Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:16:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:18:28 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Was it because they launched a military attack on us?

Clearly it was NOT Germany and Italy who attacked us on 12-7-41, yet we declared war on Germany and Italy five days later anyway simply because they had declared war on us first (in allegience with Japan whom we earlier declared war against).

So basically - the last time Congress ever approved a "formal declaration of war" against anyone - it was done NOT because we were attacked by them, it was because THEY declared war on US first.


So WHY did we never declare war on Al Qaeda and other large, organized, well-funded militant groups protected by governments (Taliban, etc.) who had ALSO formally and publically "declared war" on the United States of America (through all their formal "jihads" and "fatwas", etc.) , even after 9-11?

The popular reason is that "there was no country to declare war against". Well that's bullshit. This stupidity was parroted across the media by pundits and spineless senators immediately following 9-11 and so many idiots fell for it. I can clearly remember that prick himself, Osama Joe Biden, on the Sunday talkshows defiantly saying "NO" that there will be no declaration of war from Congress - "because there was no country to declare war against"..... and then we went and invaded Afghanistan, attacked Al Qaeda bases and overthrew the Taliban government - because there was no "country" to declare war against.

IMO, a MAJOR reason we haven't "won" a war since WWII is because we can't even muster the will to DECLARE war anymore.

If we can't even summon the courage and clarity to DECLARE war against an enemy who has already declared war on us AND attacked us here at home - then how the hell can we imagine that we can actually DEFEAT this enemy???


Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:20:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:24:47 AM EDT by Max_Mike]
Germany declared war on US first so we declared war back.

Other than that I agree.

ETA: On second thought I don’t believe it would be wise to elevate Al Qaeda to nation status. That could carry more negatives than positives...
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:23:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Germany declared war on US first so we declared war back.


Al Qaeda declared war on us too... AND they attacked our largest city and our nation's capital - something Germany, Italy and Japan never did.


So.... how come we haven't declared war on Al Qaeda?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:24:09 AM EDT
no balls
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:24:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:25:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:34:23 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Germany declared war on US first so we declared war back.


Al Qaeda declared war on us too... AND they attacked our largest city and our nation's capital - something Germany, Italy and Japan never did.


So.... how come we haven't declared war on Al Qaeda?



Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:27:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:


Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.





I disagree


We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:29:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:31:19 AM EDT by motown_steve]
There's probably sme kind of formal trickiness involving the UN that has prevented us from declaring war since WW2. Just a WAG though.

After all, it wouldn't look good if we formed the UN to prevent war and then ran around declaring war on everybody would it?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:30:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:50:59 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:


Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.





I disagree


We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.



This would then, under international law, make Al Qaeda terrorists soldiers subject to the rules of war, POW treatment, etc. Not something we really want to do.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:32:27 AM EDT
A declaration of war requires that you define a target.

The neocons prefer the latitude of doing whatever the fuck the feel like.
Better to not be tied down.

"We're at war with East Asia."
"We've always been at war with East Asia."
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:32:41 AM EDT
This is one of the few reason I favor a 'palestinian' state.. it gives an easy target to bomb.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:33:04 AM EDT
It seems ridiculous that WWII was the last time war was declared given the number of armed conflicts the US has been involved in.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:33:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Germany declared war on US first so we declared war back.


Al Qaeda declared war on us too... AND they attacked our largest city and our nation's capital - something Germany, Italy and Japan never did.


So.... how come we haven't declared war on Al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.


Substitute the word "Al Qaeda" for "Germany" and write the formal declaration.

Al Qaeda had funds that we froze, they had people and training bases that we attacked, they had a country and its government protecting them that we invaded and overthrew... what's the problem with a formal declaration of war supporting our "war" against Al Qaeda???

In the Barbary War, Congress gave Jefferson authority to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify" and that was also directed against a non-governmental group of terrorists (i.e. "pirates").

Your answer simply repeats the nonsense spewed by Biden and the rest of the hamstringers in Congress who fail to commit our full efforts to defeating a very well-organized, well-funded, well-sheilded militant enemy who has already declared war on us and attacked us at home simply because of a made-up, non-constitutional, baseless limitation on "who" Congress can declare war on.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:33:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
It seems ridiculous that WWII was the last time war was declared given the number of armed conflicts the US has been involved in.



Even prior to WWII, the US fought more undeclared than declared wars.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:35:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
A declaration of war requires that you define a target.

"Al Qaeda".

How's that for a start?

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:36:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Germany declared war on US first so we declared war back.


Al Qaeda declared war on us too... AND they attacked our largest city and our nation's capital - something Germany, Italy and Japan never did.


So.... how come we haven't declared war on Al Qaeda?



Having though about more.,. I don’t think it wise to give Al Qaeda the same status you would another nation.

If you do this…

Do Al Qaeda terrorist get the same protections POWs are granted… meaning you cannot charge them with jack because they de-facto become soldiers… you cannot question them at all if they decline. I guarantee you the left would push the issue and probably have US law on their side.

Who else might give Al Qaeda nation status?

Seem to me real and potential unintended consequences of declaring war on Al Qaeda outweigh the benefits.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:36:43 AM EDT
...'cause they had it coming
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:36:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:37:47 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
<snip>

In the Barbary War, Congress gave Jefferson authority to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify" and that was also directed against a non-governmental group of terrorists (i.e. "pirates").

Your answer simply repeats the nonsense spewed by Biden and the rest of the hamstringers in Congress who fail to commit our full efforts to defeating a very well-organized, well-funded, well-sheilded militant enemy who has already declared war on us and attacked us at home simply because of a made-up, non-constitutional, baseless limitation on "who" Congress can declare war on



We never declared war against the Barbary States. We fought not one but TWO wars with them, both without a formal declaration of war. You might want to pick an example that actually SUPPORTS your contention.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:39:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.

I disagree

We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.



This would then, under international law, make Al Qaeda terrosits soldiers subject to the rules of war, POW treatment, etc. Not something we really want to do.

Well now you're getting somewhere.

And so as "soldiers" - any Al Qaeda found in non-uniform or "civilian" dress or hiding among civlians would forfeit their POW status and protections under international rules of war and be treated as spies, would they not?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:40:07 AM EDT
Because , the friends of our enemy are also the enemy.

Germany and Japan were Allies, as was Germany and Italy therefore we were at war with them too, when we declared on Japan.

Alliances mean things!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:41:27 AM EDT
Because , the friends of our enemy are also the enemy.

Germany and Japan were Allies, as was Germany and Italy therefore we were at war with them too, when we declared on Japan.

Alliances mean things!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:42:29 AM EDT
The September 14th Resolution…

http://www.usamemorial.org/sept11041.htm

…meets all the Constitutional requirements for an official declaration of war.

In effect Congress did declare war on Al Qaeda and anyone else Bush decides needs an ass kicking.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:42:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.

I disagree

We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.



This would then, under international law, make Al Qaeda terrosits soldiers subject to the rules of war, POW treatment, etc. Not something we really want to do.

Well now you're getting somewhere.

And so as "soldiers" - any Al Qaeda found in non-uniform or "civilian" dress or hiding among civlians would forfeit their POW status and protections under international rules of war and be treated as spies, would they not?



No. There is no legal requirement the soldiers wear a standardized uniform.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:43:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.

I disagree

We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.



This would then, under international law, make Al Qaeda terrosits soldiers subject to the rules of war, POW treatment, etc. Not something we really want to do.

Well now you're getting somewhere.

And so as "soldiers" - any Al Qaeda found in non-uniform or "civilian" dress or hiding among civlians would forfeit their POW status and protections under international rules of war and be treated as spies, would they not?



You cannot guarantee that would be the legal determination.

So why open a can of worms that you may not be able to close again.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:45:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
<snip>

In the Barbary War, Congress gave Jefferson authority to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify" and that was also directed against a non-governmental group of terrorists (i.e. "pirates").

Your answer simply repeats the nonsense spewed by Biden and the rest of the hamstringers in Congress who fail to commit our full efforts to defeating a very well-organized, well-funded, well-sheilded militant enemy who has already declared war on us and attacked us at home simply because of a made-up, non-constitutional, baseless limitation on "who" Congress can declare war on



We never declared war against the Barbary States. We fought not one but TWO wars with them, both without a formal declaration of war. You might want to pick an example that actually SUPPORTS your contention.

Yes I'm quite aware of the history of the Barbary Wars.

Let me highlight my point in read because you missed it in your nitpicking: In the Barbary War, Congress gave Jefferson authority to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify" and that was also directed against a non-governmental group of terrorists

Congress came as close to declaring war as it can be - and by that statement in red did far more in "authorizing" Jefferson to engage in "a state of war" than anything Congress has done since 9-11.


So now it's you're turn - show me where in the Constitution it dictates HOW Congress shall "declare" war and WHOM war can and cannot be declared upon?

Time's up - there is none. So your answer about us not declaring war on AQ because "it is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization" is baseless. It's not anymore difficult to declare war against AQ than it is to declare war on the Taliban or the Nazi Germany.



Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:48:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
<snip>

In the Barbary War, Congress gave Jefferson authority to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify" and that was also directed against a non-governmental group of terrorists (i.e. "pirates").

Your answer simply repeats the nonsense spewed by Biden and the rest of the hamstringers in Congress who fail to commit our full efforts to defeating a very well-organized, well-funded, well-sheilded militant enemy who has already declared war on us and attacked us at home simply because of a made-up, non-constitutional, baseless limitation on "who" Congress can declare war on



We never declared war against the Barbary States. We fought not one but TWO wars with them, both without a formal declaration of war. You might want to pick an example that actually SUPPORTS your contention.

Yes I'm quite aware of the history of the Barbary Wars.

Let me highlight my point in read because you missed it in your nitpicking: In the Barbary War, Congress gave Jefferson authority to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify" and that was also directed against a non-governmental group of terrorists

Congress came as close to declaring war as it can be - and by that statement in red did far more in "authorizing" Jefferson to engage in "a state of war" than anything Congress has done since 9-11.


So now it's you're turn - show me where in the Constitution it dictates HOW Congress shall "declare" war and WHOM war can and cannot be declared upon?

Time's up - there is none. So your answer about us not declaring war on AQ because "it is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization" is baseless. It's not anymore difficult to declare war against AQ than it is to declare war on the Taliban or the Nazi Germany.






The US has fought in over 100 armed conflicts in our history. We have only fought in 5 declared wars. That means over 90% of the wars we have fought are JUST LIKE THE CURRENT ONE.

What benefit does the US get by formally declaring war? Please be specific.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:48:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:


Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.





I disagree


We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.



This would then, under international law, make Al Qaeda terrosits soldiers subject to the rules of war, POW treatment, etc. Not something we really want to do.




point taken

good one.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:56:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:02:06 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.

I disagree

We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.



This would then, under international law, make Al Qaeda terrosits soldiers subject to the rules of war, POW treatment, etc. Not something we really want to do.

Well now you're getting somewhere.

And so as "soldiers" - any Al Qaeda found in non-uniform or "civilian" dress or hiding among civlians would forfeit their POW status and protections under international rules of war and be treated as spies, would they not?

No. There is no legal requirement the soldiers wear a standardized uniform.


I think you're wrong. Combatants in a "war" who are not in uniform are not "soldiers" and so do not have the same protection as uniformed soldiers and POWs.

A quick look on Wikipedia finds this: It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages. More here

I don't know and don't have the time to find the actual text of these laws - but if you do, state them.



Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:58:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Germany declared war on US first so we declared war back.


Al Qaeda declared war on us too... AND they attacked our largest city and our nation's capital - something Germany, Italy and Japan never did.


So.... how come we haven't declared war on Al Qaeda?



Great idea!
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:01:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By supersix4:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Al Qaeda is not a nation. It is difficult to declare war on a shoadow organization without a formal leadership structure, capital, etc.

I disagree

We just declare we are at war with Al Qaeda.



This would then, under international law, make Al Qaeda terrosits soldiers subject to the rules of war, POW treatment, etc. Not something we really want to do.

Well now you're getting somewhere.

And so as "soldiers" - any Al Qaeda found in non-uniform or "civilian" dress or hiding among civlians would forfeit their POW status and protections under international rules of war and be treated as spies, would they not?

No. There is no legal requirement the soldiers wear a standardized uniform.


I think you're wrong. Combatants in a "war" who are not in uniform are not "soldiers" and so do not have the same protection as uniformed soldiers and POWs.

A quick look on Wikipedia finds this: It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

I don't know and don't have the time to find the actual text of these laws - but if you do, state them.






The problem is that once one CLAIMS POW status under the Third Geneva Convention, you are then eligible to a legal determination of that status. One side cannot just claim that the captive they have are all spies and do whatever they wish with them.

A declaration of war invokes a whole host of international laws. It is a can of worms best left unopened.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:06:31 AM EDT
I'll throw my .02 here on the rationale for declaring war on Germany. The United States had already been sending supplies to Great Britain commencing in 1940, and the Germans were hesitant to attack the ships of a neutral nation, especially the United States. Of course the Germans were desperate to stop the resupply of Great Britain. As soon as Japan declared war Germany finally had the opportunity to close this supply line. War was declared, and over 50 U.S. Merchant ships were sunk in December 1941. We had to declare war on Germany, U.S. flagged vessels were going to be attacked.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:13:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:19:08 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
What benefit does the US get by formally declaring war? Please be specific.


It allows us to prosecute traitors within our country, protect military recruiters and stop those enemies who engage in sedition (like those protesters who block military installations, picket our fallen soldiers' funerals, undercut troop morale, publically support the terrorist's goals, etc.).

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES



A major faction of our enemy are the traitors within our own country.

And as Speaker of the House Thomas Foley said regarding why Congress didn't declare war against Iraq back in 1991:
"The reason we did not declare a formal war was not because there is any difference I think in the action that was taken and in a formal declaration of war with respect to military operations, but because there is some question about whether we wish to excite or enact some of the domestic consequences of a formal declaration of war -- seizure of property, censorship, and so forth, which the President neither sought nor desired."

Basically we wouldn't do anything different militarily if we had a declaration of war - it's just that Congress is too afraid to have to confront the traitors within our own people who are undercutting our ability to muster a will to win.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:16:08 AM EDT
Politics, Mac...pure politics.

The Left in our country will be the death of us all yet...
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:25:31 AM EDT
The whole "War on Terror" is a misnomer at best, a blatant lie at worst.

If the French Foreign Legion had attacked the Trade Towers, we wouldn't hunt for FFL
cells around the globe, we'd declare war on France.

These Al Queda cells are just the vanguard of nation states, states that we have direct knowledge are funding and supporting Al Queda.

Until we address the real enemy here, we're gonna be swatting at individual cells for generations.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:35:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:37:19 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
What benefit does the US get by formally declaring war? Please be specific.


It allows us to prosecute traitors within our country, protect military recruiters and stop those enemies who engage in sedition (like those protesters who block military installations, picket our fallen soldiers' funerals, undercut troop morale, publically support the terrorist's goals, etc.).

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES



A major faction of our enemy are the traitors within our own country.

And as Speaker of the House Thomas Foley said regarding why Congress didn't declare war against Iraq back in 1991:
"The reason we did not declare a formal war was not because there is any difference I think in the action that was taken and in a formal declaration of war with respect to military operations, but because there is some question about whether we wish to excite or enact some of the domestic consequences of a formal declaration of war -- seizure of property, censorship, and so forth, which the President neither sought nor desired."

Basically we wouldn't do anything different militarily if we had a declaration of war - it's just that Congress is too afraid to have to confront the traitors within our own people who are undercutting our ability to muster a will to win.




Only Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2388 depends on the US being at war. Section 2387 already makes illegal what section 2388 applies to. It is just that during a war, the punishment can be doubled (from ten years to twenty years).

Tom Foley is an ass. There are no automatic provisions for seizure of property or censorship that follow with a declaration of war. He was speaking from his lower orifice, a practice he followed frequently.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:53:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
A declaration of war requires that you define a target.

"Al Qaeda".

How's that for a start?




Fair enough. Point to it on a map for me.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:54:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
We declared war on Germany and Italy because we wanted their oil!



That was WW I.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:02:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:
The whole "War on Terror" is a misnomer at best, a blatant lie at worst.



"War on <insert concept you don't like>"
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:11:00 AM EDT
Tag..interesting.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:17:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
So.... how come we haven't declared war on Al Qaeda?



the declaration of war is not a military issue--it is a political and diplomatic one. it is intended to clarify a nation's intent to the world in general, but more importantly, to the nation with which we are going to war. from the standpoint of diplomacy, it is the equivalent of going outside to settle a bar fight, rather than stabbing a guy in the back. it is a courtesy gesture--consider it the last act of openness the nation gives.

now, with that in mind, there are several reasons that a formal declaration of war against AQ is superfluous at best, and counterproductive at worst.

1--there is no need for courtesy. because of their own actions, AQ knows that they are fair game anywhere, anytime. consider the difference between 9-11 and the german formal declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare, and you'll understand what i mean. thus a DoW is superfluous.

2--AQ has no formal diplomatic channels through which a DoW can be made. why bother?

3--most significantly, a DoW is made by a nation to another nation--in other words, between equals. if we were to do so, we would actually be dignifying AQ, and raising their level of importance on the policy scale. a DoW would greatly increase the world standing of AQ, help their morale, and assist in their recruiting. you would be giving them a significant foundation upon which to build their apparatus, and put them in the position of the underdog, rather than cowardly assassins.

you don't formally declare war on termites. you exterminate them.

you've proven to be quite politically astute, and i have to admit that i'm surprised that you haven't come to these same conclusions yourself.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:18:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 11:20:07 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By rxdawg:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
A declaration of war requires that you define a target.

"Al Qaeda".
How's that for a start?

Fair enough. Point to it on a map for me.


Do you know the first country that we sent our military to to fight in WWII was? (It wasn't Japan, Italy, Germany or any other nation we declared war on)

A declaration of war doesn't include the necessity for attaching a map identifying where your enemy is and isn't.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:29:45 AM EDT
They declared war on us, so we declared war back.
War on Germany was what FDR wanted anyway.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:31:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 11:32:07 AM EDT by CalGat]
Macallan - first you are upset that we haven't delcared war on Al Qaeda, but then you say that Al Qaeda declared war on us? Where exactly is their Declaration of War against the US? I haven't seen it.

A Declaration of War is a diplomatic thing, and with no diplomats on the other side, what are we supposed to do?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:32:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Germany declared war on US first so we declared war back.


Al Qaeda declared war on us too... AND they attacked our largest city and our nation's capital - something Germany, Italy and Japan never did.


So.... how come we haven't declared war on Al Qaeda?



Because Al Qaeda is just one terrorist group.
What if we whacked bin Laden on September 15?
Don't you think the liberals would have said "ok, war's over, time to go home now"
By declaring war on terror, we allow the war to continue until we defeat Islamic extremism.

One could also be cynical and say that by declaring the war on terror, we allow it to continue indefinetly, much like the war on drugs and the war on poverty, allowing the federal gov't to grow ever larger, and providing an endless orwellian war to justufy the erosion of our rights even further.
But that's just if you are a cynic.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:42:48 AM EDT
Bu,bu, BUT,

Al Qaeda is a TERRORIST organization!
9/11 was a CRIMINAL act!

We need to bring the guilty to JUSTICE!

maybe the FBI can ARREST them all and...............

We'll throw the BOOK at them.......and......

WE CAN PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL!!!!

and, and then, we'll.........

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:47:30 AM EDT
The real reason was that FDR was looking for an excuse to openly get into the war on behalf of his butt-buddy, Joe Stalin. The Japanese were goaded into attacking us in order to supply a pretext for this. Unfortunately for a bunch of GI's, everybody underestimated the Japanese.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 12:05:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CommoMan:
The real reason was that FDR was looking for an excuse to openly get into the war on behalf of his butt-buddy, Joe Stalin. The Japanese were goaded into attacking us in order to supply a pretext for this. Unfortunately for a bunch of GI's, everybody underestimated the Japanese.



Dude! You better check your tinfoil. It's on way too tight.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 12:28:45 PM EDT
We declared war on Japan.

Germany and Italy declared war upon us a day or two later as Japanese allies.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 12:36:19 PM EDT
9,000,000,000,000 in debt and Bush at 35% and it still isn't enough war for you Neocons? WTF!
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 1:03:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
9,000,000,000,000 in debt and Bush at 35% and it still isn't enough war for you Neocons?

No.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 1:09:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 1:10:44 PM EDT by AROptics]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By AROptics:
9,000,000,000,000 in debt and Bush at 35% and it still isn't enough war for you Neocons?

No.



That's worth a quote.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top