To american users
- Thread starter ellie
- Start date
Switch625
I don't care.
WWII was the last major declared war that I'm aware of. A "declaration of war" is a formality that no one seems to bother with anymore.
meldor
Deity
First, as stated the congress is constitutionally the only body of the US government that can declare war. However, do to circumstances it has abdicated some of that power to the executive branch. The war powers act allows the president to use US forces anywhere in the world for up to 90 days without a formal declaration of war by congress. If congress doesn't approve of the action, technically the president would have to withdraw the forces. This ahs never happened, so it would be interesting as to how it would play out.
The congress has last year authorized the president to puruse a war with Iraq even without UN approval. If you do a little searching you will find this. It granted the president to use any and all means to remove Saddam and his WMD. There is no need for another vote and they placed no time limit on it. At the time of the vote it was assumed that we would be attacking them late last year. One would assume by the noise that some of them are making that htey might change their vote if it was done today, but I don't see anyone introducing a bill to recend that authorization. If they did the president could still veto it and it would then take a 2/3's majority of both houses of congress to override it. The validity of this authorization has already been challenged in the court and has been upheld. There is another lawsuit pending but it is unlikely to go very far.
The more interesting question is who has the power to stop a war? The constitution leaves this one blank. Foreign policy is actually supposed to be handled by the Senate (they are the only ones who can approve a treaty, it was they who rejected Kyoto when it was voted on the first time 98-0, Bush just took Clintons signature off of it and didn't go after a second vote). The senate could accept any treaty they want, even without the presidents signature. However, in reality it would be impossible to have a body of 100 people try and direct the foreign policy of the country. This pwer has been for the most part ceded to the executive branch and the Senate only retains the power to ratify treaties.
What would happen if the Senate ratified a peace treaty with Iraq before or after the war started. Constitutionally the executive branch would be bound to enforce that treaty. That would probably be the only way you could force the president to go back to congress to get farther approval.
Hasn't ever happened before so it would be interesting to see which way the constitutional scholars jumped on this one.
The congress has last year authorized the president to puruse a war with Iraq even without UN approval. If you do a little searching you will find this. It granted the president to use any and all means to remove Saddam and his WMD. There is no need for another vote and they placed no time limit on it. At the time of the vote it was assumed that we would be attacking them late last year. One would assume by the noise that some of them are making that htey might change their vote if it was done today, but I don't see anyone introducing a bill to recend that authorization. If they did the president could still veto it and it would then take a 2/3's majority of both houses of congress to override it. The validity of this authorization has already been challenged in the court and has been upheld. There is another lawsuit pending but it is unlikely to go very far.
The more interesting question is who has the power to stop a war? The constitution leaves this one blank. Foreign policy is actually supposed to be handled by the Senate (they are the only ones who can approve a treaty, it was they who rejected Kyoto when it was voted on the first time 98-0, Bush just took Clintons signature off of it and didn't go after a second vote). The senate could accept any treaty they want, even without the presidents signature. However, in reality it would be impossible to have a body of 100 people try and direct the foreign policy of the country. This pwer has been for the most part ceded to the executive branch and the Senate only retains the power to ratify treaties.
What would happen if the Senate ratified a peace treaty with Iraq before or after the war started. Constitutionally the executive branch would be bound to enforce that treaty. That would probably be the only way you could force the president to go back to congress to get farther approval.
Hasn't ever happened before so it would be interesting to see which way the constitutional scholars jumped on this one.
Congress authorized warfare on Iraq and enabled war powers to the president use last october. How, when, and where ro prosecute the warfare is up to the commander in chief.
EdwardTking
Deity
I regard myself as sort of civilised.
By persisting in his aggressive wars, torture and murder,
Saddam Hussein has declared war against civilisation.
Therefore Saddam is implicitly at war with me.
The question of declaring war on Saddam
is therefore quite irrelevant. It is not even
a decision that we can decide to make.
The question is what to do about this war?
(a) Surrender.
[French approach]
(b) Defeat him.
[George Bush and Colin Powell approach]
(c) Nothing - and hope he dies before he masters
genetic engineering and bio-wipes us all out.
[nearly Everyone else]
I find it very strange this discussion of a question (US or UK declaring war) that has no objective meaning.
By persisting in his aggressive wars, torture and murder,
Saddam Hussein has declared war against civilisation.
Therefore Saddam is implicitly at war with me.
The question of declaring war on Saddam
is therefore quite irrelevant. It is not even
a decision that we can decide to make.
The question is what to do about this war?
(a) Surrender.
[French approach]
(b) Defeat him.
[George Bush and Colin Powell approach]
(c) Nothing - and hope he dies before he masters
genetic engineering and bio-wipes us all out.
[nearly Everyone else]
I find it very strange this discussion of a question (US or UK declaring war) that has no objective meaning.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I shudder when people start using the word civilisation (except in a gaming capacity obviously).
quote
______
(a) Surrender.
[French approach]
(b) Defeat him.
[George Bush and Colin Powell approach]
(c) Nothing - and hope he dies before he masters
genetic engineering and bio-wipes us all out.
[nearly Everyone else]
________
Its more a question of
a) Go to war outside of a mandate from the UN, ignoring the UN (ironic considering iraq is to be invaded for defying the UN)
b) Disarm him from within the UN,
I dont see why inspectors coldnt work as long as we
a) Commit a sensible number of inspectors instead of the paltry numbers there
b) Back up inspections with credible threat of force (the reason cooperation is suddenly increasing). We have been bombing his military for years now so air power can clearly be kept in the region for a sustained period.
c) Get signatures to a new resolution, similar to the one proposed, authorising action if he doesnt take his final chance.
He never would have been a threat to his neighbours if the west hadnt been so keen to arm him and give him cash. Its rather strange as well, how we didnt seem to care when he was gassing thousands of kurds. Not one of the NATO countries condemned him. France actually spoke of him as a friend. Does noone else see how hypocrytical it is of us to bemoan the humanitarian atrocities when we ignored them when we viewed him as useful (iran was considered the great enemy).
If there is a way to achieve our objectives without war, why are people so keen to see our young servicemen risk their lives? and so dismissive of the thousands of iraqis, most of whom want no part of hussein who will die?.
Ellie
______
(a) Surrender.
[French approach]
(b) Defeat him.
[George Bush and Colin Powell approach]
(c) Nothing - and hope he dies before he masters
genetic engineering and bio-wipes us all out.
[nearly Everyone else]
________
Its more a question of
a) Go to war outside of a mandate from the UN, ignoring the UN (ironic considering iraq is to be invaded for defying the UN)
b) Disarm him from within the UN,
I dont see why inspectors coldnt work as long as we
a) Commit a sensible number of inspectors instead of the paltry numbers there
b) Back up inspections with credible threat of force (the reason cooperation is suddenly increasing). We have been bombing his military for years now so air power can clearly be kept in the region for a sustained period.
c) Get signatures to a new resolution, similar to the one proposed, authorising action if he doesnt take his final chance.
He never would have been a threat to his neighbours if the west hadnt been so keen to arm him and give him cash. Its rather strange as well, how we didnt seem to care when he was gassing thousands of kurds. Not one of the NATO countries condemned him. France actually spoke of him as a friend. Does noone else see how hypocrytical it is of us to bemoan the humanitarian atrocities when we ignored them when we viewed him as useful (iran was considered the great enemy).
If there is a way to achieve our objectives without war, why are people so keen to see our young servicemen risk their lives? and so dismissive of the thousands of iraqis, most of whom want no part of hussein who will die?.
Ellie
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I took half-dozen inspectors three years to disarm South Africa. It has taken 12 years and countless inspectors and we still haven't disarmed Iraq. The number of inspectors doesn't matter. They are not there to find anything they are there to verify the destruction of weapons that Iraq is mandated to do by the UN. The process with only work will full, complete, 100%, no-holds-barred (and so on) cooperation from Iraq. If there is not 100% cooperation then the inspection system will not work. Time is not a issue, compliance is the only issue. And resolution 1441 was the final opportunity for Saddam to comply, he didn't take it. So it must be war.
quote
____
And resolution 1441 was the final opportunity for Saddam to comply, he didn't take it. So it must be war.
____
This has alrady been covered, 1441 definetely does not authorise war.
Which is why a new resolution authorising it is needed.
Going to war based on 1441 means going against the UN
Sometimes i wonder if people commenting on that resolution have even read it.
Ellie
____
And resolution 1441 was the final opportunity for Saddam to comply, he didn't take it. So it must be war.
____
This has alrady been covered, 1441 definetely does not authorise war.
Which is why a new resolution authorising it is needed.
Going to war based on 1441 means going against the UN
Sometimes i wonder if people commenting on that resolution have even read it.
Ellie
Switch625
I don't care.
It warns of "harsh consequences" should Iraq fail to comply. That language is a bit vague, but war is undeniably a "harsh consequence."
That language was undoubtedly used so anyone could interpret in any way they wanted to.
But I ask you, what other "harsh consequences" could there be that would be of any consequence?
Sanctions? They don't work. All you would do is put more pressure on the already suffering citizens of Iraq. Saddam won't suffer for it, and if it doesn't affect Saddam, he doesn't care about it.
Harsh language?
More inspections?
Tell me what you could do that would bother Saddam, other than kicking his *** out?
That language was undoubtedly used so anyone could interpret in any way they wanted to.
But I ask you, what other "harsh consequences" could there be that would be of any consequence?
Sanctions? They don't work. All you would do is put more pressure on the already suffering citizens of Iraq. Saddam won't suffer for it, and if it doesn't affect Saddam, he doesn't care about it.
Harsh language?
More inspections?
Tell me what you could do that would bother Saddam, other than kicking his *** out?
Sorry but that doesnt wash, when the UN authorise force they do it in a formal way, have a look at all previous UN resolutions authorising force.
For example
1441
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
12) Basically states that the COUNCIL decide what to do if he doesnt comply.
13) is vague but doesnt authorise force.
Now compare this to resolution 678, liberating kuwait.
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
It cleary states "all necessary means".
3) Is a std inclusion when force is authorised.
So basically using 1441 as authorisation for war has no "legal" grounds at all. That wont change whatever blair tries to tell us, its funny his own wifes law firm is launching a legal challenge ;p
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
gives an indepth analysis of the legality of usinf force viaresolution 1441
Ellie
For example
1441
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
12) Basically states that the COUNCIL decide what to do if he doesnt comply.
13) is vague but doesnt authorise force.
Now compare this to resolution 678, liberating kuwait.
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
It cleary states "all necessary means".
3) Is a std inclusion when force is authorised.
So basically using 1441 as authorisation for war has no "legal" grounds at all. That wont change whatever blair tries to tell us, its funny his own wifes law firm is launching a legal challenge ;p
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
gives an indepth analysis of the legality of usinf force viaresolution 1441
Ellie
You're 100% right, ellie. Most of those who voted for resolution 1441 would agree with you - it doesn't authorize war.
The claim that it does is angering a lot of people because (...well, besides being a bald-faced lie) to accept the statement that such resolutions authorize force by those who have the means would be a crippling precedent to UN process, and would put much of the world under the gun of "serious consequences" = invasion.
This new US/UK resolution states that Iraq failed to comply with resolution 1441 (among others). Again, it makes no legal provision for war. Taken alone, it's a meaningless resolution, and adds nothing. Yet we are told that it authorizes a massive invasion with possible use of nuclear weapons, occupation and forced change of government.
What a joke! If we sign something, we get offended when later told this bound us to something not written on the paper. If you want people to consider a war resolution, you write one as such. Now this new resolution doesn't authorize war, but we're become so cynical of American "interpretation" that I think no one wants to touch it.
The claim that it does is angering a lot of people because (...well, besides being a bald-faced lie) to accept the statement that such resolutions authorize force by those who have the means would be a crippling precedent to UN process, and would put much of the world under the gun of "serious consequences" = invasion.
This new US/UK resolution states that Iraq failed to comply with resolution 1441 (among others). Again, it makes no legal provision for war. Taken alone, it's a meaningless resolution, and adds nothing. Yet we are told that it authorizes a massive invasion with possible use of nuclear weapons, occupation and forced change of government.
What a joke! If we sign something, we get offended when later told this bound us to something not written on the paper. If you want people to consider a war resolution, you write one as such. Now this new resolution doesn't authorize war, but we're become so cynical of American "interpretation" that I think no one wants to touch it.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
We have to act to show that we are serious.
Another "last chance" for token disarmament is a lost chance for real disarmament.
Another "last chance" for token disarmament is a lost chance for real disarmament.
_____
Another "last chance" for token disarmament is a lost chance for real disarmament.
_____
the new deadline would be in a couple of weeks, its not worth a wait of 2 weeks for the chance to avoid a horrific war?? (all wars are horrific). Why the hurry to go to war all of a sudden? . his conventional missiles can barely get out his borders, and he has less ties to terrorism (non to anti us groups) than a number of countries possessing wmd. So "imminent threat" isnt appropiate at all.
The rhetoric and clever use of associative language is sickening
Bush, by saying "we gotta smoke these al-quieda types out one by one" in a not so subtle way linked iraq to al-quida despite the fact theres no link whatsoever between the two. And it worked, ive read americans worrying about iraq because "hes in with those al-quieda and a threat to my family". A good example of brainwashing blatant lies into people.
If blair and bush prosecute a war, breaking a resolution they signed. It will effectively be the end of the UN as a meaningfull body. That would be a tragedy in its own right imho.
Ellie
Another "last chance" for token disarmament is a lost chance for real disarmament.
_____
the new deadline would be in a couple of weeks, its not worth a wait of 2 weeks for the chance to avoid a horrific war?? (all wars are horrific). Why the hurry to go to war all of a sudden? . his conventional missiles can barely get out his borders, and he has less ties to terrorism (non to anti us groups) than a number of countries possessing wmd. So "imminent threat" isnt appropiate at all.
The rhetoric and clever use of associative language is sickening
Bush, by saying "we gotta smoke these al-quieda types out one by one" in a not so subtle way linked iraq to al-quida despite the fact theres no link whatsoever between the two. And it worked, ive read americans worrying about iraq because "hes in with those al-quieda and a threat to my family". A good example of brainwashing blatant lies into people.
If blair and bush prosecute a war, breaking a resolution they signed. It will effectively be the end of the UN as a meaningfull body. That would be a tragedy in its own right imho.
Ellie
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
First, the hurry to go to war? 12 years of resolutions, deceptions and dirty tricks is a hurry?
Secondly, it's the fault of the UN for having the backbone of a jellyfish and refusing to uphold it's own declarations. The UN can bark, but can they bite, too? Apparently not.
Secondly, it's the fault of the UN for having the backbone of a jellyfish and refusing to uphold it's own declarations. The UN can bark, but can they bite, too? Apparently not.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
What is that shot of, Sean Lindstrom? It looks like some kind of fight in a supermarket...
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Its either that or they know and don't care. I've always wondered this, about the psyche of a criminal - I mean, for example, doesn't a drug dealer what he's doing is immoral, that he could be potentially killing people? Does he just not care, or is he so hardened and cynical that it doesn't matter to him anymore?
