Todays events in Washington

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Wed Oct 02, 2002 9:21 pm

The New Jersey state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the party can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli's name on the November ballot with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

The ruling gives hope to Democrats scrambling to retain their one-seat majority in the U.S. Senate through the Nov. 5 election

Should this be allowed? Does anyone think that laws should be rewritten as an event unfolds? Or do you obey the rule of the law and change the law in question after the fact?

To me the last quote specifically states what is occurring here.

And on to graver issues:

Democrats and Republicans in Congress began closing ranks Wednesday behind a resolution giving President Bush broad authority to use military force against Iraq.

By Dlck Gephart

But this is the most important thing that we do. This should not be about politics. We have to do what is right for the security of our nation and the safety of all Americans."

Rep. Tom Lantos of California, the Senior Democrat of the House International Relations Committee, said delaying a confrontation with Iraq would only "increase the danger and increase the price" and leave the United States "humiliated before history."

Does anyone have an idea why so many influential moderate Republicans and Democrats have changed their mind and decided to back Bush?

My post here is not an attempt to inflame anyone, but to generate a legitimate discussion. Except, maybe the first topic.

Everclearules20 · Post by **Everclearules20** » Wed Oct 02, 2002 10:15 pm

For the same reason Tom Lantos said, if we delay, and just hope the whole Iraq/Hussein problem goes away, we're going to be 'humiliated before history'. Hussein is not going to go away...

He most likely has weapons of mass destruction already, or is very near to getting them. Why else would he have had the UN inspectors sent away at gun point, not allowing them to check the buildings they wanted, breaking his agreement? Is it to prove a point? Is he trying to make it seem as if America is being the bully and trying to see what he's hiding behind the 'curtain' and when America finnaly pulls it open, they find nothing there? If he is, he has taken it way too far... Collin Powell, Bush, and I, even though my opinion isn't quite as strong, believe he has taken it beyond the point of negotiation.

We cannot sit here hopping it will go away, the risk of inaction could lead to Hussein basically controlling the world. Look what countries he's surrounded by, countries who's main export is oil, oil which is needed for all tanks, aircrafts, etc... These countries are far too weak to defend themselves from Iraq, giving Hussein an easy way to gain control of most of the world's oil... And if he does, think of how much money he will gain to support his army, making him a very challenging opponent.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:29 pm

As to Torricelli, I believe once a certain amount of time has passed, you should stand your ground. The Democrats, I believe put forth this person to serve. Meaning IMHO the Democrat voters decided he was the person they wanted. Now the Democrat Party has took it upon theirselfs to put in his place another person.

Where was Lautenberg when the Democrat voters decided who they wanted to represent them? Did Lautenberg run against Torricelli to see who the Democrat voters wanted?

____________________________

(How do you get around the law??)

Lautenberg has 2 to 3 Million in his war chest.

Torricelli has 5 to 6 Million in his war chest.

Torricelli can only give Lautenberg $1000.00 to his election bid.

Torricelli can give all his war chest money to the Democrat Party.

Lautenberg can get all the money he needs from the Democrat Party.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 12:06 am

Well, I'm not in support of going into Iraq, yet. Yes, he's a nasty dictator, but going in within the next month may prove to be a major mistake. As well, while our politicians have been busy debating the issue, NO ONE has discussed what this is going to cost. I have an idea that should war break out, for starters, we will shortly see the re-instatement of the draft. Any politicians still thinking that the Iraqi people will welcome our troops with open arms will find themselves rapidly disillusioned. And you can kiss any tax breaks good-bye.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:25 am

Is this a thread about New Jersey election laws or Iraq?

Originally posted by BaronTx
Should this be allowed? Does anyone think that laws should be rewritten as an event unfolds? Or do you obey the rule of the law and change the law in question after the fact?

This is a New Jersey law, not a national one, so you'd have to view it in the context of the New Jersey state constitution, which quite frankly, I don't have enough knowledge about to comment on specifically. However, the courts often address laws on the fly in circumstances like this and then let appellate courts decide if the right thing was done at a later date.

State election laws vary and it may very well be that the New Jersey Supreme Court is acting within the boundaries of their laws. This issue is drawing national attention because of the Democrats's tenuous hold on their majority in the Senate, but it's not really the business of anyone who lives outside of New Jersey.

It is my understanding that the Republicans are appealing this to the US Supreme Court, who should reject their appeal based on the precedent they set in November 2000 by rejecting the Democrats's appeal of the presidential election count saying that it is a state issue.

Does anyone have an idea why so many influential moderate Republicans and Democrats have changed their mind and decided to back Bush?

I think that the Democrats don't want to be seen as being soft of Saddam Hussein or terrorism going into the election. Republicans, even the moderate ones, want attention drawn to anything not involving the economy which is a major political liability for them right now.

History shows us that there are three major issues in any national election: war & peace, the economy and who's the incumbent. If the country is at war, we generally don't like to oust sitting elected officials (Abe Lincoln in 1864 and Lyndon Johnson in 1968 are the exceptions), but if there is no war the state of the economy will determine whether an incumbent is re-elected or not. When times are good (Reagan in 1984), incumbents do very well; when times are bad (Bush in 1992), incumbents lose their jobs, and this not only affects presidential candidates, but trickles down to vulnerable seats in Congress as well. So the Republicans up for re-election want the attention of voters on anything that doesn't involve the poor state of the economy and Dubya's poor record on domestic issues.

This is a dangerous path we are heading down, and I don't think that a war with Iraq is either necessary or desirable at this time. I think the Dubya's idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is terribly presumptuous and probably illegal; remember that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was also "pre-emptive". On top of that, I do not believe that there is any specific intelligence which shows that Iraq is planning an imminent attack on the United States, which only makes a unilateral attack by the United States more aggressive on our part.

The world needs to remember that the US isn't the bad guy in all of this. Saddam Hussein is. However, Dubya's sabre-rattling is playing right into his hands. He's playing the Islam card very well and is making this an issue of the US and the Christian West vs. the Muslim nations. This is something that we cannot allow to happen.

At the same time, going into Iraq with the stated objective of a "regime change" is also a dangerous precedent to set. Hitler could claim that he was invading France to change the regime there. Who leads Iraq is solely the business of the Iraqi people. If they don't like him, they should be the ones to assassinate him. Who leads the United States is solely the business of the American people. If we don't like him (and since he didn't win the popular vote, most of us don't), it's our business to get him out of office.

The United Nations, with the backing of the Arab community, supports pursuing diplomatic solutions first which means going in with weapons inspectors before the ready-brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division. Last night I heard that Iraq wants to reserve special privileges for presidential palaces, and if Dubya doesn't back off, they may get it because we're pissing off the rest of the world right now.

Here's the best solution for that: The UN has already called for unfettered access to any and all sites and personnel that may be associated with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. We don't need any additional resolutions on this. Iraq agreed to this as part of the end of the Gulf War.

Park two carrier battle groups and an Air Force combat wing in the Persian Gulf. Have a UN weapons inspection team (made up of UN personnel, not CIA agents like the last teams) show up at a site and demand full access to see whatever they want to see, talk to whoever they want to and stay as long as they like. If the Iraqis let them in, fine. If the Iraqis refuse, bomb the site into oblivion.

The onus must be placed on Saddam Hussein to comply with the international community. However, only the international community has the moral authority to act against Saddam Hussein. For the United States to act alone denies us the moral high ground in any future international dealings.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:42 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Everclearules20
Collin Powell, Bush, and I, even though my opinion isn't quite as strong, believe he has taken it beyond the point of negotiation.

Powell has consistently followed a line opposing unilateral, preemptive action against Iraq. As recently as last month, he told the BBC during a broadcast interview (which was also published), "As a first step, let's see what the inspectors find. Send them back in. Why are they being kept out?"

The Bush administration has been split on this issue (and others) for a long time, with Colin Powell being referred to in leaked White House documents by the unilateralists as "the hippie Secretary." It says something when the man with more military experience than everyone else in the US Cabinet put together is being ridiculed by others who have never taken part in, much less conducted, a war.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:06 am

@fable:
Dubya served in uniform; having his politically-influential father get him a commission in the Air National Guard to keep him out of Vietnam counts, right?

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:12 am

Originally posted by fable
It says something when the man with more military experience than everyone else in the US Cabinet put together is being ridiculed by others who have never taken part in, much less conducted, a war.

I've noticed, and it has been also pointed out, that most of the warhawks have little direct military experience, while many of the "doves" do. Even more disturbing, many of the pro-war commentaries indicate that many have the impression that this will be a fast operation - that we will be fighting the Gulf War, part II. I agree whole-heartedly with Powell - a pre-emptive strike would be a major mistake, and far from preventing a future attack, it would incite more.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:20 am

@Sojourner:
Any war in Iraq would be quick. The Iraqi military cannot stand up to an all-out assault. For instance, two carrier air wings have more combat aircraft than the entire Iraqi air force. The last time we went into Iraq, we had essentially three corps: the US XVIII Airborne Corps, the VII Corps plus the British 1st Armoured Division, elements of free Kuwaiti forces and Saudi divisions which amounted to another corps. At this point, the Iraqi army could hardly stand up to one fully staffed and equipped corps. A war would be quick, even if Saddam unleashed biological, chemical and radiological weapons.

What would not be quick is nation-building. If we invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein, we could not simply withdraw and let the Iraqi people govern themselves immediately. Our general policy in the middle east is stability and not allowing one nation to become more powerful than the rest. We would be stuck leading a UN-sanctioned occupation of Iraq until a stable (and US-friendly) regime could be installed, which would not be cheap either in terms of money or manpower. Plus it will breed lots of anti-American sentiments in a part of the world where they don't really like us anyway.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:41 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@fable:
Dubya served in uniform; having his politically-influential father get him a commission in the Air National Guard to keep him out of Vietnam counts, right?

It's especially ironic when you realize that the same man recently accused the Democratically-controlled Senate, which contains war heroes from WWII through to Vietnam, of being "not interested in the security of the American people."

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:48 am

I also think it interesting that the same Republicans who bashed Clinton incessantly for being a draft dodger haven't said a word about Dubya's fitness to serve as commander-in-chief.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:55 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@Sojourner:
Any war in Iraq would be quick. The Iraqi military cannot stand up to an all-out assault. For instance, two carrier air wings have more combat aircraft than the entire Iraqi air force. The last time we went into Iraq, we had essentially three corps: the US XVIII Airborne Corps, the VII Corps plus the British 1st Armoured Division, elements of free Kuwaiti forces and Saudi divisions which amounted to another corps. At this point, the Iraqi army could hardly stand up to one fully staffed and equipped corps. A war would be quick, even if Saddam unleashed biological, chemical and radiological weapons.

I disagree - there's no guarantee that Hussein will repeat the same mistakes as in the Gulf War. Don't forget, the goals of the Gulf War were very different - to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Now, we're talking about invading, a whole different ball-game. We had superior air power in Vietnam, too - and we did not win that conflict. Counting on support from any troops in the Mid-East region would also be a mistake - Hussein has played the Islamic card all too well.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:01 am

Should this be allowed? Does anyone think that laws should be rewritten as an event unfolds? Or do you obey the rule of the law and change the law in question after the fact?

A disturbing trend has been emerging recently in the United States, and has been gaining momentum in the past decade: the use of the Judiciary in the modification of law. This was never the intent of the framers of the US Constitution (which, I would like to point out, was ratified by each state of the Union). The Judiciary exists to interpet the laws of the land in events of uncertainty and question; to the best of my knowledge, there is no question concerning the law in this case. No extenuating circumstances are allowed for in this law which apply to the situation in question.

Which leads, then, to the heart of the matter: The Democratic party is attempting to use the New Jersey court to, in effect, change the law. This is not the realm of Judicial branch of US Government (be it state, or Federal) - it is the bread and butter of lawmakers (the New Jersey State legislature, in this case). The means exist for the Democratic party to change any existing law, by due process. Party leaders are willing to circumnavigate this due process as a means to acheive their desire. This is nothing new, for this precedent has been snowballing ever since the courts assumed a more active role in the realm of lawmaking.

An interesting sidenote: a prominent radio talk show host commented that two of the New Jersey justices contributed $1000 each to the candidate's campaign in 1999. There is a call for these judges to remove themselves from the case, in regard to ethical considerations. This has not been done, to my knowledge.

I ordinarily steer clear of politics, as it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, this is not an issue of politics in question here. It is a matter of common sense. (notice how I separate the two; one contradicts the other.

)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:30 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
I disagree - there's no guarantee that Hussein will repeat the same mistakes as in the Gulf War.

I don't think a conventional war is a matter of the Iraqis repeating mistakes, it's a matter of technology and training. The US armed forces are the most well-equipped, highly-trained and motivated soldiers in the world. The Iraqi army is a conscript force that has suffered from poor maintenance and desertion since the Gulf War. Twelve years ago, Iraqi tanks couldn't stand up to the M1A1 main battle tank and theirs haven't gotten any better; ours have. We will crush Iraq's army in a stand-up fight.

The equaliser to technology is terrain. The Iraqi army cannot beat the US in the field. However, urban combat has long been the bane of armies because it negated the firepower and maneuverability advantages of a superior force. Just look at the Battle of Mogadishu to see how US forces may fare in an urban warfare environment, despite having the best urban warfare training facilities in the world. This is the danger of conquerering Iraq because US forces will cease to be an army and will become an occupation force.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:36 am

"The US armed forces"

With the occasonial help from the SAS

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:47 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I don't think a conventional war is a matter of the Iraqis repeating mistakes, it's a matter of technology and training. The US armed forces are the most well-equipped, highly-trained and motivated soldiers in the world. The Iraqi army is a conscript force that has suffered from poor maintenance and desertion since the Gulf War. Twelve years ago, Iraqi tanks couldn't stand up to the M1A1 main battle tank and theirs haven't gotten any better; ours have. We will crush Iraq's army in a stand-up fight.

However, you're assuming that this will be a case of the Iraqi army facing ours in a conventional battle. I suspect he won't use that strategy - but will force a city-to-city, village-to-village fight, while the casualties mount - and he has already proven that he has the the stomach for it. Years of propaganda combined with sanctions have exacted their toll - there is every indication the Iraqi people themselves will oppose any ground forces - which will be needed to hold ground. And let's not forget the fanatics he'll pull in from other countries, once this gets started.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 9:03 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I don't think a conventional war is a matter of the Iraqis repeating mistakes, it's a matter of technology and training. The US armed forces are the most well-equipped, highly-trained and motivated soldiers in the world. The Iraqi army is a conscript force that has suffered from poor maintenance and desertion since the Gulf War. Twelve years ago, Iraqi tanks couldn't stand up to the M1A1 main battle tank and theirs haven't gotten any better; ours have. We will crush Iraq's army in a stand-up fight.

I'm inclined to agree with this viewpoint. The problem isn't killing whatever is defined at the moment as "the enemy." (Of the moment. When you're a Great Crusading Nation, the problem isn't finding an Evil Enemy, but choosing the best one.) The problem is what happens afterwards. To the northwest its bordered by Turkey, which is fearful of the Kurds who want to establish a Kurdish state in the Northern third of Iraq, where they're most populous. Turkey has said it will attack if there's any indication of such a move, and the Iraqi Kurds, who were formerly in two warring camps, have recently united for the express, announced purpose of securing a nation when Hussein falls. If Turkey invades, Iran has promised to do so, as well, and fight Turkey. It has no love of either Hussein or the Kurds, but it loathes the Turkish Republic, which it regards as a puppet of the US and a traitor to Islam.

Meanwhile, in the southern third of Iraq, there's a majority of Sh'ites who are prepared to set up a separate government, as well; and wedged between them and Israel is the tiny, strategically important Sunni nation of Jordan, that acts as a buffer zone, with a very large population of Palestinians who have fled there, or been expelled there from Israel, over the years.

And these are only the nearest of the major players in the likely aftermath of such a war. There are so many flashpoints involved in this little game of Let's Oust Hussein that it reminds me of the old comic cliche of a man entering a dark room and lighting a match, only to find himself confronted by a sign stating "Munitions Depot."

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 3:39 pm

As some of you know, I'm completely against a war with Iraq. Bush is severely lacking in reasons to attack. By my view, there are only 3 reasons to do it:

Iraq has oil
The economy is high during war times and during a crisis
Re-election

For the majority of countries, weapon sales are the biggest source of income. Thats why the economies boom during wars. In WW2, I believe the US was selling guns to Germany, their enemies. Why? Good for business.

I don't buy this "ridding Saddam of WMDs" either. He doesn't have nuclear weapons. Biological and Chemical weapons are short range only. And why is it our right to prevent him from having them? The US has many, many nuclear weapons, and are the only nation to use them against another. I don't mean to incite angers, but now I fail to see who is the terrorist, with the US attacking Iraq.

Why not North Korea? They DO have nuclear missiles, and they are much more willing to use their WMDs then Saddam is.

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 5:06 pm

I'm sorry, but I disagree with most of y'all. Countries who consort with terrorists are a clear and present danger. If we do nothing but lob a couple of cruise missles at terrorist training camps, nations like Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea will fund and arm Al Qaeda and continue to do so until America lay in ruins.

If you listen to the rhetoric coming from Al Qaeda, the next attack will "make America forget 9-11 and the third will destroy America"

Read the Tom Clancy novels. They've already used one of his ideas (anybody notice that?). God forbid they ever find a way to accomplish the other two. And to do that they need the support and technology only a government can give them.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 11:52 pm

Originally posted by BaronTx
I'm sorry, but I disagree with most of y'all. Countries who consort with terrorists are a clear and present danger. If we do nothing but lob a couple of cruise missles at terrorist training camps, nations like Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea will fund and arm Al Qaeda and continue to do so until America lay in ruins.

By your logic, we should be attacking Saudi Arabia. The majority of hijackers were Saudi, Saudi Arabia funds the madrasahs (sp?), and recently, Saudi-funded mosques in the US have come under scrutiny for their extremism (and anti-Americanism - see the recent issue of Newsweek).

Undoubtedly, Iraq has been supporting the Palestinians. However, I'm still waiting for the proof that he's linked to al qaeda. There has always been, and always will be, "a clear and present danger". That doesn't mean we should lose our heads and go after a regime based on a personal vendetta.