WE ARE NOT AT WAR. Stop allowing Bush and Congress to promote the lies.

[shance]

It's not true.

War has never been formally declared. Simply because they say it now means nothing. The White House words mean nothing.

They are all lies. If they lied us into a war on a defenseless nation, which has allowed Cheney, Bush and Bush to continue amassing more profits and powers on the backs of lies and us as American citizens.

Its all lies.

Sit down America.

Stop enabling this regime that is destroying the planet and everything on it.

[uppityperson]

1. does that mean the war against illiteracy is over?

Seriously, I know what you mean and it really bothers me too. I call it the occupation of Iraq, unless you are talking about the beginning of this and that is the invasion of Iraq.

[Poiuyt]

62. Bush takes literacy VERY seriously

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a
literacy test." —George W. Bush, Feb. 21, 2001

"What's not fine is, rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning."
- George W. Bush, Jan. 2000

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Uh, preacher?

The congregation is that way. :hi:

[Roland99]

4. he he

[Mr_Spock]

56. enabler.

:P

[NightOwwl]

3. "We are at War" is their excuse for all their illegal activities.

Who will be the first Dem to point this out?

I'm not holding my breath.

[shance]

7. Yes. Kind of like drawing that "National Security" badge.

I was at a tennis match not long ago and went to get some bottled water at the stand. The service person selling me the water took the top off my bottle and wouldn't give it to me.

I said, why are you keeping my bottle top.

Are you ready?

He said, NATIONAL SECURITY.

So was I going to throw my bottle cap top at the tennis players?

I think that good ole corporate Home Depot Center wants to sell as many waters as they can in the name of "national security". And if they take the caps, they'll sell more in the name of "national security".

[zanne]

5. That's true. Glad you brought it up.

I was born a long time ago, but I don't think the Constitution has changed. Congress alone can declare war.

[shance]

8. Thanks Zanne.

The dishonesty and the blind acceptance of the dishonesty makes America much more vulnerable to bullies and tyrants that continue to make lies up as they go.

[cynatnite]

6. We are at war

This administration started it. It doesn't make it any less than what it is by the fact war was not declared. Vietnam was a war even though it wasn't declared.

Please, call it a police action and see what a Vet would tell you. :eyes:

Stop playing semantical bullshit with crap like this. It diminishes our troops who are bleeding and dying for the lies that sent them there in the first place. It's a fucking war and I hate the assholes that started it.

[shance]

10. Stop accepting lies and telling others to accept lies cynatnite.

Your ignorance puts all Americans in harms way.

Most importantly the troops that have been placed in a death zone because of lies.

[cynatnite]

12. It's a fucking war. People are dying.

Using semantics is nothing but a cop out. Ask my nephew and cousin if it's a war. Ask my uncle if Vietnam was a war.

The administration lies and has blood on their hands. They started this goddamn war and that's exactly what it is.

[FreedomAngel82]

35. And Congress declared it when?

Just because people are killing and dying doesn't make it "war." It's slaughter. The Constitution is very clear about war.

[Katherine Brengle]

47. thank you. n/t

[Occulus]

72. Don't thank people for rank ignorance.

That poster does a disservice to our military, our Congress, and our Constitution with his/her moral equivalency between military action and official declaration of war.

This is not a war, and has not been referred to as a "police action"... whatever that may be, Constitutionally.

It is an illegal occupation. Period.

[shanti]

48. it's an occupation

NOT a war!

[Occulus]

70. Nope. Sorry.

Emotional arguments do not negate the legal meaning of a declaration of war- the which we have not issued.

It is NOT a sematic argument; it is a Constitutional requirement and a legal difference.

THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR VIETNAM. There was no declaration; therefore, Constitutionally, it was NOT a war.

Read and learn your Constitution, and especially the meanings of the words therein.

We are NOT at war. Period.

That fact should piss you off to no end, yet instead, you're buying their line... hook, line, and sinker.

Wounds do not equal a war. Deaths DO NOT equal a war. MILITARY STRIKES ***DO NOT*** EQUAL A WAR.

A declaration of war... equals a war. That, and that alone, is the Constitutional mechanism.

[Sparkly]

13. How about, "Illegal war?"

Or "war based on lies?" Just suggesting... :shrug:

[Sparkly]

11. You said it for me -- shades of Vietnam...

The same debate took place then -- "Not a war," "Yes it is a war," "It wasn't declared," "But it's nothing less than a war..."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. Congress HAS NOT DECLARED WAR!!!!!

Yes, we know it really is a war, just like Vietnam was BUT LEGALLY (that there's the operative word) LEGALLY it is NOT war.

Just because Vietnam was not LEGALLY a war does not take away one iota of the lives sacrificed. We are a nation of laws, fortunately, that's all we have at this point.

Don't help B*shco take that away from us. please.

[cynatnite]

17. We're at war

:eyes:

Yes, war was not declared, but it is still what it is. It's a war and I'll continue to call it that. I don't need a damn piece of paper to call it that.

Don't help B*shco take that away from us. please.

bush has been breaking the law since almost day one. I'd say he's already taken it away if that's how you view it.

[happydreams]

20. IT IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, A WAR!!

Until it is declared. Wars must be declared.

[cynatnite]

21. I guess our definitions of war differ...

not declaring it doesn't make it any less than what it really is.

This is what I consider semantical bullshit. As I said before, my nephew or cousin would tell you it's a fucking war by the bullets fired, the people killed and wounded...innocents and troops alike.

I'm not looking at this based on what's written in the constitution nor am I arguing the legality. I'm a vet, my husband is a vet, my dad was a vet and so is most of the men in my family. We've known war before and this is a fucking obscene war even though it's based on lies with no formal declaration.

[H2O Man]

23. Clearly

we are at war. It is as much a war as Vietnam, which was also "undeclared." However, in both Vietnam and Iraq, congress has supported the presidents' actions. Pretending otherwise is silly and unwise.

[cynatnite]

24. I'm not ignoring the support congress gave...

you made a good point, but I'm just not viewing it in the same context.

To me it almost seems to ignore what's happing in Iraq by saying 'we're not at war'. I don't need the declaration to tell me we're at war. It's sickening because this government started the war based on lies and manipulations.

[H2O Man]

33. I had posted

in full agreement with your position.

[cynatnite]

37. I understand :) n/t

[Occulus]

73. You said it yourself.

"I'm not looking at this based on what's written in the constitution nor am I arguing the legality."

Madam, if you're not looking at what is and is not a war from a Constitutional standpoint (and, by the way, when referring to our Constitution, it is ALWAYS captialized, just for future reference), then you're not looking at the legality of war from an American standpoint.

The legality of war is a very important concept. Leaders have suicided and been hung by their own people for engaging in illegal warfare.

Hitler and Mussolini are the textbook examples of this.

Being a nation of laws, the law must be obeyed, especially when we're talking about invoking a legal mechanism written into our Constitution to justify going out and ending irreplacable human lives, on either side.

So tell us, in your professional opinion: when, exactly, does an undeclared war become a war for all practical purposes?

Number of lives lost?
Number of missiles launched?
Number of shots fired?
Number of amputated limbs?

When is it a war, and when, exactly and precisely, to the number, is it something less?

Neither you nor any member of our entire military can answer that question to any reasonable level of satisfaction. This is because only Congress has the ability to declare war, and a war is war only when Congress declares it.

There IS no "line of war" regarding the number of lost lives.
There IS no "line of war" regarding the number of missiles launched.
There IS no "line of war" regarding the number of shots fired.
There IS no "line of war" regarding the number of amputated limbs.

And yet, official warfare, in this nation, is NOT a subjective thing. It is LEGAL. It has definitions, and borders, and boudaries, written into our very Constitution itself.

Therefore,

To dilute the state of "war" into whatever one thinks it is at the time is to turn one's back upon the very document you and your nephews (for example) GAVE AN OATH TO DEFEND. Frankly, I'm disgusted by this attitude, and it's no wonder that our Constitution is being stomped upon by this maladministration, when we have people "defending" it by watering down the clauses and checks and balances written into it into whatever they subjectively mean at the time.

The Constitution says only Congress can declare war; implied is that the state of war must be declared.

I'm a radical; I view this as meaning that any military action must be accompanied by a declaration of war. The result is a standing, but strictly defensive, army.

IF we were to follow the COnstitution, that is.

[BushOut06]

41. We are in a war, but we are not at war

That's a distinction that gets lost in the shuffle. Technically, we are not at war, since the OP was correct and Congress has not declared war. However, we are most certainly in a war, as over 2000 dead soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis can attest.

[cynatnite]

49. Well said! n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. Well then. I guess we just need to give up.

The law is on our side, but they say we're at war, and you say it's a war, so I guess we're just screwed.

Thanks for playing

[happydreams]

15. It's not semantics!! The slipper slope to tyranny starts with

violating Constitutional principles.

Nice try at turning people off to this important topic. :eyes:

[cynatnite]

18. we're looking at this from two different perspectives...

You're seeing the legality and I'm seeing the service members. Maybe that's how you can say it's not a war and I can.

How am I trying to turn people off to an important topic? You really got me with this one. Is it because I don't agree with you?

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. Constitutionally, only Congress can declare war.

As far as I'm concerned, this is Executive branch-sanctioned murder. Of Iraqis, Afghans and U.S. military.

[wildwww2]

66. I agree. Yours is the best post I`ve read in this thread so far. War crime

is the word that fits this action. Or Executive branch-sanctioned murder as you say. As a veteran who served during Vietnam. I did not view that as anything but a murderous war crime either. But I have been accused of having a mind of my own.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[Mr_Spock]

58. Problem is, they're talking about the "War on Terrorism"

Which is a war on a feeling - :rofl:

What a friggi' joke, we're hooked on a feeling :rofl:

This nation is a joke and I'm laughing at us.

[0007]

9. We are not at War.....the main sheep dog barks out the lies

and the sheep dog puppies follow suit.

[derby378]

16. That's the spirit! (n/t)

[Timmy5835]

19. Let me get this straight....we're at war????

So if we are really at war then where is the civil defence, the shared sacrifice like higher taxes to pay for this, a military draft, rationing of goods and supplies. Let's face it, the last REAL war we we're in was WW2, the rest, like this one, were fakes.

[Wind Dancer]

25. This administration claims we are "AT WAR"

By saying this, it's a false claim giving the "President" powers to (fill in the blanks).

Yes, we are fighting, killing and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq but the government has not legally declared WAR.

The RW talking points need to be corrected.

Edited to add for clarification:

We are technically in a never-ending war (illegally) but the government refuses to declare it.

They are using it as a means to spy on us, shred our civil rights, call us unpatriotic for dissent, etc.

[cynatnite]

26. My nephew was in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

He says it's a war and I believe him. I'm afraid if you told him that this is a RW talking point, he'd get violent.

We talked for a short time about this and before he went he was pro-bush. He came home totally anti-bush. In his eyes it's a war and I doubt you could convince him otherwise no matter what anyone says.

I'll take the word of someone who was there.

[Wind Dancer]

27. I just edited for clarification.

You are correct and I failed to express myself correctly. I belong to several peace groups and have been to many anti-war demonstrations so my apologies for sounding insensitive.

I'm glad your nephew is home safely and I will keep fighting to end this illegal war.



:hug:

[cynatnite]

32. I don't think I was being clear enough, either

:)

Thanks!

:hug:

[annabanana]

29. the problem is, cynatnite,

That, yes, we are fighting, and for that reason you call it war and claim WE are playing word games.
But OUR problem with them calling it "war" is their word games... By calling it "war" they claim that the president has all these extra-constitutional powers, and that he WILL have them until the 'war' is over.. But how can there be an end to a war on a tactic? or to a war on an idea?

If it were a war on another nation, then some of his power grabs might be supportable because they would be temporary. And there would be a point in time that there would be a definable "defeat" or "victory". And there would be an easily definable, non-fungible "enemy".

[cynatnite]

31. I understand what everyone is saying...

It makes perfect sense and I'm not trying to give bush more power either.

The so-called 'war on terror' and the war in Iraq are two different things in my mind. I can't see the 'war on terror' as a war at all. It's a political tool of words the repukes use to stay in power.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. But who declared it?

Just because people are killing and dying doesn't mean it's a war. It's nothing more than an illegal slaughter.

[converted_democrat]

38. I mean you no disrespect, but why take the position that gives him

more power? That is what I don't get.. That has nothing to do with how one supports the troops.. I don't see the point of making it easier for them to accomplish their goals.. I understand that you and your family have served, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.. But why make it easier for him to become a dictator? Kind of defeats the purpose..

[cynatnite]

40. I don't view it that way...

I wasn't looking at the legality or the fact war was not officially declared. I can't say what's happening in Iraq or Afghanistan is not a war. War is still war. It's horrible, ugly and obscene.

It does not give them more power by calling it a war. That's what it is. More needs to be done to highlight this war was started by bush based on lies and manipulations. That's what weakens him, IMO.

[converted_democrat]

43. I guess everyone sees it differently, and we'll just have to agree to

disagree..

[Stephanie]

28. K&R #5 - Anyway, even if it had been declared >

[toymachines]

30. I will just get my mind control machine ready

Nice Butler quote. Now where is the person in position to stop this junta?

[pitohui]

34. christ we're quite obviously at war

people are being bombed, shot at, poisoned with depleted uranium, and otherwise dying all manner of unpleasant deaths because of the war

just because we don't have a piece of paper from congress saying war is declared don't mean it ain't war

we're supposed to be the reality-based community, remember?

what is, is

what is scribbled or not scribbled on a piece of paper doesn't change hard cold fact

we are at war, people are dying on both sides, war mongers are profiteering

why bother to fight to stop the war if you can just put your fingers in your ears and go lalalala we are not at war, none of this is happening?

we can argue the war is illegal, immoral, and fattening, but we can't argue that it isn't a war, congress hasn't bothered to declare most wars fought in my lifetime and i'm not any spring chicken

[converted_democrat]

39. That piece of paper changes alot.. One of the biggest things it changes

is the amount of power the president has.. That piece of paper IS a big deal..

[pitohui]

42. quite clearly it doesn't change the amt of power he has

it would be lovely to think otherwise but at this time of century it is quite obvious that the president has exactly as much power as he cares to grab

the constitution hasn't protected us nor is it protecting the people of iraq from *'s imperial adventures

i wish it were otherwise but it isn't

we are at war, like it or not, and the president's people are micro-managing down to detaining people for wearing t-shirts like it or not

this is not a free country

change starts from an honest assessment of reality

[H2O Man]

44. Quite the opposite:

Bush/Cheney have grasped more power as a result of this war than the Constitution allows for. We are absolutely at war.

[shance]

67. Oh do show us H2O where we are OFFICIALLY at war.

You love patronizing and demeaning those who agree with you H2O. Please by all means, show us your perfect, irrefutable defense that we are undoubtedbly at WAR. As you said "ABSOLUTELY".

[converted_democrat]

50. Have you even looked at the power that * has if war is officially

declared?? It's a much bigger deal than locking up people for what they have written on their shirts.. There is a big difference.. Have you even looked at the power he would acquire with an official declaration of war?

[H2O Man]

51. Do tell.

Please source the information on these powers that President Bush has not accessed.

[converted_democrat]

55. Isn't that what the War Powers Act is about?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_Powers_Act

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."<3>

[H2O Man]

57. War Powers Act:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

[shance]

69. Indiana? Really? What about the US Constitution?

Or does that have merit?

[H2O Man]

74. The War Powers Act

is the same in every state. I simply provided a full copy of the WPA that is made available through a school of higher learning, located in one state.

I think the US Constitution has merit, although there is evidence that both the president and vice president do not share that belief. But, since you mentioned it, I'm curious if you find something in the US Constition that you want to discuss specifically?

[shance]

71. Better yet, why not specify the powers that Bush/Cheney have accessed.

Please show where Congress FORMALLY AND SPECIFICALLY approved a Declaration of War.

[Katherine Brengle]

46. they may not have declared "war" but why don't you try telling the

families who have lost soldiers in Iraq and families of deployed military that we are not at war.

War is the needless killing of human beings for a desired objective. Declaration or no, this is war.

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. I can only tell you what one family who has lost a soldier calls it.

They refuse to call it "The Iraq War" because it was not constitutionally declared by Congress. They refer to it as the illegal invasion of Iraq and consider it "Executive branch sanctioned murder." I think that's an apt label.

[Katherine Brengle]

53. It's an illegal war, but still a war nonetheless. I understand that we

are talking about the legality and the rhetoric, but it takes away from the importance to call it something other than what it is. When you call it an "occupation" (as it rightly is), it makes our soldiers look like they are guilty of something when all they are doing is following illegal orders.

I don't know... All I can say is that every week, when I talk to my husband on the phone, he tells me about people shooting at him and his guys and bombs being thrown in the direction of the base, and that's war as far as I am concerned.

If we want to talk semantics, that's all well and fine, but I don't see that it accomplishes anything.

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. I have no problem with anyone saying our men and women

are engaged in war. I just have a problem with the president using war rhetoric to claim authority he does not have. I'd prefer the illegality and immorality of the situation be highlighted.

[Disturbed]

60. The Executive does not have the "War Powers Act."

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

I feel that this is quite important.

Is the USA at War "Officially' in Afghanistan?

[Mr_Spock]

59. Meaningless wars that have no objective seem like police actions

We are not fighting an actual attacker of the USA anywhere in the world, we gave up on that a couple of years ago after we chased the terrorists from Afghanistan. All the rest is just a waste of perfectly good lives.

[Chomp]

61. There are 2 wars, a real one a fake one.

There are 2 wars going on : a real war (Iraq) and a fake war (Terror). The fact of the former is used as a figleaf for the latter.

Most of the heinous shit these idiots are doing (domestic spying, Gitmo, even Plame etc.) has ZERO material impact on winning the REAL war in Iraq. Therefore using the "We are at war" line to justify these crimes is BOGUS.

"We are at war" would be a legitimate (if grotesque) justification for bombing Fallujah in that it is correct that that tactic could indeed in theory be seen as a means to winning that war. Fine.

But saying "We are at war (in Iraq)" is NO plausible justification for, say, domestic spying., Gitmo, Plame and all the other stuff have ZERO to do with this war.

It's all about muddling up Iraq and the WOT.

[lostinacause]

63. In the weakest sense America is at war. So are those who have taken

less active stances. We see elements of the "enemy" in what is going on with Denmark and with Iran.

[stevietheman]

64. Let's parse it more clearly...

The war on "terra" is a fraud, essentially used to enact a presidential power grab on many fronts.

The war in Iraq is real, but it was elective and unjustified. It doesn't have to be declared by Congress to be a real war--when your military invades another country, that's a war.

[MissWaverly]

65. it's a war with no battles

where our soldiers are killed at random

[Nutmegger]

68. Also the fact that the "War on Terra" is an open ended "war"

So Bush Inc can continue to corral us into whatever position they please. Tell me, when is the "war" going to end? When we kill the last terra-ist? Yeah, we're creating them every second - no chance of that.

And it doesn't help that the MSM is perpetuating the "war" lies and spinning things like a top.

[Peter Frank]

75. We ARE at war - because Bush wanted it - see link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x386624