Question about Iraq and declaring war.

[Whiskey16]

You assume way too much....
Do you have a link or perhaps inside information that says -- War was the policy?

:'( A total fail.

I suggest you attempt to read the already posted contextual words and recognise their already existing citations.

Unlike yourself, JEDIYoda, I posted no assumptions. You dramatically fail as you charge that I failed to provide links or direct quotations (inside information) from the likes of world leaders such as President G.W. Bush, Spanish Prime Minister Aznar, Ambassador Negroponte, etc.

All that I pragmatically presented was referenced and confirmed.

Care to equally retort?

 

[cybrsage]

I just finished Rumsfeld's book (which was quite good) and in one part he explained WMD stories aside, the US had plenty of reasons and opportunities to officially declare war (via congress) with Iraq, including our planes getting shot at while enforcing no fly zones. So it got me thinking. AFAIK Iraq is the only country we've actually invaded without an invite, and without a declaration of war. Of course many here and scholars have said Bush et al should be brought up on international war crimes (what charges I'll never know) and it got me thinking more.

Given everything thats happened, what would have been different *if* we had actually declared war on Iraq? And how were we able to invade a country, take down its government, and put in our own WITHOUT breaking international law? And finally, if we DID actually break international law, how did we escape charges? (Im guessing for the last question its because we ARE the UN financially thus it would be a case of chopping off the hand that feeds you).

I would ask we keep this relatively sterile, and leave out the partisan hackery. If possible.

The War Powers Act says Bush could have invaded Iraq without the permission of Congress at all...but then needed to gain their permission in 90 days with an always given 90 days extention (not guarenteed, though) to the time limit requirement. At that point they could say no and he needs to remove the troops as quickly as they can safely be removed.

Bush requested the permission of Congress before he went in because he knew 90/180 days would not be enough time. Getting their permission meant it would be nigh impossible for them to say no half a year later. He was correct. So while it it not a requirement, Bush did it anyway.

As for declaring war, Congress is shy about doing that until a foreign nation actually attacks US soil.

 

[Lemon law]

Wow, did have Japan have a similar war power act when they bombed Pearl Harbor in late 1941? Gee, and if Japan just quit 90 days later, all would be forgiven by the USA?????

In short cybrsage, war is a very business, with some real world consequences and responsibilties. And even if Iraq did not subsequently counterattack the USA, GWB&co the stupid cost the USA 3 trillion dollars plus, 4,300 of our troops lost their lives, as many as 2 million Iraqis were killed or exciled, and as a bonus the USA lost most of our world foreign policy credibility.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
AFAIK Iraq is the only country we've actually invaded without an invite, and without a declaration of war.

Given everything thats happened, what would have been different *if* we had actually declared war on Iraq?

I'm pretty sure the AUMF, passed by Congress shortly after 9/11, was ruled to be essentially tantamount to a declaration of war by the SCOTUS in the Hamdi case.

IIRC, they said something along the lines that a declaration of war need not use any special phrasing to be so, just indicate the approval/authorization by Congress for military force.

(The administration lost this case IIRC because they claimed the AUMF suspended habeas corpus and the SCOTUS said "No". SCOTUS said Congress must explicitly state the suspension of HC and they didn't do that in the AUMF.)

I have seen some legal briefs which contrast "authorizations for war" and "declarations of war". They start out describing how the DoW provides more authority for Presidents and have more ramifications (auto suspension of trade and diplomatic relations etc.) than AFW, but later go on to state the difference has become blurred in recent times. I.e., there isn't much, if any, difference in practical terms.


Fern

 

[cybrsage]

Wow, did have Japan have a similar war power act when they bombed Pearl Harbor in late 1941? Gee, and if Japan just quit 90 days later, all would be forgiven by the USA?????

In short cybrsage, war is a very business, with some real world consequences and responsibilties. And even if Iraq did not subsequently counterattack the USA, GWB&co the stupid cost the USA 3 trillion dollars plus, 4,300 of our troops lost their lives, as many as 2 million Iraqis were killed or exciled, and as a bonus the USA lost most of our world foreign policy credibility.

Japan did not and still does not have US Law as their legal system. You also should learn something about the War Powers Act...maybe find out what year it was put into place and what the impetus for creating the law was.

I see you are angry that the law is the law. You blame me as if I wrote it or somerhing. I assure you, I did not.

Your anger with the law needs to be shifted to those who have the power to change it, so I suggest you write your congressmen and tell them your little rant. You will get no further than ranting here, but at least you will have the understand that you ranted to the correct people.