Who did the U.S declare war on?

[warpus]

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

Duuuh

 

[Idlenessss]

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?

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

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.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

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

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

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

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

 

[Idlenessss]

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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Idlenessss]

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

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[EdwardTking]

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.

 

[Adler17]

@ 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

 

[EdwardTking]

@ 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.