Keep in mind here that I don't think we should be there, but also think that since we are there, we should do our best to get the terrorists and such out, not Cut and Run.
2007-09-21 13:43:38 · 15 answers · asked by The Crow 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Those who claim the war in Iraq is either illegal or unconstitutional are attempting to interpret the Constitution and the war powers act in a manner that suits them. The constitution says that for a war to exist then Congress must declare it. Also war powers act say that after either 60 or 90 days of troops committed to combat the President must go to congress for continued funding. War powers act has never been challenged for its constitutionality. Strict constructionists of the Constitution claim that it is unconstitutional. Maybe and maybe not, never been tried. Troops in open combat with out a Declaration of War has been challenged either 7 or 8 times since 1812 and the Supreme Court has refused to hear every case! So when you look at the facts it is some darn fool trying to blow smoke you your butt!!!
2007-09-21 14:01:13 · answer #1 · answered by Coasty 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The constitution doesn't grant congress the authority to authorize the use of force. I challenge anyone to find a section of the constitution that gives congress this power. Remember that powers not specifically granted to congress are retained by the states, and the people. The power that congress has is the authority to declare war. They didn't do that. They haven't done it since World War II. The problem with this whole scenario is that it's too political, and soldiers end up taking their marching orders from politicians rather than generals. It can last for decades. When war is declared, the goal is simple and well defined. You give the generals the ability to win the war, and once they complete the task they come home. It doesn't drag on until the politicians are satisfied, it ends when the enemy surrenders.
2007-09-21 21:03:21 · answer #2 · answered by mick t 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There are no terrorists in Iraq, or were none until we got there---those people we are fighting are 95% Iraqis.
The war is illegal because it is an undeclared war. George Bush did not have the legal power to invade Iraq and did so under false pretenses. He should be impeached for this action as he is in direct violation of the constitution.
Unfortunately, the constitution has as its police force a couple of hundred gutless, venal congresspersons of both parties.
it's a sad state of affairs.
2007-09-21 22:32:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually its Constitutional but illegal by UN standards because Iraq was a soveriegn nation that made no move to conquer any country...and the whole kurds thing is they never were Iraqi they didnt want to be part of Iraq and they fromed these militias so what Sadaam did was Legal (unethical and morally wrong) but legal...and congress agreed to Bush's war plan in the very beginning because otherwise after 90 days troops would have been home..
2007-09-21 20:54:17 · answer #4 · answered by veritas7414@sbcglobal.net 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
only imbeciles who know nothing of law or the constitution makes such stupid statements. there is no formal declaration of war spelled out in the constitution. voting to fund a war is tantamount to declaring war. america has been in one hundred "undeclared wars" in the past 230 years. they have all been funded by congress, and therefore, have all been constitutional. as for being an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, well forget it. iraq has not been a sovereign nation since the cease fire in 1991. the first gulf war ended with a conditional cease fire. NOT an unconditional surrender. so we had a cease fire that was to continue as long as iraq met certain conditions. well iraq refused to meet these conditions, so we ended the cease fire. this is simply an extension of the first gulf war. NO nation is sovereign during a conditional cease fire.
2007-09-21 21:56:23 · answer #5 · answered by iberius 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Congress voted and passed a formal resolution authorizing military action in Iraq. HJ Resolution 114 on 16 October 2002.... Further, the constitution say nothing about occupations or nationbuilding. Sorry Kacy H.... you're wrong.
The war is legal and constitutional.... but above all of that it is justifiable.
Sorry Veritas, the UN backed military action. The 5 member security counsel voted and approved.
2007-09-21 20:54:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
There are lots of things United States has/are done/doing are wrong? But hey, bad things does not last long. However, I so much support the war in Iraq. Why wouldn't I?*
2007-09-21 22:30:00 · answer #7 · answered by Flying Soldier 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That war is indeed illegal. Iraq was a sovereign state that did NOT declare war on the USA, nor did it pose any military or terrorist threat to the USA. Thus illegal by US as well as international law.
The war was started by the Bush administration under false pretense. The intelligence people of the USA and Great Britain created false proof and a pack of lies and world press helped spread the lies. United nations is a joke, a vassal institution mainly serving the interest of the US. So the USA got away with this crime as with many other...
2007-09-21 21:07:18 · answer #8 · answered by oxygenezvous 1 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I'm just commenting on the "cut and run" part. (illegal war) oops! So how many generations are "we" suppose to be over there wasting lives and billions on dollars? Cut and run sounds so stupid like we just got there a week ago! America has been over there longer than it took us to defeat Hitler and the Japanese empire. We still don't have a safe road from Baghdad to the airport.
When do we know who wins? The middle east has been a hot bed of war for centuries now, what makes you think we are going to bring peace?
2007-09-21 21:26:19 · answer #9 · answered by chuck b 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Congress Voted to go to war in Iraq and it passed on October 11, 2002...that's the legal way to do it
2007-09-21 20:50:11 · answer #10 · answered by T-monster 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋