- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,706
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Location
- Ventura California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So we are at war with Iran, Russia, Israel, China, Mexico, and pretty much any other country we are experience a "struggle" or have a "conflict" with?
Those people are using 'war' as defined in US law, not the dictionary definition. According to US a law, they are correct, and there is no war without Congressional action
I didnt say it wasnt OK to invade NK.
I --did-- say that it does not ligically follow that because we invaded Iraq because of tha imminent threat that we MUST also invade NKorea because of its imminent threat.
Understand?
Seeing as the excuse to invade Iraq is that they were an "imminent threat", why couldn't that same excuse be used for other countries that are "imminent threats"?
What made Iraq more of a threat then Iran or North Korea?
No, it does not -- in fact, its not even close.Yes it does logically follow.
What was Iraq that North Korea is not that made it OK to invade Iraq but not North Korea?
Yes it does logically follow. If country performs action A and we invade because of action A and another like country performs action A should they not receive the same response as the previous country?
To not adhere to this logic there must be something different between Iraq and North Korea that made Iraq MORE of a threat to us then North Korea currently is. What is that threat?
Not at all. The definition of "conflict" is clearly defined. Does the situation's with Russia invading Georgia, Iran, and North Korea not fall under this definition of what a conflict is?I see you also have little comprehension of what is meant by a "state of hostility" or "conflict".
Your weak efforts to be purposefully obtuse to avoid the farcical arguments presented do not make your efforts any more credible. The historic record is LONG on the fact that a state of war can indeed exist WITHOUT a formal declaration of war and this is hardly a "partisan" argument.
Yes. He is.There is profound irony in claiming that your argument contains logic; you believe that if we invade Iraq for a set of reasons this naturally suggests that we should invade another nation due to its similarities? Are you REALLY claiming this is "logical?"
Please show us where it is stated in the Constitution that a state of war cannot exist between our nation and another unless the Congress formally declares war.
I would like to see this Constitutional law.
The Congress shall have power...To declare war
No, it does not -- in fact, its not even close.
Invasion was one option in Iraq. Invasion is one option in NK.
That Invasion was chosen as the option for Iraq in no way necessitates that invasion must also be chosen in NK.
No one denies that the power for the US to declare war in reserved to Congress -- BUT -- nothing in the Constititutiuon says that the ONLY way the US can be in a state of war is said declaration by congress.The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, and to Congress alone. Are you seriously denying this?
Who isnt supporting the idea that invasion is a potential option for dealing with NK?This I will agree with. I just find it hypocritical to support invading one country for possibly having WMD but not invading an equally threatening country that we know does have WMD.
Yes. He is.
Sad, isnt it?
I guess that since I used blue paint in one room, it logically follows that I must use blue paint in all my rooms.
:doh
There is profound irony in claiming that your argument contains logic; you believe that if we invade Iraq for a set of reasons this naturally suggests that we should invade another nation due to its similarities? Are you REALLY claiming this is "logical?"
The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, and to Congress alone. Are you seriously denying this?
Source [Cornell University Law School | US Constitution Article 1 Section 8]
X performs A happens and B occurs.
Y performs A, B occurs again.
How is a like effect to a similar cause illogical?
What does he need missiles for? He could do significant damage to South Korea with a really big slingshot.
Once again you avoid; I clearly asked you to please show us where it is stated in the Constitution that a state of war cannot exist between our nation and another unless the Congress formally declares war.
I was simply arguing your stance that it was "illogical". I never said invading one country vs the other wasn't debatable.That is a very simplistic view on the complex issues being discussed.
Did you read the joint resolution? Do you recall that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation and member of the UN and was ejected? Do you recall that Iraq then signed agreements with the UN and defied them for the next decade?
There are vast differences between Iraq and North Korea, yet you want to argue this is about X and Y?
When have I argued we should invade North Korea?But then it also begs the question; why are you arguing we should invade North Korea?
I'll answer that question for him...(I can't believe I just typed that! :doh )
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads in part, towit:
"The Congress shall have Power ....to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;..."
Thus, until Congress votes accordingly to declare war against another country, or in the case of radical terrorist factions, the dangerous entity, i.e., Al-Quaida (spell check) or the Taliban, then a state of war does not exist between the Unitied States and said country or entity.
or in the case of radical terrorist factions, the dangerous entity, i.e., Al-Quaida (spell check) or the Taliban,
Despite the fact that there is no official peace treaty between North Korea and the United States, it's not quite correct to say that we're at war (even in a technical sense) because, technically, we weren't at war to begin with. The 1950-53 conflict was conducted under the aegis of the United Nations and was dubbed a "police action" by President Harry Truman. Congress never actually declared war, nor did it authorize a military engagement. :2wave:
So what do you reckon killed the 54,000+ Americans on the Korean peninsula between 1950 and 1953? Sure looked like a war from the photos I've seen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?