Talk:Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

message: Wouldn't it perhaps be less cluttered if we linked to the Roll Call Page for both the Senate and Hosue votes, rather than have massive lists? — Linnwood   (☎) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  External links were already there.  Isaac Pankonin 10:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What specific content do you suggest adding to the article, Anonymous? VisitorTalk 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll Call

message: The first link in this article (the cspan one) points to a PDF that is no longer available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.87.65 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too, and have changed the link to a PDF from the U.S. Government Printing Office. --Spacedoggie (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link dead.  

message: The list of Senators who voted 'YES' (currently following the section "The Durbin Amendment") needs to be moved into section "Passage", but should it follow the bullet-point "82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution", or should it follow "29 of 50 Democratic senators (58%) voted for the resolution", and give those voting against a bullet-point of its own? Clark42 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I would have loved to have seen such a list.  The List of Congressional opponents of the Iraq War doesn't serve that purpose because it mixes the senators in with the rest of congress.  Second, since 29 Democrats voted for and only 21 against, it would be easier to absorb the latter than the former.  In the case of the Republicans all you need to know is that Lincoln Chaffee was the only Republican senator to vote against.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move "which Senators voted 'YES'" to "Passage" 

message: I deleted a whole section which appeared to be a soapbox for someone's POV about the justification for war, made by presenting straw man points never stated in the AUMF then knocking them down. There are plenty of articles with this material, such as statements made by the Bush administration- I hope I needn't explain why this is irrelevant here in this article. Batvette (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted material far outside the scope of the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Iraq Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707020942/http://www.asil.org/insigh88.cfm to http://www.asil.org/insigh88.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809115028/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf to http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516140700/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930111604/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm to http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding the use of "none licit statement" and "licit statement", and "none licit statement, requires proof positive" are these intended to be editors commentary or are they a legal term? This appears messy and nonsensical without context. SwimmingNaked (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. They seem like nonsentical, incorrect commentary by an editor. "None licit" is not a standing expression nor even proper latin. I can only assume that he meant "non licet", i.e. "not permissible", but it is messy and I cannot see how it might have been meant. As no source, summary, or reasoning was given, I have reverted the edit. 91.66.245.59 (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents: "none licit", etc.