Support the troops?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
starting a whole illegal war against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

by whose standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution. Neither Congress nor the President has the power to send troops into a foreign country without a declaration of war, something Congress hasn't done since WWII.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution. Neither Congress nor the President has the power to send troops into a foreign country without a declaration of war, something Congress hasn't done since WWII.

[/ QUOTE ]
You cite the constitution but you demonstrate complete ignorance of the constitution.
The constitution does not dictate the semantics of an authorization of war. Truman sent troops to Korea. LBJ sent troops to Vietnam. Clinton attack Serbia. Bush41 sent troops to Kuwait/Iraq in Gulf War I. So which of these "wars" did congress use the semantics, "We declare war on _____". If you were to be consistent, you should also declare Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and Gulf War I as illegal wars as well..... But then that would defeat the purpose of singling out Bush43 as conducting an illegal war....right?

And one of our greatest presidents, Thomas Jefferson, sent a fleet to attack the Barbary States......without any formal declaration of war. Being the Commander-in-Chief gives the president a lot of leeway to use military force.... Good thing Thomas Jefferson did not have nitwits like Nancy Pelosi harping on him when hewas putting the hurt on the Barbary States....

[Dan.]

PSA: The Korean war was a UN effort, not a unilateral US effort.

Also, a lot of people don't single out Bush II as conducing illegal war and often list the "wars" you stated. People are more concerned with Iraq, however, since it is presently occurring, and people may be able to affect policy.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
PSA: The Korean war was a UN effort, not a unilateral US effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, the subject is the US Constitution and the powers of the Commander-In-Chief to authorize military force. The previous poster claimed that the 2nd iraq war is illegal because Congress did not authorize an invasion of Iraw using the words 'we declare war on iraq'.
So where are you going with this red herring?

Second, do you know what the word "unilateral" means? I wonder if you do.....
There are many nations helping us in Iraq including Poland, Denmark, UK, Japan, etc... If you said 'bilateral' then I could understand your point that the US/UK make up the bulk of the coalition forces. The fact that other smaller countries have contributed forces demonstrates more larger base of support than you try to falsely ignore....

[Dan.]

When I said "unilateral," I was referring to the Korean War which you were suggesting was simply the US with your statement regarding Truman.

And my red herring is going in the direction of "a war with UN approval is different than one without it." Do you see why?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't hold the value of a US soldiers life any higher than that of an Iraqi insurgent's life, therefore what I support is not having a State and having non-military ways to resolve conflicts.

[/ QUOTE ]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Pillow fights FTW!

[/ QUOTE ]
You will never get it.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution. Neither Congress nor the President has the power to send troops into a foreign country without a declaration of war, something Congress hasn't done since WWII.

[/ QUOTE ]
You cite the constitution but you demonstrate complete ignorance of the constitution.
The constitution does not dictate the semantics of an authorization of war. Truman sent troops to Korea. LBJ sent troops to Vietnam. Clinton attack Serbia. Bush41 sent troops to Kuwait/Iraq in Gulf War I. So which of these "wars" did congress use the semantics, "We declare war on _____". If you were to be consistent, you should also declare Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and Gulf War I as illegal wars as well..... But then that would defeat the purpose of singling out Bush43 as conducting an illegal war....right?


[/ QUOTE ]
Reading comprehension FTW!! Something tells me (certainly not AlexM's post) that he does think all your examples were illegal acts of war.

[Iq75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
starting a whole illegal war against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

by whose standards? Yours? Come back to reality and review what has happened the last 5 years. The Iraqi's violated UN regulations and the US congress, with the exception of a small minority voted for the war. What makes it illegal again? Your imagination?

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember international law? This is what our president (the one that looks just like Conan o'Brien) said about the subject:
-------
President Halonen at United Nations: Iraq War was illegal
In her address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Finnish President Tarja Halonen expressed the view that the War in Iraq was illegal.
Speaking on the opening day of the General Assembly, President Halonen said that the international community had failed before the war in Iraq began. "Conflicting national interests prevailed over common will", she said.
"There was not enough commitment to act within the boundaries of Security Council resolutions. Some countries resorted to use of force which was not compatible with international law."
At a press conference held before her speech, Halonen said that some kind of an international court would be needed to give a formal decision on the legality of the war.
"However, it is my own impression that the requirements of international law were not met", the President said.

Helsingin sanomat

[ QUOTE ]

You never watched any video of captured Iraqi prisoners released by the US government let alone answering questions posed my the government, and you certainly haven't seen any of any at GITMO with a face included in the picture.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am too lazy to do a proper research about this subject now. But i do remember seeing captured iraqie soldiers after the war started on tv broadcasts with their faces. Those videos might have not been "released" direcktly by US government, but they did invite the reporters to come along to make videos of surrendering troops.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the Korean War which you were suggesting was simply the US with your statement regarding Truman.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suggested no such thing.
I suggested Truman chose to use his executive branch powers as CINC to send troops to Korea with the legislative branch's approval and the words 'we declare war' were never uttered.....yet we were in a legal war per the US Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
And my red herring is going in the direction of "a war with UN approval is different than one without it." Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]
No...the subject at hand has nothing to do whether UN approves of the deployment of US troops or not approving the deployment of US troops. The powers of the UN are NOT recognize in the US constitution and whether US troops get used in a military action are determined by the executive and legislative branches only..... The UN has ZERO authority to deny the deployment of US troops should the president and congress make a decision to do so. We are a sovereign country.... If the UN 'approves' of a US military action...then it is just meaningless icing on the cake.

Please no more red herrings.... If you want to make a post on the differences between a UN 'approved war' and a UN 'non-spproved' war then feel free to do so. If I find the post interesting then I might choose to participate...or not.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
If I find the post interesting then I might choose to participate...or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Golly, would you grace me with your presence? Please, oh, please.