are we involved in aggression? Wouldn't war technically be defined as a situation in which we were attacked by another country (not a small group of terrorists) or a situation in which we had declared war on another country?
It seems to me that the definition of war has relaxed enough to justify any kind of aggression we wish to take in the future. If we decide we don't like something, why not just invade any country and take some "preventative action" to promote our own interests? It's some kind of "fits all" magical pretext. How can any other country in the world respect us or trust us if we continue to act in this way?
2006-09-01 13:19:39 · 18 answers · asked by Zelda Hunter 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You are correc that we are not actually at war with Iraq; Congress approved the use of force but never declared war.
War has a specific legal definition and specific requirements. Saying we're at war with Iraq is a lie; we never declared war on Iraq. Also, declaring war requires that we know who we are declaring it against, so the "war on terror" isn't true either.
Bush and the rest of his war hawks coined the phrase "war on terrorism" for the effect; the constant repetition of that phrase has convinced many Americans to support the idea, even though most Americans know that something is terribly wrong. It's a powerful technique and literally changes people's minds without them realizing. Subtle, almost subconscious...
But then, calling it "inconsistent aggressive behavior toward individuals and groups who may or may not threaten us" doesn't sound nearly as good.
2006-09-01 13:27:10 · answer #1 · answered by Trips 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It appears there will continue to be those (ostriches) who keep their head burried in the ground...not being sufficiently aware of what is going on in the world, to be able to make really lucid statements..
Just in case you have not been keeping up with events, war has been declared on the western civilization.. not just the US..The concerted effort is being directed at the US. If it can be toppled, the rest of the western world will fall like dominos.. Try waking up to reality for a while. You may get a bit concerned for a legitimate reason and purpose. In case you don't recognize what the western world represents, it is comprised of those people loving freedom..That is exactly what you will lose if this war is not won by a civilized society.
To further point out reality to you, this war has been ongoing for more than 20 years now..there just was no president willing or capable of doing something about it, before Bush. Now you are becoming a bit aware of the reality of the situation that presently exists. This war is presently ongoing, around the world.
2006-09-01 13:40:59 · answer #2 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's a marketing phrase. Just like the "war on drugs".
It has no legal meaning, because there was no declaration of war. Under federal law, the declaration of law is a specific status that changes the implementation of several dozen federal statutes.
Congress authorized military force, in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we are not 'at war' in the legal sense. Not that Bush really ever paid much attention to what the laws say.
2006-09-01 13:28:16 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Like most English words, the word war has multiple meanings. One definition is a condition of active antagonism or contention. Wars can be metaphorical against an idea (ie: War on Drugs) or wars can be tangible against an opponent (ie: Korean War). Both things fit into the different definitions of the word, which haven't really changed. Perhaps arguably the alternate meaning is alluded to more often in recent times. However a 'declaration of war' is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. The war in Iraq was birthed out of a failure of compliance with UN Resolution 1441. We cannot turn a blind eye to threats to our national security nor can we for the sake of world security allow the UN to remain impotent in enforcing its mandates. I believe the United States uses its great power sparingly and wisely. I am proud of the troops and our president. However the news media does an exceedingly poor job depicting the positive impacts of any of our actions.
2006-09-01 13:43:43 · answer #4 · answered by Andy S 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think we are using the word "war" too losely. war is often a long period of battle. Operation desert storm was not a war on Iraq. and true US is the target of many countries. WHY? because you guys would stick your nose into everyone's business. and you guys also ticked off many people.
so is going into Iran a good choice? is that going to end "terrorism"? NO! it will create more anger and unsettlement in the middle east and US will really see "terrorism".
"war" on Iraq costed more money than Bush expected to gain from oil profits when Bush captured Saddam.
Iranis have the rights to develope nuclear power. WHY IS A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER ABLE TO PRODUCE CHAP RELIABLE NUCLEAR POWER BUT A DEVELOPING NATION CANT? THAT DOESNT BORDER WITH FREEDOM. WAR IS NOT THE WAY TO FIND PEACE, PEACE IS THE WAY TO FIND AND MAINTAIN PEACE.
2006-09-01 13:33:17 · answer #5 · answered by cars_o_holic 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid it's just going to get worse. Bush is just itching to bomb Iran next. That will likely set off world war 3. Ultimately it's the evil, clandestine Illuminati who are causing all this trouble and strife. It is their goal to set up a one world government.
2006-09-01 13:34:33 · answer #6 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like the way you defend the "small group of terrorists." How many would constitute doing something about this "small group's attacks? I suppose it doesn't matter that Iraq, Iran, Syria, to name a few, support this "small group of terrorists?" But, no, WE'RE the ones who are doing the attacking. You people are just so pathetic!
2006-09-01 13:27:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. The Republicans might decide to ignore that GW Bush fairly became the final Republican president. they might additionally decide to ignore the impressive screw united statesthat he became to blame for, like attacking a sovereign united states below fake pretenses, specifically Iraq.
2016-11-06 06:15:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well you hit the nail right on the head.No one likes Americans,your rude, loud, boastful, and more importantly full of yourselves.Hopefully you will be nuked out of existence in the very near future.
2006-09-01 13:27:47 · answer #9 · answered by theforce51 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is a moron. Rich get richer poor get poorer. Oil is why we are warring. He who holds the gold makes the rules. Next we'll be warring in Africa.
2006-09-01 13:22:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous 1 · 5⤊ 2⤋