Should we outlaw calling armed conflicts anything other than "wars"?

Question

Obviously, presidents from the past 50 years have been unconstitutionally violating Congress's war declaration powers by simply calling the war something else, like a "conflict," a "peace-keeping mission," or whatever.
THE GREATEST THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY IS CONSOLIDATION OF POLITICAL POWER IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Maybe Congress should be drafting some laws to fight it.

Answer 1

name does not matter
stop the fighting

Answer 2

As you know, only congres can declare war. A declared war is of a General war category that is pretty much a fight to unconditional surrender by one country to the other. In limited conflicts/wars the U.S. Govt. has concluded it is not wise to declare war for a variety of geopolitical reasons. In vietnam and Iraq the congress voted to support armed operations on the ground. I disagree that the executive branch has consolidated power in any meaningful way the last 50 years. Can you sight some examples???

Answer 3

I don't see what your law would achieve except to create more bureaucracy.

the War in Iraq HAS been approved by congress, so I don't see where changing the name has to do with it.

The executive can only deploy troops for 90 days without the consent of congress.

The Greatest threat to our Republic is the growth of government taking away liberty of the individual.

Answer 4

No, it is to the descreption of the President in power. For it to be a war, one must first declare war. I am a veteran, i don't care about the name of the conflict, I just know that I, and my fellow troops have a job to do, and we were/are happy to do it, or else we would not have enlisted.

Answer 5

No, if a country needs an *** whopping, we should give it to them regardless of what they call it.