Excerpt from here: Britain and the United States have all but fired the first shots of the second Gulf war by dramatically extending the range of targets in the "no-fly zones" over Iraq to soften up the country for an allied ground invasion. As Baghdad threatened to stop destroying its Samoud 2 missiles if the US presses ahead with its invasion plans, allied pilots have attacked surface-to-surface missile systems and are understood to have hit multiple-launch rockets. Targets hit in recent days include the Ababil-100, a Soviet-designed surface-to-air missile system adapted to hit targets on the ground, and the Astros 2 ground rocket launcher with a range of up to 56 miles. These would be used to defend Iraq in the event of an invasion or to attack allied troops stationed in Kuwait. Britain and the US insist publicly that the rules for enforcing the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq have not changed - that pilots only open fire if they are targeted. But privately defence officials admit that there has been an aggressive upping of the ante in recent weeks to weaken Iraqi defences ahead of a ground invasion. Analysts confirm there has been an intensification of what is known as "the undeclared war".
If, by "them," you mean our military forces, my friends and my family on the ground in and around Iraq, then I would have "them" be sent to war by a goddamned Declaration of War by Congress, fulfilling the checks and balances put into place by "their" Constitution, that's what I'd have "them" do.
Didn't your momma teach you that want doesn't always get. Our forces are going to war whether we like it or not. Declaration or no, once the bullets start flying, I want our troops to have the best possible advantage while also avoiding as many casualties as possible. You need to stop dealing with the "what ifs" and start facing the inevitable.
tell that to the smooth criminals who coughed up a resolution post 9/11 there's no one to blame for that than the dems who should have struck down the whole concept of a resolution worded like that.
1. I thought that Congress back in October or November of last year formally adopted a Gulf of Tonkin type of resolution, authorizing the President to use force against Iraq. 2. Under the Constitution, the President always has the power to initially start a war, or defend against a war, at least for the very very short term. 3. The President's staffers were arguing, if I recall correctly, that the 1991 resolution is still on the books and hasn't ever been revoked or whatever would be required to end it. The reason is the no fly zone issues over the last 5+ years or just sloppy Congress. Regardless, after they initially made the argument, they somewhat recanted on their argument. However, if there is the authorization (by Congress, presumably) to do the no fly-zones, then there has to be some justification for the pilots in responding to being targeted. 4. The fact that one argues this war is undeclared is nuts. Personally, I don't know if Bush pulls the trigger soon or not.
Sorry if I consider the Constitution just a little more than a group of goddamned "what-if"s... Wow...
Sorry, Universal, but the forces of darkness are right on this one. Although it's hilarious to think that the Constitution authorizes the President to start wars at will, that resolution the Democrats coughed up last year is more than enough for the Reeps. I WISH they were trying to sell that this was a continuation of Gulf War I, since that's as shaky as pudding in an earthquake. Otherwise we could say we're still at war with Germany, since they never signed a treaty after World War II. Or maybe we could sort out the North Vietnamese, for violating the "peace with honor" agreement. Hey, did Grenada ever sign a treaty? Or Panama? Or Libya? Man, we've got some unfinished business....
The Constitution doesn't give the president that power. Congress holds that power. It was only until recently under the National Security Act (i think) that the president could deploy troops for 90 days. Congress didn't like getting emasculated like that, so they said the president must come to them after 90 days, thus tranfering back the war powers.
Bush has congressional authority to act. The Founding Fathers created the declaration of war principles to prevent a despotic use of military force by an executive branch. While you can make a de facto argument that Bush is not using the precisely defined mechanism of the US Constitution (the last time it was officially used was in WWII), he is certainly in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution by seeking, and receiving, Congressional authority, as did Bush Sr. in 1991.
All of this begs the question, will the Congress ever again officially declare war? Given the current case, I can't imagine a case where it would. If all a president has to do is get enabling legislation to commit troops to an open-ended invasion, why would any president ask for a war declaration? IMO this is a shameful abdication by Congress of its Consititutional duty, and it's been ongoing since Korea.
Six Iraqi civilians dead from bombing, says Iraq http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030303/ts_nm/iraq_raid_dc_5
I thought it might actually have some merit until I got to this part: "An Iraqi military spokesman said the planes patrolling a "no-fly" zone in the south of the country entered Iraqi airspace at 9:45 p.m. (1845 GMT) on Sunday and later targeted civilian sites in the province of Basra." And while I am not discounting that Iraqi citizens may have been killed, I find it hard to believe that US and British planes intentionally targeted civilian sites...but I wasn't there so there is no knowing for sure. End of the article: "Baghdad routinely describes the targets of the air raids as civilian, while U.S. and British military authorities say they attack only military targets and strive to avoid civilian casualties."
"Shameful abdication??" Congress had their chance to say no. They didn't...they agreed. Meanwhile, is this really a distinction with a difference anymore? Can anyone dispute that Bush Sr. got approval from Congress to use military force to oust the Iraqi's from Kuwait?? Does anyone deny that Bush got approval from Congress to go to WAR with Iraq NOW?? Yes, WAR. No one's calling it a police action, or an incursion, or a peacekeeping mission. EVERYONE knows this is an attack by our military on THEIR military -- and this time, we're CALLING it a WAR. So, in the end, whether we "declare" it or not, the end product is still the same, and the Congress has gone along with it.
I tend to agree with you. I am much more likely to believe that we accidentally killed 6 people than I am to believe that we purposefully killed 6 people.
I wasn't trying to lay all the blame on this congress. The truth is that the declaration of war is all but dead in the American political system. I'm very confident in saying that there will never be another US declaration of war. IMO, the Congress has too willingly ceded, over the past 50 years, the ability to make war to the executive branch. And this abandonment of a constitutional check and balance, and one of the most powerful, is shameful. I'm not denying that Bush has congressional authority to prosecute this war. I am angry that Congress has allowed its powers to be eroded and allowed the president (any president) open ended latitude to begin war and commit troops on his time table.
But as you are right that we may NEVER see another formal "declaration of war," so too we will NEVER see a President, unilaterally and of his own volition, engage in a major military conflict WITHOUT consulting Congress. In that sense, the system of checks and balances in a representative government is alive and well. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers would be all that upset. Sounds like you're upset that they approved, not that they weren't consulted. THAT's a distinction with a difference. Of course, there have been "shameful" episodes -- the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, for example -- but it wasn't the mechanism itself that was at fault there, but rather the abuse of the mechanism and the ultimate lack of veracity, clearly defined objectives, and policy substance than underlied it. Again -- and very different than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- we all know the score here, it's all pretty transparent. We're going in, we're going to depose him, we're going to get rid of WMDs, and we're going to try to install a democratic regime there. Now this may be a good idea, or it may be a bad idea, or it may be somewhere in between, but we all know what we've signed up for -- including our legistlative representatives.
What do these phrases mean? "Last step?" "Minor Player?" We could declare war and wait a year or two or five. Meanwhile, since Congress has to appropriate the dough, I wouldn't consider their role "minor." Throughout our history, it's President's who have taken the lead role in military activities. Congress has always played a bit of a handmaiden. But if Congress weren't consulted, or said no, no matter what the forum, it would make it VERY difficult for the President to act. When we last "declared war" it was Franklin Roosevelt who went to Congress and asked them to "declare that a state of was HAS existed" between the USA and Japan. He chose those words carefully. It was an ex post facto event in his view, and rightly so. I would suppose a formal declaration of war in this case might carry more solemnity, but aside from that, does anyone have any illusions about what we're about to do with Iraq?? I don't know about you, but I feel pretty solemn about what is going to happen. This is high risk stuff, and though I generally support the idea of military force, I have no illusions about what MIGHT happen. I think mostly good will come out of it, but if bad stuff occurs, well, I won't be shocked. LBJ tried to pull a fast one with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. That approach isn't what's happening today. In fact, I don't think an administration could get away with that sort of thing anymore.
See, this is one of the FUNDAMENTAL differences between people like you and people like me. To me, the journey is just as important as the destination. For you, apparently, its all about where you end up. This fundamental disconnect, laid bare in many other circumstances, is IMHO exactly why Americans raised on the exact same SchoolHouse Rock episodes often talk past one another... Just an observation.
Elbow Room, Elbow Room, Gotta Get Us Some Elbow Room I agree, but then what the hell are all these threads here for?
I remember someone observed that in the SOTU speech Bush was half-drugged, half-sleepy talking about the economy through out the session, but all of the sudden his eyes lit up -- he was talking about the killing of evil doer - Saddam Hughsins! Man!
The difference between folks like me and folks like you is that YOU resort to cliches, and apply them as "high-minded" principles...among other differences. Forms and rituals -- ie. "journeys" -- can be pretty important. Yet, to stoop to your level, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a f----ing duck.