Muscatine

I'm in agreement with the other fellows.  And Hecta, thank you to your son and you for your service to our country.  I continue to hope that there are more of you out there than Mobays. 

WOW really!!! That's what you got out of it, WOW you have the comprehension skills of a trade grader. If this is the normal amongst party members this country is doomed. You should really stop following people like o'reilly, rush, hannity and colmes.

  How is it we have invaded this country in the first place, how was iraq a threat oh that's right there was all that false intelligence, yet we are still there. We have to have a regime change, oh that's right that happened a while ago too, yet we are still there! What does the Iraqi army uniform look like. how does occupying and killing Iraqis make us safer.

  Let's just say that we are being invaded by china, are you and your family grabbing guns and joining the fight for your country. I would and so would my kids, but Iraqis don't have that right!!

 Let's say we are occupied by china, one of your family members are captured fighting for against the occupiers, is killed in action or killed in collateral damage, are you a friend or foe of the occupying country.

  Did we not fund this regime in the 80's just like we funded bin laden at the same time! Did we not bomb this country to protect a no fly zone.

  The American military has been in Iraq for 20 years now. It was almost that long ago that a no fly zone was established over Iraq, a strategy that was supposed to enable Kurdish rebels to unseat Saddam Hussein, so that American soldiers wouldn’t have to go in and do the dirty work themselves. (sound familiar

 

Did we not put economic sanctions on iraq since the early 90's.

The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs.They were perhaps the toughest, most comprehensive economic sanctions in human history. The increased child-and-infant mortality, poverty, and suffering of the Iraqi people during sanctions led two senior UN representatives in Iraq to resign in protest.Estimates of civilian deaths during of the sanctions range from 100,000 to over 1.5 million, most of them children.

 If this was happening here would you not want to kill all those involved, would you not join a resistance movement! how is this country still a threat!

  Is this war constitutional, was it declared by congress, what does the constitution say about starting a war!

Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution places the power to declare war with Congress. The Framers, as I explained in some detail recently, reasoned that the decision to send the sons of the people off to war must rest with the representatives of the people. Without rehashing the full post, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made clear in the Federalist Papers that the president was not to be like the English monarch, who did have the power to declare war and whose rule the Americans had recently thrown off. Hence, according to Article II Section 2, “The President shall be Commander in Chief … when [our forces are] called into the actual service” (emphasis mine). He shall direct the prosecution of the war, but only after Congress calls the military to service through a Declaration of War.

So I would say that's a NO! So what's the oath we take to join the military.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

So does the military have to follow unconstitutional laws(unlawful)

 

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what is the American people getting in return for the sacrifice of their family members.What is it worth the sacrifice our of children, when will it stop( the threat is gone and so is sodam insane)!

 

 So if you're level of comprehension is higher than the third grade you would see that this is trying to wake the troops up to the fact that this war is illegal! That continuing it is more damaging to national security then ending it!

 

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

The process by which we've entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress' abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from — rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.

In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts.

What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people!

A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn't permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn't a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it's difficult to claim that we're going into Iraq to restore peace.

History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities.

The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur — what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown.

It's a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that's about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment.

An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war.

Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.

Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it's also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home.

 

 Do you not understand that there would be no war if constitution was followed! What can happen to the soldiers of an illegal war! Can you be held criminally responsible for following oders! What happened at nuremberg!

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")

Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy" of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)

 

bush rejects taliban offer to turn over bin laden

 

did taliban offer to turn in bin laden

 

US refusal of taliban offer

 

US refuse taliban offer

 

yousef capture

 

how we captured yousef

fears of al qaeda in libya are valid cbs news

mccain; I hope US ., others arm libyan rebels cbs news

 

President Obama has signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations in Libya, a U.S. official told Fox News, although the administration says it still hasn't decided whether to arm rebel forces there.

The presidential findings establish a framework of legal authorities for covert action. They can authorize specific actions, such as arming the rebels, or establish authorities under which future actions might be taken after permissions are given to undertake them.

 

So why are we still at war with these two countries, and if we do give the libyan rebels weapons and they turn out to be al qaeda will those weapons be used in iraq and afghanistan! When can we bring our children home! search for the real reason we invaded iraq and afghanistan. Don't just follow the herd!!!

 

 

You're still a piece of sh*t. 

link, link, link, link, link, link