Senate approves Iraq war resolution

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/....us/index.html

FYI

[nomaxim]

Looks Saddam is done for! It was bound to happen, sooner or later. Now, it's time to see exactly what the UN is going to do about this. The UN has to decide exactly what it is going to do, do they follow their own course or do they go the way of the " League of Nations". Does the UN treat Iraq as the" League of Nations " did Ethiopia and Northern China, in the late 1930s.

It is about time that the UN started acting like some sort of actual government body, they have become nothing but a bunch of bureaucrats. I have a lot of faith in the UN and hope that they can somehow pull their stuff together. But, I really don't see that kind of thing happening. We can only pray that the UN can get its stuff together, if not I see no choice but for the US to take charge. And that means that a lot of of innocent civilians are going to die, and that is a shame.

They aretalking of a quick, clean, surgical takeover of Iraq with minimal casualties.

My only concern is the impact this will have on the economy. Winning this war is a foregone conclusion. It's the aftermath of war which will drain resources and take long.

My only concern is the impact this will have on the economy.

Cost: 12-13 billion dollars per month

Plan: Similar to rebuild and occupation of Japan after WWII (months, if not years).

Analysis: Hope you do not think today's stock rally is a sign of recovery if we actually opt for a prolonged campaign.

Robert Richmond

[osprey4]

I've been very supportive of the president in the war on terrorism, but this Iraq thing worries me. Getting rid of Saddam does not solve what's wrong with Iraq (might be a start). And getting rid of Saddam doesn't eliminate terrorism by itself. How many middle eastern countries do we want to run to eliminate terrorism?

I have absolutely no faith in the UN or in some of our "coalition partners", so I'm not objecting to the idea of unilateral action.

How many middle eastern countries do we want to run to eliminate terrorism?

You can add several other regions to that list: Somilia, North Korea, Singapore, etc. This is more than an Iraq issue.

What really bothers me is that this new Iraqi resolution allows the President to declare certain "enemy states" at his will. This is illegal according to my interpretation of international law. Additionally, my interpretation of US law and the original federalist papers is that only the legislative branch can carry out such actions anyway. The "Commander-in-Chief" can only carry out the planning of military operations against an "enemy", not actually make the decision to declare war himself. Today, we just handed the President the power to make such a decision, even if for supposedly one instance.

The worst part is that the President can now veto any repeal of the Iraqi resolution, thus offering him near absolute power of this process. One man has placed himself above the law, and above the Constitution in my opinion. Even if sent back to Congress upon veto, he only requires (1/3)+1 support to continue with the resolution, regardless if such action is appropriate or not, as no single aspect of the Iraq situation is predictable or concrete.

BTW, as to the UN, that is a joke within itself.

Robert Richmond