Believers against the War

[KenH]

This statement is based on a fallacy that we were unprovoked. Therefore the site has no credibility.

Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001, nor was their any threat to the United States from Iraq.

 

[KenH]

But the problem with that argument is that it isn't our job to topple corrupt mini-Hitlers.

Regime change isn't our responsibility, nor is it Constitutional.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[KenH]

Keep in mind that Germany never invaded the USA.

Germany declared war on the United States after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Then we declared war back.

 

[KenH]

It's over and the troops will be coming home on schedule

I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[KenH]

I think there are some situations when military force can be justified.

I agree; however, invading Iraq was not one of those and the war in Afghanistan started off that way but no longer is.

 

[Johnv]

German declared war on the United States after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Then we declared war back.

Not exactly. They didn't delare war on us until Dec 11th 1941. We were supplying troops to fight alongside the Brits long before that.

In the very least, if a simple declaration of war against the US warrants us being involved, then no one should have any problem with our current involvement in Afghanistan.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001, nor was their any threat to the United States from Iraq.

But Saddam insulted and threatened George's daddy. Couldn't sit by and let that happen. Imagine if Saddam said something agianst George's mother!!!! We'd be looking at a vast desert of green glass rather than a country.

 

[KenH]

1) Not exactly.

2) In the very least, if a simple declaration of war against the US warrants us being involved, then no one should have any problem with our current involvement in Afghanistan.

1) Any minimal amount of troops to Great Britain did not justify Germany declaring war on the United States.

2) When did the government of Afghanistan declare war on the United States? And regardless of why we went into Afghanistan any such justification has been used up.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

But Saddam insulted and threatened George's daddy. Couldn't sit by and let that happen. Imagine if Saddam said something agianst George's mother!!!! We'd be looking at a vast desert of green glass rather than a country.

Actually, it isn't that Saddam insulted George Bush, it's that an assasination plot against Bush was traced back to Saddam.

Assasinating a head of state or plotting to assasinate a head of state, under international law, is considered to be an act of war.

 

[Revmitchell]

Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001, nor was their any threat to the United States from Iraq.

Saddam broke the cease fire. We were still at war with Iraq since 1991. But then you already knew that.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Saddam broke the cease fire. We were still at war with Iraq since 1991. But then you already knew that.

Correct. Saddam broke the cease-fire as defined in UN Resolution 1441 (and he didn't just break it, he went out of his way to thumb his nose at every stipulation in the cease fire).

The problem is that the cease fire was between Saddam and coalition forces under the UN, not with the US, so I don't believe that Saddam's actions were a good reason for the US to go. I don't buy any of the "cowboy", "unilateral" nonsense. The truth is that we went into Iraq either with or with support from more than 40 other countries. But be that as it were, it just wasn't our responsibility, nor did we have Constitutional authority to do it.

It was a colossal mistake and I truly regret having supported it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Correct. Saddam broke the cease-fire as defined in UN Resolution 1441 (and he didn't just break it, he went out of his way to thumb his nose at every stipulation in the cease fire).

The problem is that the cease fire was between Saddam and coalition forces under the UN, not with the US, so I don't believe that Saddam's actions were a good reason for the US to go. I don't buy any of the "cowboy", "unilateral" nonsense. The truth is that we went into Iraq either with or with support from more than 40 other countries. But be that as it were, it just wasn't our responsibility, nor did we have Constitutional authority to do it.

It was a colossal mistake and I truly regret having supported it.

I am sorry for your misinformation. There was no unilateral action taken with regard to Iraq. There was no real need to even go back to the UN on the matter. And the only reason the UN had such problems with it was because many were getting rich on the oil for food program. The whole thing has become corrupt.

 

[Johnv]

1) Any minimal amount of troops to Great Britain did not justify Germany declaring war on the United States.

I believe the troop support we gave to Europe was several thousand, but that's a side issue. We've already established that if someone declared war on us, then waging war on them is permissible.

When did the government of Afghanistan declare war on the United States?

They did so defacto via Al Queda's attack on 9-11. Congress authorized the Afghanistan war just days after 9-11.

And regardless of why we went into Afghanistan any such justification has been used up.

Not so. It took 4 years to topple Germany's government, and we remained in Germany an additional decade or so after that. Our time in Afghanistan has been relatively short compared to that.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I am sorry for your misinformation. There was no unilateral action taken with regard to Iraq.

Um...which part of "I don't buy any of the 'cowboy', 'unilateral' nonsense. The truth is that we went into Iraq either with or with support from more than 40 other countries" did you not get?

There was no real need to even go back to the UN on the matter. And the only reason the UN had such problems with it was because many were getting rich on the oil for food program. The whole thing has become corrupt.

I agree completely. The fact remains, though, that we didn't have the Constitutional authority to invade Iraq, nor was it our responsibility to do it.

 

[Johnv]

we didn't have the Constitutional authority to invade Iraq, nor was it our responsibility to do it.

Yes, we did. The POTUS is constitutionally granted the right of being commander in chief of the armed forces. Additionally, Congress authorized the Persian Gulf War on September 14, 2001, and the Iraq War on October 16, 2002, in accordance with the Constitution granting Congress the power to declare war.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Yes, we did. The POTUS is constitutionally granted the right of being commander in chief of the armed forces. Additionally, Congress authorized the Persian Gulf War on September 14, 2001, and the Iraq War on October 16, 2002, in accordance with the Constitution granting Congress the power to declare war.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war and to authorize the president to execute a war.

However, nothing in the Constitution justified Congress' decision to do that.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war and to authorize the president to execute a war.

However, nothing in the Constitution justified Congress' decision to do that.

It is the age of "nothing is what it seems to be", jdf.

 

[Johnv]

However, nothing in the Constitution justified Congress' decision to do that.

That's what we call a:

 

[billwald]

Germany declared war on the US because of their mutual defense treaty with Japan.

 

[Revmitchell]

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war and to authorize the president to execute a war.

However, nothing in the Constitution justified Congress' decision to do that.

The words "Declare War" do not have to be used. Authorizing the use of force is the same thing.