From Republican Congressman Ron Paul's article, "Another United Nations War?"
"... in going to war in 1991, (the first President Bush) sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security..."
"...Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved..."
"...(our government) now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary..." "...The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress..."
If we're truly going to war for the security of the United States, we need a Declaration of War from Congress. So what's the big deal? Is it too much to ask, expecting our elected representatives to follow the law?
Saying "Iraq violated United Nations resolutions" isn't good enough, especially since the majority of members of the U.N. don't want us to enforce those resolutions with force.
She referred the audience to Margaret Thatcher's biography in which is detailed Bush's decision to stay her hand (where assistance to Kuwait was concerned) pending a "mother may I? Yes you may." from the UN Security Council.
At the time, Kirkpatrick was adamant that our submitting our national sovereignty (as well as the de facto submission of national sovereignty of any nation invaded like Kuwait) to the UN was absolutely WRONG. She cited the "one-nation one-vote" nature of the Security Council ... nations with little or nothing in the way of financial support or LIVES to put on the line deciding what the US would ultimately do.
Naturally, she'd changed her tune entirely by last year ... instead of consistently excoriating the UN, oohing and aahing over what great friends they turned out to be as we beat our chests and pummeled the third-worlders of Afghanistan in a great show of vengeance against Osama which accomplished nothing save the re-upping of the drug trades, reinstallation of the thugs who'd always been friendly to the "former Soviet" drug trade and obliteration of the last of those who'd consistently resisted the old "Evil Empire".
Not true, Jefferson, and Madison after him, sent the US Navy to take care of some other Arab Muslims, known as the Barbary Pirates or sometimes the Barbary Corsairs, with a Congressional Declaration of War. From that incident comes the "to the shores of Tripoli", portion of the Marine Corps Hymn. This time, as last time, the President has a Congressional authorization for the use of force. That's enough to satisfy the Constitutional requirements. The Constiution gives Congress the power to declare war, it is true, but it also makes the President Commander in Chief. Nowhere does it require a Declaration of War in order for the President to exercise his powers as Comander in Chief.
Or perhaps Congressman Paul thinks that Jefferson and Madison, the latter having written much of the Constitution, did not understand the Constitution?
Does anyone know the last time any country made a formal declaration of war against another?
They may not have "declared war" but Congress did give the President authorization to go after Saddem
Yes they cant go to war and collect their special interest PORK CHECKS !
LOL, You have to ask?