- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,907
- Reaction score
- 22,228
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
You're kidding right?
do you think America would have the economy it has today if not for war?
You're kidding right?
do you think America would have the economy it has today if not for war?
As in, when an "opportunity" presents itself (however slight and flimsy, or great and imperative), what reasons/incidents do you consider necessary to justify the USA going to war, or even a "conflict/whatever".
Please choose your generalized poll option and post with your reasons for doing so.
Was he? We owe almost all of the power and wealth we've enjoyed for the past century to our involvement in the two World Wars. It's a shame that most of Europe has lost their taste for war and the Russians aren't an effective enemy any more. I'm not sad to see international communism in its death throes, but at least the Soviets could set us up with real wars on a regular basis.
The most basic benefit that warfare provides the species is that it causes surges in the birth rate and encourages exogamous breeding. And since most of the new fathers are soldiers, it encourages breeding among people who are fitter than the general population.
Is Declaration of War defined in the USA Constitution? If not, where and how is it defined. I have heard the argument that, when the US Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize using all necessary force against Iraq, that was a Declaration of War.The United States should only go to war with a Declaration of War. Only through Congress and with support of the American people.
Is Declaration of War defined in the USA Constitution? If not, where and how is it defined. I have heard the argument that, when the US Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize using all necessary force against Iraq, that was a Declaration of War.
.
It isn't a Declaration of War unless it is implicitly and formally declared as such.Is Declaration of War defined in the USA Constitution? If not, where and how is it defined. I have heard the argument that, when the US Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize using all necessary force against Iraq, that was a Declaration of War.
.
Do you have a source for that or is it just your opinion?It isn't a Declaration of War unless it is implicitly and formally declared as such.
Your understanding? From what authoratative source?My understanding is that the vote on Iraq authorized the use of force but was not a declaration of war.
Your understanding? From what authoratative source?
.
The War Powers Resolution
In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.
Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.
Pretty much whenever the opportunity presents itself. At least every couple decades or so, whether we have an excuse or not. War is necessary for the economy and for maintaining the martial spirit of the nation, and is generally good for the species.
James Madison said:Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Oh, Wikipedia.... well that settles it. They are certainly the highest authority to which some folks refer or recognize. :roll:
Oh, Wikipedia.... well that settles it. They are certainly the highest authority to which some folks refer or recognize. :roll:
When I said authoritative source, I was referring to some official document, court decision, or law that defined Declaration of War. If there is none, how can you claim the USA Congress has to explicitly use the phrase in a resolution?
.
If you say so. :roflAs far as Wikipedia goes, it is a fine reference for undisputed facts, like a Declaration of War and the War Powers Act. It is a peer reviewed encyclopedia.
Oh my, Sweetie, you don't need to get all nasty....
You want an authoritative source? Go find it your ****ing self. ....
So you don't really have a valid source. It is just what you want to believe... Gotcha.reefedjib said:My understanding is that the vote on Iraq authorized the use of force but was not a declaration of war.
If you say so. :rofl
Oh my, Sweetie, you don't need to get all nasty.
From previous post:
So you don't really have a valid source. It is just what you want to believe... Gotcha.
I asked a simple question and you made a definitive statement that didn't address the question and, turns out, for which you don't have a valid source. Why didn't you just say you don't really know what the hell you are talking about.
.
Actually, you said it was your understanding. I simply asked on what that understanding was based. And, Sweetie, you are the one that got nasty.I have no idea why you busted in so argumentative when I said it was my opinion. It is tiresome. You are so ignored.
I would tend to agree with you, except for the UN a corrupt and inept organization currently being run by dictators.Who was it now, several hundred years ago, advised that the still young USA stay clear of European conflicts..
Thomas Jefferson?
How little he knew, but he was basically right.
I think that this whole Islamic extremest thing has to be fought politically, not militarily..
Our last 3 to 5 responses were not right.
We have a UN , lets use it for its intended purpose..
Christians attacked us before 9/11 in Oklahoma...
...Iraq was NOT a threat to anyone..
I think we need to take out Iran's nuke facilities. They have already said they will wipe the USA and Israel off the map. I support pre-emptive or helping Israel hit it.
I disagree war is bad for the econ. We had TWO wars under W and the econ was amazing until liberals took over CONgress in 07.
Actually, you said it was your understanding. I simply asked on what that understanding was based. And, Sweetie, you are the one that got nasty.
.