Bush signs Iraq Order

croxis

[url="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021016-050222-7383r"]http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021016-050222-7383r[/url]

And more can be found at news.google.com

Random Chaos

Did you expect him not to?

[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]

croxis

I know, but it still does not make me happy.

Bekenn

That title is a little misleading. Bush has signed no order of action against Iraq. What the article is actually referring to is an act of Congress which grants Bush the ability to send troops against Iraq if he so desires, an act which passed both houses by rather large margins. The act is designed as a fallback plan in case the UN doesn't pass a strongly-worded resolution stating that Iraq must accept weapons inspectors without restriction, and that there will be severe consequences (read: military action, probably along the lines of what Bush has been pushing for) should these inspectors be toyed with as in the past. If this resolution is passed by the UN, then Bush will have no reason to use the powers recently granted him. And, since the powers apply only to this situation, they will then silently disappear again.

------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!

JackN

[quote]Originally posted by Bekenn:
[b]That title is a little misleading. Bush has signed no order of action against Iraq. What the article is actually referring to is an act of Congress which grants Bush the ability to send troops against Iraq if he so desires, an act which passed both houses by rather large margins. The act is designed as a fallback plan in case the UN doesn't pass a strongly-worded resolution stating that Iraq must accept weapons inspectors without restriction, and that there will be severe consequences (read: military action, probably along the lines of what Bush has been pushing for) should these inspectors be toyed with as in the past. If this resolution is passed by the UN, then Bush will have no reason to use the powers recently granted him. And, since the powers apply only to this situation, they will then silently disappear again.

[/b][/quote]


heh heh... Shades of Senator Palpatine... hah hah hah... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]

croxis

next time I will read the artical before posting anything!

Konrad

LOL, oh boy.

Biggles

[quote]Originally posted by JackN:
[b]
heh heh... Shades of Senator Palpatine... hah hah hah... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img][/b][/quote]

Too true. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]

------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras

Language of Hope

Have to agree with Biggles.

A question to the US citizens...
Isn't the decision to go for war or not to one of the US parliament rather than the government or the president, according to the US Constitution?

Would not giving the decision into the hands of the government/president be a breach of the Constitution?

------------------
We are one. No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star. .. We are one.
No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear. .. We are one.
- Alliance Preamble to the Declaration of Principles, The Paragon of Animals
Webmaster [url="http://www.Sprungtor.de"]www.Sprungtor.de[/url]

Rogue Trader

They granted him some powers to make war, not declare war. If congress was to declare war then any notion of surprise would be gone. Plus why declare war when it probably wont take us more then 60 days to win.

is it a breach of the constitution? yes and no. It says that the only branch that can DECLARE war is Congress, not the judicial or the executive. So if congress gives the executive the power to make war on a certain target (this being iraq) then it isnt exactly unconstitutional. This act that they used to pass this was made in the late fifties early sixties, so its not new by any means.

Space Ghost

In my opinion, if we invade and Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, and he sees his government collapsing around him, he'll use them on Israel.

------------------
[b]Penn State Proud[/b]

Captain,Simmonds

Interesting..... Iraq Lets UN weopon Inspetors in. And Bush still wants to attack.

rcmodels

there hasnt been a "war" since ww2. everything since is a "police action" IE the president effectively took the power to go to war away from congress.

Captain,Simmonds

Ummm what about Nam???....

Now For alot of Countrys.... The have Not been In a Real War Since WW2.
Funny thing is You can tell If a Counrty Wants to goto war or us ready, Buy The size of its Defance Spending, or its Over all Armed Forces Size

------------------
Captain,Simmonds
[url="http://www.vesta-modeling.de.vu"]Homepage[/url]
[email]chad1122@netscape.net[/email]

[This message has been edited by Captain,Simmonds (edited 10-22-2002).]

rcmodels

I'm fairly certain nam was a police action.

WHY_old

Of course the US is going to have a huge defence spending, but compare it to the GNP.

Tyvar

Its a legal fiction, Korea, and Vietnam all had acts passed that gave the president military command authority, in the old days that was considered a decleration of war.
The Indian conflicts, the Civil War, Chasing of Poncho Via and alot of other things were fought with similiar power being granted, along with Whisky Rebellion during Washingtons first term. Those kinds of acts have a long history in the US