When America went to war in Iraq, are they at war with Saddam's regime or just Iraq in general.:confused:

grammar aside, should this be OT?

Historically though, we went to war with the former government of Iraq

...but this is an opinion-based question

Technically we didn't declare war with anyone. A declaration of war is a specific kind of document in international law, which in the United States can only be initiated as an act of Congress. WWII was the last actual declaration of war by the US.

Sorry if I misunderstood the definition. My real question is who is
America at war with in Iraq right now?

Technically we didn't declare war with anyone. A declaration of war is a specific kind of document in international law, which in the United States can only be initiated as an act of Congress. WWII was the last actual declaration of war by the US.

good point

although executive action seems to hold the same weight nowadays

I don't think that "we" went to war with anyone, unless anyone posting here is actually a member of the government of any of the coalition countries...

As for who they are at war with in Iraq right now, the answer is no-one, because wars are conducted between countries. US soldiers are fighting many individuals but no country. The problem is that George Bush uses the word "war" to mean things that aren't really wars, such as the "war on terror". But that is no more an actual war than the "war on drugs" is really a war. The word is being used metaphorically. Of course it can be hard to tell the difference when there are soldiers involved and lots of people are being killed. But most of the killing in Iraq right now is being happening between different groups of Iraqis; it is a sort of massive turf war, and again it is hard to know whether that is really technically a war or not. The Americans are basically caught in the middle of this.

From a juristical point of view the US did not lead any wars since 1945 as therefore a certain declaration is needed. However this is in someway debated as still "wars" were fought in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan (and a few smaller ones). This makes the old juristical definition of war outdated. As declaring war has some consequences the belligerent parties might want to avoid, in international law, this was not done by the US since 1945 (as an example: Some Serbian soldiers deserted at the Macedonian border and wanted to become PoW in the US and Germany resp. in the Kosovo war. As neither the US nor Germany did declare war on Serbia it was not clear what these soldiers were now, nor if the forces had any rights to take PoW! I do not remember the outcome of that discussion). However in how far these rules have to be kept analogous is still debated.

Adler

I think it has to be admitted that there's something rather odd about having laws about wars in the first place, and rules about what you're allowed to do in wars, as if it's some kind of sport...

Well it was seen as a kind of sports after the 30 years war. Because of preventing such a war again, certain rules were made. All in all that worked until ww2 and the Barbarians there (SS, NKWD, Harris to name a few).

Adler

The Americans are basically caught in the middle of this.

The Americans have basically unleashed this.

The Americans have basically unleashed this.

The Sunnis, Shi'ites & Kurds in Iraq have been fighting each other for centuries. The oppressive Bath government kept this under control, but in it's absence the old fight has flared back up again. The new government doesn't have the political will or military strength to control it. The political will is quickly shrinking in the U.S., also.

Keep in mind that most Americans oppose their current President's policies.

Indeed. Iraq was an artificial political creation by the British, after they took over the area fr the Ottomans in the aftermath of WW1 IIRC and merged the 3 Ottoman provinces in the region into one 'mandate'.

Even back then, the Brits had problems with the natives.

Keep in mind that most Americans oppose their current President's policies.

Only because they're not working, though. I don't get the impression that the war in Iraq would have been unpopular had it been successful. In other countries, by contrast, going to war at all was desperately unpopular, even on the assumption that victory would be easy.

the americans didn't declare war, so they don't have to abide to american and international rules, and thus can basicaly do what they want.

War or no war, the US has signed a bunch of international agreements saying they will abide by lots of things. Some of which the present admin. found it too onerous to honour.

no the fact is, America, including a congressional vote, did make an official complaint and an official declaration of war, based on Husseins failure to comply with some 10-15 resolutions defined by the UN, many of which involved terms of capitulation from the prior gulf war. If you review these resolutions they actually appear quite reasonable...and they do NOT necessitate the actual existence, per se, of WMD in Iraq, or other rhetoric. However, what the US is doing in Iraq NOW, is more of a mystery, we seem to be fighting the possibility of something happening, or something, its bizarre, and I dont udnerstand it, and neither, apparently, does congresss. So probably its not going to last much longer.
But this is fascinating to me, that so many people are saying that we didnt declare war. Totally false. There was an absolutely official declararion, which included congress, and abiding by all rules concerning how the US declares war, executed smoothly, due to its practically unanimous approval in congress. Get this straight.
an 'executive action' has verbatim no meaning in US politics, there is such thing as an 'executive order'...but it in enirely UNLAWFUL in the US for the president to declare war without the approval of congress...and executive order can NOT trump this, this is not a vague thing open to interpretation.
However, it HAS happened, now and then, that presidents completely personally decide to go to war (even after this law was made explicit), and fascinating how it has not ever been actually punished, althought plenty gripe about its some generations later. GW Bush did not do this however. U can hate this war all you want, but its still very much a fact, GW did involve the US and in fact the UN in th entire decision to go to war, he faced some opposition in the UN, but not much (after all his justification was based, officially, SOLELY on explicit UN resolutions). The simple fact is that at the time, everybody thought this was a great idea. Hindsight is 20/20.

I dont think peopel have been objective at all on this issue. I remember stuff. And i reember when GW 1st took office, he was no warmonger. In fact he was clearly working to drastically decrease the size of the US military, which many seemed to think ahd lost its point, with no emminent enemy in sight. He was conservative, but he was a rather moderate conservative, and democrats were a little confused about how to be opposed to him. All this changed at 9/11. Admittedly, a lot of people reacted a little emotionally to this event, but who wouldnt??? Perfectly otherwise objective people I knew, had seen on the media palestinian children applauding the tragedy, and actually took a kill them all mentality. So suddenly it became perfectly clear the the near east was actually more dangerous than everyone realized. Now assuming we can disgregard, (and frankly we can disregard this comical idea) that 9/11 wasnt some elaborate hoax from some top secret executive people, everything that followed was quite natural and logical. Iraq might not be directly related to Osama, but it was perceived as the greatest military power in the near east, and the best way to change the demeaner of people in the middle east toward the US, I suppose it was an idea. And meanwhile what else did GW do?? he put effort into allowing the palestenians their own state, negotiating with Israel their retreat from the Gaza strip. mmkay? and oh brother... who did the palestenians elect? and how could that expect to assist the diplomacy in this situation? Well anyway, the whole story is not one of some black and white US imperialism. Is GW one of the greatest presidents of US history? no. a lot of his clever ideas have seriously boomeranged and hes lookign pretty stupid right now. But is he this Adolf Hitleresque tyrant that many people are straining to make him? no. simply, no. Stop trying to make your life so dramatic, there is obviously nothing very suprising here. typical understandible mistakes of non-evil, but non-messianic-level-genius people.

GW did involve the US and in fact the UN in th entire decision to go to war, he faced some opposition in the UN, but not much (after all his justification was based, officially, SOLELY on explicit UN resolutions). The simple fact is that at the time, everybody thought this was a great idea. Hindsight is 20/20.

What on earth do you mean? Bush didn't involve the UN at all. There was no "second resolution" on how to deal with the fact that Iraq had ignored the previous resolutions. It was Blair, not Bush, who desperately wanted a UN mandate to go to war; and when it became obvious that any vote on such a proposal would be lost, because the other countries would veto it, Bush and Blair simply cancelled the vote. Yes, the justification for going to war was indeed that Iraq had been defying the will of the UN, but Bush did not have (and, unlike Blair, didn't seem particularly bothered about getting) any mandate from the UN to handle this fact by going to war. I don't know about people in America, but most people elsewhere thought going to war was a very bad idea, and that is why Bush and Blair couldn't even have a vote on it at the UN, far less win one.

Perfectly otherwise objective people I knew, had seen on the media palestinian children applauding the tragedy, and actually took a kill them all mentality. So suddenly it became perfectly clear the the near east was actually more dangerous than everyone realized... Iraq might not be directly related to Osama, but it was perceived as the greatest military power in the near east, and the best way to change the demeaner of people in the middle east toward the US, I suppose it was an idea.

If that's really how Bush, or other people in the US, were thinking, then it was "black and white imperialism", or perhaps "Hitleresque tyranny", or even just basic old-fashioned stupidity. Do you really suppose Bush thought that by invading a Middle Eastern country he would make people from the Middle East like America more? I don't believe that even Bush is that stupid. I also think that even Bush is capable of distinguishing between different countries and realising that, although on a world map Iraq might be fairly close to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, it's actually a completely different place. Suppose that a Mexican terrorist committed some outrage in China; would the Chinese be reasonable to retaliate by attacking the US? According to the reasoning you attribute to Bush, this would be reasonable, because North America would have been revealed to be a problem, and it should be dealt with by attacking the most powerful country in North America.

I think that Iraq was invaded because control of Iran. But there are many theories... anyway the succes of any is not visible....

he put effort into allowing the palestenians their own state, negotiating with Israel their retreat from the Gaza strip.
The GWB admin have so far done diddly squat about the Israel-Palestine conflict. At least give the Israelis the credit they are due on this one.

The U.S. is of course at war with terrorism

Duuuh

Bush involved the UN, insofar as he discussed his intentions at the UN, and looked for UN support, which he felt was logical, since he was doing what the UN was claiming they wanted. He did not get the support he was lookign for, this is true. And he didnt look for it all that much, didnt think he really needed it in fact. But he did not go to war AGAINST the wishes of the UN.
This is old news, about the UN. Typical, they ALWAYS are very whimpy when it comes to backing up their own words.

I wouldnt say that GW is THE guy responsible for retreat from Gaza and palestenian elections, but it is my understanding that he took a gratuitously active role in this, No?

Bush involved the UN, insofar as he discussed his intentions at the UN, and looked for UN support, which he felt was logical, since he was doing what the UN was claiming they wanted.

That's not serious involvement, though. Bush basically told the UN what he was planning to do, and hoped they would support it, but whether they supported it or not, he was going to do it. They didn't support it, and he went ahead and did it. Informing a body of your intentions is not the same thing as involving them in the decision-making process.

He did not get the support he was lookign for, this is true. And he didnt look for it all that much, didnt think he really needed it in fact. But he did not go to war AGAINST the wishes of the UN.

The only reason why the war was not conducted explicitly against the wishes of the UN was that no vote was held on whether the UN wished to endorse a war or not. And the reason why Bush and Blair did not hold a vote was that other members of the security council had told them that they would certainly veto any such decision. In other words, the war was certainly against the wishes of the UN members, and had a vote been held, the plan would have been rejected. Furthermore, the war was against the wishes of the UN representatives actually in Iraq, and the secretary general of the UN described the war as an illegal invasion. It's hard, under these circumstances, to see how you could claim that the war was not against the wishes of the UN, or that the plan did not face much opposition at the UN, which was your even odder claim before.

This is old news, about the UN. Typical, they ALWAYS are very whimpy when it comes to backing up their own words.

Whether that's true or not, you can hardly blame the UN for missing the ball on this one. Their inspectors were still in Iraq investigating the WMD claims. Had Bush had the patience to allow them to finish their work before deciding to go to war, he might have had sufficient extra intelligence to make that decision more wisely.

Nobody. Congress did not declare war, hence, we are not at war. Basically everything DaveShack said.

I don't know how effective the weapons inspectors actually were. Iraq isn't huge, but there is still room enough to hide said weapons if they were present.

Oh well, different topic for a different time.

Britain has declared War on a single person before.

During the Napoleonic Wars I'm pretty certain we didn't declare War on France but simply on Napoleon.

It makes winning so much easier if limited to one man :D

Britain has declared War on a single person before.

During the Napoleonic Wars I'm pretty certain we didn't declare War on France but simply on Napoleon.

It makes winning so much easier if limited to one man :D

Exactly, and then if an army gets in your way and refuses to move, they're an enemy by association and must be "removed".

Man the only reason Bush couldnt get the vote on the 2nd resolution in the UN was the refusal of mexico and chile, that ALL bush and blair needed. They had been debating in in the UN ofr a long time, and meanwhile theres all these troops ready to invade right on the border ot Iraq, and its costing a lot to have them just sit there. But mexico and chile wanted to wait and talk longer. Bush got impatient and invaded. Its not at all like he didnt seek a UN endorsement. And its not like the UN was overwhelmingly refusing, it was simply a controversial issue in the UN that wasnt gettign resolved quickly enough. And thats jsut typical UN.

Why are people STILL saying that congress did not declare war? US congress did in fact declare war, check yr facts people!

Bush had decided to go to war without or without the UN, this is true, but he did NOT want to drag Blaire down if there wasnt at least partial approval in the UN. So he very much sought an official UN vote, and he very nearly had it, and might have if he waited longer, but he decided he couldnt afford to wait. All of this, obviously, turned out to be a mistake haha...but see the situation for what it really was.

This is gonna sound terrible, also, but I bet its kinda true. The US realistically doesnt need squat from the UN. But the fact that the US even bothers to play along at all, and try to involve the UN in things as much as it does is actually, in a dog-eat-dog planet, pretty generous. The US could probably easily get away with a lot more than it tries to get away with.

Bush, and Blaire, felt that the governments in Iraq, Iran and N Korea were dangerous and the world would be better off without them. That appears to be their motivation, i do NOT think imperialism. And they could be right, Hussein was not a pleasant guy. What do you think about this, really? forget all this propoganda.

But thats really the joke in fact, because thus far the real winner from all the sacrifices the US has made has been Iran (lol), and since further involvement on Iran is looking more and more diplomatically impossible, I think its safe to say that this Iraq thing has SERIOUSLY backfired.

This is gonna sound terrible, also, but I bet its kinda true. The US realistically doesnt need squat from the UN. But the fact that the US even bothers to play along at all, and try to involve the UN in things as much as it does is actually, in a dog-eat-dog planet, pretty generous. The US could probably easily get away with a lot more than it tries to get away with.
Not without hurting itself. Face it, cooperation is a hell of a lot more efficient than coercion, and it requires the US to play ball on equal terms with everybody else in innumerable little ways.

Man the only reason Bush couldnt get the vote on the 2nd resolution in the UN was the refusal of mexico and chile, that ALL bush and blair needed. They had been debating in in the UN ofr a long time, and meanwhile theres all these troops ready to invade right on the border ot Iraq, and its costing a lot to have them just sit there. But mexico and chile wanted to wait and talk longer. Bush got impatient and invaded. Its not at all like he didnt seek a UN endorsement. And its not like the UN was overwhelmingly refusing, it was simply a controversial issue in the UN that wasnt gettign resolved quickly enough. And thats jsut typical UN.

What about Germany, France, and Russia? It certainly wasn't just Mexico and Chile. Even if it had been, I don't see what difference it makes to the point: the UN did not debate or pass a resolution for war.

This is gonna sound terrible, also, but I bet its kinda true. The US realistically doesnt need squat from the UN. But the fact that the US even bothers to play along at all, and try to involve the UN in things as much as it does is actually, in a dog-eat-dog planet, pretty generous. The US could probably easily get away with a lot more than it tries to get away with.

That does sound rather terrible: basically you're saying that the US is so powerful that other people should be grateful it's only a bit bad, and not worse. However, that is OT, since we're meant to be discussing only what actually happened, not anything else, and not evaluating it morally, either.

Bush, and Blaire, felt that the governments in Iraq, Iran and N Korea were dangerous and the world would be better off without them. That appears to be their motivation, i do NOT think imperialism.

I hope you're not suggesting that Bush and Blair are also planning to invade Iran and North Korea. Bush is the only one who has been rattling his sabre at them (before the current hostage problem with Iran, at least); Blair certainly has not and is too good a politician to try it even if he wanted to. Of course, Blair won't be prime minister by the time Bush launches any such invasion, and I think Brown is sensible enough to know that going to war again would remove any chance of Labour winning another election for at least a decade.

I thought that the US would attack Iran this year. But with the saudi king and most recently the iraqui president calling the presence of US troops in Iraq an “illegal occupation”, I now think the opportunity to do so is slipping away. Perhaps the world will be spared yet another imperialistic war.

Actually, what legitimacy does the current US administration claim to keep Iraq under occupation? Continued occupation only proves that the war was imperialistic.

The reason the US thinks it needs to stay in Iraq is because of the volatile political situation there. If the US leaves, then its pretty likely that Iran will move in, to protect its interests (gosh Iran has ALREADY moved in). This would probably create a chain reaction with S.Arabia moving in to protect THEIR interests, and even perhaps TURKEY. But either way, its a big mess. Compare this situation with the rather recent one with croatia and sebia, under the more competent clinton admin, which managed to be resolved much quicker and easier.
I think technically, the US has NO legitamite authority of bringing more troops to Iraq, they just need to withdraw out of the country in a safe manner. A lot of the US government is in fact saying this. You cannot have a military way to fight against the 'possibility' of a nation becoming a terrorist state. Who do you fight?
But the worry over the future in Iraq is perfectly rational. What the best thing is to do about it is not easy to determine.

Anyway, obviously Bush does not want to end the occupation of Iraq because he knows that when he does, a lot of crap will happen to prove how futile his efforts were, and it will jsut make him look stupid. Thats my theory. I still dont belive this is imperialism. We are not trying to rule Iraq.

Besides Iraq would be a handy place from which to attack Iran, should it become diplomatically feasible

The reason the US thinks it needs to stay in Iraq is because of the volatile political situation there. If the US leaves, then its pretty likely that Iran will move in, to protect its interests (gosh Iran has ALREADY moved in). This would probably create a chain reaction with S.Arabia moving in to protect THEIR interests, and even perhaps TURKEY. But either way, its a big mess. Compare this situation with the rather recent one with croatia and sebia, under the more competent clinton admin, which managed to be resolved much quicker and easier.
I think technically, the US has NO legitamite authority of bringing more troops to Iraq, they just need to withdraw out of the country in a safe manner. A lot of the US government is in fact saying this. You cannot have a military way to fight against the 'possibility' of a nation becoming a terrorist state. Who do you fight?
But the worry over the future in Iraq is perfectly rational. What the best thing is to do about it is not easy to determine.

Anyway, obviously Bush does not want to end the occupation of Iraq because he knows that when he does, a lot of crap will happen to prove how futile his efforts were, and it will jsut make him look stupid. Thats my theory. I still dont belive this is imperialism. We are not trying to rule Iraq.

Besides Iraq would be a handy place from which to attack Iran, should it become diplomatically feasible



Why do you think Us invaded Iraq (Korea ,Afghanispellingstan, etc)?
Answers :
A) to spread Freedom B) Protect it's Interests.

Terrorism even if it may fall into category B it is not the primary concern.


It is an imperialistic act and i don't see why the public must take the Us side just because the other sides are just as likely to act regarding to their interests with no regard to Human cost. This is a mess and it will end a mess and while all sides are to be blamed the most powerful is always the most responsible.

To anyone not be blinded by political lies it must be apparent that the humanitarian side of everything is no concern to anyone and is just a tale to be sold and discussed by the public. However when the time to vote again comes The public is as guilty as it's leaders if it votes them again. Alas the public are sheep.

WWII was the last actual declaration of war by the US.


Wrong.


Japan surprise attacked at Pearl Harbour.

Hitler promptly declared war by ordering his submarines to go to war against the USA and attack US shipping in coastal waters. This was because he hoped this would encourage Japan to go to war against the USSR.

Congress merely met and admitted that there was a war.

US policy was the same as Sweden, reman neutral, but profit by sales.

@ EdwarTKing: Considering the behaval of US ships in the Atlantic the US politics was everything else than neutral.

In Iraq there were no WMD (except some few forgotten shells in an army depot perhaps). Bush wanted this war. There were a number of reasons including oil and revenge. However the war was unjustified. But now we have the mess and indeed it is now dangerous to withdraw the troops. Otherwise Iraq could become a new Afghanistan.
The worst prognoses of this war became true. Now the US have to stay and form a nation. Hopefully they will be able to learn from the errors of the past. But I do not have any hope that will be under GWB. The war was unjustified, but now the US have to finish their task and repair the damages they did. But Bush is here more a problem than a solution.

Adler

@ EdwarTKing: Considering the behaval of US ships in the Atlantic the US politics was everything else than neutral.

Well Winston Churchill put it about that the US would join Britain and
the US did join Britain after Pearl Harbour and Hitler's decision.
The USA retrospectively claimed that it intended to do that all the time
so they could claim motivated by morality and doing Britain a favour.

However the US congress had no intention of going to war,
if that could possibly be awarded. They even passed a law to
prevent US ships sailing to Britain to prevent accidental war.

The Swedes could not sell iron ore to the UK because
Germany had occupied Norway and enjoyed air superiority
and could sink any transports from Sweden to England.

- so they sold to Germany!

The US business could not make money selling to Germany
because the British surface fleet could blockade transports.

- so they sold to Britain

The pro German Swedish and the Pro British neutralities
reflected geography and profit as much as anything else.

As for the US navy chasing off German submarines prior
to Pearl Harbour, the fact is that the German submarines
had resorted to sinking ships without checking cargo,
destination or nationality and well away from either British
or German waters so the US was defending its neutrality.