Planetarion Forums

General Geiger · 20 Mar 2003, 20:35

Where has this gone to as regards Iraq? Have formal declarations of war gone out of fashion? I appreciate that Bush is labelling this a "war on terror", and makes a point of hardly considering the Iraqi government worthy of the title; but nevertheless, Saddam's Iraq is technically a nation state, recognised as such by all other nations, even those of the UN. Surely, as Bush has amassed such a vast force so meticulously with the very openly expressed desire of invading Iraq, he must at least sign an official de jure declaration of war with that nation. This would seem especially important, as various countries within the UN are up in arms about the legality of this war; doesn't Bush want to maintain as much "officiality" as possible over events? One of the best ways to do this must be by signing an official delaration of war, as after Pearl Harbour - a piece of paper saying, "We are at war with said nation", or words to that effect.

I appreciate fully that the various televised addresses made by Bush amount to a declaration of war, but I would like at least to see the aforementioned piece of paper with the words "We are now at war with Iraq" on them. I stress again that we are so very concerned about the legality of war these days; America has impinged the UN's principles enough by going to war without its backing. Doesn't not making a declaration, like those made in all wars prior to Vietnam, amount to an insult on top of injury?

W · 20 Mar 2003, 20:41

Formal declarations of war has been out of fashion for 60 years atleast.

It's considered overly "dramatic"

Scoot951 · 20 Mar 2003, 20:43

Congress does declarations of war, not the pres. And if he tried to make it an offical war, he'd fail.

General Geiger · 20 Mar 2003, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Scoot951
Congress does declarations of war, not the pres. And if he tried to make it an offical war, he'd fail.

No he wouldn't, at least not with his own country. He has overwhelming support on this matter in Congress. He would get support by a mile. The UN, though, as we've seen, is a totally different matter. My point is that he should make this a less stinging blow to UN credibility by making it as official as he can, within the context of his own system.

W: I don't think "dramatic" comes into it anywhere. Very little could be more dramatic than a quarter-of-a-million heavily-armed soldiers pouring into a country in the largest US-led invasion since Vietnam. It's more a matter of legality, of doing things the "right way" as I've stated. Did you read what I wrote?

Nodrog · 20 Mar 2003, 20:55

There was no "declaration of war" because this isnt a war, its simply a defensively-orientated pre-emptive removal of potential future hosilities through militarily backed regime change geared towards promoting freedom.

Texan · 20 Mar 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by General Geiger
No he wouldn't, at least not with his own country. He has overwhelming support on this matter in Congress. He would get support by a mile. The UN, though, as we've seen, is a totally different matter. My point is that he should make this a less stinging blow to UN credibility by making it as official as he can, within the context of his own system.

W: I don't think "dramatic" comes into it anywhere. Very little could be more dramatic than a quarter-of-a-million heavily-armed soldiers pouring into a country in the largest US-led invasion since Vietnam. It's more a matter of legality, of doing things the "right way" as I've stated. Did you read what I wrote?

I think you missed the point. Congress has the right to declare war. The president does not have the right to declare war.

Edit: I forgot to mention. Congress already authorized the use of force against Iraq. That is equivalent to declaring war.

Scoot951 · 20 Mar 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by General Geiger
No he wouldn't, at least not with his own country. He has overwhelming support on this matter in Congress. He would get support by a mile. The UN, though, as we've seen, is a totally different matter. My point is that he should make this a less stinging blow to UN credibility by making it as official as he can, within the context of his own system.

W: I don't think "dramatic" comes into it anywhere. Very little could be more dramatic than a quarter-of-a-million heavily-armed soldiers pouring into a country in the largest US-led invasion since Vietnam. It's more a matter of legality, of doing things the "right way" as I've stated. Did you read what I wrote?

Trust me on this, he'd fail. Congress could support unanimous action against Iraq, but the moment it became a question of a formal declaration of war, his support would evaporate instantly. It's an entirely different sort of beast.

General Geiger · 20 Mar 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
There was no "declaration of war" because this isnt a war, its simply a defensively-orientated pre-emptive removal of potential future hosilities through militarily backed regime change geared towards promoting freedom.

You a lager or a bitter man?

Nodrog · 20 Mar 2003, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
I think you missed the point. Congress has the right to declare war. The president does not have the right to declare war.

article/section?

Texan · 20 Mar 2003, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
article/section?

Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority "To declare War."

Scoot951 · 20 Mar 2003, 21:07

The President is Commander of the armed forces, and can (I believe, from the Vietnam war) use the military for 90 days without anything from Congress saying yes. Anything longer than that requires Congress, whether it's formal or not.

Nodrog · 20 Mar 2003, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority "To declare War."

ta

Lord Talon · 20 Mar 2003, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Scoot951
The President is Commander of the armed forces, and can (I believe, from the Vietnam war) use the military for 90 days without anything from Congress saying yes. Anything longer than that requires Congress, whether it's formal or not.

War Powers Act of 1973

I think its 60 days btw

General Geiger · 20 Mar 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Scoot951
The President is Commander of the armed forces, and can (I believe, from the Vietnam war) use the military for 90 days without anything from Congress saying yes. Anything longer than that requires Congress, whether it's formal or not.

[pedantic] 60 days. [/pedantic]

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 21:11

Bush could at least make a post on alliance discussions

Anaximander · 20 Mar 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Scoot951
The President is Commander of the armed forces, and can (I believe, from the Vietnam war) use the military for 90 days without anything from Congress saying yes. Anything longer than that requires Congress, whether it's formal or not.

I thought he could only commandeer marines during this time, not all armed forces. Wrong?

Lord Talon · 20 Mar 2003, 21:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
Bush could at least make a post on alliance discussions

don't incite the gimmicks ;p (is this the same as feeding the trolls?)

Scoot951 · 20 Mar 2003, 21:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Anaximander
I thought he could only commandeer marines during this time, not all armed forces. Wrong?

I don't know the details (as has been shown), but I was under the impression it was everything.

Edit: Since the president could have launched an immediate nuclear retaliation if needed back in the Cold War, within minutes, I'm sure his powers extend beyond the Marines.

General Geiger · 20 Mar 2003, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Scoot951
I don't know the details (as has been shown), but I was under the impression it was everything.

Edit: Since the president could have launched an immediate nuclear retaliation if needed back in the Cold War, within minutes, I'm sure his powers extend beyond the Marines.

You're right,

it's everything. He's Commander in Chief (CiC) of all the armed forces. In theory he could command them in battle. No US president has done that since 1815, however. It does provoke a storm of amusing images, though.

eple · 20 Mar 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
There was no "declaration of war" because this isnt a war, its simply a defensively-orientated pre-emptive removal of potential future hosilities through militarily backed regime change geared towards promoting freedom.

hehehe, you gotta love those.

Cyp · 21 Mar 2003, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by General Geiger
[pedantic] 60 days. [/pedantic]

Is that 60 consecutive days?

Unless he doesn't ever sleep, there's no way he could command an army for 60 days non-stop, anyway, so the time limit would be irrelevant.

Just a thought...

Scoot951 · 21 Mar 2003, 07:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyp
Is that 60 consecutive days?

Unless he doesn't ever sleep, there's no way he could command an army for 60 days non-stop, anyway, so the time limit would be irrelevant.

Just a thought...

It is. Obviously the generals, etc, do all the actual work.