›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

21,000 troops notified for Iraq deployment.

robbykl1415robbykl1415 Member Posts: 294
in Off-Topic Discussion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_deployments

Whatever happen to bringing the troops home?  I thought we were winning this war?  The obviouse thing to do when your winning a war is to bring troops home, not send more .  Wasnt it last year sometime (I dont remember the exact month) that they were saying they were going to start handing over a lot of the "military stuff" to the Iraqi police that we spend all this money to train?  Now I know people think that you cant just pull out of Iraq, although I dont agree with that it is a valid point.  But shoudnt troops start coming home if we are doing so well in this war as they lead us to believe?  Its just stupid, but then again what can you expect from our gov or this adminstration.

The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.-
Frank Zappa

«13

Comments

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • normantornormantor Member Posts: 3
    dude, absolutely!

    i just recently found out that my cousin was going to be moved to Iraq. what a blow... he just graduated from grad school, too...

    like really... this war is getting pretty absurd. and bush isn't really telling us much about it. all we hear about it are the deaths that are occuring on our side. what the hell?

    if we keep sending troops over there, our war on terrorism is going to result in us terrorizing ourselves.


  • robbykl1415robbykl1415 Member Posts: 294

    Originally posted by AlexAmore


    LMAO.

    EDIT: Bush is suck a douche.

    The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.-
    Frank Zappa

  • admriker444admriker444 Member Posts: 1,526

    Haliburton isnt done gouging Iraq yet.

    Not that anything legal is occurring with this so-called war anyway.

    Facts

    1. The United States can NOT enter into any treaty with a non-sovereign body. The UN is a non-sovereign body having no territory or population. Thus the signing of the UN charter was unconstitutional. Unfortunately most in congress didnt understand or bother to read the bill (unlike their predecessors who rejected the League of Nations)

    2. Only Congress can declare war

    3. The president is not technically the commander in chief of armed forces until war is declared (see fact 2) and therefore cant use military like a dictator.

    Everything about the invasion of Iraq (both times), the vietnam conflict, the Korean war all were illegal acts under the banner of the UN.

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081

    did you miss the part of the story that this is part of a troop rotation?

    Four major combat brigades from Texas, Alaska and Colorado are scheduled to replace troops returning home from the war, the Pentagon said. Thus, the announcement does not signal an increase in troop strength in Iraq.

    Combined with last November's announcement of 92,000 American service members scheduled to go to Iraq in the 2006-2008 rotation, this would bring the total U.S. troop level to about 113,000 for that period. That is less than the approximately 138,000 average troop level for the past year, but more than military officials' goal of less than 100,000 by the end of the year.There are about 127,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
  • daeandordaeandor Member UncommonPosts: 2,695

    Originally posted by admriker444

    Haliburton isnt done gouging Iraq yet.
    Not that anything legal is occurring with this so-called war anyway.
    Facts
    1. The United States can NOT enter into any treaty with a non-sovereign body. The UN is a non-sovereign body having no territory or population. Thus the signing of the UN charter was unconstitutional. Unfortunately most in congress didnt understand or bother to read the bill (unlike their predecessors who rejected the League of Nations)
    2. Only Congress can declare war
    3. The president is not technically the commander in chief of armed forces until war is declared (see fact 2) and therefore cant use military like a dictator.
    Everything about the invasion of Iraq (both times), the vietnam conflict, the Korean war all were illegal acts under the banner of the UN.


    Those "facts" are anti-war interpretations of the President's legal authority when commiting the US military.  They are not facts, as they are disputed but have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court.  The signing of the UN charter was passed as a bill, making it law, which the President is obligated to follow.  Congress did not declare war, but they did pass a bill giving the President authority to use force in Iraq.  The President is the Commander in Chief unless Congress or the Supreme Court decides to muscle in and place more limitations on the Executive.

    The fact is that the legality can be disputed and Presidential authority revoked / limited, but until the Supreme Court or Congress does so, your saying it was "illegal" is nothing more than unsubstantiated dribble.

  • ViolentYViolentY Member Posts: 1,458

    Originally posted by daeandor

    Originally posted by admriker444

    Haliburton isnt done gouging Iraq yet.
    Not that anything legal is occurring with this so-called war anyway.
    Facts
    1. The United States can NOT enter into any treaty with a non-sovereign body. The UN is a non-sovereign body having no territory or population. Thus the signing of the UN charter was unconstitutional. Unfortunately most in congress didnt understand or bother to read the bill (unlike their predecessors who rejected the League of Nations)
    2. Only Congress can declare war
    3. The president is not technically the commander in chief of armed forces until war is declared (see fact 2) and therefore cant use military like a dictator.
    Everything about the invasion of Iraq (both times), the vietnam conflict, the Korean war all were illegal acts under the banner of the UN.


    Those "facts" are anti-war interpretations of the President's legal authority when commiting the US military.  They are not facts, as they are disputed but have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court.  The signing of the UN charter was passed as a bill, making it law, which the President is obligated to follow.  Congress did not declare war, but they did pass a bill giving the President authority to use force in Iraq.  The President is the Commander in Chief unless Congress or the Supreme Court decides to muscle in and place more limitations on the Executive.

    The fact is that the legality can be disputed and Presidential authority revoked / limited, but until the Supreme Court or Congress does so, your saying it was "illegal" is nothing more than unsubstantiated dribble.

    And just to add to Daeandor's argument, the reason the United States refused to join the Leage of Nations is not because it was "illegal" to do so, but because the American people were incredibly up-and-arms about joining a world government that would take away the United States' ability to do what it feels necessary, even if other nations don't agree.

    _____________________________________
    "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
    Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
    -Machiavelli

  • honzolohonzolo Member Posts: 321
     Let's all remember that most of the democrats also voted to go to war in Iraq. Many of you seem to be forgetting.. or at least just using selective memory. The fact is that we are there... things are going our way more and more every day and we must stay there and finish the job. Leaving early would be disastrous. But then, some of you would rather see your country fail than have a success that might result in G-Dub getting some credit. That's sad. I have never seen that before. When Bill Clinton went to war in the Balkans there were those who opposed it, but I don't remember anyone actively hoping and working for it to be a failure.
  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267

    Originally posted by honzolo
     Let's all remember that most of the democrats also voted to go to war in Iraq. Many of you seem to be forgetting.. or at least just using selective memory. The fact is that we are there... things are going our way more and more every day and we must stay there and finish the job. Leaving early would be disastrous. But then, some of you would rather see your country fail than have a success that might result in G-Dub getting some credit. That's sad. I have never seen that before. When Bill Clinton went to war in the Balkans there were those who opposed it, but I don't remember anyone actively hoping and working for it to be a failure.
    Well maybe because the war's objective has changed so many times because the other reasons for the war failed. So yeah Bush is a failure and a lier. I don't think selective memory is my problem, more like Rummy's problem. If Bush never brought up the fake WMDs and feared the country into support then I don't think we would be there. Tyler Drumheller of the CIA is speaking out about his firsthand experience of Bush selecting the evidence he likes and ignoring the rest when it came to WMDs, I saw the interview on 60 minutes.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • BalterBalter Member Posts: 1,015

    He Ain't right...



    My build: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850, Asus P5GC-MX/1333 Motherboard, 4gb G.SKILL DDR2 667MHz RAM, Core 2 Duo e7200 CPU, 250gb Western Digital SATA Harddrive, Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit.
    image

  • MerodocMerodoc Member Posts: 227
    Saying Bush falsified his intelligence that supported the proliferation of WMDs in Iraq is nonsense. Bush was told one thing and repeated it. Much like a spokesperson for the government should do. His only fault was clinging to what has become defunct evidence.


    The war in Iraq isn't illegal, though. The president can enact an executive order, a power which can over-rule Congress. (Besides, when Congress did vote to for the war, it passed by a massive majority.) The UN rules should be followed by all members, but, unfortunately, some members have chosen to disregard them entirely, with little resistance. I don't see why we should've been stopped by the UN, considering that everyone figured we were doing a good deed (back then, anyway).

    "Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
    - Edward R. Murrow

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267

    Originally posted by Merodoc

    Saying Bush falsified his intelligence that supported the proliferation of WMDs in Iraq is nonsense.
    Prove it.
     Bush was told one thing
    Prove it.
     and repeated it. Much like a spokesperson for the government should do. His only fault was clinging to what has become defunct evidence.

    The war in Iraq isn't illegal, though. The president can enact an executive order, a power which can over-rule Congress.
    The president can enact an executive order to suspend the constitution and enact martial law, doesn't mean its right.
     (Besides, when Congress did vote to for the war, it passed by a massive majority.)
    And they were all wrong.
     The UN rules should be followed by all members, but, unfortunately, some members have chosen to disregard them entirely, with little resistance. I don't see why we should've been stopped by the UN, considering that everyone figured we were doing a good deed (back then, anyway).

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081

    Alex, the way things work is... when you come up with an accusation, YOU prove it.  You are saying that if someone accuses you of murder; then you have to prove yourself innocent.  Doesn't work that way.  

    Of course this is all totally off the thread topic.  Sending more troops does not mean increasing troop numbers.  It says it in the damned article.  they are ROTATING troops.

  • J0kerr1J0kerr1 Member Posts: 248
    You tell it like it is. Show those people who would like to see America fail to knock Bush. Yes, sadly, thats what this whole thing comes down to...though the Dems will say other wise.
  • deviandevian Member Posts: 62
    Talking about "falisified information"

    Rumsfeld in "Meet the Press" stated that the WMDs were in Iraq. About 3 months ago, he had another interview where he said "I never said they were in Iraq, I stated their could be".

    Jon Stewart provided both clips.


  • J0kerr1J0kerr1 Member Posts: 248

    Using a Clinton excuse..I beleive Rum forgot that he said that or he was defining WMDs different than other people.

    Way to get your news from a comedy show.

  • Dis_OrdurDis_Ordur Member Posts: 1,501

    It is about time for another larger sized deployment...  The main criticism I have for the war in Iraq is that not enough troops were sent the first time...

    For a invasion/rebuilding of Iraq, at least 300k troops were needed, not 100k...  Ruhmsfeld was trying to make the military out to be like some efficient corporation with "doing more with less", but this failed miserably...

    image

  • admriker444admriker444 Member Posts: 1,526

    Originally posted by daeandor

    Originally posted by admriker444

    Haliburton isnt done gouging Iraq yet.
    Not that anything legal is occurring with this so-called war anyway.
    Facts
    1. The United States can NOT enter into any treaty with a non-sovereign body. The UN is a non-sovereign body having no territory or population. Thus the signing of the UN charter was unconstitutional. Unfortunately most in congress didnt understand or bother to read the bill (unlike their predecessors who rejected the League of Nations)
    2. Only Congress can declare war
    3. The president is not technically the commander in chief of armed forces until war is declared (see fact 2) and therefore cant use military like a dictator.
    Everything about the invasion of Iraq (both times), the vietnam conflict, the Korean war all were illegal acts under the banner of the UN.


    Those "facts" are anti-war interpretations of the President's legal authority when commiting the US military.  They are not facts, as they are disputed but have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court. 

    Nope, they are facts. The President has no constitutional authority to declare war. If you read the constitution, it does say the President has the authority to deploy troops for up to 60 days without congressional approval. Im pretty sure we're well past 60 days in Iraq. And by the way, an executive order is also unconstitutional and tatamount to a King's proclamation.

    The signing of the UN charter was passed as a bill, making it law, which the President is obligated to follow. 

    Incorrect. First of all, the UN bill was presented to congress thanks to the utra-secret organization known as the Council of Foreign Relations (an off-shoot of Skull and Bones). Their goal is a one-world govt. The very same people who created the League of Nations were behind the UN. In fact, the were basically the same organization. The League even transferred its funds over to the UN once it was created.

    And guess who donated the land to build the UN headquarters in New York, why a Rockefeller who happens to be a member of CFR, Skull and Bones, all bent on a one-world govt.

     Congress did not declare war, but they did pass a bill giving the President authority to use force in Iraq.  The President is the Commander in Chief unless Congress or the Supreme Court decides to muscle in and place more limitations on the Executive.

    WoW, just wow. 100% WRONG. There is no middle ground. Congress either declares war or it doesnt. There is no middle ground. Yes they may have granted him authority, but that doesnt make it constitutional.

    The fact is that the legality can be disputed and Presidential authority revoked / limited, but until the Supreme Court or Congress does so, your saying it was "illegal" is nothing more than unsubstantiated dribble.

    I seriously doubt you have a clue on what the constitution says. Im getting my information for a college professor (friend of mine) who teaches Political science and constitutional law and my own personal knowledge as a college professor in communications.

    The next thing you'll be telling me is that the Federal Reserve is legal too.

    There are many things our gotvt does these days without any constitutinal authority whatsoever. Take a look at a dollar bill for proof. A Federal Reserve Note, 100% illegal according to our constitution. Only congress shall print money, and yet we allow a private bank to do this AND charge our govt interest on the money.

    The last politician with the guts to take back the power to print our own money was President John F Kennedy and he was murdered for it.

    http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/JFK.html

    John F. Kennedy was far from perfect, in his personal life, or in some of the decisions he made as president. However, unlike most presidents, he had some good ideas, and he had plans to enact them. For example, he had plans to abolish the Federal Reserve system, which prints worthless money backed by nothing, and charges interest on it, making us a debtor nation to a group of international bankers. He wanted to use United States Notes, and he signed a presidential document, called Executive Order 11110, on June 4, 1963. This gave JFK, as U.S. President, legal clearance to create true money, that would belong to the people, and eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank, and their false money. Kennedy had already begun issuing U.S. government money that was free of debt to replace the Federal Reserve dollars we have been using. A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - with the heading "United States Note", instead of "Federal Reserve Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. Records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of true money. It was clear that Kennedy was out to eliminate the criminal Federal Reserve System. It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes which Kennedy had issued were called out of circulation. All of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed, and not a word was said to the American people.

    We have nobody to blame but ourselves. Its because of our ignorance that a private bank collects 300 billion dollars a year in interest off money it prints and loans to the govt. For shame.

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081
    ^^ haha, nice, you even managed to put in the JFK conspiracy in there.
  • admriker444admriker444 Member Posts: 1,526


    Originally posted by hazmats
    ^^ haha, nice, you even managed to put in the JFK conspiracy in there.

    to quote a Rothchild, "the best conspiracy is the one out in the open"

    If JKF were a common man and the Federal Reserve was a comman man, any court in the country would convict based on cirmumstantial evidence alone.

    Motive - 300 billion dollars a year earned in interest each yr for the past 93 years = trillions of dollars, a number most folks cant even begin to comprehend. That kind of money means immense power to control media, politicians, etc

    suspects - 2 CIA operatives found posing as hobos in a train cart near the grassy knoll. The very same men were arrested and convicted 10 years later for the watergate breakin.

    Physical evidence - clearly a shot to the head which originated from the front of Kennedy's motorcar. The fact that Kennedy's head recoiled BACK is proof enough that he wasnt shot from behind.

    a police motorcycle recording CLEARLY hearing 4 shots, yet there are only 3 bullet casings and the FBI report that claims oswald fired 3 shots.

    Numerous eyewitness testimony stating shots and smoke were seen from the grassy knoll.

    After the fact conspiracy - 1 stinking day after Kennedy is killed all the money he issued is recalled. Talk about conspiracies out in the open. The Federal Reserve's lapdog Johnson didnt even wait for the body to get cold before he issued the order to recall the money.

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081
    at least it's something different than the people who watch JFK the movie and say OMG conspiracy.  Most of the stuff in that movie is false.
  • J0kerr1J0kerr1 Member Posts: 248

    The guy almose seemed to use logic..then the JFK...tin foil hat time.

    It figures that someone who believes i conpiracies would hate Bush.

  • Unknown

    I've heared someone saying that they're blocking all communications in a day, to prepare for the great Massacre for the Sunni faction of Islam in Iraq.

    so those 21k troops are probably to help aid in this Massacre.

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267

    Originally posted by J0kerr1

    The guy almose seemed to use logic..then the JFK...tin foil hat time.
    It figures that someone who believes i conpiracies would hate Bush.
    Yeah because conspiracies can't happen.....specially in America.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • honzolohonzolo Member Posts: 321

    Originally posted by AlexAmore

    Originally posted by honzolo
     Let's all remember that most of the democrats also voted to go to war in Iraq. Many of you seem to be forgetting.. or at least just using selective memory. The fact is that we are there... things are going our way more and more every day and we must stay there and finish the job. Leaving early would be disastrous. But then, some of you would rather see your country fail than have a success that might result in G-Dub getting some credit. That's sad. I have never seen that before. When Bill Clinton went to war in the Balkans there were those who opposed it, but I don't remember anyone actively hoping and working for it to be a failure.
    Well maybe because the war's objective has changed so many times because the other reasons for the war failed. So yeah Bush is a failure and a lier. I don't think selective memory is my problem, more like Rummy's problem. If Bush never brought up the fake WMDs and feared the country into support then I don't think we would be there. Tyler Drumheller of the CIA is speaking out about his firsthand experience of Bush selecting the evidence he likes and ignoring the rest when it came to WMDs, I saw the interview on 60 minutes.

     LOL, to say the war has failed is just ridiculous. Just because you want it to, doesn't make it so. Saddam will never be around to threaten the region, a new government has been formed, Zarqawi is dead, over 40 percent of the terrorists have been killed, we have captured/killed hundreds since Zarqawi met his fate, we've just caught two more senior officials of AlQaeda and are continuing to dismantle their power structure whilst sending their followers to meet Allah. Zarqawi's documentation show what a bad situation the insurgency is in. Our military is carrying out an incredibly successful campaign against them while Iraqi forces are growing more and more able to control their country on their own. Things are falling into place.

     I understand the last couple weeks have been bad for you liberal democrats with all the successes over there. So I guess you guys are reduced to celebrating the 2500th death. That's really all you have to hold on to anymore. Pathetic.

     Bush had the same intelligence the Clinton administration used to justify bombing Iraq in 1998, and you know it as well as I. We know Hussein did have WMD's and has used them in the past. Had he not kicked out the inspectors none of this would have happened. Had he not been trying to shoot down our aircraft over the no fly zones he agreed to in the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf War, this wouldn't have happened. There has been plenty of documentation found since Operation Iraqi Freedom began showing that Husseins intent was to reconstitute his WMD program after the UN inspectors left.

     As far as this CIA guy you keep touting, he is just another bitter CIA guy who is upset that massive changes have been undertaken to revamp his organization and he resents it. The CIA was neutered during the eight years of the Clinton administration, and it needs fixing. The people in the way of that need to go.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.