Anti-War is not equal to pro-evil

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's obviously situational. In some circumstances, being anti war IS equal to being pro evil.

Very Chamberlain-esque...
 
Sorry guys. Having problems with my internet connection. This is the post that was supposed to begin the thread. Have fun.

There is a proceedure set up in the Constitution of the U.S.A for going to war. This proceedure has been circumvented. The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are a trampling of the constitution. I think that Saddam Housein is an evil S.O.B. I think that it is not unreasonable for something to be done about it. My problem is with the "Saddam is evil. Saddam should be removed. Let's do it because it's a good thing, and to hell with the constitution." kind of thinking. Only Congress can declare war. Supporting this "war" is supporting the circumvention of the constitution. Even the SCOTUS occasionally strikes down laws which are good, in effect (i.e. the execution of the law is contrary to the intent of the Constitution, even though the result is a social good.) Anyway, my contention is that you can support either all or none of the Constitution. In other words, if you support the 2nd ammendment, you cannot logically support the "War on Terror" until Congress declares "War on Terror"

-drew
 
"Historically, peace has only been bought by men of war. We may, in the future, be able to change that. It may be, as some say, that we have no choice. It may be that peace can and must be bought with some coin other than the blood of good soldiers, but there is no evidence to show that the day of jubilee has yet come." — Jerry Pournelle, preface to 'There Will be War'
 
Another unjust war thread :rolleyes:

In 1991 Iraq signed a surrender agreement with the US. In that agreement Iraq agreed to disarm. Bush and Klinton both worked the UN and enforced the No-Fly zone and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Iraq. Bush II re-opened hostilities from a pre-existing action with cause, and was provided with a binding resolution from Congress. Although not required by the US Constitution, Bush II also tried to work through the UN.

More to the point, we are there, we prevailed, and we are cleaning up. Would you have us withdraw? DO YOU understand the consequences for withdrawal?
 
MacViolinist,
you are right that the constitution says that the Congress has the right to declare war, but that hasn't happened since when???....WW2 if i am correct.....(Korea and Vietnam being undeclared "police actions" ??)
i consider myself a pretty strict constitutionalist, but the
congressional resolution allowing the use of force in Iraq seems to fulfill what the founders wanted (ie: Congressional approval of war)
BSR
 
I agree with BSR as far as Congressional approval. How they came to the conclusion to pass the resolution is a different matter, as we are all well aware.

And believe it or not, if Bush would have come out and said, "Iraq is in violation of section X, XX, XXX, etc. of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and has been in said violation from 1991 through 2003, therefore I am ordering our troops to commence the war... etc." then I would have been in full support of this war.

Why did he say all the other things, that thus far had not panned out, instead of going with the cease-fire issue?

I don't mean get another one of those "for/against" threads going, but I'm really at a loss why he didn't argue it that way?
 
And believe it or not, if Bush would have come out and said, "Iraq is in violation of section X, XX, XXX, etc. of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and has been in said violation from 1991 through 2003, therefore I am ordering our troops to commence the war... etc." then I would have been in full support of this war.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, Michigander.

Here are the President's remarks before the UN in 2002. Please do a ctrl-f search through the page for "1991."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

He mentions the violations a number of times. Awaiting your stated support for the war...
 
And believe it or not, if Bush would have come out and said, "Iraq is in violation of section X, XX, XXX, etc. of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and has been in said violation from 1991 through 2003, therefore I am ordering our troops to commence the war... etc." then I would have been in full support of this war.
Click to expand...
Put me down in the "not" column since he said all of those things and more.


"Thar she blows! A whiiiite whaaale!" :rolleyes:
 
...Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations.
...
Click to expand...

emphasis added.

There are a lot of references to "broken promises," and violations of "UN resolutions." However, the only reference to a "cease-fire" is in the above quote. The "cease-fire agreement" agreed to between the United States and Iraq is not mentioned. Bush was obviously trying to convince the UN using their own rhetoric to do so (of course, it did not work). When Bush made his case for war on television and radio all across the nation to the American people (not the UN), he did not make the "violation of cease-fire" argument then either.
 
Congress does not have the power to confer its own powers to other branches of the Ferderal Government. See Marbury v. Madison for starters.
Click to expand...
No, but they do have the power to create their own procedures. They long ago decided upon using the War Powers Act to declare war. They did this because*:

A) they are gutless wonders.

B) the frightfully stupid and painfully dull wouldn't blame Congress for any wars they start because (being frightfully stupid and painfully dull) the FS & PD aren't able to grasp subtlety.

C) both A & B plus a few others I don't have time to enumerate.


















* Answer = C

P.S. They have been doing this sort of thing since the Presidency of Jefferson. Hint: "... shores of Tripoli!" :rolleyes:
 
HunterGatherer,
The war powers act is just a law. If it is contrary to the intent of the Constitution, then it is null and void.

Again, only congress has the power to declare war. That is the wording of the Constitution. If past Congresses have been derelict in their duties, that is no justification for the current doing the same.

Let me try to put it this way. You can support the Constitution in its entirety and without bending, translating, or modernizing; or you can let people manipulate it for their own ends. As we have seen with the RKBA, there is no middle ground.

-drew
 
7.62FullMetalJacket wrote:
Bush and Klinton both worked the UN and enforced the No-Fly zone
Click to expand...

Do you know that the "no-fly zone" was not authorized by the UN?
 
Let me try to put it this way. You can support the Constitution in its entirety and without bending, translating, or modernizing; or you can let people manipulate it for their own ends. As we have seen with the RKBA, there is no middle ground.
Click to expand...
Try to put it however you wish.


U.S. Constitution



Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.


No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.


Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.


The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.


Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof

, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.


No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.


The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.


The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.


Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.


Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.


The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.


Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.


Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.


Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.


Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.


Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.


No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.


Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.


Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.


Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.


Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Again, only congress has the power to declare war. That is the wording of the Constitution. If past Congresses have been derelict in their duties, that is no justification for the current doing the same.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the 1991 Gulf War never formally ended. There was a cessastion of hostilities because we were under truce; there was no formal ending of the war.

Back in 1992, I received a National Defense Ribbon right out of boot camp. I asked my Company Commander why we received one, and he said that, offically, we were still in a state of war with Iraq, though the fighting had stopped.
 
The military has fought countless undeclared wars since the earliest days of the Republic. Declaring war these days is an obselete, nearly meaningless custom. It is a relic of a time when information traveled on horseback and ship, not fiber optic cable. Israel and Saudi Arabia are officially at war yet there are no hostilities between the two countries. Meanwhile Russia says there is no war in Chechnya, merely an operation against criminals. Declaring war has been reduced to a political statement.

As for declaring war on terror, or war on terrorism, we can do no such thing. Neither of these things are tangible entities that we can combat. Perhaps war on the Taliban or Al Qaeda makes more sense. However, they are constantly changing, dissolving and reconstituting.

Let's face it: great powers are always at war, every day they exist. America will always be at war as long as she is a great power. We will live in a perpetual state of conflict with the barbarians of Islamic extremism the same way Rome was constantly at war with the barbarian tribes on her borders. America will probably be at war with a collection of these groups for our lifetimes.

With this in mind I think it makes more sense to see a Congerssional authorizations for military action as the 21st century version of a war declaration. We should amend the constitution to this effect.

Oh and to the original topic of the thread:

Being anti-war is not an evil thing.

At the same time, war is horrible, but it is not the worst thing there is. Some wars are necessary.
 
What we have here is semantic masturbation.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the resolution authorizing the President to use force WAS a declaration of war? Try reading it... it certainly wasn't a Resolution of a Group Hug with Iraq. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, it does not order them to do it in a specific manner or stick "Declaration of War" on it in big letters.

The President, being the Exectuive, executes. A Declaration of War is a go-ahead from Congress for the President to execute a war. Hence Congress DID declare war. It was functionally identical to a declaration of war, only the title was different. Boo hoo.

Congress is authorized to make laws under the Constitution. But they do not always call it "Law to do X," because the Constitution does not tell how to word everything. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if the Congress has the power to make war, then it follows that it has the power to do things short of war. Otherwise, Congress would either approve treaties, or blow people up, but nothing in-between... which is, of course, absurd.
 
Sean is of course absolutely correct. Congress did in fact declare war. They just didn't have the collective guts to actually call it that. However this could be reworded I think:
Furthermore, if the Congress has the power to make war...
Click to expand...
Congress "declares" war, the president "makes" war.
 
Is tolerating evil, evil?
Click to expand...
Heh.
If so, we're pretty evil, aren't we? North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, most of Africa, big chunks of South America ... why do we tolerate these evils?
 
Well the dang vote in Congress was called the Iraqi War Resolution. What more does anyone need?

Of course now certain mush-heads have been declaring they were "tricked" or "decieved" by the President into lending their support on the basis of "false" claims made about Iraqi WMDs. Of course it is then conveniently forgotten that right up until they were not found (yet) that even the UN, France, and other erstwhile "allies" deemed that Saddam had WMDs. The dispute in the UN was over the immediateness of the threat, not whether there was a threat at all.

However, revisionism is a favorite play of the liberal. What amazes me is that a spurrious activity that used to be applied to events of years past, has, over time, been applied to things happening mere months ago. We were in combat with Iraq on the ground in February and March of last year. The revisionism from leftist politicians who voted for the IWR was in full swing in the middle of the fighting and continues unabated.

They can only be thinking that every American is as stupid as their typical supporter. Despite the Democrats' best attempts to ruin this country, that isn't quite the case (yet).
 
cordex, the idea is to bring about positive change or to try to seal off evil countries which won't change. And, of course, there's only so much that can be done at any time.

Great Power doings are much like a long-term chess game. A major problem for us is that we don't think in long-term, on a day to day basis.

For instance, a scenario for Iraq, long-term: We wind up with a stable country with a government favorable to our views and interests. We remove our troops from other mid-eastern countries--particularly Saudi Arabia, and base them in Iraq. We then have a power base in an area of vital interest, always remembering that oil is a national interest. But this ain't a six-month deal.

A future what-if would be a lessened vulnerability of our people to the instability of Saudi Arabia, yet we'd have the capability to project force if need be.

Personal opinion: Given the changes in the Yellow Sea area, both in economic terms and political terms, we have a lessened national interest in North Korea. It seems that NK could well wither and fall of its own accord, and at most we try to help its neighbors survive the death throes. (That's a big "I dunno", of course.)

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top