Prez has Authority to commit troops Anytime anywhere without congress... [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Prez has Authority to commit troops Anytime anywhere without congress...

revelarts

05-20-2013, 10:16 AM

So says Military brass to many Stunned Senators, Including John McCain
in Arm force committee meeting.
The only one that seemed to agree with them is that constitution terrorist Lindsey Graham.

the pentagon Reps stated flatly that they Believe and operate under the understanding that the president ALREADY has the "domestic" authority to send troops to war anywhere in the world from "Boston to the Middle East".

the headline of the article title is far to mild for the reactions of the Senators.

the DoD reps say they believe the authority is Found In the AUMF from 2011. But Senator after senator point out that the AUMF does NOT use the term "associated forces" and specifically limits the action to 9-11 attackers.
while the Pentagon reads it as a Blank Check on any enemy of the State foreign or domestic.

McCains and the others response is clear. Basically, Pentagon your reading is BS. The AUMF is not a blank check on war forever and in reading it that way you've completely nullified the congress's power to declare war.

this hearing is along the lines another we talked about a while back...
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34511-International-Permission%92-Trumps-Congressional-Permission-For-Military-Actions
Where Penatta said the same thing from different angle. saying the prez had the power he just needed approval from the U.N. to attack other countries.

Also the recent thread about pentagon and "civil disturbance"
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40864-Pentagon-Unilaterally-Grants-Itself-Authority-Over-%91Civil-Disturbances%92&p=639311#post639311

And the old thread about president being able to drone kill -assassinate- anyone who MIGHT be dangerous
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39264-Legal-quot-justification-quot-4-Prez-to-Kill-people-White-Paper-Full-text&highlight=full+text

To keep you safe the constitution must go.
no president will ever abuse the power... we're Americans, our leaders are different than the leaders of history and other countries. Only liberals have a problem with dictatorial powers in America. rrarrr

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/war-powers-obama-administration_n_3288420.html

watch some of the video of the hearing to get the full impact

WASHINGTON -- The war authorization that Congress passed after 9/11 will be needed for at least 10 to 20 more years, and can be used to put the United States military on the ground anywhere, from Syria to the Congo to Boston, military officials argued Thursday.
The revelations came during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and surprised even experts in America's use of force stemming from the terrorist attacks in 2001.
"This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today," Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told four senior U.S. military officials who testified about the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force and what it allows the White House to do.
King and others were stunned by answers to specific questions about where President Barack Obama could use force under the key provision of the AUMF (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text) -- a 60-word paragraph that targeted those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
"I learned more in this hearing about the scope of the AUMF than in all of my study in the last four or five years," said Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who was called by the committee to offer independent comments on the issue. "I thought I knew what the application [of the AUMF] meant, but I'm less confident now," he added later.
Concerns emerged largely from questions by senators who approve of an aggressive strategy to combat terrorism, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who asked if the AUMF gave Obama the authority to put "boots on the ground" in Yemen or the Congo.
Robert Taylor, the acting general counsel for the Department of Defense said yes, as long as the purpose was targeting a group associated with al Qaeda that intended to harm the United States or its coalition partners.
"Would you agree with me, the battlefield is anywhere the enemy chooses to make it?" asked Graham.
"Yes sir, from Boston to FATA [Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas]," answered Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense who oversees special operations.
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) later raised the specter of the AUMF being used to intervene in Syria, where the group Al Nusra, believed to be affiliated with Al Qaeda, is active. Al Nusra has not been linked to 9/11.
Sheehan said yes, if defense officials determined the group was becoming a threat. The same criteria applied to other groups, even if they were locally focused and operating in other nations. Taylor confirmed that AUMF also would cover individuals, even those who had not been born by 9/11, if, as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) asked, they someday were to "become associated with a group that associates with Al Qaeda."
When asked about an expiration date for the war authorization, Sheehan said it would be when al Qaeda had been consigned to the "ash heap of history." "I think it's at least 10 to 20 years."
While none of the senators suggested dialing back efforts to stop terrorists, they were clearly disturbed at the power being asserted by the military.
"I'm just a little old lawyer from Brunswick, Maine, but I don't see how you can possibly read this to be in comport with the Constitution," King said, arguing that the defense officials' interpretation of the AUMF makes the war power of Congress "a nullity." "Under your reading, we've granted unbelievable powers to the president and it's a very dangerous precedent."
Kaine found the suggestion that the AUMF could be used to go into Syria especially disturbing. "The testimony I hear today suggests the administration believes that they would have the authority to do that," Kaine said. "But I don't want us to walk out of the room leaving an impression that members of Congress also share the understanding that that would be acceptable."
The DOD officials repeatedly defended the authority they've claimed, noting that al Qaeda is not a traditional enemy, and that it shifts locations and changes its tactics. The broad interpretation of the AUMF, they argued, gives them the flexibility to deal with the changing threat in a lawful, effective manner.
But even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who generally agrees with Graham in pursuing a vigorous war on terror, said the AUMF has been stretched past the breaking point.
"This authority ... has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001," McCain said.
"For you to come here and say we don't need to change it or revise or update it, I think is, well, disturbing," McCain said, noting that the AUMF also is used to justify things like drone strikes that were never contemplated by Congress. "I don't blame you because basically you've got carte blanche as to what you are doing around the world."
No one suggested specific solutions, but did say the Senate will deal with the problem later this year when the committee takes on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014.
The broad assertion of authority by the military is likely to disturb civil libertarians on the left and right who have complained that the AUMF and a previous version of the NDAA give the military power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens. Obama has issued orders banning such practices, but DOD officials apparently believe the law grants them the power to act anywhere.
Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook. (http://on.fb.me/rxohxd)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

05-20-2013, 10:38 AM

jimnyc

05-20-2013, 10:41 AM

And the old thread about president being able to drone kill -assassinate- anyone who MIGHT be dangerous
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39264-Legal-quot-justification-quot-4-Prez-to-Kill-people-White-Paper-Full-text&highlight=full+text

I agree with some of what you point out and disagree with some. Mostly I am on your side, that there is way too much power grabbing going on. But as to the link above, and how you say they can drone/assassinate anyone who MIGHT be dangerous. Might? Read the title of your own post:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHITE PAPER Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force

That doesn't sound at all to me anything like "might" but rather ARE. A senior al qaeda leader isn't someone we say "might" be dangerous - they ARE.

revelarts

05-20-2013, 11:28 AM

I agree with some of what you point out and disagree with some. Mostly I am on your side, that there is way too much power grabbing going on. But as to the link above, and how you say they can drone/assassinate anyone who MIGHT be dangerous. Might? Read the title of your own post:

That doesn't sound at all to me anything like "might" but rather ARE. A senior al qaeda leader isn't someone we say "might" be dangerous - they ARE.

sure on the surface I see your point but it All comes down to what the definition of an"associated force" is.
McCain mentions that Obama Drone struck someone at the request of the Pakistani Gov't who WAS NOT part of Alqeada or an associated force.

And Like "Enemy Combatant" and the word "terrorist" which has expanded to mean a guy advertising silver coins for sale, women on planes who are too rude to stewardesses and a toy store owners.
Seems the broadest definitions possible are applied by the security forces.
And it seems when those definitions fail to thinly cover the situation, that the events can be classified top secret for national security reasons.

camels got his hump in the tent, the rump's on it way it seems.

jimnyc

05-20-2013, 11:36 AM

sure on the surface I see your point but it All comes down to what the definition of an"associated force" is.
McCain mentions that Obama Drone struck someone at the request of the Pakistani Gov't who WAS NOT part of Alqeada or an associated force.

And Like "Enemy Combatant" and the word "terrorist" which has expanded to mean a guy advertising silver coins for sale, women on planes who are too rude to stewardesses and a toy store owners.
The broadest definitions possible are applied by the security forces.
And it seems when those definitions fail to thinly cover the situation, that the events can be classified top secret for national security reasons.

camels got his hump in the tent, the rump's on it way it seems.

You know I am all for it if it's a confirmed terrorist. I will not support shooting at the request of Pakistan though, unless of course it's a known and confirmed terrorist. So I'm with ya there. Do we know anymore about that request? I'm too lazy to research right now! (also don't want to take your thread off topic already).

revelarts

05-20-2013, 11:44 AM

You know I am all for it if it's a confirmed terrorist. I will not support shooting at the request of Pakistan though, unless of course it's a known and confirmed terrorist. So I'm with ya there. Do we know anymore about that request? I'm too lazy to research right now! (also don't want to take your thread off topic already).
I don't know anymore myself.
McCain mentioned it as he was making the point about the loose use of Drones already beyond the AlQeada and assoc forces range.

gabosaurus

05-20-2013, 12:43 PM

Didn't Dubya misuse this power to send more than 4,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan?

CSM

05-20-2013, 01:10 PM

Didn't Dubya misuse this power to send more than 4,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan?

To quote an individual I am certain you admire ... "What difference does it make??? "

aboutime

05-20-2013, 01:13 PM

Didn't Dubya misuse this power to send more than 4,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Sure thing gabby. Just like your obvious approval here of more than 3000 deaths on Sept. 11, 2001 by your cohorts and Obama-like Brotherhood members who also hate America. You are right on all points.

revelarts

05-20-2013, 05:08 PM

Didn't Dubya misuse this power to send more than 4,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And just because everyone is jumping off the cliff doesn't mean...

Robert A Whit

05-20-2013, 06:25 PM

Didn't Dubya misuse this power to send more than 4,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well no. He had the approval of the congress.

What are your thoughts over the merciless bombings by Bill Clinton when he was president?

gabosaurus

05-20-2013, 07:03 PM

Well no. He had the approval of the congress.

What are your thoughts over the merciless bombings by Bill Clinton when he was president?

Dubya had the approval of Congress because he lied about WMD.
What "merciless bombing" by Clinton?

aboutime

05-20-2013, 07:08 PM

Dubya had the approval of Congress because he lied about WMD.
What "merciless bombing" by Clinton?

Gabby. Per your Personal Photo (avatar) to the upper left in your post. You are the SHIT.

Robert A Whit

05-20-2013, 07:14 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=640043#post640043)
Well no. He had the approval of the congress.

What are your thoughts over the merciless bombings by Bill Clinton when he was president?

Dubya had the approval of Congress because he lied about WMD.
What "merciless bombing" by Clinton?

I will explain it to y9u given your very youth when he was president. I thought you held yourself out as well informed though.

Bush knew the same things Congress knew. We can tell by examining the records going back to his father and Bill Clinton.

Don't you recall how Hillary wailed and wailed that Saddam was loaded with WMD? Bush did not even mention this until after 9/11 if you recall. Democrats backed the wars with enormous enthusiasm since Bush mirrored what democrats had claimed for years.

When Bush agreed with Democrats, they were pleased until the WMD was not located then they turned their backs on their own arguments. Saddam was long held by intelligence to have plenty of WMD. Why would he be so defiant to either Clinton or Bush but that he had WMD?

Saddam played a dangerous game and his reward was he was hung for his crimes.

Since you must have been in K-8 during Clinton, I see how you could forget or excuse the bombs from our military against the people of Serbia, then called Yugoslavia.

Bill Clinton decided to ignore the UN and fake Americans out using NATO since NATO has a charter which says it must be attacked to use our military.

I believe the USA under Clinton hurled bombs down on those poor people for 3 months approximately. In your name, and with no war till Clinton bombed, that nation was bombed and yet you seem not to know a thing about it.

jimnyc

05-20-2013, 07:59 PM

Dubya had the approval of Congress because he lied about WMD.
What "merciless bombing" by Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

And then I believe these as well:

1990 – Liberia: On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1990 – Saudi Arabia: On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he launched Operation Desert Shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Operation_Desert_Shield) by ordering the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait) by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)American hostages being held in Iran.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1991 – Iraq and Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War): On January 16, 1991, in response to the refusal by Iraq to leave Kuwait, U.S. and Coalition aircraft attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait in conjunction with a coalition of allies and under United Nations Security Council resolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution). In February 24, 1991, U.S.-led United Nation (UN) forces launched a ground offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Kuwait_campaign) that finally drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait within 100 hours. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991, when President Bush declared a ceasefire.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1991–1996 – Iraq. Operation Provide Comfort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort): Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq during the 1991 uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprising_in_Iraq), by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey which began in April 1991.
1991 – Iraq: On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1991 – Zaire: On September 25–27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinshasa), Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. American planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic) and hauled evacuated American citizens.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1992 – Sierra Leone. Operation Silver Anvil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Silver_Anvil): Following the April 29 coup that overthrew President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Sierra_Leone) Joseph Saidu Momoh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Saidu_Momoh), a United States European Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_European_Command) (USEUCOM) Joint Special Operations Task Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Command) evacuated 438 people (including 42 Third Country nationals) on May 3. Two Air Mobility Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mobility_Command) (AMC) C-141s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-141_Starlifter) flew 136 people from Freetown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown), Sierra Leone, to the Rhein-Main Air Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein-Main_Air_Base) in Germany and nine C-130 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules) sorties carried another 302 people to Dakar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar), Senegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegal).[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1992–1996 – Bosnia and Herzegovina: Operation Provide Promise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Promise) was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina) during the Yugoslav Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars), from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#cite _note-6)
1992 – Kuwait: On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1992–2003 – Iraq. Iraqi no-fly zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones): The U.S., United Kingdom, and its Gulf War allies declared and enforced "no-fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. Oftentimes, Iraqi forces continued throughout a decade by firing on U.S. and British aircraft patrolling no-fly zones.(See also Operation Northern Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Watch), Operation Southern Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch)) [RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1992–1995 – Somalia. Operation Restore Hope. Somali Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia#Somali_Civil_War): On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed U.S. armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution in support for UNITAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Task_Force). The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. U.S. forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNOSOM_II)).(See also Battle of Mogadishu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29))[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1993-1995 - Bosnia. Operation Deny Flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deny_Flight): On April 12, 1993, in response to a United Nations Security Council passage of Resolution 816 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_816), U.S. and NATO enforced the no-fly zone over the Bosnian airspace, prohibited all unauthorized flights and allowed to "take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with [the no-fly zone restrictions]."
1993 – Macedonia: On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1994: Bosnia. Banja Luka incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banja_Luka_incident): NATO become involved in the first combat situation when NATO U.S. Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Air_Force) F-16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16) jets shot down four of the six Bosnian Serb J-21 Jastreb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-21_Jastreb) single-seat light attack jets for violating UN-mandated no-fly zone.
1994–1995 – Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uphold_Democracy): U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 U.S. military troops were later deployed to Haiti to restore democratically-elected Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide) from a military regime which came into power in 1991 after a major coup.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1994 – Macedonia: On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the U.S. contingent in Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1995 – Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force): In August 30, 1995, U.S. and NATO aircraft began a major bombing campaign of Bosnian Serb Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Serb_Army) in response to a Bosnian Serb mortar attack on a Sarajevo market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markale_massacres#Second_massacre) that killed 37 people in August 28, 1995. This operation lasted until September 20, 1995. The air campaign along with a combined allied ground force of Muslim and Croatian Army against Serb positions led to a Dayton agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_agreement) in December 1995 with the signing of warring factions of the war. As part of Operation Joint Endeavor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Joint_Endeavor), U.S. and NATO dispatched the Implementation Force (IFOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFOR)) peacekeepers to Bosnia to uphold the Dayton agreement.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1996 – Liberia. Operation Assured Response (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Assured_Response&action=edit&redlink=1): On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1996 – Central African Republic. Operation Quick Response (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Quick_Response&action=edit&redlink=1): On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Bangui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangui), Central African Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic), to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees", and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172) United States Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps) elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response, responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22.
1996 - Bosnia. Operation Joint Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Joint_Guard): In December 21, 1996, U.S. and NATO established the SFOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilisation_Force) peacekeepers to replace the IFOR in enforcing the peace under the Dayton agreement.
1997 – Albania. Operation Silver Wake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Silver_Wake): On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1997 – Congo and Gabon: On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1997 – Sierra Leone: On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1997 – Cambodia: On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utapao#USAF_use_during_the_Vietnam_War) in Thailand for possible evacuations. [RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1998 – Iraq. Operation Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29): U.S. and British forces conduct a major four-day bombing campaign from December 16–19, 1998 on Iraqi targets.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1998 – Guinea-Bissau. Operation Shepherd Venture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shepherd_Venture): On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the U.S. Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1998–1999 – Kenya and Tanzania: U.S. military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings).[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%2 8August_1998%29): On August 20, President Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1998 – Liberia: On September 27, 1998, America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 U.S. military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. [1] (http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/documents/105/hd318.pdf) [RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1999–2001 - East Timor: Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)-mandated International Force for East Timor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Force_for_East_Timor) restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)
1999 – Serbia. Operation Allied Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia): U.S. and NATO aircraft began a major bombing of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia) and Serb positions in Kosovo in March 24, 1999, during the Kosovo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War) due to the refusal by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic) to end repression against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This operation ended in June 10, 1999, when Milosevic agreed to pull out his troops out of Kosovo. In response to the situation in Kosovo, NATO dispatched the KFOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force) peacekeepers to secure the peace under UNSC Resolution 1244 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1244).[SUP][RL30172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#endn ote_RL30172)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1990 .E2.80.931999

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

05-21-2013, 10:23 AM

Dubya had the approval of Congress because he lied about WMD.
What "merciless bombing" by Clinton?

Everybody's intelligence agreed with that "lie". So why do you contend that Bush should have known the truth? Reason I put the word lie in quotation is because actually SADDAM DID HAVE THOSE WMD'S but they were shipped to Syria. Which is why obama wants so desperately to help the rebels win there. So they can get their filthy murdering hands on them. As they are themselves hardcore muslim terrorist groups fighting the government there..
I know, all that went right over your head. Go refer to your DNC talking points again. -;)-Tyr

BillyBob

05-21-2013, 11:03 PM

Dubya had the approval of Congress because he lied about WMD.

Congress had the same intel Bush did. By the way, 550 tons of uranium was found in Iraq.

Also, go read the Iraqi War Resolution. It was not just based on WMD. There were many other reasons given to invade Iraq.

aboutime

05-22-2013, 03:15 PM

Congress had the same intel Bush did. By the way, 550 tons of uranium was found in Iraq.

Also, go read the Iraqi War Resolution. It was not just based on WMD. There were many other reasons given to invade Iraq.

BillyBob. This is what you get with Gabby. Welcome to the 5031 .

BillyBob

05-22-2013, 04:55 PM

BillyBob. This is what you get with Gabby. Welcome to the 5031 .

Yeah, I figured as much. Still, I felt it was worth setting the record straight.

Voted4Reagan

05-22-2013, 06:32 PM

Dubya had the approval of Congress because he lied about WMD.
What "merciless bombing" by Clinton?

Gabs, Saddam Husswein was in Material Breach of all the sections of the united Nations Cease Fire that came out of the Gulf War.

We had United Nations approval for our second action against Iraq.

Congressional approval came after UN Approval and Iraqs violations of the Security Council Resolutions.

It's all on the UN WEBSITE. and other places...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

(Snip)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution) adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) under Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_660), Resolution 661 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_661), Resolution 678 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678), Resolution 686 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_686), Resolution 687 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687), Resolution 688 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688), Resolution 707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_707), Resolution 715 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_715), Resolution 986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_986), and Resolution 1284 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1284)). [1] (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/)
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait) for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait). It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

aboutime

05-22-2013, 09:31 PM

Gabs, Saddam Husswein was in Material Breach of all the sections of the united Nations Cease Fire that came out of the Gulf War.

We had United Nations approval for our second action against Iraq.

Congressional approval came after UN Approval and Iraqs violations of the Security Council Resolutions.

It's all on the UN WEBSITE. and other places...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

(Snip)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution) adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) under Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_660), Resolution 661 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_661), Resolution 678 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678), Resolution 686 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_686), Resolution 687 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687), Resolution 688 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688), Resolution 707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_707), Resolution 715 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_715), Resolution 986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_986), and Resolution 1284 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1284)). [1] (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/)
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait) for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait). It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

V4R. Something most people also never wanted to hear, or know was. And I, as a Veteran of the Gulf War have always been reminded. That action called Operation Desert Shield, and Desert Storm NEVER really was ended as a war would normally be ended with a Surrender by Saddam.
In fact. On the day George W. Bush got the approval from Congress to attack Iraq. It was, and could have been called Desert Storm II. The only documents signed in 1991 was a CEASE FIRE. Not a Surrender, like the one that took place at the end of the War with Japan in 1945 on the deck of a Battleship in Tokyo harbor.
So. Anyone who needs to keep saying Bush this, and Bush that all the time. Is only showing how absolutely, positively UNINFORMED, if not totally dumb about the words they use.