AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. %26lt;%26lt;NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]%26gt;%26gt;
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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 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'';
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 and 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 resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace.
[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]
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 United States 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 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) 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 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress 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 Resolution 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
[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]
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 of 1998 (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 interests 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 %26lt;%26lt;NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.%26gt;%26gt; assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.
[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]
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 regarding 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 regarding Iraq.
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 joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist 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
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) %26lt;%26lt;NOTE: President.%26gt;%26gt; Reports.--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 the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]
(b) Single Consolidated Report.--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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
--------------------------------------…
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.IS the IRAQ WAR truly for oil? I want only facts and not what the hype or media is saying.?
no the war isn't for oil but in that part of the world it well all ways be implied..IS the IRAQ WAR truly for oil? I want only facts and not what the hype or media is saying.?
Liberals love to use their IMAGINATION as FACTs.
No. America has its own oil. Bush is not the leader of Iraq and will have no say so in how Iraq ';controls'; its oil.
Im a Republican and to be honest yes it was for the most part. It gives m great shame to say Pres. Bush used the military and 9/11 as an excuse to secure the oil fields. After 1991 desert storm his father had a death threat on his head by Saddam Hussien. This whole thing was about revenge. Many americans believed in Pres. Bush and yes there was weopons in Iraq but later were brought out of Iraq into the black market before the 2003 Iraq invasion, which made Bush's case fall. Also, keep in mind our country is dependent on oil and even though it benefits the oil companies it was morally wrong to use the military to secure the fields. I hope this helps.
I don't have any facts, but we've been in Iraq for almost 5 years and I'm wondering, where is this oil everyone keeps talking about? If we were there for oil, then wouldn't there be evidence of this?
Well, if the war were truly about oil, I would think it would make more sense to attack Saudi Arabia, since they're the leading supplier of oil.
I can't tell you what is in the mind of the President and others who are accelerating the war in Iraq. But I'm pretty certain I can deduce that it is NOT about foreign oil.
When's the last time you heard the media saying anything about the oil? When did the media ever challenge the Iraq War as being just mainly about oil?
If any mainstream media source ever seriously questioned the motive behind the Iraq War as being mainly for oil, it was not very often and even that was buried under the flood of cheerleading for whichever one of the several particular reasons the White House gave for the Iraq War on any given week.
Honestly, can you recall any major stories about the oil angle coming from the mainstream media?
good hell no. it's to determine, once and for all, if the new world ecomony will run on american dollars or euros.
You won't get facts here, sorry, only opinions since we're all pretty much in the dark about this whole war.
The only people that seem to be profiting off this in any way are corporations like Haliburton who get lucrative contract deals for the ';reconstruction'; projects in Iraq and elsewhere.
I think the real idea for the war was to have a foothold in the middle east, and for George W to do what his father ';couldn't';. I think it has more to do with religion and profits from oil, not oil itself (because we have plenty other sources for that - they just require a little more money to be put into them).
I also remember reading (before the war in Afghanistan started, but after 9/11) that Exxon was wanting to build a large oil pipeline through Afghanistan to be able to tap into the oil in Central Asia/Siberia, but the Taliban was hostile to the idea, but I don't remember the details or if it was even true.
Anyone who says this war is about ';spreading democracy'; or ';helping people'; is delusional -because we ignore countries cries for help all the time and look the other way on massive human rights abuses on a consistent basis.
As you can tell by now, few people want to answer that question, most stumble around the topic with no facts ';This wars for oil'; and the conservatives response is usually ';No, it's not.'; To be quite honest I don't have the complete answer, but the majority of people you ask won't care for the answer, just their own partison politics
Here's what I do know, (If you want, feel free to skip to POINT 1 and POINT 2, everything else is statistical analysis to back up my points)
Background information-Oil
As of May 07- America currently gets 341,000 barrels of its crude oil per day from Iraq, the seventh leading supplier%26lt;1%26gt;
Canada at 1,821 barrels a day is still the leading importer of crude oil, followed by Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria.(1)
341,000 barrels of oil a day on a rough estimate of a barrel of oil costing with a $57.50(2) average comes to $19,607,500 a day of crude oil.
If we get $19,607,500 in oil per day, that would mean we get $7,156,737,500 worth per year. Let us just round up to $7,156,750,000.
$7,156,750,000 is how much it costs the US to get oil from Iraq. Now let us say for a second that Iraq, saved the US an unprecedented 50% of what we would be paying, in the land of what if we didn’t attack Iraq this might be the cost. We would pay an additional $3,578,375,000 more for oil.
Background information- US military
When it's all said in done, the war in Iraq is expected to cost the US alone, $1 trillion dollars, by conservative estimates. (3)
That 1 trillion doesn't take into account American combat losses;
To date we've lost 20 M1 Abrams tanks, 55 Bradley fighting vehicles, 20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles, 20 M113 armored personnel carriers, 250 Humvees, 500+ Mine clearing vehicles, heavy/medium trucks, and trailers, 10 Amphibious Assault Vehicles, 103 Helicopters, and 18 Fixed-Wing Aircraft(4)
With an additional $17 billion in refurbishment to repairable vehicles.(4)(5)
Additionally, physical and mental long term health care for soldiers wounded in Iraq; conservative estimate: 250 billion (3)
Price to the American taxpayer: Roughly1.5 trillion dollars
POINT ONE
For America to break even financially, we would have to get oil from Iraq for at least the next 41.9 years
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Al-Anfal: an Iraqi an eight stage military campaign against the Kurdish people which resulted in anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds being slaughtered. Human Rights Watch classified it a Genocide utilizing chemical weapons (1992-1993)(A)(B)
[Additionally if you ever get a chance to go to Kurdish Iraq go, they love Americans up there, there's a reason they call it ';the other Iraq';]
Ever Since the Gulf War Resolution 687 has been in effect, which established a cease fire between the US and Iraq, one of the provisions of that resolution was that we would have access to inspect their facilities, as far as I'm concerned the second they stopped us from inspecting we have not only the grounds for war, but the right. (1991-2003)(B)
IAEA were forced out of the country after attempting to search factories for WMD (1998)(B)
When UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq, they had been unable to account for a substantial amount of chemical and biological weapons materials that Iraq claimed to have destroyed (1999)(B)
Iraq continued to obstruct resumption of inspections. In November 2002, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 which found Iraq was in material breach of is obligations and gave Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions”. (November 2002)
POINT TWO
It doesn't matter if there were or were not WMDs, under Resolution 687 we should've been allowed to inspect. When an ex-con is on probation, under contract the US can force the individual to take a piss test, refusal to pee equals the assumption of guilt and increased punishment until the individual passes the test.
no. we get lots of oil from alaska. remember 9-11-01? that's why we're at war.
and of corse we could make fuel out of corn, but the mexican's need the corn for torteilas... if mexican's had a democracy just like ours do you think they would be sneaking in? if they were more places like america that had democracies the popuation of the US wouldn't be sky rocketing like it is.
The Middle East comes in a distant 4th in the amount of oil we import.
Venezuela, Canada and Africa far and away lead the way.
Colorado, Texas, and Alaska have more oil than all those areas combined.
But of course in the name of the ';Spotted Owl'; we can't drill here (Not in my back yard), and have not built a refinery in 40 years.
Oil is a big part of it considering:
-Iraq has the largest remaining untapped and easily accessible oil reserves in the world.
-The US couldn't afford the consequences if Saddam had decided to trade oil in Euros instead of US dollars.
-US oil companies were upset that Saddam nationalized their oil industry. Look at the hubub over Hugo Chavez in Venezuela since he nationalized his oil industry. And don't forget the US govt. toppling of the democratically-elected Iranian regime in 1952 right after they nationalized their oil industry.
-Both Bush and Cheney are oil men from Texas whose families are heavily invested in the industry.
-Saudi oil is quickly running out, so its time to open up the Iraqi reserves and keep the price up, but steady. Keeping in mind that if Saddam had been allowed to develop, pump, and sell oil freely on the open market since 1991, the price of oil per barrel would be about $20 right now.
Considering that the Bush family fortune comes from dealings in the oil industry, I would have to believe that oil is a big factor - but I also think that it's a being used as a diversionary tactic to keep the fact that they can't seem to find Osama off our minds.
Plus King George probably doesn't want to admit his failure in initiating this fiasco in the first place. Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong, especially the president, even though a good portion of the country consider him to be a complete idiot. At least he can't serve another consecutive term.
It'a about money and power. People are worse off in North Korea. Did we attack them ? Nope ! You know why ? They don't have anything we want. And they also have a million man army who'd kick our ***. ';We'; want to build military bases in the middle east. And that's being done as I type this.
Go to the democraticunderground.com and you'll get all the unadulterated information you need, including supporting documentation.
Definitely not for Oil primarily. The most basic agend was Bush wanted to satisfy his own ego and put an end to the problem his dad had created in the beginning. The issue of terrorism was started with Osama and not Saddam. Since they could not get hold of Osama even after spending millions of dollars and loosing many American soldiers, Bush resorted to distraction tactics and targetted Saddam. Not even thinking (which I doubt he is capable of doing anyways) he attacked Iraq and the long term repurcations are US lost many soldiers and lot of tax payers money.
First, to clarify (since you want facts), it's not really a war. The U.S., with a little help from the U.K., invaded and is now occupying Iraq.
Like every occupation, it involves many factors. So yes, of course controlling oil is a factor. In particular, the U.S. wants to control how much oil gets to China and Russia, not just to the U.S.
But the most important factor behind this latest Iraq incident is the Republican's genuine belief that U.S.-style capitalist ';democracy'; should be imposed on other countries.
no. in Bush's state of the Union address he did not once mention ';oil';. go to (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679 )this is a site that explains and also http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html
We are not in Iraq for Oil we do import oil from Iraq but far less than other nations see info below also check out these web sites. This information may be from 2002 but it will not have changed significantly from then. It is not economically feasible for the USA to get a significant amount of oil from Iraq.
Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S.
During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels
Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels
If it truly was for oil, I guarantee you we would have long since secured the country.
No, it's to capture osama bin laden, that was the primary goal here, but I think we are headed in another direction now. Like trying to bring peace to Iraq etc. There will never be peace if we don't catch osama bin laden.
The latest projections from BP indicate that oil from countries such as the United States, Canada, Russia, Mexico, etc, will be depleted in less than 20 years. That leaves the majority of oil in middle eastern nations, especially Saudi Arabia (the guy who said that Saudi oil is quickly running out has no idea what he's talking about). Currently, the United States obtains only 11% of it's oil from middle eastern nations but as our reserves, and the reserves of our allys, become reduced our dependance on middle eastern oil will increase. As a result, we need another oil rich ally in the middle east. Iran would be preferred because they have a huge amount of oil, but that's not going to happen so we'll (hopefully) have to make do with Iraq. The United States isn't the only nation that will be jockeying for position; we'll have India and China also wanting more middle eastern oil. That is why Iraq as a western ally is vital to the long term interests of the United States.
No no no no. use commen sense. Would it be cheeper to buy the oil, or go to war for it.
(buy its the correct answer)
We get almost none of the profit from Iraqs oil.
it surley isnt for democracy in the middle east....things will never change there...
George W. Bush speaking of Saddam Husseing..';He's the man that nearly killed my dad.';
You won't find any facts pointing to the whole oil theory.
Peace and stability and to remove an oppressive regime that was in the embrace of terrorism. Help create a humanitarian regime in the middle east that will continue pumping oil for everyone to buy.
No oil and you wouldn't even be on the computer right now because our economy would be in a shambles without the oil we purchase.
Yep. It is. Bush wants oil. And POWER !! And MONEY !!!!! And your brother, son, nephew, father, whatever, is shot to smithereens by those that defend their country, their resources so that they can enjoy it like they want to.
Oil is nothing in this arena. It's all about the military machine tapping the U.S. treasury DRY!! For generations to come! :-(=
No comments:
Post a Comment