Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bingo! Stop-war precedent found: US Senate 6/24/1970.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 01:02 AM
Original message
Bingo! Stop-war precedent found: US Senate 6/24/1970.
Late finding in my late night readings! On 6/24/70 the US Senate voted to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964. The ability to win in Viet Nam had been disproved at Ap Bai (Hamburger Hill). The moral authority for the Vietnam War had been given up at My Lai-4.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. And moral authority for the Iraq war was given up at Abu Grahib,
Haditha, Fallujah, and Gitmo.

Everything we accused Saddam of doing, we've done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yep!
Indiscriminate use of WMD-check*

Destabilization of the Middle East-check

Threatening the neighboring sovereign countries around Iraq-check

Stealing the resources rightfully belonging to the citizens of Iraq-check

Putting countless thousands of Iraqi citizens behind bars-check

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses-check

Incurring the ire and disgust of much of the free world-check

Torturing prisoners in direct violation of international treaties like the Geneva Accords-check


Did I leave anything out? Ok, I am busted- so under saddam there were sensationally fewer IEDs goin off in the market places and a whole lot less terrorists kicking around and I think electric, water and sewers worked a bit better and oh yeah there are those million or so EXTRA refugees....but we did give the Iraqi people "Democracy"!!!...I am sure they are just thrilled about this! If it weren't for that "librul" media we would indeed hear just how thrilled they are!...As soon as they get done with that civil war that is.

*Do a search on the topic Depleted Uranium here in the DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think this should be its own post. Good compilation. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Even without depleted uranium, we used proscribed weapons in
using white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon, certainly in Fallujah, likely elsewhere. That is in violation of international law, no less than using poison gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Dec 30 '72
Nixon halts bombing of North Vietnam and announces peace talks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. 1970? Yet US troops were there until 1973
So if Congress repealed the Iraq War Resolution now, troops would come home in 2010?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's because Nixon was in charge, for that to happen today...
cheney would have to bite Nixon on the neck, then we would have to swap out bush for Nixon...it'd be terribly complicated... I am pretty sure Lou Dobbs would get suspicious and claim we were sneaking in an undocumented guestworker... sorry, I just don't see it happening.
















(as you can plainly see: resistance, was indeed, futile) :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. My point is that rescinding the IRW would not bring the troops home immediately
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Another reason to rescind IWR immediately: Iran.
Congress needs to send an unequivocal message to Bu$h/Cheney. Bu$h seems to think that the IWR gives him carte blanche to wage war anywhere in the region.

And yes, it took a while after the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to get all of the troops home. But without a repeal of the IWR we may never pull out of Iraq-nam. Permanent occupation of Iraq is, indeed, the Bu$hco/PNAC plan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Sorry, could not resist the snark
and for what it is worth, I agree with your point. Should something similar happen today, the republicans would call it further political posturing by the Dems and claim we were undermining the troops. It would fade directly after that and not likely get our troops home before 2010 as you pointed out... I was just trying to be funny, looking for my first DUZY, not disagree with ya.
You must admit, cheney biting Nixon on the neck in order to reanimate him....oh never mind...some days you win some and other days it is better to stay in bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. That's what Byrd and Clinton are trying to get introduced
Not sure if Reid's let it come up yet, though. They have proposed "de-authorizing" the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. Great post K & R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
14. Couldn't Bush just veto that repeal?
And stop any repeal of the AUMF in Iraq?

We should have learned a valuable lesson when Congress first passed the AUMF. The Democratic minority in the Senate could have stood firm together on benchmarks, time lines, and a sunset provision ended the AUMF automatically in one, two, or three years. Instead, a blank check was crafted by Republicans for Bush and agreed to by Democrats, who were afraid of being called names by the extremist Republican warmongers.

Once that AUMF passed, it can't be altered or repealed, unless the President agrees, as he can veto any bill that would repeal it. So we now have to have a 2/3s majority to override a veto, when we could have prevented this scenario by simply threatening to filibuster the original bill unless it included protections against a President being able to defy the nation and keep us in a failed war.

And, yes, we can cut off funding by not sending any funding bill to Bush. That is the only way we can now stop this war, until after the 2008 elections. Bush can't veto a decision by Congress not to send him a Iraq War funding bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC