Posted on 12/25/2011 9:54:26 AM PST by FloridaGeezer
I doubt if he would do anything in support of the U.N. Ron Paul has written legislation to withdraw from the U.N., and few other Congressmen have signed onto it.
"I'm not too happy with his position of never engaging with foreign countries although I think that that may be an overstatement."
Yes, that is an overstatement, or more correctly, an over-simplification of a misinterpretation of his position.
Oh, and it's o.k. with me of you decide to support Ron Paul.
Mexican War pretty clearly was aggressive, while one can make an excellent case the 1812 and Spanish-American wars were.
A great many people, Americans and others, believe "pre-emptive" wars such as that in Iraq are by definition aggressive. They are intended to respond to possible future aggression rather than present aggression. It is certainly a fact that pre-emption will be claimed by any aggressor in today's world.
To: WhiskeyX
The US is unlikely to have engaged in any international wars which would qualify under international law as being aggressive war making.
Mexican War pretty clearly was aggressive, while one can make an excellent case the 1812 and Spanish-American wars were.
I must dispute your statement, and suggest with all due respect you have reached erroneous conclusions on the basis of an ignorance of the true facts.
War of 1812
Even as the Treaty of Paris 1783 was being drawn up for signature, the British Government was engaging in a clandestine war to bring about the dissolution of the United States and reintegration of disaffected states into the British Dominion. The Canadian archives used to have some of the historical documents online in which the correspondence detailed efforts to foment war in the surrendered territories and solicit American traitors to the British cause. Without going into all of the myriad events leading into the War of 1812, there was an on again and off again covert war being waged against the United States all the way from the American Revolutionary War to the War of 1812. Even after the War of 1812, Britain continued covert operations against the United States which were designed to bring about a civil war and the capture of the American cotton markets by Britain. These efforts did not abate until well after the American Civil War, when Britain began to treat the United States more as a powerful ally than a potential territorial acquisition. This was a reversal of Napoleon Bonaparte’s abortive attempt to conquer North America. When his army was lost in the Caribbean and his monetary woes became to pressing, he devised the scheme to earn money from the sale of the Louisiana Territory and at the same time make the United States a continental power to surpass Britain, since he could not conquer it for himself. The U.S. declaration of war was a formal document announcing the recognition of the state of war already existing due to the hostile acts of war being committed by Britian for the preceding years and decades. It was again a defensive war declared and fought against a hostile belligerent who long ago initiaed the acts of war and perpetuted them into 1812.
Mexican War.
To make a long story short, the origins of the Mexican War began not long after Mexico secured its independence from the Spanish Empire. A Mexican government was established upon the basis of a constitution. Conflicts developed among the ruling elites, punctuated by civil conflicts and military coup. In the course of these conflicts, the lives and properties of foreign citizens in Mexico were taken, seized, stolen, and plundered, often by senior military officers, aristocrats, and their followers. The foreign governments protested and in some cases conducted military operations against Mexico to secure a cessation of the hostile acts of the Mexican officials and citizens, obtain recompense for damages, and secure respect for international law. The government of Mexico entered into treaties with these nations, including the United States, to end such acts and reimburse for the damages caused by Mexico, but Mexico then failed to honor the treaties and repudiated them later.
Meanwhile, the same actors responsible for much of these acts of war upon members of the international community plotted and executed a coup and overthrow of Mexico’s constitutional government. The coup leaders and rebels began with control of Mexico City, and they proceeded to use military campaigns against the Mexican states who resisted the coup and rebels. One by one the constitutional states were deeated by the rebels until only two Mexican states remained independent of the rebels. One of the two remaining constitutional Mexican states was Texas. The other Mexican state was also finally defeated, but Texas defeated Santa ana and declared its independence because the constitutional government of Mexico to which it belonged had been extinguished by Santa Ana and the rebel government.
Santa Ana proved to be a liar, cheat, and war criminal. After abrogating the agreements and treaties he made, Santa Ana and the unconstitutional rebel government of Mexico continued in its belligerent acts of war over the years, while holding out hope to foreign emissaries for some kind of peaceful resolution of the disputes. Many authorities and officers in the United States were preparing for an inevitable war with Mexico, because they had been given reason to expect the new leadership of Mexico was only biding its time as well for a future war with the United States.
The United States refused to grant the requests of the Republic of Texas for annexation to the United States, in deference to Mexico and to avoid the addition of another slave state to the Republic. Britain, however, wanted to make certain Texas did not join the United States and the cotton from Texas would continue to reach British textile mills. When the British government offered to include Texas in the British Empire, the government used the threat of British control of Texas as an inducement to get off the sidelines and agree to the annexation of the Republic of Texas. Faced with the unappealing alternatives, the United States Congress agreed to the offer of annexation. Mexico then threatened war, repeated its repudiation of Santa Ana’s grant of independence to Texas, and threatened war if the annexation was completed.
At this point in time, there was very little respect among many nations for the military and naval capabilities of the United States, given the events of the War of 1812. Santa Ana and his military leadership had just completed another series of military campaigns to suppress democratic insurgencies in Mexico. Santa Ana regarded himself a Mexican equivalent of Napoleon Bonaparte. He then proceeded to plan a military campaign whose goals were to first reconquer Texas, and then continue on into Louisiana for his capture of New Orleans and claim the Louisiana Territory. His senior generals warned Santa Ana against pursuing such a fantastic adventure, citing the poor condition of the Mexican Army and lack of the necessary logitical train. Santa Ana ignored the warnings of his officers, and initiated the Mexican War with the incursions into the disputed areas between the Nueces and Rio Grande Rivers. Contrary to his grand scheme of conquest, Santa Ana once again found his armies struggling to maintain ever losing defensive campaigns.
While the United States jumped the gun in some anticipatory incidents and was itself prone to some seemingly predatory activities, it was actually and legitimately engaged in a defensive war against an attempted Mexican aggression, which was then turned into a highly successful counteroffensive. The acquisition of the former Mexican territories is well in keeping with international law of that period of history. Mexico owed the United States large sums of monies for the losses Mexico previously acknowledged it inflicted upon the United States and its citizens in the prior decades, and Mexico had repeatedly proved itself unwilling even when able to honor its treaty settlement obligations. Consequently, the United States was well within international law to claim territories in compensation for the debt obligations owed and repeatedly repudiated by Mexico. Furthermore, it was uncommon for the victor of a war or a just war to purchase territories it had already seized as a prize and conquest of war. Rather than being aggressive, the act was uncommonly generous in its day and age between hostile governments.
The Spanish American War
Determining the initial aggressor in the Spanish American War is problematic, but it is unquestioned that Spain declared war upon the United States before the United States reciprocated with a declaration of war upon Spain. Confusing the situation is the fact that the United States committed an act of war by blockading Spanish Cuba before the Spanish declaration of war in response. However, the blockade of Cuba was in response to the destruction of the U.S. battleship USS Maine in the Spanish Cuban harbor. The USS Maine was in the Spanish Cuban harbor without the customary advance notice because foreign and U.S. citizens were in jeopordy due to riots begun by Spanish officers. The trail of provocations go back into the beginnings of the Cuban insurgency against Spanish rule, which involved provocative incidents of genocide. Although public sentiment and yellow journalism fanning the flames of public sentiment had much to do with the U.S. entry into the war, so too was the Spanish official sentiment contrary to public opinion. While the United States is often faulted for being militarily successful, there is an unreasonable refusal to notice how the United States refused to profit from Cuban territory, purchased the conquered Pacific territories, and acted in concert with Britain before and after to repel German efforts to conquer the Spanish Philippines and American Philippines. So, in the final analysis, the Spanish executions of American and British citizens in the Virginius affair, various incidents during the Cuban insurgency, the sinking of the USS Maine in the Cuban harbor under suspicious circumstances, and the Spanish first declaration of war despite U.S. efforts to negotiate a return to peaceful relations; it appears that the United States entry into the Spanish American War was in response to prior hostile acts of war by Spain. If the United States had declared war first and/or not had its citizens and perhaps its warship attacked first, there might have been some reason to consider the United States at worst equally responsible and at best still the defender acting against the aggressor. As it actually was, however, Spain refused to negotiate further and declared war first, making it necessary for the United States to defend itself until Spain could be compelled to end the resulting war it had declared.
A great many people, Americans and others, believe “pre-emptive” wars such as that in Iraq are by definition aggressive. They are intended to respond to possible future aggression rather than present aggression. It is certainly a fact that pre-emption will be claimed by any aggressor in today’s world.
You have very unfortunately fell prey to the false propaganda, which has twisted and misrepresented the true usage and meaning of “pre-emptive” as it was used in relation to Iraq, Libya, Iran, and so forth.
Iraq
The war with Iraq began in 1990, with Iraq’s illegal war upon Kuwait and its allies, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Britain and others. Contrary to the false propaganda attempting to mislead people, the belligerency and the war with Iraq did not end with the ceasefire in 1991. The ceasefire suspended the counteroffensive against Iraq pending Iraq’s compliance with the ceasefire agreement and the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Iraq under the command of Saddam Hussein continued the war with hostile military acts in every year following the ceasefire agreement, which resulted in the renewal of the counteroffensive required to fulfill the peacemaking operations begun in 1990 and restore peaceful diplomatic relations with the new government of Iraq. What was pre-emptive about the renewed military campaigns was the objective of disarming of Iraq’s conventinal weapons and weapons of mass destruction before Saddam Hussein could fulfill his renewed threats to attempt the re-annexation of Kuwait, attacks upon Israel, closure of the Gulf straits, and attacks upon the oilfields and cities of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the other Gulf states.
Iran
The acquisition of nuclear weapons is prohibited to Iran by the non-proliferation treaties. Iran’s violations of international law in regard to nuclear weapons is an act of war and breach of international peace under that law, especially given Iran’s threats to engage in a war of genocide against Israel. Iran entered into a breach of diplomatic relations and hostile belligerency against the United States when it invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Since diplomatic relations have not been restored, a de facto state of war has been in existence ever since then. A pre-emptive strike against Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons facilities is the pre-emption of Iran’s already hostile military forces in a war initiated by Iran decades ago and perpetuated to the present day. The United States and the Unitd Nations has the legal right and a duty under the Charter of the United Nations to preserve the peace by negotiation if possible or restore the peace by military force if necessary to abate Iran’s breach of the peace.
Libya
The government of Libya breached international peace in violations of the United Nations Charter with its air piracy attacks, wars of aggression against neighbor states, and war crimes against its own civilian population. The United States as a member of the United Nations and NATO were authorized to abate the violations of international law under the international collective security treaties. The aggressor in this type of circumstance is Libya in its role initiating the breaches of the peace, while the NATO members were acting th role of defenders of the victims of Libya’s breaches of the peace.
No, the fact is that Constitution legally supersedes any treaty.
Declaring war means declaring war. thus, using the words WAR
Resolutions are not a declaration of war and thus, are ways to avoid making the commitment that war demands.
Now, I have seen a lot of 'legalise' in your posts, but the fact is the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no foreign treaty can legally or morally supersede it and the American People can ignore any treaty that claims to do so.
Yes, it does. The problem here is that you are clueless when it comes to understanding what the Constitution says, the sovereign powers it grants to the branches of government, and the sovereign powers the Constitution incorporated from the Law of Nations.
Clue: the sovereign power to declare war is separate from the other sovereign powers also addressed by the Constitution.
You do not have a clue what declaring war means and does not mean. You are reaching false conclusions because you are confusing different kinds of sovereign powers the Constitution is granting to the Federal government.
Thank you for the extended reply.
I assume you realize your comments are not facts, they are the arguing points of one side.
Mexican War:
There is no question Santa Ana was a bad dude and that Mexico was more or less a failed state. But that doesn’t justify aggressive war to acquire territory.
I believe I’ll allow an officer with a birds-eye view to give his opinion of whether this was a just war. From a period long before PC or multi-culturalism came into being.
“Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.”
U. S. Grant, Memoirs, On the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War
“The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.”
Ulysses S. Grant, Memoirs, On the annexation of Texas
“It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.”
Ulysses S. Grant, Memoirs
War of 1812
Most of what you say is not inaccurate, but is of course only one side of the story.
After the consummation of the Louisiana Purchase, intelligent elements in the British government abandoned any notion of conquest of the USA.
The British supported Indian nations who were resisting American aggression and invasion. So what’s wrong with that? Has the US never supported nations resisting foreign invasion?
There is little doubt one factor in the American decision to declare war, especially among western congresscritters, was a desire to conquer Canada, which would qualify as aggression. If not for extreme incompetence on the American side and great heroism on the British/Canadian side, they would have succeeded.
Spanish-American War
The USA had been attempting to acquire Cuba at intervals for most of the century. Spain, more or less a failed state by then, posed absolutely no threat to America.
Sure they were brutal in their rule of Cuba, but no more so than we were in our conquest of the Philippines. And a great deal less than the Congo Free State, the Germans in SW Africa and other colonists. We didn’t intervene to save the Congolese or Hereros because doing so would have involved us in war against non-failed states. The Spanish were easy game.
Right, and he also believes that Iran deserves, and has every right to be Nuclear armed. (And we have no right, or authority to deny them one.)
But go ahead, be amazingly stupid anyway and vote for RUN Paul!
IIRC, it was Ron Paul who brought up using Letters of Marque and Reprisal to target those organizations and their leaders, rather than invading nations.
Congress is the branch of Gov't that has that power.
The Constitution is a simple document and what it states is very clear.
Nothing complicated about it.
Tomorrow, the Congress convenes and declares war on Iran.
So does war exist between us and Iran or not?
Wednesday, December 28, 2011 11:06:32 AM · 48 of 52
Sherman Logan to WhiskeyX
Thank you for the extended reply.
I assume you realize your comments are not facts, they are the arguing points of one side.
War of 1812
Most of what you say is not inaccurate, but is of course only one side of the story.
After the consummation of the Louisiana Purchase, intelligent elements in the British government abandoned any notion of conquest of the USA.
Unfortunately, the elements of the British Government actually in control of and/or influencing the covert actions of the government continued the covert policy of inciting the dissolution of the United States by a variety of military, diplomatic, and economic means, which included armed conflict on the agreed upon territories of the United states under the command and/or the assistance of the King's commissioned officers. Britain attempted to collapse the U.S. economy by removing the bulk of U.S. gold and silver coinage from circulation in concert with the destruction of the U.S. merchant marine for the purpose of destroying the confidence of U.S. citizens in their government's ability to protect and defend them against economic hardship and armed attacks. The covert British policies nearly succeeded in the incitement of revolt and secession on a number of occasions, including support of the plot where the U.S. settlers west of the Appalachians were to secede and support the annexation of their territory by Spain. The British efforts to incite the secession of New England were well known. The British overtures to acquire the Republic of Texas are a matter of record. British officers resigned their commissions long enough to serve in the armed forces of the Confederate states of America (CSA), having been assured their former British commissions would be available to them later on. Although the British Government and its Prime Ministers were making overt efforts to abate hostile relations with the United States at various intervals of time, they still regarded the democratic form of government as an illegitimate form of government to be opposed by covert means beyond the view of the public. So, any attempts to pretend Britain did not have an effective faction engaging the British Government in covert hostilities and acts of war against the United States before and after the War of 1812 are contrary to the historical records.
The British supported Indian nations who were resisting American aggression and invasion. So what’s wrong with that? Has the US never supported nations resisting foreign invasion?
Just about everything is wrong with that. First, the British government had no right, legal or otherwise, to send the King's commissioned officers into the territories it had just ceded to the United States by treaty for the purpose of inciting and giving military support to the capture, enslavement, torture, and murder of U.S. Citizens, much less women and children. Second, the particular Indian nations used in your example were not resisting a foreign invasion and were not sovereign nations with whom Britain could lawfully conduct foreign relations, diplomacy, or military affairs.
With the end of the French and Indian Wars of 1763, Britain had established treaties with these particular Indian nations in which these Indian nations acknowledged being subordinate subject nations of the King of England. After the end of the Revolutionary War, the Indian nations within the territories ceded by Britain to the United States concluded treaties acknowledging their subordination as subject nations of the United States. Britain before and since the War of 1812 made war against sovereign states who attempted to incite Britain's subject nations to make war upon Britain. The United States possessed the same right to defend its territories and conduct its own affairs with its subject nations without foreign military interventions constituting acts of war. Furthermore, Britain had no right under international law to incite subject Indian nations to engage in armed conflict against the subject Indian nations who refused to make war upon the United States and whom the United States defended against armed conflict with belligerent Indian nations. Under the circumstances of British military officers conducting armed attacks upon the territories of the United States ceded by Britain against U.S. Citizens and against subject Indian nations, the United States had both the right and the obligation to declare war upon Britain in self-defense against Britain's armed attacks.
British government officials wrote often about their concern for their armed attacks inciting the U.S. Government to declare war before Britain and its foreign policy were adequately prepared to overtly declare war.Britain did not want the overt war with the United States to commence until after the Napoleonic War was concluded and Britain's armed forces could be reoriented for a war with the United States. The United States was the defender and not the aggressor in this conflict, despite the counteroffensive against British Canada.
There is little doubt one factor in the American decision to declare war, especially among western congresscritters, was a desire to conquer Canada, which would qualify as aggression. If not for extreme incompetence on the American side and great heroism on the British/Canadian side, they would have succeeded.
No, the counteroffensive against British Canada was certainly not aggression, whether or not some elements of U.S public opinion favored the conquest of Canada. Britain's overt counter-revolutionary war upon the United States was replaced at the time of the peace treaty in 1783 with a covert counter-revolutionary war upon the United States. This counter-revolutionary war was pursued with greater or lesser will as the British foreign policy found it convenient to prosecute and meet Britain's other foreign policy objectives. Britain used British Canada as the support base for much of its aggressive covert military operations, including armed attacks within U.S. territories and hostile naval attacks from ports in British Canada. To oppose the covert armed offensives being conducted by Britain and its allies, required the United States to conduct counteroffensives against the British military bases, military forces, and allies responsible for conducting the covert military offensives in the territories of the United States. Since most of these British offensive forces were located in British Canada, only a counteroffensive into British Canada would be able to engage those forces, defeat them, and disarm their capability to continue those offensives into the territories of the United States and upon the ships of the United States. Consequently, the U.S. invasion into British Canada was a counteroffensive conducted to defend the United States against a British covert war of aggression.
Mexican War: There is no question Santa Ana was a bad dude and that Mexico was more or less a failed state. But that doesn’t justify aggressive war to acquire territory. I believe I’ll allow an officer with a birds-eye view to give his opinion of whether this was a just war. From a period long before PC or multi-culturalism came into being. “Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.” U. S. Grant, Memoirs, On the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War “The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.” Ulysses S. Grant, Memoirs, On the annexation of Texas “It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.” Ulysses S. Grant, Memoirs
”Aggressive war to acquire territory” was not made unlawful under the international law of armed conflict until the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Conversely, it was quite unjust for Mexico to unlawfully take the lives and the property of U.S., British, French, Spanish, and other civilians entitled to the sovereign protection of the Mexican Government. It was unjust for Mexico to unlawfully deny the payment of the reparations repeatedly agreed upon by treaties for its violations of Mexican and international laws against these civilians. Mexico, under the leadership of Santa Ana, repeatedly threatened to make aggressive war upon the United States, so it was no surprise to anyone knowledgeable of such affairs when Santa Ana launched his campaign to begin the reconquest of Texas as the first stage of his campaign to conquer New Orleans and the Louisiana Territory.
While it was not illegal under the international law of armed conflict for Mexico to attempt a war of aggression to conquer the U.S. territory, it was a breach of the peace and diplomatic relations with the United States which justified the United States in making defensive war upon Mexico. The United States was already justly entitled by treaty and international law to the reparations for damages from Mexico, before Mexico initiated the war of aggression against the United States. The damages incurred by the United States as a consequence of Mexico making war upon the United States and surrendering to the United States were lawfully and therefore justly owed by Mexico to the United States as a just indemnification for damages sustained.
It could be argued that Mexico had a moral right to pay the United States the reparations owed to the United States before the war and the indemnity it owed as a consequence of the war, but Mexico had already repeatedly defaulted on its just obligations to the United States before the war. There was no reason to expect Mexico would voluntarily honor its just obligations to the United States after the war and the United States occupation ended any more than it did so before the war. Consequently, it was a lawful and just act for the United States to take or accept reimbursement for the obligations Mexico owed the United States in the form of whatever assets Mexico possessed in the amounts necessary to satisfy the obligation/s to the United States. Mexico lacked the monetary assets even remotely needed to satisfy its just obligations, because they had been squandered to enrich its dictators and aristocrats, make civil war against its own constitutional government, and make aggressive war upon the United States. The only assets it possessed which were of sufficient monetary value to satisfy its obligations to the United States and other foreign holders of the Mexican debts by the end of the occupation was Mexico's territorial possessions. Although the United States possessed the lawful right under the international law of the time to annex any of the Mexican territories it conquered, regardless of the war being aggressive or defensive, and still require Mexico to reimburse the United States for the pre-war reparations and a war indemnity, the United States did not do so. Instead, the United States demanded nothing more than the pre-war reparations and a very limited indemnity for the war damages. Contrary to popular misinformation, the taking of the Mexican territory was a just exchange of territorial assets for the lives and property assets previously taken unjustly by Mexico and unjustly withheld for decades.
The aggressive attitudes decried by Grant have little relevance to the question of the war being aggression on the part of the United States. First, there are always a certain part of a 19th Century populace, U.S. and foreign, which was going to be supportive of aggressive territorial acquisitions and proclamations of Manifest Destiny. Second, the United States had spent decades attempting to persuade Mexico to meet its just obligations to the United states and other nations by settling its treaty obligations for payment of the reparations. Mexico failed to do so, and instead threatened to make a war of aggression. It can therefore be no wonder or surprise when 19th Century people looked with anticipation at the opportunities for defeating the aggressor and taking the war prizes which the international law of armed conflict in that day and age permitted to be taken by the victorious. Santa Ana loudly boasted of his being the Latin American Napoleon Bonaparte on the battlefield and how he would conquer the United States territories, which inspired the targets of his aggressions to covet the forthcoming war prizes to be won in response to Santa Ana's boasts. Contrary to such sentiments, the United States did forgo the opportunity to claim the conquered territories as lawful war prizes, but instead purchased the parts of the conquered territories necessary for Mexico to meet its just obligations to the United States. Such forgoing of war prizes is not the act of an aggressor, but it is consistent with the act of a defender demanding a just settlement of the unjust acts of the defeated sovereign.
Spanish-American War
The USA had been attempting to acquire Cuba at intervals for most of the century. Spain, more or less a failed state by then, posed absolutely no threat to America.
Spain believed it posed a threat to the United States and reminded the United States of this threat on numerous occasions. The United States went from having the first or second largest navy in the world in 1865 to having one of the smallest navies in the world in the following decades. In the decades before the Spanish American war. Spain, by contrast, had a much more formidable navy, at least on the paper specifications. It was not until just before the Spanish American War and the following years that the United States Navy was began to be rebuilt to become one of the few most powerful navies in the world. Spain also boasted a larger Army than the United States. As a European power accustomed to participating in European coalitions, Spain retained the ability to act in concert with another aggressor, and it could grant the other aggressor the use of Cuba as a base from which to launch an invasion of the United States.
Imperial Germany drew up plans on more than one occasion which proposed punishing the foreign policy of the United States and its opposition to German Imperial conquests. One or more of those planned military campaigns contemplated an alliance with Spain and the use of Cuba as the staging base for the invasion of the United States. Their plan was to seize areas of the United States such as New York City and its surrounding region and/or Washington City and its region and occupy hem long enough for the United States to sue for peace and make political and territorial concessions to Germany and its allies. Spain would be induced to participate in return for U.S. territories.
So, the assertion that Spain was no threat to the United States is utter nonsense. Cuba is and always has been a potential base for enemies of the United States to utilize as a staging area for offensive military operations against the continental United States and its seaborne lines of communication with its ports on the Gulf of Mexico and riverine commerce in the Mississippi River Basin. The Soviet use of Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis is another case demonstrating the actuality of the threat.
The United States did offer on a number of occasions to purchase Cuba before the Spanish American War. The United States did so in part for commercial access to Cuba, but also to settle the civil armed conflicts which disrupted the peace and security of Cuba and its neighbors. Spain had resorted to genocidal measures against its civilian population in its efforts to defeat the revolutionary insurgents seeking independence from Spain and its inhumane treatment of the civilian population. Nonetheless, the United States generally acted to remain neutral, peacefully negotiate, and avoid making aggressive acts against Spanish Cuba. When the neutrality of the United States was compromised, the U.S. acted to disarm the insurgents using U.S. territory. When Spain executed British and U.S. citizens involved in the insurgent activities, the United States avoided making war.
It was not until Spanish military officers appeared to incite civil riots threatening the lives and property of U.S. and other foreign civilians in Cuba that the United States ordered the USS MAINE to visit the Cuban port for the purpose of providing U.S. citizens and foreign citizens a safe place to which they could retreat along with diplomatic personnel. This peacekeeping mission was destroyed when the USS MAINE exploded and was destroyed in the harbor. The Spanish Government and its military officers were blamed, rightfully or wrongfully, for using explosive to blow up the USS MAINE, which remains in forensic controversy to the present day. Nonetheless, the incident could still have been settled peacefully, if Spain had acted and responded positively to the many suggestions for guaranteeing the safety of the foreign citizens, their property, and the civilian population being held in the re-concentration camps. Spain refused to refrain from its armed conflict with the revolutionary insurgents and its threats to use force against the foreign citizens and properties,. In response to Spain's refusal to make peace, the United States established a naval blockade of Cuba and demanded that Spain negotiate the end of the war against the Cuban people, give the Cuban people independence from Spain, and restore peaceful diplomatic relations
The sinking of the USS MAINE and the Spanish incited riots against the foreign citizens were regarded as acts of war to which the United States responded to with its own limited act of war, a naval blockade of Spanish Cuba and demand for withdrawal of Spanish occupation. Rather than deescalate the acts of war and negotiate the restoration of peaceful diplomatic relations, Spain declared war and initiated an unlimited war upon the United States. Spain's aggression upon the United States was its executions of U.S. and foreign citizens, military incited riots against Cuban autonomy, U.S. and other foreign citizens and their properties, and the perceived sinking of the U.S. warship sent to protect the civilians. Spain could have avoided becoming engaged in a war with the United States, without surrendering possession of Cuba before it declared war upon the United States, but Spain chose not to do so. Once Spain declared unlimited war upon the United States, Spain's possessions were lawfully subject to conquest and annexation under the international law prevailing in those years, and Spain knew this to be true when it confidently declared war upon the United States. Thinking the U.S. Navy was inferior to the Spanish navy, Spain was confident of defending Spanish Cuba and conquering U.S. territories in the Caribbean and elsewhere. Spain miscalculated its military capabilities and failed to conquer the U.S. territories it anticipated when declaring war.
Sure they were brutal in their rule of Cuba, but no more so than we were in our conquest of the Philippines. And a great deal less than the Congo Free State, the Germans in SW Africa and other colonists. We didn’t intervene to save the Congolese or Hereros because doing so would have involved us in war against non-failed states. The Spanish were easy game.
The U.S. military campaigns in the Philippine Insurrection were no comparison whatsoever to the Spanish war upon the Cuban civilian population or the other conflicts you referenced, and to say so is a very reprehensible lie.
Spain chose to declare war upon the United States and refused to negotiate a peaceful cessation of its hostile acts of war upon U.S. citizens and their property, other foreign citizens, or the non-combatant civilian population of Cuba. Spain, especially in alliance with another hostile power, was quite capable and evidently willing to go war against the United States when it declared war upon the United States. Spain would not have “been easy game” at all had the U.S. Navy failed and thereby encouraged Germany to join the conflict with Cuba as a base of operations. In fact, Germany did attempt to intervene on behalf of Spain in the Philippines, but did not become an allied belligerent once it became apparent Spain had already lost the war it had declared.
There's nothing too complicated about it once you understand the proper terminology and how to use it, which you have not. So, it appears that it is at least complicated enough for you to fail how to understand it.
It is true to say the United States of America is a sovereign state or a sovereign nation.
It is true to say a sovereign state or nation such as the United States of America possesses the sovereign power to make a declaration of war.
It is true to say a sovereign state or nation such as the United States of America possesses the sovereign power to declare war.
It is true to say the United States of America possessed the sovereign right to make a declaration of war after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787.
It is true to say the United States of America possessed the sovereign right to declare war after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787.
It is not true to say the United States of America possessed the sovereign right to make a declaration of war after signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the Budapest Agreement of 194, and the Charter of the United Nations, if doing so was not in self-defense, the defense of a member of the United Nations and ally subjected to aggression and breach of international peace, or as a United Nations authorized peacemaker or peacekeeper restoring a breach of international peace. The United States of America and other sovereigns who were signatories to these international agreements surrendered their former sovereign rights to initiate a breach of international peace and make war as a means of settling international disputes between sovereigns. The sovereign power to initiate a breach of international peace and make war as a means of settling international disputes between sovereigns still exists, but the exercise of this sovereign power is likely to constitute a breach of international peace and an unlawful breach of the laws of armed conflict.
It is true to say the sovereign power to declare war can be executed by a formal declaration of war. A formal declaration of war is used in international diplomacy for the purpose providing enemy belligerents, neutral sovereigns, and allies with a public notice needed to make all parties aware of their obligations under the laws of armed conflict
It is true to say the sovereign power to declare war can be executed without a formal declaration of war. The laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions provide the ultimatum as another method for announcing the conditional state of war in the event the conditions remain unmet.
It is true to say to say a sovereign state or nation such as the United States of America possesses the sovereign power to engage its armed forces in armed conflict against another sovereign and declare war.
It is true to say to say a sovereign state or nation such as the United States of America possesses the sovereign power to engage its armed forces in armed conflict against another sovereign and not declare war. Sovereigns have customarily engaged in armed conflict while declining to declare war against each other .
It is true to say to say a sovereign state or nation such as the United States of America possesses the sovereign power to engage its armed forces in armed conflict against another sovereign and not declare war. Sovereigns have engaged in armed conflict while declining to breach diplomatic relations or declaring war against each other
It is true to say to say a sovereign state or nation such as the United States of America possesses the sovereign power to not engage its armed forces in armed conflict and not declare war against another sovereign while the other sovereign has breached diplomatic relations and/or engaged in armed conflict with the United States of America and/or another member of the United Nations and ally.
It is true to say another sovereign can breach diplomatic relations and engage the United states in armed conflict in a breach of the peace without a need for the United States to declare war in order for a state of war to exist.
Nothing complicated about it.
An undeclared state of war between Iran and the United States already exists and has existed ever since the Government of Iran unlawfully committed an act of war with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy, held U.S. Citizens possessing diplomatic immunity as prisoners and hostages, and remained in hostile breach of diplmtic relations as a belligerent against the United States. The existence of a state of war and/or hostile belligerency does not require the defender to declare war or make a formal declaration of war.
Yes, there is nothing complicated about it, the US can declare war on any nation it sees necessary to do so.
If the U.S. Congress declares war formally and offically, will the U.S. be at war with Iran or not?
Nothing complicated about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.