At least there is one Lib out there honest enough to admit they do not support our troops . . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,3682678.column?coll=la-util-op-ed

While Mr. Stein says he does not advocate that returning vets should be spit on, you get the distinct impression he would have no issue with it at all.

While Mr. Stein says he does not advocate that returning vets should be spit on, you get the distinct impression he would have no issue with it at all.
No. I don't get that impression at all.

But, he does raise an issue I still have not resolved. How can I morally support U.S. troops when I oppose where they are and what they are doing?

Mind you, in the end he does support those who are fighting in a war he opposes.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition.

Smart man.

Taken three years for someone to say it other than me, though.

Mind you, in the end he does support those who are fighting in a war he opposes.

No he does not, in fact he basically lays the blame on thier shoulders.


The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not.

and

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition.

I disagree. It's fully possible to support the troops while being against the war. They're not the ones who started the war, and it's not their fault they were being deployed. Getting angry with them over it is like yelling at the waiter at TGIF because they stopped having your favorite meal.

But really, is the alternative what people want in this situation? Would they prefer for the people who are against the war to start treating our troops like they were treated during Vietnam? Is it more appropriate to spit on them as they get off their planes?

"Wussy" or not, I think it's better this way.

It is very reasonable to support the troops and wish them well without actually supporting the ambitions of their war. The majority of Britain has being doing it for the last two years ....

No he does not, in fact he basically lays the blame on thier shoulders.
The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not.
But that's true. The people who pull the triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. If you kill someone, whether it's as a soldier or as a cop or as just any old John Doe, you are a killer.
But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse.
Um ... I suppose it's possible for someone to enlist in the U.S. military without knowing they will be trained to kill or that they may be sent to kill.

I suppose it's possible for someone to enlist in the U.S. military without knowing they will be trained to kill or that they may be sent to kill.

I seriously doubt that anyone would join any military service, with the possible exception of the coast guard, and not expect that they would be trained to kill. That whole bit with learning how to shoot weapons, be those weapons small guns or big tanks or bigger missiles.

The purpose of the military is to kill people, whether those people are invading us or whether we're invading them.

I did not want my father to go to Viet Nam. I also wished and hoped daily that he would come home. I can, indeed, support the troops (my father or my friends) without agreeing with or supporting the war they're stuck fighting in (no matter which war that is).

I wish and hope daily that my friends and their loved ones return home in one piece, both physically and mentally. I did not agree with invading Iraq and I still do not thing we should have gone in. I support the troops, I do not support the war.

As I was reading that, all I could think of was spoiled kid from Beverly Hills. :P

On the other hand, I see congress/pres. has no problem supporting the war and saying they support the troops but when push comes to shove, they're still not getting adequate amour and their medical benefits are being cut.

So who really is supporting the troops? The people sending them to fight made-up wars we can't win and cutting their benefits? Or the people that want them back home, out of harms way?

Smart man.

Taken three years for someone to say it other than me, though.

Small mindedness, not smarts.

Our boys don't have the luxury of deciding where to go and what to do, once they sign up.

And if it isn't illegal, they must do as they are ordered, else our military can do nothing.

I support our troops.

I don't support the war.

I applaud anyone risking their life for our country, even if I don't agree with the need for them to risk their life in Iraq. They don't get to decide.

Just because you have this ludicris idea in your mind that anyone who doesn't support the war doesn't support the troops (or is an outright traitor) doesn't make it so.

It takes not great mental athleticism to be able to differentiate between the troops and the war.

But that's true. The people who pull the triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. If you kill someone, whether it's as a soldier or as a cop or as just any old John Doe, you are a killer.

Nothing wrong with being a killer. Its murderers who are scum.

Nothing wrong with being a killer. Its murderers who are scum.
Most people would claim that terrorists are murderers and should die in the most horrendous ways. Yet they too are soldiers in a war. and ... as they are just following the orders of their superior officers and their commanding chief ... are they not as "blameless" as the soldiers in our military who kill?

Most people would claim that terrorists are murderers and should die in the most horrendous ways. Yet they too are soldiers in a war. and ... as they are just following the orders of their superior officers and their commanding chief ... are they not as "blameless" as the soldiers in our military who kill?

No, because the targetted killing of civilians is against the laws of war.

As I was reading that, all I could think of was spoiled kid from Beverly Hills. :P
But you know, when I see a lot of the rah-rah Republicans who support the war, I think of the rich kids, and their parents, who are not enlisting. They support the war just fine, as long as they or their kids don't have to go. The big difference here is that in the Vietnam era, there was a draft.

Pres. Bush was smarter than normal. He knew as long as people back home didn't have to give anything up, they'd support his war.

Pres. Bush was smarter than normal. You do realize that forever and eternally, we now have this quote from Panamah! :texla:

An how appropriate, in a thread called "An Honest Liberal" too! :p

Most people would claim that terrorists are murderers and should die in the most horrendous ways. Yet they too are soldiers in a war. and ... as they are just following the orders of their superior officers and their commanding chief ... are they not as "blameless" as the soldiers in our military who kill?

If you can not distinguish and make value judgements on the difference between those who want to kill for you and those who want to kill you, you really need to stop voting NOW.

Use two condoms too, please.

Anyone heard even uttering the idiotic pacifist line, "terrorists are people too"...should be first against the wall. You should be able to think it, but actually saying it? Such a person should be regarded with much caution.

Small mindedness, not smarts.

Classic Liberal BS.

Only openminded to those who agree with them.

Everyone else is closedminded or small minded.


Any Liberal who has the balls to actually say the truth, dispite party line, like Mr. Stein, deserves a round on me. Top shelf even.

Any Liberal who has the balls to actually say the truth, dispite party line, like Mr. Stein, deserves a round on me. Top shelf even.

So he's telling the truth because you agree with what he's saying?

Everyone else is closedminded or small minded.

Hello pot, allow me to introduce you to the kettle.

No, because the targetted killing of civilians is against the laws of war.
The killing of civilians (including women and children) is one reason soldiers who returned from Vietnam were spit upon.

If you can not distinguish and make value judgements on the difference between those who want to kill for you and those who want to kill you, you really need to stop voting NOW.

Use two condoms too, please.
It's all a matter of perception. To those who support the terrorists, the terrorists are heros and are killing FOR them and it is the U.S. soldiers who want to kill them. There are also those who do not support the terrorists, are civilians, and yet find themselves at risk from an invading US army.

Ultimately, there is no difference between a soldier on one side and a soldier on the other side. They both follow orders. They both kill. and they both believe that god is on their side.


Should a group of US soldiers be ordered to open fire on a group of US citizens ... they would follow orders. So no, there really is no difference between those who want to kill for me and those who want to kill me. They both would kill me given the order to do so.

It wouldn't even matter if I was not doing anything against the law. I just have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ultimately, it makes a difference from what side you're on.


Just because you yet fail to recognize it, does not mean it is not there.

You do realize that forever and eternally, we now have this quote from Panamah! :texla:

An how appropriate, in a thread called "An Honest Liberal" too! :p

Yeah, the closest thing you'll ever get from me that could remotely be construed as a compliment, if you overlook the machivellian implications. Cherish it!


Hello pot, allow me to introduce you to the kettle.
*sings* Blackadder, Blackadder his pot is blacker than his kettle.

So he's telling the truth because you agree with what he's saying?
He is saying the truth regardless of whether I agree with him or disagree with him.

The "I support the troops, but don't support the war" is oxymoronic at best. If the military was made up of conscripted troops, then you might have an argument. They aren't, you don't.

Sitting on the fence all namby pampy like, not wanting to get hit hard by other people's opinions, until there is a sea change, and when you have a majority of your team willing to say it out loud, finally,,,

"These people are war mongers, and they got into the military to make money off of killing people, and I want it to stop".

And you will, when pacifist liberals feel safe and cozy behind their numbers, you will start to see them poke their greasy little pricks out and squirt that line around, and in the newspapers, and news rags, and radio, and talkshows.

Hello pot, allow me to introduce you to the kettle.
I call people stupid all the time, mostly it is their ideas or notions which are truely idiotic, and they just don't know better; no matter how smart they actually are. I find dumb people in so called smart roles all the time.

I have found pearls of wisdom from not so smart people, as well.


Pacifist Liberals don't move a muscle until they know that the majority is with them. They don't have the balls, foundation, conviction, or principles to.

Stein does. And even though he and I are ideologically at different ends of the spectrum, I can still give him kudos for having balls, conviction and principles...even though I disagree with him. He still lacks foundation, but 3 outta 4 aint bad, beats most liberals who have none.

Today it was announced that another 3000 British troops are being sent to Afghanistan to take over from US forces. I fully support the mission of those troops in Afghanistan. I do not support the mission of British troops in Iraq. No matter what country an individual soldier is posted to, I still want him or her to return safely to my country at the end of the war. I want all my country's troops to have the best logistical support available to ensure they can do their dangerous assignments with the least risk.

The support for the troops is quite categorically different to support for the war.

Classic Liberal BS.

Only openminded to those who agree with them.

Everyone else is closedminded or small minded.

No, what qualifies as small mindedness is the inability to think.

If person cannot understand the very simple concept that one can support the troops fighting a war, without supporting the war itself. It denotes a lack of mental acuity. A blockage somewhere. And inability to differentiate between the tool and the operator, as it were.

To say that because I disagree with the war, I do not or should not support the troops is akin to suggesting that because I don't agree with murder, I do not or should not support the right to bear arms.

The killing of civilians (including women and children) is one reason soldiers who returned from Vietnam were spit upon.


It's all a matter of perception. To those who support the terrorists, the terrorists are heros and are killing FOR them and it is the U.S. soldiers who want to kill them. There are also those who do not support the terrorists, are civilians, and yet find themselves at risk from an invading US army.

Ultimately, there is no difference between a soldier on one side and a soldier on the other side. They both follow orders. They both kill. and they both believe that god is on their side.

Ain't never been a US soldier who walked into Sbarro's Pizza and blow up 21 teenagers.

Never seen a US soldier open fire on a schoolbus of elementary children.

No Marine has ever walked into a market on 'market day' and detonated themselves.


Should a group of US soldiers be ordered to open fire on a group of US citizens ... they would follow orders. So no, there really is no difference between those who want to kill for me and those who want to kill me. They both would kill me given the order to do so.

As a former Marine, let me say this...Most Marines I knew would balk at the idea of firing upon US citizens unless they posed a direct threat.

So when liberal pacifists march lock step chanting the mantra ' support the troops, support the troops, do not support the war' like Romero zombies, that is enlightened critical thinking.

But when someone comes along and calls bull**** on the whole liberal "feel good for myself, I am a good little liberal robot", that means that he is small minded and not thinking.

Pull the other one.

The only reason liberals use that BS now, was because of the backlash of anti-war protestors of the 60's, and people rightfully stopped liking them and what they did. And they do not want to be called "Veteran Spitters On"(whatever). Because we know that the anti-war protestors of the 60s and 70s were petty little whiner pussies, and completely ungrateful, if not outright lazy, self centered, selfish, stupid, cowardly, and malicious. And anti-war protestors today, don't want the association, all by their lonesome. That is until they grow in sufficient numbers again, and they feel safe.

I thank EVERY veteran and military member I meet.

I have thought about this for a very long time, no, I was very stupid and closeminded when I was young, liberal, and anti-war dove. That is when I was small minded.

So when liberal pacifists march lock step chanting the mantra ' support the troops, support the troops, do not support the war' like Romero zombies, that is enlightened critical thinking.

But when someone comes along and calls bull**** on the whole liberal "feel good for myself, I am a good little liberal robot", that means that he is small minded and not thinking.

Pull the other one.

The only reason liberals use that BS now, was because of the backlash of anti-war protestors of the 60's, and people rightfully stopped liking them and what they did.

Or, maybe, because some of us Liberals served in the military, and so do support our troops, while not supporting the war?

if you logically extrapolate that line of thinking, then every american who pays taxes is responsible too, as that is ultimately what funds our effort at sea's, if one doesnt agree with our actions overseas, or then they should get out of our country, as they have a place

not that i agree with that, but the line of thinking like that just smacks of drawing a line of responsibility that explictable puts them in the "not responsible" category.

Or, maybe, because some of us Liberals served in the military, and so do support our troops, while not supporting the war?

Or, maybe, because some of us Liberals were children of those who served, and some of us watched as our friend's fathers didn't come home, and some of us are watching now as our friend's spouses aren't coming home - ever - and so we do support our troops, while still not supporting our war.

Fyyr, since you seem to have such a difficult time with this, let's go slowly and one step at a time.

1. Person signs up for military, knowing that there is a chance they will be sent off to fight if our politicians (who don't seem to have any families in the military, and who never put their own lives on the line I notice) decide to send them.

2. Person does what person signed up to do, follows orders, goes where he/she's told to.

3. I, as a reasonably enlightened individual, decide that I am not buying into all the "leadership" (as in: Don't step in the 'leadership'), and don't believe the 'leadership' has the faintest idea what they're doing, and also feel that if the pentagon has come out publicly and repeatedly saying that invading a certain country would be a colossal mistake, and if the UN weapons inspectors repeatedly say there is no evidence of WMDs, and if those in the know repeatedly say there's no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq/Hussein....well, there's a real good likelihood that I'll put all those pieces together and come to the conclusion that invading Iraq is one of the most idiotic decisions this group of 'leadership' has made.

4. However, since they made the decision, I now have friends going over to get their asses blown into a billion little bits by roadside bombs disguised as jersey walls or trashcans or whatever-the-hell. And I support those people. I want them to come home in one piece. They didn't make the decision to invade Iraq, they made the decision to join the military. We've used our military in situations where I believe it was called for (the first Gulf war, when Iraq invaded Kuwait - a sovereign country invaded another sovereign country who was our ally; the invaded country asked for our assistance and we gave it to them. We also had an exit strategy then.). No one has a crystal ball, and no one can determine in advance whether an administration 10 years from now is going to come up with some BS story to go running around invading countries with no reason at all. Thus, it is possibly to not only support the troops while deploring the war, but even to BE the troops and still deplore the war.

Perhaps it's just a little to complex for you, Fyyr. But I can assure you that it is entirely possible for someone to absolutely abhor the political situation while still supporting and wishing the best for those stuck in it.

Perhaps it's just a little to complex for you, Fyyr. But I can assure you that it is entirely possible for someone to absolutely abhor the political situation while still supporting and wishing the best for those stuck in it.
Maybe this is a little complex for YOU.

All of the people in the military are in there because of their choice. They wanted to get into the military.

Some(most) actually want to see action, that is to say, kill people. I know people who are in the military, just for that reason. To get the opportunity to legally kill people.

EVERY person in the military knew the risks BEFORE they joined. They took the risks. Most of them don't give a rats ass where they see action, they don't care. They just want to.

It sure is mighty of you to think that you need to care and nuture all those little boys and girls in the military, and that it is your job to protect them from the big bad leadership. But they are in there for a reason. That is, they want to be.

They are in there doing their job. They are there because they want to be. If you don't support them doing their job, how can you support them.

Maybe this is a little complex for YOU.

All of the people in the military are in there because of their choice. They wanted to get into the military.

Some(most) actually want to see action, that is to say, kill people. I know people who are in the military, just for that reason. To get the opportunity to legally kill people.

EVERY person in the military knew the risks BEFORE they joined. They took the risks. Most of them don't give a rats ass where they see action, they don't care. They just want to.

It sure is mighty of you to think that you need to care and nuture all those little boys and girls in the military, and that it is your job to protect them from the big bad leadership. But they are in there for a reason. That is, they want to be.

They are in there doing their job. They are there because they want to be. If you don't support them doing their job, how can you support them.

We do need to care and nurture all those little boys and girls in the military. It is our job to protect them. Because the nature of the military is such that the majority of them are just that, boys and girls. Young men and women seeking to start a better life for themselves in service to their nation. Too young to really understand what it entails. Young enough to believe every word the recruiter tells them.

Young enough to assume their leaders will provide adequate body armor, instead of giving more money to Halliburton. Young enough to assume their leaders had done research into the dangers of their vehicles...young enough to assume that after three years of realizing a Hum-Vee doesn't have appropriate protection, a solution would have been implemented, regardless of cost.

Your world is far too black and white, Fy'yr. Its no stretch of values, beliefs, or intellectual integrity to support troops but not support the war they've been tasked to.

Also, there are many people (I would opin the majority) who join the military without wanting to kill people.

- Joining the armed forces seeking a non combat position (such as a medic or a technical job). Having taken the ASVAB in high school, and having received a high score, I was hounded by recruiters for years offering just about any tech job I wanted in the military.

- Joining the army reserve, without really expecting or wanting to be activated. My brother did this. He was sent over to the middle east, not to fight, but to help rebuild. He still had to face the risks, and one member of his unit was killed.

- Letting the military pay for your college education, and serving afterward. A lot of people with limited funds go this option.

And probably a lot more that I can't think of. I would join the other posters here in saying that supporting the troops (I do) doesn't equal supporting the "war" (I don't).

Put it this way Fyyr, if the US government sent 50,000 troops into the arctic tomorrow to save penguins then you might be forgiven for thinking the mission was plain crazy. Would you immediately remove your support for the troops that are sent there? I doubt it.

My thinking: If there weren't people to sign up, there's a very good possibility that I'd be over in Iraq right now, and I have no desire to enlist. I may not like wars and killing, but I also understand that they are a necessary evil. I support these people for making that decision. I support them for choosing to do something that can potentially cost them their lives. I support them for joining up and allowing us to continue to be a world power.

None of that changes because they're in Iraq unjustified.

What a very emotional and hot topic. When I read the first post I thought this thread may need to be moved to the Unkempt Druids - just because people can get so emotional about their feelings about it and without wanting to, or even maybe really wanting to, hurt others feelings.

I am a republican, the only one in my family. I come from old stock blue collar rednecks. My step-father and sister are both Union Stewards and my sister is actually on the executive board for their union. I have heard all of the views they have regarding Bush and this war. And I have to agree, I think the majority of the American public was duped into thinking the war was a good thing when it started.

When it started, people had just witnessed the largest act of terrorism the United States had ever suffered. Most wanted revenge, to get the bastard that master-minded the killing of all those innocent people. So, Bush says "Hey, lets go to Afghanstan and get that crazy S.O.B" Americans went "Hell Yeah!! These colors dont run!"

Now, 5 years later, you would be hard pressed to find many American's that think we are doing the right thing over there in Iraq. There are many of us Republicans that agree this war is a farce and a joke and should never have taken place.

That doesnt stop the fact that over 2000 of our young people have died and more die every day doing what they have been told by their superiors is the right thing to do. Yes, some of them signed up knowing that they would be in the service of killing people. But, when you listen to them, they did it (and still every day sign up) because they think they are protecting the nation.

Obviously, my family and I try our best not to speak of politics often, it usually ends up with a torrent of "you have been brainwashed" and "how can you be so stupid" However, last week, my sister and I watched Pearl Harbor, the movie. During the bombing scene, with tears streaming down my face (my grandfather was on the USS Arizona) I looked at her and said, "This is why we needed to get Saddam out of office. America did little to nothing to stop the attrocities that Hitler was doing for YEARS until we got sucker punched."

Hindsight, of course, is 20/20. We all now know what Hitler was doing and most of us agree he needed to be stopped! How much did the government know back in 1939? Why didn't we come to the call of our allies in Brittan and France when they were mowed over and occupied? No president ever wants to be the one to "not" do something ever again.

Does that make what we are doing now right? Not to me. Do I think we have wasted billions of dollars, 4 years of time, and thousands of lives for another Vietnam? Yes. Stopping Saddam Hussein (which I 100% agree has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden) was the right thing to do. Staying there to "rebuild" that nation is not the right thing to do.

So, I can say undoubtably that I support the young men and women who risk their lives every day doing what they not only think is right, but what they have been told is right. But, I do not support the effort in Iraq. I am still not clear on why that is a concept you cannot agree with Fyyr.

Put it this way Fyyr, if the US government sent 50,000 troops into the arctic tomorrow to save penguins then you might be forgiven for thinking the mission was plain crazy. Would you immediately remove your support for the troops that are sent there? I doubt it.

What a silly analogy.

35,000 American troops are stationed along the Korean border.

Over 60 years after any overt conflict there.

Also, there are many people (I would opin the majority) who join the military without wanting to kill people.

- Joining the armed forces seeking a non combat position (such as a medic or a technical job). Having taken the ASVAB in high school, and having received a high score, I was hounded by recruiters for years offering just about any tech job I wanted in the military.

- Joining the army reserve, without really expecting or wanting to be activated. My brother did this. He was sent over to the middle east, not to fight, but to help rebuild. He still had to face the risks, and one member of his unit was killed.

- Letting the military pay for your college education, and serving afterward. A lot of people with limited funds go this option.

And probably a lot more that I can't think of. I would join the other posters here in saying that supporting the troops (I do) doesn't equal supporting the "war" (I don't).

Of course, there are as many reasons for chosing to join the military as there are people in the military.

None of the members of the military were drafted or conscripted. They chose to join(for whatever their reason), and they all know the risks. Even the few examples of the idiots who say "I just joined the Army so that I could afford school after my 4 years are up, I did not expect that we would ACTUALLY have to fight in a war", knew and knows the risks.

Thank your brother for me for serving.

And technically the Iraq war is already over, anyways. What is going on now is just mop up and re-building. I know that it is hard to say "I support the troops, but I don't support the mop up and rebuilding of Iraq". Too many words, and not really cool for a liberal bumper sticker to put on your Bug.

My thinking: If there weren't people to sign up, there's a very good possibility that I'd be over in Iraq right now, and I have no desire to enlist. I may not like wars and killing, but I also understand that they are a necessary evil. I support these people for making that decision. I support them for choosing to do something that can potentially cost them their lives. I support them for joining up and allowing us to continue to be a world power.

None of that changes because they're in Iraq unjustified.

The army hasn't been making it's quota for quite some time, since Iraq.

And technically the Iraq war is already over, anyways. What is going on now is just mop up and re-building. I know that it is hard to say "I support the troops, but I don't support the mop up and rebuilding of Iraq". Too many words, and not really cool for a liberal bumper sticker to put on your Bug.


I own a Chevy Blazer.

The army hasn't been making it's quota for quite some time, since Iraq.

Actually, I thought they made their quota recently, but only because they lowered it. ;) Regardless, it hasn't gotten to the point yet where the draft is necessary.

The draft is NEVER necessary.

Increased benefits and pay will always be better and less expensive, than conscription, for the military.

If there are generals now who think otherwise, they need to retire out now.

And technically the Iraq war is already over, anyways.

Technically, the Iraq WAR never existed as we never declared war on them. Same with Viet Nam. Same with Korea. I doubt even GWB, with all his lies and false information, could have convinced congress to declare war on Iraq. That's why he had to do an end 'round with the extra-powers granted him after 9/11.

Regurgitated Viet Nam babbledy gook.

With close to 200 Wars that the US has been engaged in...only 5 of them were declared by Congress.

Our forces smashed Iraqs military and deposed its leader. For all intents and purposes, the war is over.

Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)

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 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' (Public Law 105-235);

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 an 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 resolutions 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 American 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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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 (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 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 the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

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 applicable to 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.

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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists 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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) 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 Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) 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 Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of 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 Public Law 102-1.

Should a group of US soldiers be ordered to open fire on a group of US citizens ... they would follow orders

wrong. I will follow no unlawful order. I have the right to refuse unlawful orders. If a bunch of us citizens were marching on a nuclear weapon I was guarding to blow it up---or trying to kill an elected official I was suppose to be protecting, yes I probably would fire on them. They are taking actions to force me to. If they are just demonstrating--I would tell the commanding officer to take a flying you know what.

I serve the United States of America. The USA is the people. Not the president. Not the constitution. The president is the duly appointed representative of the people so I follow his orders. he starts ordering me unlawfully to kill thsoe people--he loses that right.

You think soldiers are grown in vats? We know the american citizens are our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, sons, daughters etc.

So you got that one wrong. you actually sound like the rabid right now--convinced that the US military is in cahoots with a foreign power to let them take over. We in the military, in general (yes we do have some bloodthirsty baboons to my embarassment and shame--but they are rare) are here to serve the people.

as for the liberals who support the troops but not the war, thank you. I do support both--but thank you for your support for the troops and respect that you dont agree with what they are doing. Yes there is a difference.

Here is a good example--I dont support ever risking a soldiers life to go rescue a US citizen, who against everything our government told them entered a war zone--often to support the actions of the enemy. I dont support that mission--think we should leave them to whatever happens instead of risking lives to save them---however I do support the troops who go in to rescue these people.

Regurgitated Viet Nam babbledy gook.

With close to 200 Wars that the US has been engaged in...only 5 of them were declared by Congress.

Our forces smashed Iraqs military and deposed its leader. For all intents and purposes, the war is over.

200 wars?

I want what you're smoking.

Regurgitated Viet Nam babbledy gook.

The fact that history repeats itself does not make the history "babbledy gook". A war was never declared. It is not a war if the war was not declared. It may be many things, including an uninvited military take-over, but it is not a war.

Which happens to be quite handy if you don't want to have to follow the internationally agreed upon rules of warfare. How convenient for our leaders that they didn't declare war, since they don't seem to be too keen on following the rules anyway.

It is not a war if the war was not declared.
Since when?



That's silly.

Wars happen and have happened all the time, throughout time, without them being 'declared'. Most wars, for that matter.