Please keep in mind that the US has not officially declared WAR in over 60 years, not since the 1940's.

Bush in his speach said he had the backing of both the House and the Senate. Did I miss a vote? or a resolution? Doesn't it take a vote by both the house and the Senate to Officially declare WAR on another country? This is going to be an invasion, not a "Police Action", not a "Conflict" or even a "Storm".

At least the British are today VOTING on their WAR. Too bad the US can not follow suit and get their politicians to "officially" go on record as either for or against this war.

I guess this is part of the political process, here in America, of always being right. If, you don't go on record as for or against something when the event is all over you can say "See I told you so."

Taur, in October there was a resolution authorizing force.

Ummmm....see the Fritz thread titled "Bush's war?" Yes, you must have missed a vote. Congress authorized the "use of force" quite some time ago.

After Sept 11 their was a vote by both the House & Senate authorizing the use of force to combat Terorism. I think it was in October. Surely Bush is not claiming this Vote as a Vote for war with Iraq?

I have heard of stretching the truth, but this would be criminal. I am sure that Iraq was never mentioned in the Oct. Vote.

wrong october Taur.

In Oct. 2002 Congress authrorized the use of force vs Iraq.\

Edit: It would not be criminal, but it could only last 90 days.

Originally posted by Fritz
wrong october Taur.

In Oct. 2002 Congress authrorized the use of force vs Iraq.\

Edit: It would not be criminal, but it could only last 90 days. Be careful Fritz. You're using facts and logic again! Shame!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

I love how Taur goes off and bashes the American political system without knowing the facts.

The vote was an authorization to use force, not a declaration of war. I believe I have read that the Bush Administration considers a formal declaration of war to be anachronistic.

Clint,

I think that more than the current administration feel this way.

Perhaps so. It's too bad more don't consider war itself an anachronism, though.

Thanks for the info.

Actually I was bashing the Politicians not the system. There seems to be a lot of politicians stradling the line on this war issue to me.

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

That is not a declaration of war. That is a resolution by Congress authorizing the President to use military force. They are two different things.

I think that congress should have to declare a war on Iraq before any bullets fly, I don't like the concept of this being an action, or other piddy paddy ass word to cover his ass. Bring it to a vote period because it may be just and it may be right but for godsakes call it what it is.. a war.

Originally posted by Taur

Bush in his speach said he had the backing of both the House and the Senate. Did I miss a vote? or a resolution? Doesn't it take a vote by both the house and the Senate to Officially declare WAR on another country? This is going to be an invasion, not a "Police Action", not a "Conflict" or even a "Storm".

At least the British are today VOTING on their WAR. Too bad the US can not follow suit and get their politicians to "officially" go on record as either for or against this war.

As Taur pointed out, the U.S. has not officially declared war in ages. However, this does not mean that Congress is not "officially" going on record supporting military action, an invasion, a war, or whatever you want to call it. In his original post, Taur claimed that our politicians have not given their "backing" for this action, and we pointed out the error in that statement.

Originally posted by Taur

I have heard of stretching the truth, but this would be criminal. I am sure that Iraq was never mentioned in the Oct. Vote.

Obviously, this issue has been cleared up.

Originally posted by RainRaven
I think that congress should have to declare a war on Iraq before any bullets fly, I don't like the concept of this being an action, or other piddy paddy ass word to cover his ass. Bring it to a vote period because it may be just and it may be right but for godsakes call it what it is.. a war.

From my understanding the reason for not declaring war has much more to do with policies that are automatically inacted when you do that as opposed to any kind of political issues. That's the reason no president has declared war in 60 years or whatever it's been. If I weren't so busy, I'd do a search and tell you what exactly happens when war is declared, but I do remember it being discussed previously and it becomes an administrative nightmare.

I did not know about the recent OCT vote. I was thinking about the Vote authorizing force against Terrorism after Sept 11. Thinking that Bush was referring to this Vote.


BTW----In the 70's when the Shaw of Iran was the baddest thing on the planet; didn't we arm Iraq and enter into a non-aggression treaty with them? Basically I think if any country would to "officially" declare War on Iraq the US by treaty would have to defend Iraq? This might make it a fair fight as we would have to split are forces, both defending and attacking Iraq???

In the 70's when the Shaw of Iran was the baddest thing on the planet

First you didn't know recent history (like Oct 2002) and now you are going back to the 70s? Ever heard of Idi Amin?

Originally posted by Taur
BTW----In the 70's when the Shaw of Iran was the baddest thing on the planet; didn't we arm Iraq and enter into a non-aggression treaty with them? Basically I think if any country would to "officially" declare War on Iraq the US by treaty would have to defend Iraq? This might make it a fair fight as we would have to split are forces, both defending and attacking Iraq???

The gist is correct but the details are wrong. The Shah was the U.S. installed leader of the country and a definate ally from the 50's up until the late 70's when the Islamic revolution overthrew him. We did make Iraq our ally after the revolution and did help to arm the country and provided intelligence and monetary support for Iraq's war against Iran.

Not to be lost in the debate over whether we should technically declare war is how sadly silent the Congress is on this issue. Taur is right that Congressmen are neglecting their moral--if not their legal duty--to let the American people know where they stand.

Those who follow my posts (who am I kidding--no one "follows" my posts) know that I am not a fan of Bush. However, at least Bush is not hiding his position. All of the Democrats who, in 2004, expect us to take them seriously as presidental candidates should be making clear public statements about their positions (whether it be--I'm for the war; I'm against the war; or something more complex and subtle than that) right now. Instead they will wait to see what the pollsters say the public's post-hoc opinion on the war is and claim "that's what I thought all along."

I miss Paul Wellstone.

So what if the US doesn't actually declare war - who's gonna' say or do anything about that? The UN? NATO? Ha, I'd like to see them try:D .

Although I reluctantly support what the President is doing in Iraq, I am disgusted that there will be no official declaration of war from the congress. If a full scale invasion of another country that has not attacked us doesn't require a declaration nothing does. I don't care about the resolution authorizing force either. Congress doesn't have the luxury of giving away its responsibilities. (see the line item veto)

While I wouldn't want it to interfere with the military in Iraq, I would love to see a constitutional challenge to this in the Supreme Court. After Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Kosovo and a number of smaller actions the court needs to set a standard for declarations. All of the conservative "strict constructionists" should be hollowing about this abuse of executive authority.

Simply put, I don't believe the founders had any intention of allowing the President to invade a foriegn nation with 250,000 troops without a formal authorization from congress.

So, the answer to my original question "Is the US actually going to declare WAR?" is NO. This engagement will have some other catchy name, but will not be an "official" war.

The United States of America, over 60 years of peace and still counting........

Originally posted by Taur
So, the answer to my original question "Is the US actually going to declare WAR?" is NO. This engagement will have some other catchy name, but will not be an "official" war.

The United States of America, over 60 years of peace and still counting........

Ok, you're really starting to stretch it here.

Everyone knows it's a war. They're not going to pretend it isn't. Whether the Congress declares war or not is irrelevant, at least in the short term. Any vote at this point would be ridiculous because those who voted against would most likely take a ton of heat. So you're bitching over a choice of wording that could cause us a lot of unrelated headaches? Let's just get in there and get it done with.

Everyone wanting us to declare war would probably crap their pants if they knew what Bush could do under a formal declaration of war. The US basically becomes a military state. You can basically be arrested for doing anything that is detremental to the war effort. You think people were upset about lost freedom and liberty with what was instituted after 9-11? That would be nothing compared to the liberties lost under a formal declaration of war.

Originally posted by astralhaze
The gist is correct but the details are wrong. The Shah was the U.S. installed leader of the country...

detalis still wrong

Reza Shah Pahlevi , 1877–1944, shah of Iran (1925–41). He began his career as an army officer and gained a reputation for great valor and leadership. He headed a coup in 1921 and became prime minister of the new regime in 1923. He negotiated the evacuation (1921) of the Russian troops and (1924) of the British forces stationed in Iran since World War I. Virtually a dictator, Reza Khan deposed (1925) Ahmad Mirza, the last shah of the Kajar, or Qajar, dynasty, and was proclaimed shah of Iran. He changed his name to Reza Shah Pahlevi, thus founding the Pahlevi dynasty, and in 1935 officially changed the name of Persia to Iran. Reza Shah introduced many reforms, reorganizing the army, government administration, and finances. He abolished all special rights granted to foreigners, thus gaining real independence for Iran. Under his rule the Trans-Iranian RR was built, the Univ. of Tehran was established, and industrialization was stepped-up. In World War II his rapprochement with the Germans was protested by the Allies, and in 1941 British and Russian forces invaded and occupied Iran. Forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi, he died in exile in South Africa.

Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi , 1919–80, shah of Iran (1941–79). Educated in Switzerland, he returned (1935) to Iran to attend the military academy in Tehran. He ascended the throne in 1941 after his father, Reza Shah Pahlevi, was suspected of collaboration with the Germans and was deposed by British and Soviet troops. He narrowly escaped assassination (1949) by a member of the leftist Tudeh party, and in 1953 he briefly fled the country after a clash with the supporters of Muhammad Mussadegh. A moderate, the shah launched (1963) a reform program with U.S. assistance called the “White Revolution,” which included land redistribution among citizens, extensive construction, the promotion of literacy, and the emancipation of women. However in the process, the grassroots population became increasingly isolated as wealth, emanating from the oil industry, was unequally distributed among Iranians. The shah faced further criticism from the internal religious clergy, who disfavored his pro-Western policies. As popular discontent grew, particularly in the early 1970s, the shah became more repressive, calling upon his brutal secret police (SAVAK) to put down domestic strife. Massive rioting erupted in Iran, and widespread support for the exiled religious leader Ruhollah Khomeini grew by 1978. On Jan. 16, 1979, Shah Pahlevi fled the country; Khomeini returned to Iran and took control. When in Oct., 1979, Iranian extremists stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, they demanded the shah in return for the American hostages being held in the embassy. The shah, however, remained abroad; he died in Egypt in 1980.