Originally Posted by MJ1970
I think you mean after the War Powers Act. The WPA was Congress effectively abdicating its constitutional responsibility to the president.
That's a very odd view. I've always viewed it to be a limit on the President's power to act militarily. Wiki...
During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war.
I think you're assuming that the Act came about so Congress did not have to declare war any longer. There is really no evidence of that being true. Just read how and why it came about.
Sure. Why not? Just because it's happened a lot doesn't make it right. In fact it's interesting to note that we haven't engaged in a truly defensive war since the department of ware was renamed to the department of defense.
1. OK, so all military action since 1942 was essentially illegitimate. Gotcha.
2. Is defensive war the only kind of morally justifiable conflict? How would you characterize Afghanistan or the first Gulf War?
You think it was morally okay to invade a sovereign nation for no reason at all and under false pretenses?
1. Man, here we go with the "sovereign nation" crap again. I think you just like the way it sounds. Here's this poor little sovereign nation, just trying to get by. "I think I can I think I can I think I can," the poor little sovereign nation said.
ALL NATIONS ARE SOVEREIGN. All invasions involve "sovereign" nations. Good lord.
2. Right, we had "no reason at all." None. It's not like that violated the 1991 ceasefire about 17 different ways. It's not like they targeted our aircraft every day. It's not like we had to bomb Saddam in 1998 as he attempted to restart his weapons program. It's not like he played games with weapons inspectors for a decade. It's not like he supported suicide bombers and looked the other way on terrorism--in the least.
3. False pretenses implies that we know he had no WMD before invading. The problem with this notion is there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. Every major intel agency in the world thought he had WMD. The Germans thought so. The British thought so. The French thought so. The Russians thought so. The Israelis thought so. The CIA thought so. Everyone thought he had them.
Thus saith the Lord.
Then show me how it was unconstitutional and/or illegal. Make the case, because you haven't come close to doing so yet.