Iraq Krieg (English)

[Hunble]

America is absolute responsible for helping Iraq build up his military. As a result, he is our monster, and it is America's responsibility to get him under control once again.



The previous thread on this subject was getting very long, so please excuse me for starting another one.



Of the people that have talked with me, I have personally learned many things.



I do not have the answers, but from my own personal U.S. Army experience, I may be able to answer some specific questions.

 

[forcemagick]

America is absolute responsible for helping Iraq build up his military. As a result, he is our monster, and it is America's responsibility to get him under control once again.

I do not have the answers, but from my own personal U.S. Army experience, I may be able to answer some specific questions.

well it seems to be right... he is a usa-made monster ... but i see the problem, that this monster ist set in his enviroment and has now unfortunatly his function in his enviroment...

on the one hand it seems noble that the us-administration want`s to negate what they have done.. but i think that is thought to simple... you cant install and deinstall a despot like a kind of software... there are to many connections to the highly instabil regimes surrounding...

on the other hand it seems obvious to me, that the war isn`t fought only for correcting once made errors.. some say that the war in afghanistan was fought not at least for the posssibility to build a pipeline through... shortly before the attack there where negotiations even with the taliban...
in iraq are many oilfields too and it is known that the members of the upper bush-administration circle have had a good time in the oil-bizz in the past.. possibly they do have a good time yet.

so i have a problem with seeing the war against the despot regime in iraq only as a noble act.

i am sure hussein is a danger for the region on the one hand.. on the other hand he might be a factor of stabilisation .. but i don`t belive he is a real danger for the world at the moment ( ok if you say....conflicts down the gulf would affect the world cause the oil i would have to agree )
it doesn`t seem so that hussein has cooperatet with al quaida ... such a cooperation would be contraproductive to his own regime... the iraq regime isn`t a religios regime like it was in afghanistan... it is more a idiologic regime ( surly the idiologie of saddam hussein seems in first line to be his desire of power )

i think the us-analysis about the situation is too simple as even some high military members of the us-forces seem to criticise...

what`s about the mass of dead in such a war?
i think urban combat with iraqi elite-soldiers has to be part of the calculation... i see no chance that you can win this war only with bombraids to military targets.. look to israel where paramilitary organisations fight a cruel kind of guerilla war with terror against civil targets... where the high tech israeli defence forces seem to have no other chance to operate against the guerilla tropps as fighting the civilians too... similar to the enemy they have build up...

i think israel has made his own monster too... but can they deinstall it?

so i think the war against iraq will only bring more terror over the world.

 

[streicher]

America is absolute responsible for helping Iraq build up his military. As a result, he is our monster, and it is America's responsibility to get him under control once again.



The previous thread on this subject was getting very long, so please excuse me for starting another one.



Of the people that have talked with me, I have personally learned many things.



I do not have the answers, but from my own personal U.S. Army experience, I may be able to answer some specific questions.

Hi!

Two questions I've got:
1. What do you personally think the crisis in the golf-region is about?
2. Have you heard of depleted uranium (DU) being used in ex-yugoslavia and in the first war against Iraq?*

greetings,
streicher

* a German professor who has detected weapons with DU on Iraq ground has been sued, been taken to prison, etc. - all in Germany...

German article in the internet (this article really should be translated):
uranmunition
English article in the internet: CADU

 

[Hunble]

Two questions I've got:
1. What do you personally think the crisis in the golf-region is about?
2. Have you heard of depleted uranium (DU) being used in ex-yugoslavia and in the first war against Iraq?*

------------------------------

This is a complex issue, so let me start out with the basics. If you understand the history of the situation, then perhaps you may start to understand.

Iran hostage crisis

Iran hostage crisis, in U.S. history, events following the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran by Iranian students on Nov. 4, 1979. The overthrow of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi of Iran by an Islamic revolutionary government earlier in the year had led to a steady deterioration in Iran-U.S. relations. In response to the exiled shah's admission (Sept., 1979) to the United States for medical treatment, a crowd of about 500 seized the embassy. Of the approximately 90 people inside the embassy, 52 remained in captivity until the end of the crisis. President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission's failure. In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq (see Iran-Iraq War) made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention.

The United States failed to use military force and the Islamic countries soon learned how vulnerable America was. As a direct result of the Iran hostage crisis, terrorism became a viable option as a method to attack Americans.

In the early morning of October 23, 1983, the First Battalion, 8th Marines Headquarters building was destroyed by a non-Lebanese, terrorist-driven truck, laden with compressed gas-enhanced explosives. This truck, like many others, had become a familiar sight at the airport and so did not raise any alarm on this morning. The resulting explosion and the collapse of the building killed 241 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers.

Iran was the leader and directly responsible for these attacks upon Americans.

The Cold War between the US and USSR was extremely important and influenced almost every political decision during those years.

Because of the geo-political realities (primarily Russian support for Iran), it was impossible for America to directly attack Iran. By supporting Iraq when they declared war upon Iran, America was able to directly harm Iran without causing a political conflict with Russia.

If you understand this basic history, then perhaps you will understand why America supported a monster like Saddam Hussein and Iraq during those years.

Today, Iraq is out of control and is a danger to all civilized nations. Yes, America shares a large responsibility for supporting this monster and must risk going to war to correct the problem.

No American desires a war with Iraq and we are bending over backward to allow Iraq to destroy their illegal weapons. Those weapons have one and only one purpose, and that is to murder people.

Unfortunately, the current problems with Iraq is a direct result of American support during the Iran/Iraq war. America supported Iraq during those years, and we must share the major responsibility for correcting the problem.

 

[Hunble]

2. Have you heard of depleted uranium (DU) being used in ex-yugoslavia and in the first war against Iraq?*

Actually, I do personally know about depleted uranium (DU) and would love to educate you on this subject.

This is one of the subjects that frustrate me today. When I was in school back in the 1970's, we were taught all about radioactive materials and how to safely handle them in Physics class.

We were not taught to fear these materials, but learned how to handle them safely. My favorite experiment was to insert a clear glass object into a Cobalt 60 radiation chamber and wait 5 minutes. When that clear glass object was removed, the glass had turned black because of the radiation.

Now to your question:

I assume that you are not a Physics student, so I will try to use simple language.

Uranium has two forms, based upon how many neutrons are in the atom. One form is highly radioactive and the other is rather safe.

When you are creating a nuclear device (weapons or power plant fuel), you must isolate the very radioactive form of Uranium. This is a very complex procedure, but you end up separating the highly radioactive uranium atoms from the mild uranium atoms.

Once you have removed the highly radioactive atoms from the sample of uranium, what is left is called: depleted uranium (DU).

F = MV^2.

Force equals Mass times Velocity squared.

To increase the force of an object impacting a target, you can increase the velocity or the mass of the object. If your gun has a maximum velocity before it will explode, then your best option is to increase the mass of the projectile.

For guns, Lead is the usual material used because of its dense mass. It you want to increase the mass of the projectile, then you can use other materials such as Uranium.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a very dense mass that has had the highly radioactive atoms removed from it. It is also a very dense mass and ideal for making bullets for a gun.

This is why the U.S. military uses depleted uranium (DU) bullets for many of it's weapon systems.

Personally, the radiation emitted from depleted uranium (DU) is so low, that I would have no problems storing this material in my own home.

Actually, if you have a wood in your home, the radiation from C14 (Carbon 14) is much more radioactive.

 

[Hunble]

You asked many questions and it will take me some time to formulate a logical reply to you.

First off, anyone that uses the "War or Oil" excuse is simply too ignorant for me to waste my time on. I assure you, that is absolutely not the reason for the war with Iraq or Afghanistan.

However, Europe and Germany is very worried that their oil supply may be disrupted if America does go to war with Iraq. The anti-war movement in Europe today is all about oil. In that respect, you are absolutely correct.

Lets be perfectly honest here: The anti-war movement in Europe is all about oil!

"War for Oil" makes a nice political slogan or bumper sticker, but is 100 percent false. If anything, it reveals the ignorance of the person that uses that slogan.

That was not an insult directed to you personally, but you did mention the oil pipeline in Afghanistan. Do you know which countries that pipeline will service? India and Pakistan!

So why the heck would America go to war to supply India and Pakistan with oil?

 

[Hunble]

America does not need Iraq oil!

------------------------------

Bush orders increase in emergency oil reserves

Tuesday, November 13, 2001

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON - President Bush ordered the government Tuesday to boost its emergency stockpile of oil by millions of barrels to ``strengthen the long-term energy security of the United States.''

The Strategic Oil Reserve, which currently has 544 million barrels of oil, is to be filled ``in a deliberate and cost-effective manner'' up to its full capacity of 700 million barrels, Bush said in a statement.

With oil prices declining, the Energy Department last month recommended funneling additional crude into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a string of salt caverns along the Gulf Coast at the Texas-Louisiana border. An additional 48 million barrels is expected to be put into the reserve by the end of next year under existing arrangements.

Under Bush's order to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, most - if not all - of the oil will be provided by oil companies in lieu of federal royalty payments.

Abraham denied that potential terrorism or the military strikes in Afghanistan were factors in Bush's decision, saying administration officials noticed the reserve was substantially lower than it was eight years ago and wanted to restore it as a precaution.

``There's not any linkage to any kind of specific disruption threat, but we think it's a wise policy,'' Abraham said.

Private economists have said the move, in addition to boosting emergency reserves, will signal U.S. intentions to help stabilize world oil prices at a time when OPEC producers - including Saudi Arabia - have been worried about the sharp drop in global demand.

Congress created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975 as a response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. The U.S. reserve as it stands now is enough to make up for the loss of 54 days of imports.

``Our current oil inventories, and those of our allies who hold strategic stocks, are sufficient to meet any potential near-term disruption in supplies,'' Bush said.

 

[Hunble]

I do desire an absolute honest debate on this issue.

You have expressed some very important ideas and they deserve an honest answer. I will do my absolute best to answer them, in the best way that I can.

But before we start, lets be absolutely honest about the current situation:

In 1998, President Clinton moved American troops into the Middle East in preparation for an attack upon Iraq. President Clinton ordered the bombing of targets in Iraq and Baghdad was bombed. Actually, the same day that President Clinton was Impeached, bombs started to fall upon Baghdad.

Can you document for us your personal protests against America's attack on Iraq in 1998?

Personal question:

If you failed to protest against President Clinton when America deployed troops and bombed Iraq in 1998, then why are you upset today?

Lets be honest now.....

There is obviously much more involved with this issue than most Europeans and Germans are willing to admit to.

Clinton = GOOD.
Bush = BAD

Why?

 

[streicher]

First of all: thank you for your detailed ansers.

But before we start, lets be absolutely honest about the current situation:

In 1998, President Clinton moved American troops into the Middle East in preparation for an attack upon Iraq. President Clinton ordered the bombing of targets in Iraq and Baghdad was bombed. Actually, the same day that President Clinton was Impeached, bombs started to fall upon Baghdad.

Can you document for us your personal protests against America's attack on Iraq in 1998?

Personal question:

If you failed to protest against President Clinton when America deployed troops and bombed Iraq in 1998, then why are you upset today?

This is an interesting point. History happens logically. Therefore the policies and politics under Clinton-government was pathing (partly) to the situation of the relations of Iraq and the USA today. I personally do not consider Clinton a good guy. I am sceptical with the way politics take place. In the question of war and peace, terror and anser on terror, there is very much information which is hidden from the public. The German press talked a lot more about the impeachment (we had kind of bombardment of news about the impeachment) - I was horrified. These kinds of stories are used to take away the attention of the public from the real important matters. So in this way: if somebody criticizes Bush and his staff now, consequently has to criticize the politics under Clinton, too. People here in Germany tend to get more aware of that these days. Well, it is hard work to convince people or to make them understand how war 'comes together'. The Iraq-Story as the Afghanistan-Story is longterm. The suffering ones are the people which is the worst.

 

[Trasher]

Hunble, please give me an answer to my question:

When you joined the army you swore an oath. Could you please tell me the words of this oath? Thank you.

 

[forcemagick]

Clinton = GOOD.
Bush = BAD

why?

well i don`t like the.. lets call it a "simple view" that bush does propagate.

the problems seem to complex to be only argued with that "axis of evil" ...

 

[Hunble]

Hunble, please give me an answer to my question:

When you joined the army you swore an oath. Could you please tell me the words of this oath? Thank you.

"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 HELP ME GOD."

Trasher, that oath that I swore to in 1974 is still as important to me today as when I first took it. In many ways, it has made a difference in many of my personal choices in life.

Today, I see too many Americans attacking their own country. I took this oath and will always live by it.

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC;"

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic!

By law, the American government is never allowed to prohibit the freedom of speech and many people have been abusing that protection lately.

Let me also express something very important:

I am not the government!

If someone attacks the Constitution (the foundation of every American law) around me, they will suffer my personal wrath and may actually be physically injured.

Yes, take my oath very seriously.

 

[Hunble]

This is an interesting point. History happens logically.

Sorry that I have taken so long to reply. You have demonstrated an actual quest for knowledge and I hope to continue talking with you in the future.

You are correct, History is very logical, if you take the time to study all aspects. When things are taken out of context for political purposes, understanding is simply not possible.

My military experience intersected many of the events that have been leading up to the possible war with Iraq (Gulf War II), so this is actually rather personal to me.

I have posted previously how the American military went into IRAN in an effort to rescue the hostages. Did you realize that they used the building I worked in at WSMR to practice their rescue? Yes, the Army people who were killed in the failed rescue attempt in IRAN, I knew personally.

Although we are currently talking about IRAQ, never forget America's goal. Once Americans have occupied both IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN, guess which country is stuck in the middle!

Today, IRAN is on the verge of an internal revolutions. It is official American policy to ignore IRAN at the moment and allow the people to make a choice.

American occupation of IRAQ will be vital to the people of IRAN, if they choose democracy.

This is a long term game of Chess. If you understand the game, then each movement is actually very logical.

But "War for Oil" is so darn stupid, it is almost funny.

Think about using the politics of oil, to force democracy upon the Islamic nations and you may be close to figuring out end game.

Democratic nations are usually peaceful nations. And long term peace in the middle east is America's goal.

 

[Hunble]

Remember one thing in the next few months:

I have never considered this a WAR UPON IRAQ and have only used that term because that is how others have refer to it.

LIBERATION of the IRAQ population, the gift of democracy and the ability for the people of IRAQ to choose how they want to live.

Liberating IRAQ and IRAN has been my only desire. Let the people create the form of government that they truly desire.

Freedom for the people of these countries is a very terrifying concept to so many people. Americans are watching very closely, and we have noticed the countries that are most afraid of this change.

Believe me, Americans are watching VERY closely!

That was my motivation in joining this website. I honestly wanted to learn how the German people are thinking, and why.

 

[Hunble]

You asked, so let me post this essay. It does express how I feel rather well.

--------------------------------------------------

From An Autumn of War, Victor Davis Hanson

Introduction: Why September 11th Won't Go Away


The United States was attacked at a time of peace on September 11, 2001. Islamic fundamentalists - sponsored by the al-Qaeda organization, with the implicit support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to the applause of thousands in the Middle East, and with the silence of millions more - destroyed the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, severely damaged the Pentagon in Washington, crashed four jumbo jet liners in suicidal fury, and murdered nearly three thousand unsuspecting Americans. We shall never know the full extent of the planned attack, but it might have been far worse. Brave passengers on a Washington-bound jet seem to have overpowered the hijackers before the could destroy either the Capitol building or the White House. And the immediate arrest of hundreds of terrorist suspects in the days after September 11 probably prevented other subsequent operations.

On the afternoon of the attack, I began to compose several essays for a variety of newspapers and magazines - and thereafter wrote each day until the cessation of general hostilities in Afghanistan, the formation of a new government in Afghanistan, and the final extinction of the smoldering fires at Ground Zero in New York in late December. By the time the Taliban regime was thoroughly destroyed, the al-Qaeda terrorists had been either killed, captured, or scattered, and the United States was pondering its next season of war in its global counterattack against terrorism.

At the very outset, I was convinced that September 11 was a landmark in American history, if not the most calamitous day in our nation's 225 years. Not only did it represent the most grievous single-day foreign attack on the shores of he United States, but the bombing marked a far more climactic and devastating strike than all of the prior precursors to American wars - greater in severity than Lexington and Concord, Fort Sumter, Havana Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitaina, Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin Gulf. The dead were for the most part civilians - slaughtered completely unaware at work or in transit. Their murderers were almost immediately canonized by many in the Middle East, and the architect of such evil was within hours greeted as a hero on the streets of the Islamic world. Four general consequences from the events of September 11 characterize these essays and provide themes for the book at large.

September 11 was not merely an act of terrorism per se - isolated and disgruntled individuals of a small clique mad at the state of the world, and so taking out their frustrations against innocents in the United States. Rather, if al-Qaeda did not exist, it would have to have been invented to assuage the psychological wounds of hundreds of millions of Muslims who are without much consensual government, freedom, and material security. Bin Laden is the ultimate representation of Islam's failure to come to grips with the dizzying and sometimes terrifying pace of globalization and the spread of popular Western culture. In that context September 11 must be seen as toe opportunistic response of fundamentalists to funnel collective frustration against the United States, which for most of he world represents the epitome of Westernism and modernism all in one.

The terrorists acted against America because of who we are, not what we did - despite various claims that pour troops were modern "Crusaders" and rumors that Jewish American women were walking in Muslim countries in suggestive attire. Rampant capitalism, radical equality between the sexes, secular rationalism, and unbridled freedom are not merely antithetical to Islam but appeal to the senses, appetites and aspirations of millions of Muslims far more than Islamic traditionalism can repress them. It is difficult to suggest that the words of the Koran alone can withstand the hideous and foul West when thousands of Muslims voluntarily eat at Western fast-food franchises in Cairo, the Star Wars saga is popular in Amman, and millions want to be in lecture halls in Europe and America. The frustrated terrorists themselves were not poor and ignorant, but rather, upscale and educated. Their fury towards the West was incited, not tempered by their own affinity for and familiarity with us.

Our response to September 11 also reveled another fault line in American thinking: the great divide between a tragic appreciation of the universe and a confidence that all humanity's problems of the age are solvable through the proper therapeutic and enlightened response.

The former view reminds us that as mere humans we cannot rid the universe of all its pathologies in a mere lifetime, and that sometimes we may resemble devils when we try to be omnipotent avenging angels; the latter offers us the god Reason as a worldly religion that can eradicate everything from disease to illiteracy to car exhaust, handguns, cigarettes, and unkind words. As a student of classical literature, I was deeply influenced by the epics of Homer, the plays of Sophocles, Thucydides' history, and the dialogues of Plato, which all seem to offer time-honored alternatives to modern behaviorism, Freudianism, Marxism and social construction. In the Hellenic view, the wrong questions to ask in this present conflict are, "Why is there war?" "Why do they hate us?" or "What did we do to them?"

The Greeks would instead answer that war is terrible but innate to civilization - and not always unjust or amoral if it is waged for good causes to destroy evil and save the innocent. By the same token, we must return to the idea that terrorists and their sponsoring states are mot simply driven to conflict, rationallyy seeking redress from real exploitation, poverty, or inequality. Rather, bellicose theocratic and autocratic nations can be like people - immature, rash and mercurial - and so rush to battle out of classical motive like Thucydidean fear, envy, and self-interest that in turn are fueled by a desire for power, fame and respect. Although war is often fought rationally, the causes for its outbreak are seldom rational.

The glum ancients would expect, rather than be shocked by, September 11, realizing that human nature is unchanging and thus predictable throughout the ages - its essence being raw, savage, and self-serving just beneath the veneer of civilization. In the arena of conflicting and sometimes malevolent powers, national weakness invites attack more often than thanks and appreciation of past self-restraint. Even our magnanimity in sending food to the Taliban was as frequentlyy interpreted as irresolution as it was seen as charity. And military restraint in not responding to prior bombings can be dismissed as timidity rather than praised as sobriety.

Similarly, we need to be reminded of the tragic limitations of the human condition - and how rare Western culture is in its efforts to ameliorate the savagery innate to all peoples at all times. Kabul was not Paris or San Francisco when we arrived, and it will not be so when we leave. We wish peace and some sort of human order in Afghanistan, but we accept that without a Madison or Lincoln or the Federalist Papers there well may be unclean water, harsh police and only one radio station for some time to come. Our mission in this war is not to right wrongs that cannot be righted given the limits of our wisdom and power, but rather to leave millions in Afghanistan and elsewhere better off than when we arrived, offering hope to other states that their towers will not be toppled and their citizens vaporized should a fanatical enclave decide to target their culture.

Acceptance of this dark vision of human nature need not be pessimistic if one understands that a transcendent morality - the desire to protect the unsuspecting, aid the attacked, and leave behind for others more than one has received - is the foundation for such an unsparing worldview. Thus we accept the tragedy of the human condition in order to ensure that we do not allow evil people to act out what they desire and sometimes are surely capable of accomplishing.

Such a realistic acceptance of war seemed to me far more humane (not to mention safe) than believing that we can reinvent he nature of man each generation through state planning, psychoanalysis, counseling, or any other of the social and behavioral sciences that seek to alter - often through coercion - the very way we humans think and act on some universal scale. Mr. bin Laden killed thousands of Americans because he was depraved and thought it more likely that he could gain fame and power than court death and destruction. We were Britain to his Hitler, a power not in any way culpable for past transgressions, but an obstacle nonetheless by virtue of our democracy and liberality to his mad dreams of grandeur. He envisioned a medieval Caliphate under his sway. And he was convinced by the past restraint of he United States that the world's sole superpower either could not or would not retaliate against him, despite his long history of murdering.

I also tried to make sense of our own subsequent response to September 11 from an equally different view of class and status. I am a classicist, but also a farmer, who was born, lives and works on a family farm in California's Central Valley. From that agrarian vantage point, itself handed down from some five previous generations who lived on our small 120 acres, I have had doubts about what passes for intellectual life in America today - particularly as manifested in the contemporary university. Physical work, close acquaintance with the poor, and affinity for the innate dangers that confront millions of Americans are all a complete mystery to many of he most vocal critics of America in this current conflict; those who do not disk the south forty, hammer nails, or pump out cesspools, it seemed to me, had a greater propensity (not to mention more time) to ponder the legal ramifications of trying John Walker Lindh - and were more likely to see him as a confused idealist from Marin County that an abject traitor.

So I felt much of what the university had to say about September 11 would reflect its general isolation from the material conditions facing most Americans - and I was not disappointed. Almost all the working-class people I know - farmers, mechanics, union electricians, and students at California State University, Fresno - were solidly behind the United States' response. In contrast, nearly all of he opposition to our conduct in this war was expressed by professors and those in law, the media, government and entertainment, who as a general rule lead lives rather different from those of most Americans.

Many critics, of course, were well-meaning pacifists and principled opponents of the use of force in response to violence. I am not interested so much in refuting such positions as in explaining how frequently they seem to be held by the most comfortable and secure members of American society - whether in the corporation, law firm, or university. Those who were tenured, highly paid, or leisured, both Republican and Democrat, I think have forgotten how hard it is to survive and raise a family - how often daily life is muscular and dangerous, and how frequently evil people can and must be stopped only through physical strength from hurting those who are helpless. Rarely do our professional classes meet or live by those who have few lifelines and therefore understand this brutality and the slim margin of error that sometimes separates survival from catastrophe. Many enlightened and well-educated Americans - often among the most influential of our society - simply cannot believe that awful men abound in the world who cannot be cajoled, bought off, counseled, reasoned with, or reported to the authorities, but rather must be hit and knocked hard to cease their evildoing if the blameless and the vulnerable are to survive.

Yet the vast majority of Americans accept this pragmatic creed - 90 percent of hem supported bombing the Taliban and al-Qaeda according to may polls taken throughout the autumn of 2001. Too many of our more educated and upscale did not. The felt that we should have done very little militarily, but quite a lot in consultation with the United Nations, our allies, and moderate states to convince al-Qaeda to stop. Class as an indicator to America's different political responses to September 11 was rarely remarked upon by social critics. So this war has reminded citizens that a great many progressives are more likely to be privileged than sweaty, eager to craft bromides from the suburb rather than the farm or coal mine, and quite ready to embrace abstract cure-alls as penance for the vast distance they have put between themselves and their objects of of empathy. Domestically, such hypocrisy and naiveté are problematic, but in a war with adversaries like al-Qaeda and their supporters, utopianism is near suicidal.

These essays reflect a deep belief that September 11 has reminded us how Western civilization and its more radical manifestation of liberty and capitalism in the United States are very different from other cultures past and present. Multiculturalism taught us that all peoples are more or less equal, one society not qualitatively better or worse than any other. Cultural relativism added that it is wrong to judge a people on its habits and practices - there being no real objective standards of good or evil behavior, since both concepts are not absolute, but simple "constructions" or "fictions" of he day, created by those in power to maintain their control and privilege.

Or so we were told in our schools, books, and universities. September 11 suggested otherwise. There is not - and never has been - a single true democracy in the Islamic world other than a sometimes constitutional, secular, and Westernized Turkey. There may be four or five words for various types of female veils in the languages of he Middle East - burqa, chador, niqab, hyab, and others - but no indigenous vocabulary for constitutional and consensual government. That fact alone makes a real difference in the lives of a billion people. Freedom to worship, the rule of law, the right to inquire apart from religion and government, the existence of a voting middle class, the opportunity to own property and pursue profit - all these are mostly Western ideas and, to the degree they are followed anywhere, permit a people prosperity and happiness. If such values are thwarted by either religion, tribalism, statism or sheer anarchy, far too frequently and unnecessarily men and women get sick, kill each other, die early and live in squalor.

Consequently, many of the following chapters deny that the misery of the Middle East is a result of colonialism, racism, or American hegemony - much less attributable to the bogeyman Israel - rather than the predicable result of widespread failure to adopt free institutions, democracy, open markets, and civilian audit. In that sense, realpolitik alone will not see America through the war against the terrorists. Instead, in the tumult to follow September 11, overwhelming military force must be coupled with humane considerations and straight talk. All people born onto the planet seek freedom and security, and since the Western paradigm alone provides man a chance to realize these innate aspirations, it is the duty of Americans to be neither cynical nor insensitive in their approach to the Islamic world, but rather in confidence and without apology to support popular governments and democratic revolutionaries wherever possible. The more the present repressive regimes now hate America, the more their freed peoples will later admire us. Now is the time for promoting consensual government in he Middle East and cessation of our support for autocrats; later we can worry about the arrogance or naiveté of embracing Western nation-building.

Finally, the three millennia story of Western civilization on the battlefield has proved to be one of abject terror for its enemies. Europe and its cultural offspring have across time and space fashioned a deadly form of warfare that transfers ideas of freedom, rationalism, consensual government, and egalitarianism to lethally trained civic militaries - highly disciplined, well led, technologically advanced, and superbly armed. Much of what I wrote in the military context was intended to remind Americans that they had little to fear from the Taliban and the terrorists. If we stayed true to our deals of freedom and democracy, and were not afraid to incur the sacrifice in lives and capital in the use of our forces, then history teaches us that the ultimate victory was never in doubt.

 

[Hunble]

You asked, so let me post this essay. It does express how I feel rather well.

--------------------------------------------------

From An Autumn of War, Victor Davis Hanson

Introduction: Why September 11th Won't Go Away


The United States was attacked at a time of peace on September 11, 2001. Islamic fundamentalists - sponsored by the al-Qaeda organization, with the implicit support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to the applause of thousands in the Middle East, and with the silence of millions more - destroyed the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, severely damaged the Pentagon in Washington, crashed four jumbo jet liners in suicidal fury, and murdered nearly three thousand unsuspecting Americans. We shall never know the full extent of the planned attack, but it might have been far worse. Brave passengers on a Washington-bound jet seem to have overpowered the hijackers before the could destroy either the Capitol building or the White House. And the immediate arrest of hundreds of terrorist suspects in the days after September 11 probably prevented other subsequent operations.

On the afternoon of the attack, I began to compose several essays for a variety of newspapers and magazines - and thereafter wrote each day until the cessation of general hostilities in Afghanistan, the formation of a new government in Afghanistan, and the final extinction of the smoldering fires at Ground Zero in New York in late December. By the time the Taliban regime was thoroughly destroyed, the al-Qaeda terrorists had been either killed, captured, or scattered, and the United States was pondering its next season of war in its global counterattack against terrorism.

At the very outset, I was convinced that September 11 was a landmark in American history, if not the most calamitous day in our nation's 225 years. Not only did it represent the most grievous single-day foreign attack on the shores of he United States, but the bombing marked a far more climactic and devastating strike than all of the prior precursors to American wars - greater in severity than Lexington and Concord, Fort Sumter, Havana Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitaina, Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin Gulf. The dead were for the most part civilians - slaughtered completely unaware at work or in transit. Their murderers were almost immediately canonized by many in the Middle East, and the architect of such evil was within hours greeted as a hero on the streets of the Islamic world. Four general consequences from the events of September 11 characterize these essays and provide themes for the book at large.

September 11 was not merely an act of terrorism per se - isolated and disgruntled individuals of a small clique mad at the state of the world, and so taking out their frustrations against innocents in the United States. Rather, if al-Qaeda did not exist, it would have to have been invented to assuage the psychological wounds of hundreds of millions of Muslims who are without much consensual government, freedom, and material security. Bin Laden is the ultimate representation of Islam's failure to come to grips with the dizzying and sometimes terrifying pace of globalization and the spread of popular Western culture. In that context September 11 must be seen as toe opportunistic response of fundamentalists to funnel collective frustration against the United States, which for most of he world represents the epitome of Westernism and modernism all in one.

The terrorists acted against America because of who we are, not what we did - despite various claims that pour troops were modern "Crusaders" and rumors that Jewish American women were walking in Muslim countries in suggestive attire. Rampant capitalism, radical equality between the sexes, secular rationalism, and unbridled freedom are not merely antithetical to Islam but appeal to the senses, appetites and aspirations of millions of Muslims far more than Islamic traditionalism can repress them. It is difficult to suggest that the words of the Koran alone can withstand the hideous and foul West when thousands of Muslims voluntarily eat at Western fast-food franchises in Cairo, the Star Wars saga is popular in Amman, and millions want to be in lecture halls in Europe and America. The frustrated terrorists themselves were not poor and ignorant, but rather, upscale and educated. Their fury towards the West was incited, not tempered by their own affinity for and familiarity with us.

Our response to September 11 also reveled another fault line in American thinking: the great divide between a tragic appreciation of the universe and a confidence that all humanity's problems of the age are solvable through the proper therapeutic and enlightened response.

The former view reminds us that as mere humans we cannot rid the universe of all its pathologies in a mere lifetime, and that sometimes we may resemble devils when we try to be omnipotent avenging angels; the latter offers us the god Reason as a worldly religion that can eradicate everything from disease to illiteracy to car exhaust, handguns, cigarettes, and unkind words. As a student of classical literature, I was deeply influenced by the epics of Homer, the plays of Sophocles, Thucydides' history, and the dialogues of Plato, which all seem to offer time-honored alternatives to modern behaviorism, Freudianism, Marxism and social construction. In the Hellenic view, the wrong questions to ask in this present conflict are, "Why is there war?" "Why do they hate us?" or "What did we do to them?"

The Greeks would instead answer that war is terrible but innate to civilization - and not always unjust or amoral if it is waged for good causes to destroy evil and save the innocent. By the same token, we must return to the idea that terrorists and their sponsoring states are mot simply driven to conflict, rationallyy seeking redress from real exploitation, poverty, or inequality. Rather, bellicose theocratic and autocratic nations can be like people - immature, rash and mercurial - and so rush to battle out of classical motive like Thucydidean fear, envy, and self-interest that in turn are fueled by a desire for power, fame and respect. Although war is often fought rationally, the causes for its outbreak are seldom rational.

The glum ancients would expect, rather than be shocked by, September 11, realizing that human nature is unchanging and thus predictable throughout the ages - its essence being raw, savage, and self-serving just beneath the veneer of civilization. In the arena of conflicting and sometimes malevolent powers, national weakness invites attack more often than thanks and appreciation of past self-restraint. Even our magnanimity in sending food to the Taliban was as frequentlyy interpreted as irresolution as it was seen as charity. And military restraint in not responding to prior bombings can be dismissed as timidity rather than praised as sobriety.

Similarly, we need to be reminded of the tragic limitations of the human condition - and how rare Western culture is in its efforts to ameliorate the savagery innate to all peoples at all times. Kabul was not Paris or San Francisco when we arrived, and it will not be so when we leave. We wish peace and some sort of human order in Afghanistan, but we accept that without a Madison or Lincoln or the Federalist Papers there well may be unclean water, harsh police and only one radio station for some time to come. Our mission in this war is not to right wrongs that cannot be righted given the limits of our wisdom and power, but rather to leave millions in Afghanistan and elsewhere better off than when we arrived, offering hope to other states that their towers will not be toppled and their citizens vaporized should a fanatical enclave decide to target their culture.

Acceptance of this dark vision of human nature need not be pessimistic if one understands that a transcendent morality - the desire to protect the unsuspecting, aid the attacked, and leave behind for others more than one has received - is the foundation for such an unsparing worldview. Thus we accept the tragedy of the human condition in order to ensure that we do not allow evil people to act out what they desire and sometimes are surely capable of accomplishing.

Such a realistic acceptance of war seemed to me far more humane (not to mention safe) than believing that we can reinvent he nature of man each generation through state planning, psychoanalysis, counseling, or any other of the social and behavioral sciences that seek to alter - often through coercion - the very way we humans think and act on some universal scale. Mr. bin Laden killed thousands of Americans because he was depraved and thought it more likely that he could gain fame and power than court death and destruction. We were Britain to his Hitler, a power not in any way culpable for past transgressions, but an obstacle nonetheless by virtue of our democracy and liberality to his mad dreams of grandeur. He envisioned a medieval Caliphate under his sway. And he was convinced by the past restraint of he United States that the world's sole superpower either could not or would not retaliate against him, despite his long history of murdering.

I also tried to make sense of our own subsequent response to September 11 from an equally different view of class and status. I am a classicist, but also a farmer, who was born, lives and works on a family farm in California's Central Valley. From that agrarian vantage point, itself handed down from some five previous generations who lived on our small 120 acres, I have had doubts about what passes for intellectual life in America today - particularly as manifested in the contemporary university. Physical work, close acquaintance with the poor, and affinity for the innate dangers that confront millions of Americans are all a complete mystery to many of he most vocal critics of America in this current conflict; those who do not disk the south forty, hammer nails, or pump out cesspools, it seemed to me, had a greater propensity (not to mention more time) to ponder the legal ramifications of trying John Walker Lindh - and were more likely to see him as a confused idealist from Marin County that an abject traitor.

So I felt much of what the university had to say about September 11 would reflect its general isolation from the material conditions facing most Americans - and I was not disappointed. Almost all the working-class people I know - farmers, mechanics, union electricians, and students at California State University, Fresno - were solidly behind the United States' response. In contrast, nearly all of he opposition to our conduct in this war was expressed by professors and those in law, the media, government and entertainment, who as a general rule lead lives rather different from those of most Americans.

Many critics, of course, were well-meaning pacifists and principled opponents of the use of force in response to violence. I am not interested so much in refuting such positions as in explaining how frequently they seem to be held by the most comfortable and secure members of American society - whether in the corporation, law firm, or university. Those who were tenured, highly paid, or leisured, both Republican and Democrat, I think have forgotten how hard it is to survive and raise a family - how often daily life is muscular and dangerous, and how frequently evil people can and must be stopped only through physical strength from hurting those who are helpless. Rarely do our professional classes meet or live by those who have few lifelines and therefore understand this brutality and the slim margin of error that sometimes separates survival from catastrophe. Many enlightened and well-educated Americans - often among the most influential of our society - simply cannot believe that awful men abound in the world who cannot be cajoled, bought off, counseled, reasoned with, or reported to the authorities, but rather must be hit and knocked hard to cease their evildoing if the blameless and the vulnerable are to survive.

Yet the vast majority of Americans accept this pragmatic creed - 90 percent of hem supported bombing the Taliban and al-Qaeda according to may polls taken throughout the autumn of 2001. Too many of our more educated and upscale did not. The felt that we should have done very little militarily, but quite a lot in consultation with the United Nations, our allies, and moderate states to convince al-Qaeda to stop. Class as an indicator to America's different political responses to September 11 was rarely remarked upon by social critics. So this war has reminded citizens that a great many progressives are more likely to be privileged than sweaty, eager to craft bromides from the suburb rather than the farm or coal mine, and quite ready to embrace abstract cure-alls as penance for the vast distance they have put between themselves and their objects of of empathy. Domestically, such hypocrisy and naiveté are problematic, but in a war with adversaries like al-Qaeda and their supporters, utopianism is near suicidal.

These essays reflect a deep belief that September 11 has reminded us how Western civilization and its more radical manifestation of liberty and capitalism in the United States are very different from other cultures past and present. Multiculturalism taught us that all peoples are more or less equal, one society not qualitatively better or worse than any other. Cultural relativism added that it is wrong to judge a people on its habits and practices - there being no real objective standards of good or evil behavior, since both concepts are not absolute, but simple "constructions" or "fictions" of he day, created by those in power to maintain their control and privilege.

Or so we were told in our schools, books, and universities. September 11 suggested otherwise. There is not - and never has been - a single true democracy in the Islamic world other than a sometimes constitutional, secular, and Westernized Turkey. There may be four or five words for various types of female veils in the languages of he Middle East - burqa, chador, niqab, hyab, and others - but no indigenous vocabulary for constitutional and consensual government. That fact alone makes a real difference in the lives of a billion people. Freedom to worship, the rule of law, the right to inquire apart from religion and government, the existence of a voting middle class, the opportunity to own property and pursue profit - all these are mostly Western ideas and, to the degree they are followed anywhere, permit a people prosperity and happiness. If such values are thwarted by either religion, tribalism, statism or sheer anarchy, far too frequently and unnecessarily men and women get sick, kill each other, die early and live in squalor.

Consequently, many of the following chapters deny that the misery of the Middle East is a result of colonialism, racism, or American hegemony - much less attributable to the bogeyman Israel - rather than the predicable result of widespread failure to adopt free institutions, democracy, open markets, and civilian audit. In that sense, realpolitik alone will not see America through the war against the terrorists. Instead, in the tumult to follow September 11, overwhelming military force must be coupled with humane considerations and straight talk. All people born onto the planet seek freedom and security, and since the Western paradigm alone provides man a chance to realize these innate aspirations, it is the duty of Americans to be neither cynical nor insensitive in their approach to the Islamic world, but rather in confidence and without apology to support popular governments and democratic revolutionaries wherever possible. The more the present repressive regimes now hate America, the more their freed peoples will later admire us. Now is the time for promoting consensual government in he Middle East and cessation of our support for autocrats; later we can worry about the arrogance or naiveté of embracing Western nation-building.

Finally, the three millennia story of Western civilization on the battlefield has proved to be one of abject terror for its enemies. Europe and its cultural offspring have across time and space fashioned a deadly form of warfare that transfers ideas of freedom, rationalism, consensual government, and egalitarianism to lethally trained civic militaries - highly disciplined, well led, technologically advanced, and superbly armed. Much of what I wrote in the military context was intended to remind Americans that they had little to fear from the Taliban and the terrorists. If we stayed true to our deals of freedom and democracy, and were not afraid to incur the sacrifice in lives and capital in the use of our forces, then history teaches us that the ultimate victory was never in doubt.

 

[Hunble]

Hunble, please give me an answer to my question:

When you joined the army you swore an oath. Could you please tell me the words of this oath? Thank you.

That essay I just posted expresses my feeling better than anything I could possible write. I absolutely agree with everything that was said in that essay.

I do not have good writing skills, since most of my adult life was spent actually putting my life at risk. When I can locate an author that is able to express my feelings, then I will proudly post his words. Because, those are my words also.

Have I answered your questions?

 

[Hunble]

Hunble, please give me an answer to my question:

When you joined the army you swore an oath. Could you please tell me the words of this oath? Thank you.

Trasher, your question still has me rather upset. Why would you ask me what my Oath was when I joined the Army?

Are you playing some sick type of game, that President Bush is in violation of the Constitution?

I have heard that argument recently, so let me correct that stupidity very rapidly. Only Congress, under the laws in America, can declare war. Congress used their power and delegated those powers to President Bush. Absolutely Constitutional and followed the intent and rules of the law.

Trasher, as I have said many times, if someone has a specific question, I will do everything to provide an answer.

If you think that I am not being honest, then read the actual words. They may be important in the very near future:

--------------------------------


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 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 assembled,



SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


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



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).



(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.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.



107th CONGRESS



2d Session


H. J. RES. 114


JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

 

[Trasher]

Trasher, your question still has me rather upset. Why would you ask me what my Oath was when I joined the Army?

Are you playing some sick type of game, that President Bush is in violation of the Constitution?

I have heard that argument recently, so let me correct that stupidity very rapidly. Only Congress, under the laws in America, can declare war. Congress used their power and delegated those powers to President Bush. Absolutely Constitutional and followed the intent and rules of the law.

It's very interesting how you are interpreting my question because I didn't mention anything of the things you're writing about. However you're wrong and I just want to compare your oath to the one of our german soldiers. No tricks, no games.
I wasn't able to find your oath written down anywhere in the www, so please give me an answer.

Trasher, as I have said many times, if someone has a specific question, I will do everything to provide an answer.

I'm looking forward to hear from you.


[EDIT]
Oh, I'm sorry, I just recognized that you've already answered my question.

 

[forcemagick]

i think he gave the answer



"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 HELP ME GOD."