in violation of? I haven't check the news today so it may be 98.

And rather than sanction or warn them, you actually continue to fund them to an incredible degree while they totally thumb their noses at the UN. For nigh on 45 years now?

So, yeah, you pick. Simpleton or liar?

gorgor: luckyeddie: Stargazy pie?

*shakes tiny slow fist*
Stupid people talking for over an hour and can't get shiate done.

I humbly bow before your far superior pic-hunting skills though, Gorgor. I bet that you could have found dozens of pictures of one-legged dwarfs with psoriasis having sex with stargazy pie.

/no, I didn't look

Joe Blowme: Violated how many UN resolutions? This from the same cowards that allow sharia to rule in their country? The cowards who let the iranians capture their soldiers/ sailors and put their heads up their asses? This should turn out well.

UN resolution 1441, nuff said

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Read the Wiki article on the subject, it's a little more complete than the simpleton view you so dearly want to believe.

All Israeli military flights over Lebanon break a resolution aimed at ending the 2006 hostilities between the two neighbours, a UN envoy said yesterday.

"Every single Israeli overflight of Lebanon is a violation," the UN special envoy for Lebanon, Michael Williams said. "To the best of my knowledge, there's probably no other country in the world - probably, I may be wrong - which is subject to such an intrusive regime of aerial surveillance."

Hey look, a country repeatedly violating UN Resolutions. Somebody should do something, Joe. I hear they may have nukes, too, and they never signed the NPT. You should get on that.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091111/FOREIGN/711119998

Oh and check out Resolution 465 from way back in1980:

Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

I think they violate that one every day, and come to think of it, so do y'all.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: This is why the Brits, US and Aussies faught to get Hussein out.

and so on.

All of which is absolutely right. And yet. And yet...

We were not asked to go to war for any of those reasons - it was all based on dodgy dossiers, being "45 minutes" from nuclear armageddon and conducted behind our backs, presented as a fait accompli (or however that's spelled).

Now if the horrors of Saddam's rule really were the reason - and thus meant that from now on we'd be going around the world punishing evildoers - I and I'm pretty sure the majority of my countrymen along with me, would have said, "Great let's do that thang" (or at least "Jolly good show", for those of your farkers who reckon we talk this way). But sadly, that didn't happen and Iraq without the evil moustachioed one doesn't seem a whole lot better than it did with him. In many ways, what with the bombing, zero postwar planning and general incompitence of it of any war fought from 30,000 feet, it actually seems much worse.

So it was never about human rights, a heck of alot of people were killed who shouldn't have been and a lot of rich Americans/arms companies got even richer. Plus, just for bonus points, the middle east is even more farked up than it's ever been. Oh and it revealed our shining British democracy (a beacon to the world!) to be somewhat hollow, what with the general unaccountability of it all.

Essentially, this Inquiry is just a sop to the British public - it's not intended to discover anything as, quite frankly, there's nothing left to discover. It's more about damage limitation and getting the story straight for the history books. Any lessons, no matter how unintended, will soon be forgotten.

Maybe they will find a link between what happened on the 11th of September 2001 and the invasion of Iraq this time.

Resolution 681 -- 20 Dec 1990 -- Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967

Again, Joe Blowme, another resolution that has been violated every day since 1990. 19 years worth. Shouldn't the USA have exerted some pressure on Israel, to make the world and the region a safer place for everyone?

Now I want pie ...



/not enough pie pics
//I sound fat

CygnusDarius: UberDave: Well, pie *does* taste good...

This.

/I'm going to try and bake a pecan pie with chocolate for christmas
//But I'll make one this weekend, just to try it out

Just sprinkle some chocolate chips on the bottom of the pie before filling with the pecans, etc. Also, substitute about a 1/4 cup of liquid with Bailey's Irish Creme for a real treat.

"Britain opens official inquiry into Iraq war, appoints insider to run it. Expect hard-hitting answers like "Iraq is in the desert," "soldiers fought there," "pie tastes good""

At least they are making an inquiry of some sort. In the U.S., we can't even discuss the egregious war profiteering: There is a gag order against discussing the 70+ cases of fraud and abuse by American Contractors in Iraq.

Rolling Stone article on fraud and abuse conducted by contractors in Iraq.

Daylight Robbery.

Iraq for Sale.

Iraq's missing billions.

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

- Samuel P. Huntington

And I would add that it's easier to spew propaganda when you're a "democratic" nation. When you're a repressive regime, people take everything with a grain of salt ("yes, yes, hail the Glorious Leader, blah blah") but when you have the veneer of respectability, you can tell huge whoppers as long as they're consistent.

So that way, you can prop up brutal dictators who massacre their own people as long as they follow your orders. If they start acting on their own, you need to overthrow that government and install someone else who has America's best interests (as opposed to their population's) in mind.

It's been replayed so many times in places like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, and is actually probably the reason why there's so many left-wing leaders now in that region. It's pushback.

Now they hire ex-coca farmers who used to be peasants, and the USA can't really do anything about it.

Joe Blowme: ...blah...

So the USA can legitimately attack a sovereign nation because... the US congress says so?!

You know, I can punch you in the face, & if you try to prosecute me for it I'll get off because I can just say I spoke to myself about it & said it's ok.

gorgor: secretagentwang: /Would try cod pie

NOM?
http://tinyurl.com/yl9hk8g
(copy and paste)

Ohhhhhh no. I know much better than to load whatever image that is. for the sake of my job and my sanity.

/Pretty sure you're Cthulu

I am not quite sure what they expect to find that is not already common knowledge - that the Bush administation was hell bent on invading Iraq long before 9/11, among other things.

We are there. As Colin Powell said "we broke it, we bought it". No matter how dishonest the rationale for the invasion was we can't pack up, turn out the lights and depart overnight. To that end, I'd like to suggest that the Iraq invasion apologists/revisionsists show their support in a meaningful way - either enlist or drive your children to the recruiting station to do so. I am sure the soldiers, marines, airman and sailors on their 6th, 7th, and 8th tours would really appreciate the much-needed break they'd get if their supporters got up out of their armchairs and joined, if only so they'd get a bit more R&R between tours.

Exhibit A, as provided by Messrs. Bremner, Bird & Fortune;

Link (new window)

Rummy: Will you stop killing your citizens with the chemical weapons we gave you?

Saddam: Nope.

Rummy: Well, okay. I got a plane to catch.

Saddam: I plan to invade Kuwait in retaliation for illegally pumping oil out of our shared oil fields. OPEC and the UN have done nothing and Madeleine Albright(citation needed) says the US sees this as a regional conflict.

Rummy: Cool dud. Whatever. If I don't get to the airport, like right now, I won't get a windows seat.

Best threadjack ever: Balloon boy thread accidentally devolved into a thread about pie recipes.

55426750 (new window)

IamKaiserSoze!!!: This is why the Brits, US and Aussies faught to get Hussein out.

Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...


..and to think, the US is to blame for Hussein being put in power in the first place (to fight the commies). Ah well, it wouldn't be the first time the US backed a bloodthir
sty dictator's rise to power, and then fabricated a cover story to try to remove him once he had outlived his usefulness.

But pie does taste good!

IamKaiserSoze!!!: This is why the Brits, US and Aussies faught to get Hussein out.

Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

The casualties of the war were 4,000 US slodiers dead, 50,000 Iraqi soldiers dead and 125,000 Iraqi citizens dead. The citizen deaths were largely the result of insurgents.

It was worthwhile and in the end the means were justified. The WMD allegations were supported by every international intelligence agency and in fact were promolgated by SH himself. The fact that none were found in no way diminishes the value of ending the regime of one of the most evil despots of this century.

To see how SH compares check out Link (new window)

Not to diminish what you said (I agree whole heartedly) but THIS should have been the stated reason for going into IRAQ!! There was way more then enough reason to invade and get that evil SOB tried and put in a shallow grave without the WMD thing. And with the other reasons at least alot more of the Middle East would have been on our side.

Also, we were not the only county who thought he had Nuclear ambitions (chemical weapons - which he DID have by the way, are WMDs). Most of the Western countries believed he was working on building Nuclear weapons.

Everyone knew he had Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction!!

Bottom line, we should have stuck with everyone could agree on without controversy, the guy and his family were a bunch of EVIL mass murdering Psycopath's who needed to go..PERIOD.

/end rant

so, when is the Land of the Free^TM holding its enquiry? Or would that be considered unpatriotic and unamerican?