• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea conducts nuclear test

So we are at war with Iran, Russia, Israel, China, Mexico, and pretty much any other country we are experience a "struggle" or have a "conflict" with?

I see you also have little comprehension of what is meant by a "state of hostility" or "conflict".

Your weak efforts to be purposefully obtuse to avoid the farcical arguments presented do not make your efforts any more credible. The historic record is LONG on the fact that a state of war can indeed exist WITHOUT a formal declaration of war and this is hardly a "partisan" argument.
 
Those people are using 'war' as defined in US law, not the dictionary definition. According to US a law, they are correct, and there is no war without Congressional action

Please show us where it is stated in the Constitution that a state of war cannot exist between our nation and another unless the Congress formally declares war.

I would like to see this Constitutional law.
 
I didnt say it wasnt OK to invade NK.

I --did-- say that it does not ligically follow that because we invaded Iraq because of tha imminent threat that we MUST also invade NKorea because of its imminent threat.

Understand?

Yes it does logically follow. If country performs action A and we invade because of action A and another like country performs action A should they not receive the same response as the previous country?

To not adhere to this logic there must be something different between Iraq and North Korea that made Iraq MORE of a threat to us then North Korea currently is. What is that threat?
 
Seeing as the excuse to invade Iraq is that they were an "imminent threat", why couldn't that same excuse be used for other countries that are "imminent threats"?

What made Iraq more of a threat then Iran or North Korea?

Can you show me where in the Joint Resolution it argued that Iraq was an "imminent" threat?

Obviously you haven't read this "formal" declaration authorizing Bush to use force:

S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq
 
Yes it does logically follow.
No, it does not -- in fact, its not even close.

Invasion was one option in Iraq. Invasion is one option in NK.
That Invasion was chosen as the option for Iraq in no way necessitates that invasion must also be chosen in NK.
 
What was Iraq that North Korea is not that made it OK to invade Iraq but not North Korea?

Perhaps it was the FACT that Iraq had invaded a neighboring nation and as a result ejected from Iraq by a vast UN Coalition led by the US and that Iraq signed AGREEMENTS with the United Nations to comply with their resolutions and disarm and disband ALL his WMD and missile programs and that for the next ten years defied the UN and kicked out the inspectors?

But again, how would you know when you obviously never took the time to read the Joint Resolution which would require a modicum of effort on your part as it is a mere 1,857 words, give or take a few.
 
Yes it does logically follow. If country performs action A and we invade because of action A and another like country performs action A should they not receive the same response as the previous country?

To not adhere to this logic there must be something different between Iraq and North Korea that made Iraq MORE of a threat to us then North Korea currently is. What is that threat?

There is profound irony in claiming that your argument contains logic; you believe that if we invade Iraq for a set of reasons this naturally suggests that we should invade another nation due to its similarities? Are you REALLY claiming this is "logical?"
 
I see you also have little comprehension of what is meant by a "state of hostility" or "conflict".
Not at all. The definition of "conflict" is clearly defined. Does the situation's with Russia invading Georgia, Iran, and North Korea not fall under this definition of what a conflict is?

conflict

1: fight, battle, war <an armed conflict>
2 a: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b: mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands3: the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction.

Your weak efforts to be purposefully obtuse to avoid the farcical arguments presented do not make your efforts any more credible. The historic record is LONG on the fact that a state of war can indeed exist WITHOUT a formal declaration of war and this is hardly a "partisan" argument.

I'm just taking the definition of a conflict and seeing that we are in a state of struggle of incompatible needs, drives, wishes with these countries. Thus we are in a conflict and a state of hostility, and by your definition previously provided, a war.
 
There is profound irony in claiming that your argument contains logic; you believe that if we invade Iraq for a set of reasons this naturally suggests that we should invade another nation due to its similarities? Are you REALLY claiming this is "logical?"
Yes. He is.
Sad, isnt it?

I guess that since I used blue paint in one room, it logically follows that I must use blue paint in all my rooms.

:doh
 
Please show us where it is stated in the Constitution that a state of war cannot exist between our nation and another unless the Congress formally declares war.

I would like to see this Constitutional law.

The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, and to Congress alone. Are you seriously denying this?

Source [Cornell University Law School | US Constitution Article 1 Section 8]

The Congress shall have power...To declare war
 
No, it does not -- in fact, its not even close.

Invasion was one option in Iraq. Invasion is one option in NK.
That Invasion was chosen as the option for Iraq in no way necessitates that invasion must also be chosen in NK.

This I will agree with. I just find it hypocritical to support invading one country for possibly having WMD but not invading an equally threatening country that we know does have WMD.
 
The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, and to Congress alone. Are you seriously denying this?
No one denies that the power for the US to declare war in reserved to Congress -- BUT -- nothing in the Constititutiuon says that the ONLY way the US can be in a state of war is said declaration by congress.

(Hmm... where have I heard that before...?)
 
This I will agree with. I just find it hypocritical to support invading one country for possibly having WMD but not invading an equally threatening country that we know does have WMD.
Who isnt supporting the idea that invasion is a potential option for dealing with NK?
 
Yes. He is.
Sad, isnt it?

I guess that since I used blue paint in one room, it logically follows that I must use blue paint in all my rooms.

:doh

If one person breaks into your house and you have him arrested, logically you would have the next person that broke into your house arrested to.
 
There is profound irony in claiming that your argument contains logic; you believe that if we invade Iraq for a set of reasons this naturally suggests that we should invade another nation due to its similarities? Are you REALLY claiming this is "logical?"

X performs A happens and B occurs.
Y performs A, B occurs again.

How is a like effect to a similar cause illogical?
 
X performs A happens and B occurs.
Y performs A, B occurs again.

How is a like effect to a similar cause illogical?

That is a very simplistic view on the complex issues being discussed.

Did you read the joint resolution? Do you recall that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation and member of the UN and was ejected? Do you recall that Iraq then signed agreements with the UN and defied them for the next decade?

There are vast differences between Iraq and North Korea, yet you want to argue this is about X and Y?

But then it also begs the question; why are you arguing we should invade North Korea?
 
What does he need missiles for? He could do significant damage to South Korea with a really big slingshot.

True, but the idea is to lure the U.S. into a fight by attacking S. Korea. The absordaty is N. Korea really doesn't have many allies except maybe Iran.

Now, granted two rogue nations with radical dictators who possess nuclear weapons capabilities may very well sound like a threat, but let's not forget the key word here - capabilities. They don't have a formidable nuclear weapons arsenal nor do either have powerful enough launch vehicles (i.e., ballistic missles) w/the range to strike any enemy outside of a 150 mile radius per media reports. So, when you really get down to it, N. Korea and Iran are more of a nausence than a real threat. Monitor both countries closely, but I wouldn't lose much sleep over either. It's more of a "look world! See what we can do" display than any real threat.
 
Once again you avoid; I clearly asked you to please show us where it is stated in the Constitution that a state of war cannot exist between our nation and another unless the Congress formally declares war.

I'll answer that question for him...(I can't believe I just typed that! :doh )

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads in part, towit:

"The Congress shall have Power ....to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;..."

Thus, until Congress votes accordingly to declare war against another country, or in the case of radical terrorist factions, the dangerous entity, i.e., Al-Quaida (spell check) or the Taliban, then a state of war does not exist between the Unitied States and said country or entity.
 
Last edited:
That is a very simplistic view on the complex issues being discussed.

Did you read the joint resolution? Do you recall that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation and member of the UN and was ejected? Do you recall that Iraq then signed agreements with the UN and defied them for the next decade?

There are vast differences between Iraq and North Korea, yet you want to argue this is about X and Y?
I was simply arguing your stance that it was "illogical". I never said invading one country vs the other wasn't debatable.

But then it also begs the question; why are you arguing we should invade North Korea?
When have I argued we should invade North Korea?
 
I'll answer that question for him...(I can't believe I just typed that! :doh )

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads in part, towit:

"The Congress shall have Power ....to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;..."

Thus, until Congress votes accordingly to declare war against another country, or in the case of radical terrorist factions, the dangerous entity, i.e., Al-Quaida (spell check) or the Taliban, then a state of war does not exist between the Unitied States and said country or entity.

Once again you avoid; I clearly asked you to please show us where it is stated in the Constitution that a state of war cannot exist between our nation and another unless the Congress formally declares war.

With your argument, one would have to believe that a State of War never existed between the US and North Korea in the Korean War or the Vietnam War or the Gulf War or many other conflicts where no such formal declaration occurred.

Yet if we look at the definition a "state of war" can indeed exist by Presidential action outside of a "formal" Congressional declaration and hardly be construed as being “illegal.”

Was the "Joint Resolution" a formal declaration of war?

or in the case of radical terrorist factions, the dangerous entity, i.e., Al-Quaida (spell check) or the Taliban,

How does a nation declare war on a political ideal? The Taliban or Al Qaeda are not nations; how can Congress formally declare war on them?

Hamilton’s words:

"... it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Con-
Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that
state [of peace] into a state of war ... [but] when a
foreign nation declares or openly and avowedly makes
war upon the United States, they are then by the very
fact already at war and any declaration on the part of
Congress is nugatory; it is at least unnecessary."

[Quoted in James Grafton Rogers, WORLD POLICING
AND
THE CONSTITUTION (Boston: 1945), p. 36.]

This is the prescient argument:

While Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution provides that "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War," neither Clause 11 nor any other provision of the Constitution states in so many words that Congress must pass a declaration of war before the President can legally order the nation's military forces into foreign hostilities. Even after the President has ordered the troops into conflict, he is not required by any clause of the Constitution to request a congressional declaration of war. Moreover, the absence of such a declaration does not tie the President's hands in the conduct of the war, as long as adequate appropriations for raising, supporting, maintaining, and transporting the military forces and otherwise funding the war effort are forthcoming from Congress.

History suggests also that a state of war does not mandate any formal congressional declaration:

Eight undeclared major wars were:
1. The U.S. naval war with France [1798-1800]*;
2. The first war against the Barbary pirate states of North Africa [1801-1805]*;
3. The second war against the Barbary states [1815]*;
4. The Mexican-U.S.A. conflicts immediately preceeding American entrance into World War I [1914-1917]*;
5. The Korean War [1950-1953]*;
6. The Vietnam War [1961-1975]*;
7. The Persian Gulf War [1991]*;
8. The Kosovo-Yugoslav War [1999]*.

*Dates of America's direct involvement in the war.


Were these illegal? Not by any stretch.

Here's a long list of other engagements that were also UNdeclared:

The many other undeclared U.S. military actions overseas included armed intervention into--

A revolution in Hawaii [1893];

The Philippine Insurrection [1899-1902];

China during the Boxer Rebellion [1900];

The Moro Wars, suppressing a Muslim rebellion in the
Philippines [1901-1913];

The Panamaian rebellion, assisting the rebels in their
efforts to secede from Colombia [1903];

Cuba, to suppress a rebellion and restore order [1906-
1909];

Various rebellions and civil wars in Central America
[1909-1933];

Cuba, to "defuse" an armed uprising [1912];

Haiti, making it a virtual protectorate of the U.S.A.
[1915-1934];

The Dominican Republic, occupying the country until a
constitutionally elected government was installed
[1916-1924];

Cuba, to obtain the overthrow of a regime that had come
to power via an armed revolt and coup d'etat [1917];

The Russian Civil War, siding with the opponents of the
Bolshevik (Communist) regime [1919-1921];

Lebanon, to counter a Syrian-aided Muslim revolt and
restore order [1958];

A civil war in the Dominican Republic [1965];

Cambodia, destroying supply centers and staging areas for
North Vietnamese military operations in South Vietnam
during the Vietnam War [1969-1970];

Cambodia in the Mayaguez affair, forcing surrender of a
U.S. merchant ship and crew seized by Cambodian Communist
military forces [1975];

Iran, in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the hostages
taken by Irani militants when, in 1979, they seized the
U.S. Embassy in Teheran [1980];

The armed struggle among political factions in Lebanon
[1982-1984];

Grenada, overthrowing the Marxist-Leninist, pro-Cuban
regime, expelling the Cuban agents and paramilitary
personnel, and allowing a political coalition committed
to democratic elections and favorably disposed toward
American interests to assume governing power [1983];

Panama, overthrowing the regime of dictator and narcotics
smuggler Manuel Noriega [1989];

Somalia, seeking to end the violence and disorder in
that East African country [1992-1994];

Haiti, to restore order and reinstate Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, the democratically elected President of the
country [1994];

The ethnic warfare in Bosnia, imposing a ceasefire
and, in effect, establishing a U.N.-U.S.A. protec-
torate over Bosnia [1994-1995].

These numerous undeclared U.S. military actions also included:

The naval war waged against German submarines and other
Axis naval craft in the North Atlantic immediately
prior to American entrance into World War II [1941];

The naval "quarantine" (i.e., blockade) maintained
around Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis [1962];

Aerial bombardment of Libya, striking a missile site
on one occasion and, on another, bombing terrorist-
related targets in Tripoli and Benghazi [1986];

"Operation Desert Shield"--President Bush's sending
U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia, in the wake of the Iraqi
occupation of and huge military buildup in Kuwait;
[1990]


The continuing presence of U.S. aircraft carriers in
the Persian Gulf and the maintenance of no-fly zones
over Iraq, the latter, in effect, establishing pro-
tectorates over Kurdish and Shiite regions of that
country; [1991-1999];

The U.S. missile attack on Iraq, launched on Presi-
dent Clinton's orders and aimed at the Iraqi govern-
ment's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad [1993];

Missile strikes against Iraqi military installations
in southern Iraq [1996];

Cruise missile attacks against terrorist-related
targets in Afghanistan and Sudan [1998].
 
Despite the fact that there is no official peace treaty between North Korea and the United States, it's not quite correct to say that we're at war (even in a technical sense) because, technically, we weren't at war to begin with. The 1950-53 conflict was conducted under the aegis of the United Nations and was dubbed a "police action" by President Harry Truman. Congress never actually declared war, nor did it authorize a military engagement. :2wave:

So what do you reckon killed the 54,000+ Americans on the Korean peninsula between 1950 and 1953? Sure looked like a war from the photos I've seen.
 
Eight undeclared major wars were:
1. The U.S. naval war with France [1798-1800]*;
2. The first war against the Barbary pirate states of North Africa [1801-1805]*;
Congress gave approval for this war
3. The second war against the Barbary states [1815]*;
See above
4. The Mexican-U.S.A. conflicts immediately preceeding American entrance into World War I [1914-1917]*;
Congress gave approval to send the Army to the Border
5. The Korean War [1950-1953]*;
Under UN Actions I suggest you read the Documents
6. The Vietnam War [1961-1975]*;
7. The Persian Gulf War [1991]*;
Congress approved Military Actions
8. The Kosovo-Yugoslav War [1999]*.
Once again UN Resolution
*Dates of America's direct involvement in the war.









These numerous undeclared U.S. military actions also included:

The naval war waged against German submarines and other
Axis naval craft in the North Atlantic immediately
prior to American entrance into World War II [1941];
US Never attack any German Uboat prio to the German Decleration of War on the US, While we had some personal on Lend-Lease Four Stackers none of them flew the US Flag learn some WWII History

The naval "quarantine" (i.e., blockade) maintained
around Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis [1962];
Congress approved these action

Aerial bombardment of Libya, striking a missile site
on one occasion and, on another, bombing terrorist-
related targets in Tripoli and Benghazi [1986];
Congress approved the two attack in direct respounce to the German Night Club Bombing and the Pan Am Bombing

"Operation Desert Shield"--President Bush's sending
U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia, in the wake of the Iraqi
occupation of and huge military buildup in Kuwait;
[1990]
A UN Action that was approved by Congress


The continuing presence of U.S. aircraft carriers in
the Persian Gulf and the maintenance of no-fly zones
over Iraq, the latter, in effect, establishing pro-
tectorates over Kurdish and Shiite regions of that
country; [1991-1999];
UN Action and part of the Gulf War Cease fire and yes Congress approved it

The U.S. missile attack on Iraq, launched on Presi-
dent Clinton's orders and aimed at the Iraqi govern-
ment's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad [1993];
In Direct violation of the Gulf War Cease fire Accourd and Congress was consulted

Missile strikes against Iraqi military installations
in southern Iraq [1996];
See above

Cruise missile attacks against terrorist-related
targets in Afghanistan and Sudan [1998].[/I][/quote]
Direct attacks approved by Congress after the first World Trade Center Attack
 
Semantics are fun. :roll:

it's not really blue, it's more of a bluey blue but not officially blue.
 
Last edited:
So what do you reckon killed the 54,000+ Americans on the Korean peninsula between 1950 and 1953? Sure looked like a war from the photos I've seen.

It's always amusing how Liberals think by labeling something as being something else, it will make it something else. :rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom