Lol bout Iraq, what you thought you knew.

[Villalba]

So uhm, i was browsing somehow on the history of the Middle East, and apparently i came unto look at something interesting, a forgotten history on Iraq.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQVyznw2zE&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mpWa7wNr5M&feature=related[/ame]

I don't know, but isn't it unconstitutional to declare war on a nation without a formal declaration of war from that nation. I mean it doesn't seem to hit me, but apparently when i studied US government, every war the US faced in the 1800s and early 1900s was because of a foreign govt attacking the United States. If Bill Clinton was to be impeached, it was not because of the Lewinsky thing, but because of his unconstitutional acts of war, which i fear might have triggered the terrorist attacks.

Read on Operation Dessert Fox.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA[/ame]

Oh and stop blaming Bush, he just continued his father and Clinton's foreign policy.

[Pimptastic]

Certain military operations are called exactly that and not "war" sheerly for scale purposes, the entire region was screwed about by "the west" as untill about 2000 helping friendly minoritys topple or keep power was "cool" if they exported something nice, russia also did this making the airforce of iran I think all MIG fighters, old news tho just people care more now if it goes public.

[Simonian Emperor]

Play them all at once and you will uncover the truth...

[Villalba]

Originally Posted by Pimptastic

Certain military operations are called exactly that and not "war" sheerly for scale purposes, the entire region was screwed about by "the west" as untill about 2000 helping friendly minoritys topple or keep power was "cool" if they exported something nice, russia also did this making the airforce of iran I think all MIG fighters, old news tho just people care more now if it goes public.

Military strikes are acts of war...maybe not for us, or for you. But certainly for them who see their people get killed.

[Pimptastic]

Originally Posted by Villalba

Military strikes are acts of war...maybe not for us, or for you. But certainly for them who see their people get killed.

Providing tanks/planes/guns/funding to people is not "war" tho it will effect the end result, also "war" is defined as attacks against the other countrys leading power and goverment, if a country like the usa decides to help the 2nd group gain the majority after/threw attacks they have then been helping "the goverment" quash protesters or violent rivals. Honestly lrn2politics.

[Woody]

Although I didn't watch the videos, I can already see where this is going...
Firstly, we did declare war on Iraq. Its just called something else now. Google is your friend.
As for supporting other countries/groups, so what? Everyone in the whole world does it. Troops are still in Germany, Korea, Panama, and a shitload of other places and will be there for a long ass time to come.

[Villalba]

Originally Posted by Pimptastic

Providing tanks/planes/guns/funding to people is not "war" tho it will effect the end result, also "war" is defined as attacks against the other countrys leading power and goverment, if a country like the usa decides to help the 2nd group gain the majority after/threw attacks they have then been helping "the goverment" quash protesters or violent rivals. Honestly lrn2politics.

But those were US troops, and US machinery being used, we didn't provide them, we acted on them lol...its a big difference on supporting anti communist rebel groups, or anti communist governments, than actually attacking a communist nation with your own troops, and your own machinery.

And many world governments consider support for their rivals as hostile acts.

[James Davis]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President needs a Congressional Declaration of War to attack someone. What it does say is that the President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. While international law (which doesn't really matter) might disagree, the President can send US forces pretty much anywhere and have it be totally legal in the eyes of American law.

[Villalba]

Originally Posted by James Davis

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President needs a Congressional Declaration of War to attack someone. What it does say is that the President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. While international law (which doesn't really matter) might disagree, the President can send US forces pretty much anywhere and have it be totally legal in the eyes of American law.

Article 1 Section 8.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...randtreaty.htm

To be commander in chief simply means that when war is declare, the president has the authority to decide on the strategy. Mind you the Afghan war and the Iraqi war was constitutional, but i just think Bill Clinton did this in order too turn the public attention away from lying under oath, leading the United States into a false conflict [WMD] and then Bush taking the blame for his mistakes. [mind you Bush was already commander in chief, and he did asked Congress to vote on Operation Iraqi freedom]

[Ronald]

It's in the constitution but it's also in the War Powers Act in which Congress reaffirmed their ability to not fund the military if they don't actually vote to approve the war. I don't remember what year it was in off the top of my head but that is pretty much the entire justification for congress being the only body able to declare war.