News Flash - The Iraq War ended a long time ago

[Chips_]

Its surrealistic how everyone keeps talking about an ongoing Iraq War. What we have now is a military occupation. The War happened and the US won. Here's the definition of war from Wikipedia, the forum's favorite source of definitive fact:

"War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war."

We invaded Iraq, fought the opposing army, conquered the Capital, toppled the dictator and replaced him with a new government. That was the end of the War guys. We won.

It seems to me there are two camps contributing to calling whats happening now a war. One camp wants to say we are loosing a war - which is absurd. We already won the war. If this camp wants us to end the military occupation of another country along with the associated casualties, then that is an understandable position. There have been plenty of wars in history where one side counquers the capital, takes out the government, occupies the country for a while and then leaves. Ending the occupation is not loosing the war.

There seems to be another camp that wants to say we are at war so that we can do certain things that are allowed during wartime. Its easier to rally support during a war vs an occupation.....Soldiers captured on the battlefield during wartime can be detained......during a time of war the government has certain authority etc...But the term "War on terror" is really only true in a broad sense. Even when we leave Iraq we can still say we are in a "war on terror", but we shouldn't be saying that the country is in a constant state of war.

And one final point about war - the US Constitution says that the Congress shall declare War. The congress should not have authorized the President to use force ie transferring the power of the decision to go to war to the executive. If we stuck to the Constitutional declaration of war it would be harder to start them because you would need the whole Congress to declare war and you also would not have frigging weasels in the Congress voting in favor of the authorization and then later on choosing whether to support it or criticize it depending on the polls in their districts or states.

If we all stuck to the Constuitution and the Dictionary we would be better off.

[adios]

A post making reasonable points, very good post btw. You bring up a good points for discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be another camp that wants to say we are at war so that we can do certain things that are allowed during wartime. Its easier to rally support during a war vs an occupation.....Soldiers captured on the battlefield during wartime can be detained......during a time of war the government has certain authority etc...But the term "War on terror" is really only true in a broad sense. Even when we leave Iraq we can still say we are in a "war on terror", but we shouldn't be saying that the country is in a constant state of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

A caveat, this is about the Democratic party and their leadership and not about their supporters necessarily. The Democrats don't seem to have a credible policy regarding the "War on Terror." I would think that this is fertile ground for the Democrats, definining their vision on what U.S. policy should be regarding groups that the U.S. is waging the "War on Terror" against. Probably making the points you make here as part of their policy.

[ QUOTE ]
And one final point about war - the US Constitution says that the Congress shall declare War. The congress should not have authorized the President to use force ie transferring the power of the decision to go to war to the executive. If we stuck to the Constitutional declaration of war it would be harder to start them because you would need the whole Congress to declare war and you also would not have frigging weasels in the Congress voting in favor of the authorization and then later on choosing whether to support it or criticize it depending on the polls in their districts or states.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the resolution authorizing the military action in Iraq has it's roots in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing a build up and deployment of military forces in Vietnam. I'm not sure if the constitutionality of these resolutions has been tested in the courts.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
A post making reasonable points, very good post btw. You bring up a good points for discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be another camp that wants to say we are at war so that we can do certain things that are allowed during wartime. Its easier to rally support during a war vs an occupation.....Soldiers captured on the battlefield during wartime can be detained......during a time of war the government has certain authority etc...But the term "War on terror" is really only true in a broad sense. Even when we leave Iraq we can still say we are in a "war on terror", but we shouldn't be saying that the country is in a constant state of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

A caveat, this is about the Democratic party and their leadership and not about their supporters necessarily. The Democrats don't seem to have a credible policy regarding the "War on Terror." I would think that this is fertile ground for the Democrats, definining their vision on what U.S. policy should be regarding groups that the U.S. is waging the "War on Terror" against. Probably making the points you make here as part of their policy.

[ QUOTE ]
And one final point about war - the US Constitution says that the Congress shall declare War. The congress should not have authorized the President to use force ie transferring the power of the decision to go to war to the executive. If we stuck to the Constitutional declaration of war it would be harder to start them because you would need the whole Congress to declare war and you also would not have frigging weasels in the Congress voting in favor of the authorization and then later on choosing whether to support it or criticize it depending on the polls in their districts or states.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the resolution authorizing the military action in Iraq has it's roots in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing a build up and deployment of military forces in Vietnam. I'm not sure if the constitutionality of these resolutions has been tested in the courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The constitutional issue is whether or not Presidential authority to wage war as Commander in Chief is compromised by the War Powers Resolution, which is more of a precedent for actions taken since 1973 than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.