That it was declared would have mattered at all I this analysis? Of course not. Congress authorized this war, period.[.quote]
The difference between declared was and undeclared war is huge. And I don't see anything else in the Constitution which enables the calling of military usage on foreign soil other than the ability to declare war which was given to Congress. Congress authorized it under a system which was never placed by We the People, it was placed by government itself. But there was a reason we put in restrictions and oversight, that wasn't supposed to be removed.
Any war constitutes an infringement of a nation's sovereignty. Whether it is declared or otherwise and whether the nation attacked constitutes a threat or otherwise. No matter the circumstances, the introduction of foreign troops over another's border constitutes a violation of sovereignty.
Just wars can be fought as response to one's own soveriegnty being threatened, infringed upon, or revoked. The stasis is that no one infringes upon the sovereignty of another, but once one does it is reasonable for those whom have incurred the infringement to fight off the aggressor.
Huh? Whether a war is justifiable is pointless relative to whether a nation's sovereignty has been violated. Despite a declaration of war, Japan's sovereignty was violated when the US bombed Japanese cities.
Which was a response to their infringement upon our own soveriegnty. See? Seriously, I wasn't masking anything here. This is a clear argument, you had to have known what I meant if you were reading and considering my words.
My "little" response? :roll:
What? You can make smarmy comments and it's ok, but I can't? Is that what you're really going to advocate here?
My response conveyed my point. That I believe that you can advocate strong control of your own borders as required by a nation's sovereignty and advocate for war in some instances. There is no irony.
Again, as stated before it was a general comment. One most certain can control one's own boarder. And if the sovereignty of the State is threatened, they can certainly make argument for war. It is when one tries to use this sovereignty argument to justify one but doesn't understand the reciprocal. You can't just run into any sovereign nation you want and overthrow the government; not justly. Sovereign means sovereign, Iraq was sovereign too. They were free to do as they liked, to control their boarders as well. So you have to have justification for removal of sovereign government. What was the justification in Iraq? How was our sovereignty threatened in any way? There was zero chance of Iraq being able to actually attack the US.
Citing a sovereign's obligation and responsibility for its borders has nothing to do with one's position justifying war.
Now, had I argued that a nation's borders are not to be violated under any circumstances then argued that the US has a right to violate those borders at will, you'd have a point.
As I said, general comment. It was well clarified last post. I don't know if you skip over sentences I write just so you can respond; but it's really right there. I said I find the sovereignty argument ironic for those whom whole heartily support the Iraq war. That is true. It has no consequence or bearing on you personally falling into the category. Get it?
If your head was on straight you wouldn't have attributed some bogus irony to my comments.
If you had read what I wrote, I doubt we would be having this current conversation.