On the other hand, if the US beleives that it is appropriate for us to initiate the use of force (Iraq, Libya, Grenada, etc.) then I think a Congressional Declaration of War should be mandatory. Get Congress behind the effort, or don't start the effort.
Related to that, I believe that all Wars should be fought to win. That means we kill people and we break things. Men, women, children -- sorry about the deaths, but we're here to win. Again, if we don't feel comfortable with that, then we should not declare the war and we should not start the fight.
Lastly, nuclear weapons should understood to be on the table at all times. When we delcare war, we should state that nuclear weapons will be used in the conflict if we deem it necessary. Don't like it? Want to fight with one arm tied behind your back? Then maybe we aren't serious about the conflict and maybe we should skip the Declaration and just stay home.
We won WWII, fighting against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany simultaneously, and we did it in less than 4 years. There is absolutely no excuse for us to wage war for a longer period of time than that, unless we are losing and fighting for our lives. Fight to win. Make it quick, or stay home.
Obama has "complied" with what?
A vague authorization from nine years ago?
The nebulousness of the term "war on terror" needs to be addressed.
Far better to put the most powerful organization in the history of the planet into the hands of just one random idiot. (Yeah, just TRY and argue against the use of that word after 2008!!!) That should always guarantee that it will be used safely and properly. No individual would ever choose to misuse anything like that, especially when they have nobody to answer to, and the soldiers themselves have to cause to question the validity of the orders to storm the Supreme Court, or lay siege to an American city, or empty assorted museums for his personal collection.
(Try reading a little bit of history, people... and try to have just a little tiny bit of regard for those who gave us one of the 3 most important writings in the history of the world.)
I would think with a true declaration of war, it frees the president from much of the anti-war criticism (”hey Congress declared this war, I’m just doing what they told me”)and makes it easier to prosecute treason and sedition.
Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Think there was some adhering and aid and comfort from Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink and other a-holes during Iraq? How about Jane Fonda during Vietnam?
click on my name and read
I was told Bush was talked out of declaring war on 911 because of two things:
1. the attack on the twin towers would then be classified as an act of war
2. insurance policies would be null and void. Insurance will not compensate you for losses due to “acts of war”.
A formal declaration of war is the only way to unite the nation to win a major war. Any alternative is open to divisions. It was last done in WW II and that was the last war that we won. Since then the country has been divided - Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. You want to win - pass a formal declaration of war.
Why not a formal declaration of war?
I suggest you revise and extend your comments to include the historical context of the clause. It will make your piece much better ... and it will probably change your argument, too.
ping!
I'm curious what other posters think: Does the declaration of war have to be signed by the President or, could he veto it and require a two-thirds majority?
Ron Paul voted yes for an undeclared war.
To get those that attacked us on 9-11-2001.