05-09-2002 00:41									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Nowherre in the Constitution does it define how Congress must declare war. It is therefore left to Congress how to define this. If Congress simply wants to authorize the use of force, that's a legal declaration of war.

At least Bush isn't foring a Constitutional crisis on the matter. But Congress will still give him his war.

	05-09-2002 00:41									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

ah, i see the point DF is making. semantics, if you ask me.

legality would be nice if it applied to real world nations, along with karma. alas, it's not always the case.

invading iraq w/o congressional approval may be illegal, but who is going to call him out on it and punish him for that?

	05-09-2002 00:45									#33
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara At least Bush isn't foring a Constitutional crisis on the matter.

Campbell v. Clinton would probably have covered Bush's arse.

	05-09-2002 00:56									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well, it's not his war, Che.

	05-09-2002 01:21									#35
	Got spare money?

Fez,

quote: Uhh don't misstate what I was saying... and Saddam probably won't be around next year. But if he was, he could launch chemcial or biological weapons killing thousands.

Then how is this any business of the US, unless it is killing Americans in the United States?

Lefty,

quote: The constituion do not in any way define a DOW or describe its form. A DOW is what ever congress decides it is.

Obviously so, and if Congress explicity defines an authorization for the use of force as a DOW, then I will accept that the use of that force is Constitutional.

chegitz,

quote: If Congress simply wants to authorize the use of force, that's a legal declaration of war.

Only if Congress comes out and says as much. You can't just assume that's what they mean.

Q,

quote: invading iraq w/o congressional approval may be illegal, but who is going to call him out on it and punish him for that?

Unfortunately, no one. In a perfect world, Congress would impeach him.

	05-09-2002 01:30									#36
	CNN goofs again! Tired of ads?

Did anyone notice that part of the CNN article where they made a mistake quoting the House Majority Whip Tom DeLay?

In big bold letters he is quoted as saying: "'I think military action is inevitable.' "

but in the article it says "The president began to make his case to us today," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, saying more "clarity" is needed. He added that an attack on Iraq is not inevitable. "

notice how these two statements contradict each other

	05-09-2002 01:30									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

DF, your Constitutional chi is weak.

	05-09-2002 01:40									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

I don't see how anything I said on here is controversial. Congress must declare war in order to make an attack legal. I've admitted that they can define a declaration of war as whatever they want it to be, but we can't just assume that's what they mean without them saying so.

What's the problem with that reasoning?

	05-09-2002 01:41									#39
	Support Apolyton

No where in the Consitution does it say that a Declaration of war has to be called such. All it says it that only Congress can declare war. If Congress simply authorizes the funds so the President can go have his fun, it meets the technical requirements.

	05-09-2002 01:51									#40
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Everyone knows how FUBAR the Vietnam War was precisely because Congress, in its infinite wisdom, did NOT declare war on North Vietnam. Let's hope Congress has the balls to simply declare war this time.

Here is the Tonkin Gulf resolution:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress. "

Last edited by Ned on 05-09-2002 at 02:13

	05-09-2002 02:03									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a declaration of war, it simply limited the scope of the war, in order to prevent an even larger war which almost surely would have broken out. Congerss is entirely within its power to define limits to the war.

In any event, the problem with the Vietnam War wasn't Congress. It was the determination of the Vietnamese people not to be cowed by America and the American military structure, primarily the former.

	05-09-2002 02:08									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a declaration of war, it simply limited the scope of the war, in order to prevent an even larger war which almost surely would have broken out. Congerss is entirely within its power to define limits to the war. In any event, the problem with the Vietnam War wasn't Congress. It was the determination of the Vietnamese people not to be cowed by America and the American military structure, primarily the former.

Che, I disagree that our strategy in Vietnam was ever sound and only failed because the Vietnamese were "tough."

	05-09-2002 02:09									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No where in the Consitution does it say that a Declaration of war has to be called such. All it says it that only Congress can declare war. If Congress simply authorizes the funds so the President can go have his fun, it meets the technical requirements.

No, it certainly has not met the requirements.
Congress has the following power in terms of making war:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

A declaration of war is indeed anything Congress says it is, but Congress has to actually tell us that a non-traditional declaration of war is a declaration of war. We can't just assume that an allocation of funds is a declaration of war.

quote: Congerss is entirely within its power to define limits to the war.

Now you are overstating legislative power. Congress can declare war, and they can control funding, but they can't tell the Executive Branch how to run the war once it has been declared. They can cut off the war, they can influence the President by threatening to do so, but they can't force him to do anything once they've declared war. At least that's how I'm reading it.

	05-09-2002 02:16									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

David, Read the Tonkin Gulf resolution, last paragrahph on the issue of whether Congress can call a halt.

	05-09-2002 02:20									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Just because Congress says it can do something doesn't mean that they can.
From my reading of the Constitution, Congress can declare war, and Congress can control funding, but outside of that they can't limit the prosecution of the war.
Sure, they could say that "If you go beyond this limit we will cut off funding" or "If you don't end the war we will cut off funding", but they can't say "You may not go beyond this limit" or "You must end the war right now".

	05-09-2002 02:28									#46
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Che, I disagree that our strategy in Vietnam was ever sound and only failed because the Vietnamese were "tough."

I didn't say our strategy was sound, but strategy is drawn up by the Pentagon, not Congress. Contrary to popular opinion, it was the military who screwed up the war, but not understanding the people whom they were fighting nor the so-called government they were aiding.

The war in Vietnam was unwinnable on its face. Even if the US invaded the North, they would have had to face millions of screaming Chinese. The Chinese have recently released their plans for intervening in Vietnam, had the US invaded.

	05-09-2002 02:32									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd but they can't say "You may not go beyond this limit" or "You must end the war right now".

Where does it say they can't? A declaration of war doesn't have to be a simple statement that says a state or war between the two countries now exists. It could, as in the Tonkin Resolution, delimit the area of fighting and how that fighting is to be prosecuted. The President manages the resources of the nation, but Congress says how they will be used.

	05-09-2002 02:47									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I didn't say our strategy was sound, but strategy is drawn up by the Pentagon, not Congress. Contrary to popular opinion, it was the military who screwed up the war, but not understanding the people whom they were fighting nor the so-called government they were aiding. The war in Vietnam was unwinnable on its face. Even if the US invaded the North, they would have had to face millions of screaming Chinese. The Chinese have recently released their plans for intervening in Vietnam, had the US invaded.

I think we knew full well that if we invaded North Vietnam that China would intervene - they did so in Korea.

Which makes the Vietnam War a tragedy. Because of China, we could not invade the North. This means we could never defeat the North. So long as they were willing to accept mountains of dead, they could not lose. They knew this. We should have known this as well.

The US military in the South could have been 100%, nay, even 1000% more efficient. Still they could not win because they could not invade the North.

Vietnam was unwinnable.

	05-09-2002 03:13									#49
	Tired of ads?

I think the Vietnamese would have kept fighting until the last Vietnamese had been killed, regardless of whether we could invade the North or not. Bascailly, we'd still be fighting in Vietnam today if we hadn't decided to leave, finally (assuming the resulting political crisis in America wouldn't have completely changed America).

	05-09-2002 03:40									#50
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

All it would have taken would have been to let the military fight the war, not the politicians.
North Vietnam, nor the Chinese, stalled us. Our government stalled us.

I get so sick of hearing b.s. about SE Asia.

	05-09-2002 03:44									#51
	Support Apolyton

quote: Where does it say they can't? A declaration of war doesn't have to be a simple statement that says a state or war between the two countries now exists. It could, as in the Tonkin Resolution, delimit the area of fighting and how that fighting is to be prosecuted. The President manages the resources of the nation, but Congress says how they will be used.

I certainly see the argument you are making, and I can see a Congressional power for mandating an end to a war, but I find it difficult to envision a Constitutional power allowing Congress to determine how the war is actually fought, outside of using the spending power as an enticement.

Slowwhand,

quote: All it would have taken would have been to let the military fight the war, not the politicians. North Vietnam, nor the Chinese, stalled us. Our government stalled us.

Why should we have fought a war that had little popular support here in the US, little popular support among the soldiers fighting the war, and even less support by the average Vietnamese, even those in the south?

	05-09-2002 03:45									#52
	Remove this text

Che, What you say about the Vietnamese certain was true of the Japanese. And yet, that war ended when their leader called a halt. Someting similar may have happend in Vietnam.

However, I still think that China would have taken over the conflict had we attacked the North. The senario you paint would never have happened because the Chinese would now be calling the shots. In the end, Vietnam probably would have been divided between China and the US - somewhat like Korea.

	05-09-2002 04:05									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

1) North and South were 2 distinct and separate countries.

2) China was involved. No "might have got involved" to it.

	05-09-2002 04:37									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 2) China was involved. No "might have got involved" to it.

That's true, so why cause the deaths of even more Americans a war no one cares about, not the soldiers fighting, US civilians, or most Vietnamese civilians, and is none of our business anyway?

Yes, we could have wiped the floor with China in a war, but what possible purpose would that serve, except limit the prospects of economic growth in both nations?

	05-09-2002 04:39									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You should have seen the evacuation, if you think the civilians didn't care.

	05-09-2002 04:42									#56
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Let me amend that: many of the South Vietnamese civilians did not want the US in the region. Some did, especially those living in Saigon.

But the Vietnamese living in rural areas generally tended towards the communists, which partly explained the VC and how they were able to operate as much as they did in the south.

But how Vietnamese civilians felt is of decidedly secondary concern when compared to the facts that the war was not supported in the US, and was none of our business.

	05-09-2002 04:47									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Khmer Rouge. I'm just saying...rural or urban, Khmer Rouge started in Cambodia and scared the crap out of all SE Asians. With damned good reason.
BTW, we'd have still been in-country, you and I.
It was people like Lefty that got evacuated.

	05-09-2002 06:05									#58
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Saddam isn't a threat to get ICBMs anytime in any of our lifetimes. DD,

He has been asking, begging the N. Korean for a few missiles for years. However the North has yet to give him any.
The North missile now has a range of about 2 to 3,000 miles. The one they fired over Japan in 2000 went somewhere in the range 2500 miles.

	05-09-2002 06:14									#59
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Nowherre in the Constitution does it define how Congress must declare war. It is therefore left to Congress how to define this. If Congress simply wants to authorize the use of force, that's a legal declaration of war. At least Bush isn't foring a Constitutional crisis on the matter. But Congress will still give him his war.

Actually the Gulf war of 91 is not over. Saddam had to agree with certain terms to stop the fighting. He did not surrender. He just agree to the term, which he has now violated, so technicality we can still go after him for violation of cease fire agreement. Bush can re-start the war without Congress approval.

	05-09-2002 06:27									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Khmer Rouge. I'm just saying...rural or urban, Khmer Rouge started in Cambodia and scared the crap out of all SE Asians. With damned good reason.

That's true, but I'm talking about the Vietnam War, not a hypothetical Cambodian War, which would have been none of our business either.

My bottom line is that we should not fight wars for the benefit of other people, ever.

Joseph,

2500 miles won't let him hit the US. He can hit Western Europe with those, but that's Western Europe's problem.