• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does anyone even realize that we're at war?

Do the masses even realize we're at war?

  • yes

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • no

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's sad but I must admit that I don't even feel it, and neither does anyone else in my opinion. If you talk to younger kids they think war is just the status quo and something that shouldn't be feared they don't even get that it's actually quite far from the norm and something which is actually very scary. And then the obvious follow up question is why? Is it because war does not create the casualties as it did in the past or is it that we as a people have not been called upon (or ordered) to sacrifice for the victory which is ours only if we want it?
 
I am sure people will notice it if they check the budget..

Oh really is that why the masses are just as good if not better today than before 9-11? My point is that there is no sacrifice and that you, I, and no one has felt any tightening of the belt what so ever.
 
No I don't think anyone realizes we are at war except the people over there or who have loved ones over there. As far as I can tell it's business as usual for most people.


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
or is it that we as a people have not been called upon (or ordered) to sacrifice for the victory which is ours only if we want it?

I think that is part of why we aren't realizing we are at war.
WHY? I think we are more selfish now and more self involved. I have talked about this to my grandparents and it is unbeleivable how much their generation sacrificed to win their war. And guess what - they did win it.
 
Its very hard for people to keep their minds on a conflict, that, lets face it is in a far away country and the news comes on its the same report everytime pretty much"A car bomb went off outside baghdad killing 3 service men and 15 Iraqi citizens". Its awful really but its just become the normal newsreport from Iraq.Saddam led a terrible regime but people in Iraq where safer in their day to day lives.The concepts of democracy and freedom Arent always the most important things sometimes when security reaches crisis point.

To be honest even in world war 2 America didnt have it as hard as france russia and the uk pearl habour got bombed but london got bombed every night.

I think this kinda low amount of counterattack on American soil accounts to Americas gun ho approach to war. Out of sight out of mind.

Here in the Uk we still have troops in iraq and afganistan.Are news reports are alot different than any of the American news channels.Since the fall of saddam i dont think there has been a good report come from iraq full stop.
 
Oh really is that why the masses are just as good if not better today than before 9-11? My point is that there is no sacrifice and that you, I, and no one has felt any tightening of the belt what so ever.

You're dead on with this one. Very few people are willing to sacrifice anything these days. I just can't imagine this generation of Americans doing what people did during WWII.
 
Saddam led a terrible regime but people in Iraq where safer in their day to day lives.The concepts of democracy and freedom Arent always the most important things sometimes when security reaches crisis point.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Kurds who were gassed daily in the late 80's.

To be honest even in world war 2 America didnt have it as hard as france russia and the uk pearl habour got bombed but london got bombed every night.

I think this kinda low amount of counterattack on American soil accounts to Americas gun ho approach to war. Out of sight out of mind.

Here in the Uk we still have troops in iraq and afganistan.Are news reports are alot different than any of the American news channels.Since the fall of saddam i dont think there has been a good report come from iraq full stop.


There's no good news coming from Iraq because the corrupt press decides not to report it. There is good news, but it's not reported. I watched the Today Show this morning, and all but one story was negative; ditto Fox and Friends. They all laugh and giggle at each other, but the news part is dead serious, chilling and negative. It seems to be a trend in the press realm. In WW II you heard stories like: "Our Boys in the Pacific massacred those dirty Japs. Buy more War bonds to help them push the Jap and German menaces back to the **** hole they crawled out of!" ( I may have exaggerated, but oh well). And now all you hear is the defeatist, 1960's hippie press saying: "We're losing this conflict. All our children are dying, we're raping civilians in their own homes. Let's pull out before we piss off France"... OH NOOOOO. God forbid we piss off France, lest they invade us with spit balls and trays of escargot!!! PAH! Give me a break. We don't have children in Iraq and Afghanistan. WE HAVE MEN AND WOMEN! ADULTS WHO ARE BRAVER THAN ANY OF THE POLITICIANS AND REPORTERS WHO SIT ON THEIR FAT, SAGGY ASSES ALL DAY BITCHING AND MOANING!

Screw the naysayers! Let's finish this fight and come home with glory, honor and victory. Not defeatism, guilt and blame....
 
Oh really is that why the masses are just as good if not better today than before 9-11? My point is that there is no sacrifice and that you, I, and no one has felt any tightening of the belt what so ever.

I agree -- the general public doesn't even feel the cost of the war, since the Admin is just charging it on the giagantic national debt credit card. Future taxpayers will feel it, though.
 
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Kurds who were gassed daily in the late 80's.

What about the hundreds of thousands of dead as a result of the invasion and the word from GWB is they and we should be preparred for more.






Screw the naysayers! Let's finish this fight and come home with glory, honor and victory. Not defeatism, guilt and blame....

Finish the fight that makes it sound that its not far from done.This troop surge is to fight the battle for baghdad ALL OVER AGAIN,and now its a much more complex task than before.
 
Congress hasn't officially declared war and as such, we are not "at war".
 
Finish the fight that makes it sound that its not far from done.This troop surge is to fight the battle for baghdad ALL OVER AGAIN,and now its a much more complex task than before.

And? At least Bush and the Pentagon are trying to win. What's the Press and Congress done to win this? Re-deploy? HA! Re-deploy where? To Okinawa where General Jack Murtha wants em?

We're not fighting for Baghdad all over again. Despite what the NY Times tells you, we're winnig this war militarily; but not politically. Let us all do our research and read and listen to what the SOLDIERS ARE SAYING, not what Paul al-Krugman is saying in the op-eds.

And it's not that complex. It's quite simple actually. Leave the leadership to the XO's. Then we'll win faster.
 
War Powers

Yep, by Congress not acting to stop the President before or after 60 days, they essentially are agreeing to go to war. We are at War. Besides, the enemy scumbuckets DECLARED WAR ON the USA. Whether you like it or not people, you are at war.
 
War Powers

Yep, by Congress not acting to stop the President before or after 60 days, they essentially are agreeing to go to war. We are at War. Besides, the enemy scumbuckets DECLARED WAR ON the USA. Whether you like it or not people, you are at war.


No if there was no AUMF it would be an illegal war after 60 days as was the Kosovo war, but there was an AUMF for the war against terrorism and against Iraq in full alignment with the war powers resolution, legally speaking the President has been granted the war powers by congress, and our country is officially at war.
 
shuamort said:
Congress hasn't officially declared war and as such, we are not "at war".
sure, there was no declaration of war, but there most definitely a war going on, and we are in it ... but ...

TOT said:
War Powers Resolution of 1973, we're at war and have been since September of '01.
... GOP types like TOT will use a phrase like "at war" in an all-encompassing blurry fashion to mean Iraq, the hunt to find bin Laden, the "war" on terror, tapping US citizens' phones, etc.

The real war is in Iraq. All the other activity is CIA/FBI intelligence gathering police sorta stuff, regardless of the POTUS's fuzzy rhetoric, which either deliberately or accidently decieves.

And yes, TOT, the masses are aware we are at War in Iraq. Check the polls. Check Bush's approval rating. It's an important issue. People think about it. People are riled up about it. People are aware of it.

Problems and Priorities
 
... GOP types like TOT will use a phrase like "at war" in an all-encompassing blurry fashion to mean Iraq, the hunt to find bin Laden, the "war" on terror, tapping US citizens' phones, etc.

The real war is in Iraq. All the other activity is CIA/FBI intelligence gathering police sorta stuff, regardless of the POTUS's fuzzy rhetoric, which either deliberately or accidently decieves.

And yes, TOT, the masses are aware we are at War in Iraq. Check the polls. Check Bush's approval rating. It's an important issue. People think about it. People are riled up about it. People are aware of it.

Problems and Priorities


Oh really?

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
  • Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


  • This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.


  • (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
  • (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
    • (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
    • (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.
 
[[Page 1497]]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
 
TOT said:
looks [liike] two different AUMF's to me pretty nifty hay there drifty?
yep. and yet, where's the conventional war happening against the 9/11 attackers? on a battlefield somewhere? is it a conventional war with military force? or is a different kind of a "war?" do tell, TOT.

you're talking about it in some kind of technical legal sense. but I'm talking about it in reality terms.

So, isn't the "war on terror" a kind of a "war" exactly like I said it is?

the war we are fighting is the War in Iraq.

the war on terror is different. it doesn't resemble other wars, past or present, despite your efforts to parrot, um, I mean portray, it as such.
 
It's sad but I must admit that I don't even feel it, and neither does anyone else in my opinion. If you talk to younger kids they think war is just the status quo and something that shouldn't be feared they don't even get that it's actually quite far from the norm and something which is actually very scary. And then the obvious follow up question is why? Is it because war does not create the casualties as it did in the past or is it that we as a people have not been called upon (or ordered) to sacrifice for the victory which is ours only if we want it?

I get what your saying and agree. It feels different..

I think the difference is that although victory alludes us, the chance of catastrophic loss never really existed in the first place.

When we think of war, we generally think of a fight for our very existence. Most of us have a hard time even understanding what success is supposed to look like for this particular campaign.
 
In previous conflicts companies made items for the war effort at cost.

War profiteering was considered unpatriotic and even treasonous.

The masses know we're at war, but the corporations are laughing all the way to the bank.

I remind all of you that republicans voted against a bill that would've outlawed war profiteering.

Just who's supporting the troops?
 
Originally Posted by Tot
No if there was no AUMF it would be an illegal war after 60 days as was the Kosovo war, but there was an AUMF for the war against terrorism and against Iraq in full alignment with the war powers resolution, legally speaking the President has been granted the war powers by congress, and our country is officially at war.

Yep, that is what I was saying, just not very clearly. Thanks for putting it better than I did.
 
In previous conflicts companies made items for the war effort at cost.

War profiteering was considered unpatriotic and even treasonous.

The masses know we're at war, but the corporations are laughing all the way to the bank.

I remind all of you that republicans voted against a bill that would've outlawed war profiteering.

Just who's supporting the troops?

Umm what other company does oil well fixing, defense contracting, and infrastructure rebuilding all under one roof but Halliburton?


Please let us see a lower bidder so you people can stfu finally!
 
yep. and yet, where's the conventional war happening against the 9/11 attackers? on a battlefield somewhere?

Afghanistan.

is it a conventional war with military force? or is a different kind of a "war?" do tell, TOT.

Both.

you're talking about it in some kind of technical legal sense. but I'm talking about it in reality terms.

In reality we are at war with terrorism and Iraq legally and technically!

So, isn't the "war on terror" a kind of a "war" exactly like I said it is?

No it's much more than that it is being waged on the battlefield, as well as, prevention on the homefront, it's like no other war we have ever fought IE one in which we too get hit.
 
Umm what other company does oil well fixing, defense contracting, and infrastructure rebuilding all under one roof but Halliburton?


Please let us see a lower bidder so you people can stfu finally!
Is there a reason that all of these need to be done "under one roof" especially since Halliburton has been caught price-gouging?
 
Back
Top Bottom