we are NOT at war.

[mopaul]

not yet.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

3. when was war declared?... i missed it.

like vietnam, it isn't an actual, officially declared war. not legally, not ethically, not spiritually, but oh so american.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

5. rent the movie 'braveheart', that's war, you are attacked, you fight

so why are we slaughtering thousands of iraqis? did they attack us?

that's not war, that' going down the street and invading your neighbor's house and taking his stuff and killing his family after a bit of torture, but it's not war.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maestro]

2. With the DLC?

:shrug:

[PROMETHEUS UNBOUND]

6. are you sure

or is it another undeclared one that the government forgot to tell us about

>>> war hurts everyone <<<

[mopaul]

7. sounds like a mary shelly novel

it looks like a war, but it's really a nazi slaughter. bush can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

one needs only look around to see that we are not at war, but in iraq, the visual evidence is staggering, someone is sure the hell at war with them.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi PROMETHEUS UNBOUND!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. Welcome to DU!

Welcome, PROMETHEUS UNBOUND. Glad to have you. :hi:

[KlatooBNikto]

9. We are at war.Our domestic thugs have declared war on us, the people.

Staring with 9/11,of course. and perhaps even before that day.

[lonestarnot]

11. You make a very good point...and day before that day, before that day,

before that day...

[FreedomAngel82]

19. Exactly

That's the war. Iraq is just a picture show on innocent people so Bush can play toy soliders.

[Walt Starr]

12. The last war we were in ended on August 14, 1945

The United States has not been in a war since, only in police actions.

[movie_girl99]

16. BTW i like the tributes

to two great DU'ers in your signature.

[adwon]

14. ?

I don't get it.

[movie_girl99]

15. i think what mopaul means is

people refer to this debacle in Iraq a war. We were never attacked nor was war officially declared. IMO that's what hes asking???

[adwon]

18. Hmm

It's an open question. Some view only a general declaration of war, such as WW2, as legitimate. Others, myself included, view a resolution, such as the current Iraq War Resolution, to pass constitutional muster because Congress explicitly authorized the use of force if diplomatic efforts failed.

The question of sufficiency in terms of diplomatic arguments can be made, and were made quite well in the 1960s by Senator Fulbright. Fulbright argued that the deception underlying the Tonkin Gulf Resolution voided the conditional declaration of war. His argument was severely undercut by his own statements made during the hearings in 1964, but even without such undercutting, I don't think such an argument would be valid in terms of rescinding the resolution anyway. Members of Congress have an obligation to judge, both on the merits and their own view of an administration's veracity, the truth of arguments for the use of force. If they fail to conduct a proper exercise before the fact, the only means of rescission is repealing the resolution.

In the end, I think the conditional resolutions are a valid means of declaring war because they offer a necessary flexibility that is an inherent part of the Constitution. There are times where a general declaration is not necessary, such as Haiti in 1994, and would actually prove to be counterproductive (is it really necessary to use a general declaration for the use of force?). Provided it's not abused, which is a matter for Congress to decide, the conditional declaration offers a president necessary flexibility to conduct diplomacy in certain situations.

Don't read this as an endorsement of W. Just because he's a twit doesn't mean I think we should throw out legitimate tools.

[ginnyinWI]

20. right you are

We should be calling it "Bush's Invasion", not the War in Iraq. That is the right-wing term for it, and we shouldn't accept it.

[bloom]

17. I expect it seems like war to the Iraqis...

even if most of them are not fighting back.


Are we at "genocide"? Re: Fallujah, etc.

What do you like to call it?

[bear425]

21. I always refer to it as invasion and occupation of Iraq. n/t

[tnlefty]

22. Correct, Dimson** made it clear with his "Mission Accomplished"

banner remember? War over and according to gotohellZell Miller this is the liberation phase. Folks with normal brain function would at least call it an occupation with very war-like overtones.

edited to add - sarcasm

[ImpeachTheChimp]

23. Yes we are...

You just don't know it yet.

[tinonedown]

24. Somebody better tell the Islamic jihadists

They didn't get the 'not at war' memo. *bUSH wouldn't be able to read it anyway, so don't bother sending it to him.