<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d10121704\x26blogName\x3dconservativerebel.blogspot.com\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://conservativerebel.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://conservativerebel.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8506480323418746814', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

conservativerebel.blogspot.com

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Reasons for War

House Joint Resolution 114- Section 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.


Critics of the War like to point out the fact that the WMDs were not found in Iraq after invasion (although I strongly believe they were moved to Syria or Lebanon). No where in the resolution authorizing force does it specificy WMDs as being the only cause to go to war. In fact, it states that the threat of Iraq to the United States must be stopped, never mentioning that WMDs alone cause this threat.

Let me point out some key statements found in this section of the resolution. "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces...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...To use force [instead of diplomatic solutions] ...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 rational person with knowledge of Iraqi history over the past decade knows Saddam was not complying with the resolutions we had set up. So quite simply, since diplomacy alone was not causing Saddam to comply with UN sanctions, congress authorized the President to use force. Can anyone in this country argue rationally that Saddam was honestly complying with the UN resolutions? Was it going to get better? Some are naive enough to think so.

Not only was he ignoring them, but after the invasion, the leaked oil-for-food scandal (gotta love the free Iraqi press) has shown that he had members of the UN Security Council bribed with oil assets (it's no coincidence that these are the exact same countries who are still actively opposing the war). He was actively pursueing the removal of sanctions imposed on him by the United Nations have the Gulf War in the early 90s illegally. Cleary, the resolutions in place by the UN were NOT being "enforced", and just as the resolution granted him the power to do so, President Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and remove the brutal Dictator.

Our justification for going into Iraq is easily explained without ever having to even mention the words Weapons of Mass Destruction. He violated UN sanctions, therefore we had a right to invade. The possibility of the UN Security Council voting in favor of invasion back in 2003 was in fact impossible, considering that countries like France, China, Russia, and Germany would have been voting against their own financial interests.

The Iraqi people will got to vote in January, all of whom risked their very lives to have an outcome in the future of Iraq. All of the Shi'ite and Kurish areas of the country turned out, and the Sunnis are now participating in the drafting of the constitution. To put this in perspective, Americans this year are still complaining about having to stand in line for a few hours in some parts of the country to cast a vote. This is the biggest obstacle we face as Americans, a minor inconvience, yet close to twice as many eligible Iraqis (excluding the extreme Sunni and Bathiist groups) voted than Americans (only around 40% of our country voted of those eligible) while at the same time risking death.

We should be very proud as a nation for what we've done in Iraq. Mistakes have been, the war effort has not always been perfect. But in the end, these people will have their freedom, and at the same time we'll have helped make the world a more secure and peaceful place. It's not over yet. It's only begun. But down the road, history will realize we were right to go to war.


 
conservativerebel.blogspot.com: Reasons for War <body>

conservativerebel.blogspot.com

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Reasons for War

House Joint Resolution 114- Section 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.


Critics of the War like to point out the fact that the WMDs were not found in Iraq after invasion (although I strongly believe they were moved to Syria or Lebanon). No where in the resolution authorizing force does it specificy WMDs as being the only cause to go to war. In fact, it states that the threat of Iraq to the United States must be stopped, never mentioning that WMDs alone cause this threat.

Let me point out some key statements found in this section of the resolution. "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces...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...To use force [instead of diplomatic solutions] ...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 rational person with knowledge of Iraqi history over the past decade knows Saddam was not complying with the resolutions we had set up. So quite simply, since diplomacy alone was not causing Saddam to comply with UN sanctions, congress authorized the President to use force. Can anyone in this country argue rationally that Saddam was honestly complying with the UN resolutions? Was it going to get better? Some are naive enough to think so.

Not only was he ignoring them, but after the invasion, the leaked oil-for-food scandal (gotta love the free Iraqi press) has shown that he had members of the UN Security Council bribed with oil assets (it's no coincidence that these are the exact same countries who are still actively opposing the war). He was actively pursueing the removal of sanctions imposed on him by the United Nations have the Gulf War in the early 90s illegally. Cleary, the resolutions in place by the UN were NOT being "enforced", and just as the resolution granted him the power to do so, President Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and remove the brutal Dictator.

Our justification for going into Iraq is easily explained without ever having to even mention the words Weapons of Mass Destruction. He violated UN sanctions, therefore we had a right to invade. The possibility of the UN Security Council voting in favor of invasion back in 2003 was in fact impossible, considering that countries like France, China, Russia, and Germany would have been voting against their own financial interests.

The Iraqi people will got to vote in January, all of whom risked their very lives to have an outcome in the future of Iraq. All of the Shi'ite and Kurish areas of the country turned out, and the Sunnis are now participating in the drafting of the constitution. To put this in perspective, Americans this year are still complaining about having to stand in line for a few hours in some parts of the country to cast a vote. This is the biggest obstacle we face as Americans, a minor inconvience, yet close to twice as many eligible Iraqis (excluding the extreme Sunni and Bathiist groups) voted than Americans (only around 40% of our country voted of those eligible) while at the same time risking death.

We should be very proud as a nation for what we've done in Iraq. Mistakes have been, the war effort has not always been perfect. But in the end, these people will have their freedom, and at the same time we'll have helped make the world a more secure and peaceful place. It's not over yet. It's only begun. But down the road, history will realize we were right to go to war.