NationStates Jolt Archive

Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993

234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes.

Number of actual declared wars : 5

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm




So how many years would our presidents be serving in prison
for flagrantly, oh so flagrantly violating the constitution
without the required declaration of war by congress,
over the life of our country.
Would anybody care to try and calculate that?

Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993

234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes.

Number of actual declared wars : 5

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm




So how many years would our presidents be serving in prison
for flagrantly, oh so flagrantly violating the constitution
without the required declaration of war by congress,
over the life of our country.
Would anybody care to try and calculate that?US didn't declare war on Panama when Noriega declared war on the US. Neither was there war declared when US troops intervened in Vietnam or Korea or in the Gulf War. Just because it wasn't declared doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't justified...
(though plenty of those 234 instances probably weren't)

Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993

234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes.

Number of actual declared wars : 5

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm




So how many years would our presidents be serving in prison
for flagrantly, oh so flagrantly violating the constitution
without the required declaration of war by congress,
over the life of our country.
Would anybody care to try and calculate that?

The differenciation between the war powers of the President and Congress were resolved in 1973 by the War Powers Act. Essentially, Congress ruled that the President, as Commander in Chief, could take action against threats without going to Congress first. Unfortunately, the difficulty of getting anything through Congress in a short period of time, combined with the fact that being against the "war" is often a short road to political ignonomy, the President has de facto power to wage war.

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

At a brief glance, they seemed to have missed the timber war. So I suspect the number is actually quite a bit higher.

I believe, that any honest supreme court would find the
War Powers act unconstitutional.



Nor do I belive it is needed.

If the US were being attacked and it was obvious, the congress would declare war in an instant.

I believe, that any honest supreme court would find the
War Powers act unconstitutional.



Nor do I belive it is needed.

If the US were being attacked and it was obvious, the congress would declare war in an instant.
If they (SCOTUS) would find it unconstitutional, why haven't they? I'm sure the issue has been brought up. And define "honest". Do you mean honest ,as in anything you agree with?

congress doesn't do anything in an instant.
The SS Cynthia Olson was shelled by I-26 at 6:30 PM GCT on december 7th 1941, The United States Congress declared war on Japan on December 8th at 9:10 PM, during this time a few little events such as "Pearl Harbor" happened. As well as the mining of manilla bay. Troops obviously mobolized and began firing on Japanese ships on site, but I suppose they should have waited for congress right?

Article. I.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...;
Clause 11: To declare War,


Section. 10.
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...
... engage in War, unless actually invaded

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Note that wasn't an invasion, the I-26 was in international waters. So yes, it was an international affair.

congress doesn't do anything in an instant.
The SS Cynthia Olson was shelled by I-26 at 6:30 PM GCT on december 7th 1941, The United States Congress declared war on Japan on December 8th at 9:10 PM, during this time a few little events such as "Pearl Harbor" happened. As well as the mining of manilla bay. Troops obviously mobolized and began firing on Japanese ships on site, but I suppose they should have waited for congress right?


One day. Seems like an instant in Congressional time.
Besides 6:30pm Would they even been at work at that time?
Sometimes they are...some of them.


Manilla Bay?
isn't that the Phillipines?
What's that got to do with the US.
That's a different country.
What're we doing over there in the first place?

Oh, I know.
That's from Teddy Roosevelt's day,
when they actually were delusional and thought empire
could be a good or honorable thing and conquered the Phillipines.
So the US was still there by the time Japan tried to build an empire?

Article. I.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...;
Clause 11: To declare War,


Section. 10.
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...
... engage in War, unless actually invaded

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Excactly! Congress can declare war, Idaho can't. AND the President can't supersede congress. You just argued against yourself.

One day. Seems like an instant in Congressional time.
Unfortunately the Imperial Japanese navy did not run on "Congressional time"
Besides 6:30pm Would they even been at work at that time?
No. Thats the whole point.

Excactly! Congress can declare war, Idaho can't. AND the President can't supersede congress. You just argued against yourself.



How so?

If Idaho is invaded, they can fight back without consent of Congress,
but only because they are invaded.

That's what the constitution is saying.
Idaho is not declaring war by defending against (actual) invasion.



***makes me wonder if a future SC judge Roberts would use
the literal phrasing (as he claims to like) of the constitution and say "invasion"
means actual, literal invasion,
and not some delusion of Iraq - we think they're coming.

Unfortunately the Imperial Japanese navy did not run on "Congressional time"

Quote:
Besides 6:30pm Would they even been at work at that time?

No. Thats the whole point.



Just because Congress does not declare war, does not mean
armed forces cannot fight to repel an actual real invasion.

It's not like, 'oh, no. we are getting attacked. but we cannot fight
back until the congress declares a war'.
No they can repel an invading force.
Those defenders just cannot do anything outside of repelling those invading
forces without the constitutionally required declaration.
ex - they could not in turn invade Japan


Which might a similar reason why Nicaragua did not go into Honduras to attack the terrorists known as the Contras during the 80s.




We could get really technical and say Hawai'i wasn't actually
a part of the US. It was only a colony at the time.
Sure they called it "territory" or something, as they called
the 1/3 of present day continental US then known as Louisiana Territory,
as if no one lived there? What right did the US have to be there?
Today some Puerto Ricans call themselves a colony of the US.

Honestly, reading some of the examples is hardly something damning of the President abusing his powers; for example:

1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the U.S. Consul General.

1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated U.S. civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.

1974 -- Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated U.S. civilians during hostilities between Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces.

Other examples include perfectly normal things like chasing after pirates and such. I would hardly think the President needs to convince Congress to declare War in order to send some Marines to protect an ambassadore.

From looking at this, there was no unconstitutional acts going on. The Presidents operating as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces moved troops as he thought required, only a declaretion of war required Congressional approval. If the Pres felt that by placing troops into areas, stability might be brought about in that region, then he was free to do so acting as the Commander in Chief. After the War Powers Act of 1973, then the Pres needed Congressional approval if the actions go beyond a certain point and place troops into a hostile situation. Until the introduction of that act, it appears that Congress did not feel that the Pres was overstepping his authority. You cannot look at the Constitution as being written in stone, it is an evolving document that cannot foresee every event. For example, it mentions providing for an army and a naval force, no mention of an air force. Does that mean that the US should stop having an air force simply because the orginal Constitution did not provide for one?

From looking at this, there was no unconstitutional acts going on. The Presidents operating as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces moved troops as he thought required, only a declaretion of war required Congressional approval. If the Pres felt that by placing troops into areas, stability might be brought about in that region, then he was free to do so acting as the Commander in Chief. After the War Powers Act of 1973, then the Pres needed Congressional approval if the actions go beyond a certain point and place troops into a hostile situation. Until the introduction of that act, it appears that Congress did not feel that the Pres was overstepping his authority. You cannot look at the Constitution as being written in stone, it is an evolving document that cannot foresee every event. For example, it mentions providing for an army and a naval force, no mention of an air force. Does that mean that the US should stop having an air force simply because the orginal Constitution did not provide for one?



Originally the air force was either a part of the army or the navy.
It only later splintered into its own force.

The congress doesn't care.
They're happy to let the president run amok on other people's countries.
Those people at that level are so arrogant and egotistical.
Why do you think they run for their positions. They think they
have the solution.
War Powers act was a feeble half-hearted attempt to get a hold
on over 200 years of abuse of power.
Denying the vote to others, black, women, non-property holders
certainly was an abuse of power, just cause it wasn't in the constitution,
doesn't make it not an abuse of power.

Think about it,
those uses of military were how the US expanded,
conquered and murdered - committed genocide, of the native populations of
N America to get new land/pupput gov't to hand over their resource
via trade for their land. They'd probably call it 'free trade' if it were today.

"Come on Chief, let your people (who hold their land collectively) trade
it off if they want to. You are obviously very primitive[sic] because
you do not know of individual land holdings and don't let them 'freely trade' it
to us"

Originally the air force was either a part of the army or the navy.
It only later splintered into its own force.
The question still remains, should the US remove its Air Force because the Constitution does not mention it?

The congress doesn't care.
They're happy to let the president run amok on other people's countries.
Those people at that level are so arrogant and egotistical.
Why do you think they run for their positions. They think they
have the solution.
Typical, if your position is questioned, go on the attack with as many strawman insults as possible :rolleyes:

War Powers act was a feeble half-hearted attempt to get a hold
on over 200 years of abuse of power.
Can you please point out how sending the navy out to capturing privateers would be an abuse of the President's power?

Denying the vote to others, black, women, non-property holders
certainly was an abuse of power, just cause it wasn't in the constitution,
doesn't make it not an abuse of power.
Actually, denying the vote to minorities was a part of the Consitituion, or did you forget about Amendments 13-15 and Amendment 19?

Think about it,
those uses of military were how the US expanded,
conquered and murdered - committed genocide, of the native populations of
N America to get new land/pupput gov't to hand over their resource
via trade for their land. They'd probably call it 'free trade' if it were today.
Ah of course, because events like "1849 -- Smyrna. In July a naval force gained release of an American seized by Austrian officials." or "1859 -- Mexico. Two hundred United States soldiers crossed the Rio Grande in pursuit of the Mexican bandit Cortina." are all a part of the American Empire's Grand Imperial Conquest :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993

234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes.

Number of actual declared wars : 5

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm




So how many years would our presidents be serving in prison
for flagrantly, oh so flagrantly violating the constitution
without the required declaration of war by congress,
over the life of our country.
Would anybody care to try and calculate that?

But its ok to be involved in conflicts which are different to wars, they are very very similar but not the same!

Taking over 1/2 or is it 1/3 of Mexico.

That was imperialist.

Why do you try to deny or 'downplay'
US history?




The ruling class is not a straw man.
And yes, the US actually has one.
And no, i'm not a commie or whatever.
They actually think they are better than us.
Their institution of massive privalege, the corporation,
which they use the gov't to get more and more privaleges for.
How many corporate people look down upon homeless people.
Or the person who takes their order at mcdonalds.
On one level it is just plain being stuck up.
But then it's like, 'i've got this money. give me what i want'.

Should the US have an air force?
Now that's a strawman.

Maybe it shouldn't.
Write your congresswoman and tell her to get
the constitution amended.

Ah of course, because events like "1849 -- Smyrna. In July a naval force gained release of an American seized by Austrian officials." or "1859 -- Mexico. Two hundred United States soldiers crossed the Rio Grande in pursuit of the Mexican bandit Cortina." are all a part of the American Empire's Grand Imperial Conquest :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



I don't know?

The reason Iranian students held the US embassy personel hostage had a logical reason.
They feared the US working out of their embassy in Terhan would work a coup and bring back the Shah,
just as the US did in 1953 when the US worked out of their embassy in Terhan to bring about a coup and brought back the Shah.

Event surrounding US imperialism.

What were the events surrounding the events you posted.
We take things out of context.
With regards to Iran, some people say, 'they took us hostages'.
Thing is, they never even realize that that event is directly
related to US intervention in Iran 30 years ealier

But its ok to be involved in conflicts which are different to wars, they are very very similar but not the same!



No, no no. I'm not saying its ok at all.
I agree with you. It is wrong.

Taking over 1/2 or is it 1/3 of Mexico.

That was imperialist.

Why do you try to deny or 'downplay'
US history?
No one is, but there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Commander-in-Cheif of the Armed Forces from making use of the military, up to having to declare War.


The ruling class is not a straw man.
And yes, the US actually has one.
And no, i'm not a commie or whatever.
They actually think they are better than us.
Their institution of massive privalege, the corporation,
which they use the gov't to get more and more privaleges for.
How many corporate people look down upon homeless people.
Or the person who takes their order at mcdonalds.
On one level it is just plain being stuck up.
But then it's like, 'i've got this money. give me what i want'.
All you're doing is just insulting people; this might be hard for you, but you might want to actually use some facts in your arguments. So far you haven't done anything to prove that the Presidents have done any unconstitutional acts by using the military in various conflicts.

Should the US have an air force?
Now that's a strawman.

Maybe it shouldn't.
Write your congresswoman and tell her to get
the constitution amended.
According to your interpritation we shouldn't, since it's never mentioned in the Constitution.

I do not see how one can view the use of armed force for things other than self-defense to repel invasion or a declared war as constitutional.

So far you haven't done anything to prove that the Presidents have done any unconstitutional acts by using the military in various conflicts.


ok. prove they are constitutional.

since its well known that it is impossible to prove a negative.





perhaps the disection of the ruling class should
be under a different thread.

ok. prove they are constitutional.

since its well known that it is impossible to prove a negative.





perhaps the disection of the ruling class should
be under a different thread.

Since he is the Commander-in-Chief, they are under his command. Therefore it is Constitutional

Many laws have been declared unconstitutional, the War Powers Act has not been challanged as unconstitutional but you would rather attack SCOTUS because you personally disagree w/ it.

Since he is the Commander-in-Chief, they are under his command. Therefore it is Constitutional

Many laws have been declared unconstitutional, the War Powers Act has not been challanged as unconstitutional but you would rather attack SCOTUS because you personally disagree w/ it.



I don't know who this SCOTUS person is?

Oh, ok. The commander in chief should send troops to canada
to take over Toronto because we like the city.
Why not? He's the commander in chief, so therefore anything
he tells the troops to do is constitutional.

I don't know?

The reason Iranian students held the US embassy personel hostage had a logical reason.
They feared the US working out of their embassy in Terhan would work a coup and bring back the Shah,
just as the US did in 1953 when the US worked out of their embassy in Terhan to bring about a coup and brought back the Shah.

Event surrounding US imperialism.

What were the events surrounding the events you posted.
We take things out of context.
With regards to Iran, some people say, 'they took us hostages'.
Thing is, they never even realize that that event is directly
related to US intervention in Iran 30 years ealier

And you've been doing the exact same thing!!! "ZOMG Teh PRez h4ve hadd 234 coflicts!!!!1 Teh E1VL IMper1alistzzzz!!!111" when many of those conflicts (of which several I've already pointed out) are nothing more then pirate-hunting and evacuating civilians. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, how about you come off your suger high or whatever it is that's got you in a fit and acutally analysis the information instead of throwing out meaningless sound bytes.

I do not see how one can view the use of armed force for things other than self-defense to repel invasion or a declared war as constitutional.

Implied powers; these actions are seen by the government as necessary to the defense of the United States, and that makes it Constitutional.

I don't know who this SCOTUS person is?

Oh, ok. The commander in chief should send troops to canada
to take over Toronto because we like the city.
Why not? He's the commander in chief, so therefore anything
he tells the troops to do is constitutional.

SCOTUS :Supreme Court of the United States

Straw Man, Straw Man, let's all beat on the Straw Man!

Is there actually a valid arguement you can put forward?

Many laws have been declared unconstitutional, the War Powers Act has not been challanged as unconstitutional but you would rather attack SCOTUS because you personally disagree w/ it.



I've always been po'ed at the US warring on top of everybody,
well after I had war books, fight jet posters, gijoes, video games,
and almost joined the marines.....,
but after that,
how would you like to have bombs dropped on you.
espcially because those bombs are clearing you out to get resouces
or access to resources for some scum corporation,
like the Gulf War, '91 was all about oil.
I know veterans who believe that. Who will never fight for this
country again because they believe that war was about oil.

Then I find out after Vietnam they passed the War Powers act.
To me, that just seemed like a massive P.R. move instead
of reigning in Teddy Roosevelt & Smedley Darlington Butler type
imperialism.

ok. prove they are constitutional.

since its well known that it is impossible to prove a negative.
.

"Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the President has the power to order the military to do, say, protect US civilians in another country or to chase after criminals. As long as he doesn't declare War, anything he's done with the military has been constitutional.

And SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States; if you're going to argue about the US government, it helps to actually know these things.

SCOTUS :Supreme Court of the United States

Straw Man, Straw Man, let's all beat on the Straw Man!

Is there actually a valid arguement you can put forward?



How is this a straw man?
Using some people's logic, it would be completely constitutional
to invade Toronto.


Oh, ok. The commander in chief should send troops to canada
to take over Toronto because we like the city.
Why not? He's the commander in chief, so therefore anything
he tells the troops to do is constitutional.

how would you like to have bombs dropped on you.
espcially because those bombs are clearing you out to get resouces
or access to resources for some scum corporation,
like the Gulf War, '91 was all about oil.
I know veterans who believe that. Who will never fight for this
country again because they believe that war was about oil..

Yes, because we all know Saddam was a reasonable man that only wanted to defend his land. Oh, and it wasn't like Kuwait was a sovreign nation or anything. :rolleyes:

If we hadn't driven him out, he would have begun a conquest of the Middle East, and would likely embarked on a campaign of genocide in Israel. Saddam was a belligerent tyrant that had to be stopped, and to try and spin it otherwise is ridiculous.

Oh, and we had a UN mandate to go in which was virtually unanimous in its support.

Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993

234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes.

Number of actual declared wars : 5

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm




So how many years would our presidents be serving in prison
for flagrantly, oh so flagrantly violating the constitution
without the required declaration of war by congress,
over the life of our country.
Would anybody care to try and calculate that?

We should have , after all this practice ,conquered the world by now .
Dammit I want my world conquered ! Hang the next president that doesnt gimme the world ! MuHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahbnahahaaha.

ha.

The president as commander in chief of the armed forces is allowed to use this force to protect American interest. Congress can authorize the president to use the armed forces for actions short of declaring war .

Why would you put this crap out without doing any research what so ever into WHO authorized the president to use the military ? What were the circumstances of all the actions that did not include a declaration of war ?
The Korean WAR was never declared . It was called a police action . Did the people of the US have anything to say about it ? Does the president have to consult congress to declare a police action ? How about when a ratified treaty has to be honored ? If congress has already approved the treaty why would the president have to consult congress when it comes into effect ?

I've always been po'ed at the US warring on top of everybody,
well after I had war books, fight jet posters, gijoes, video games,
and almost joined the marines.....,
but after that,
how would you like to have bombs dropped on you.
espcially because those bombs are clearing you out to get resouces
or access to resources for some scum corporation,
like the Gulf War, '91 was all about oil.
I know veterans who believe that. Who will never fight for this
country again because they believe that war was about oil.

Then I find out after Vietnam they passed the War Powers act.
To me, that just seemed like a massive P.R. move instead
of reigning in Teddy Roosevelt & Smedley Darlington Butler type
imperialism.


Guess what, I've been in the military almost ten years. Been there done, that. Most likely know more "vets" than you claim to.

So you may have met a few people who believe the first Gulf War was "all about oil" and the WPA "seemed like, to you" a "massive P.R. move".

There's some hard evidence for you. I'm sure it will hold up in the courts.

"Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the President has the power to order the military to do, say, protect US civilians in another country or to chase after criminals. As long as he doesn't declare War, anything he's done with the military has been constitutional.




That segment you chose from the US constitution
only seems to support an earlier assertion of mine
that the president may be commander in chief only when
a war is actually declared.

Where in the constitution does it say the stuff you put in your
2nd paragraph?

How is this a straw man?
Using some people's logic, it would be completely constitutional
to invade Toronto.


Oh, ok. The commander in chief should send troops to canada
to take over Toronto because we like the city.
Why not? He's the commander in chief, so therefore anything
he tells the troops to do is constitutional.

Making up scenarios and defeating them is commonly called a "Straw Man". That is what you did.

That segment you chose from the US constitution
only seems to support an earlier assertion of mine
that the president may be commander in chief only when
a war is actually declared.
It never says that the President is only CnC during wartime, only that Congress can declare war only.

Where in the constitution does it say the stuff you put in your
2nd paragraph?
The fact that A) He is named as CnC of all armed forces which means, you know, he can command the military B) Only Congress can declare War. Try putting two and two together and you'll understand.

That segment you chose from the US constitution
only seems to support an earlier assertion of mine
that the president may be commander in chief only when
a war is actually declared.

Where in the constitution does it say the stuff you put in your
2nd paragraph?

another "seems to support" assertion that is, once again, wrong.


Where does it say in the Constitution that we can have an Air Force? It doesn't ? Did you read the post on "implied powers"?

It never says that the President is only CnC during wartime, only that Congress can declare war only.


The fact that A) He is named as CnC of all armed forces which means, you know, he can command the military B) Only Congress can declare War. Try putting two and two together and you'll understand.

I'm thinking S. would have a hard time putting 2 & 2 together.

That segment you chose from the US constitution
only seems to support an earlier assertion of mine
that the president may be commander in chief only when
a war is actually declared.

No, it says "called in to service". That means whenever the military is in service, he is the commander in chief, war or peace. We have a full time military, thus it is always in service. You don't need a war for that, and the Constitution does have implied powers and the necessary and proper clause to justify nonwar military action.

Yes, because we all know Saddam was a reasonable man that only wanted to defend his land. Oh, and it wasn't like Kuwait was a sovreign nation or anything. :rolleyes:

If we hadn't driven him out, he would have begun a conquest of the Middle East, and would likely embarked on a campaign of genocide in Israel. Saddam was a belligerent tyrant that had to be stopped, and to try and spin it otherwise is ridiculous.

Oh, and we had a UN mandate to go in which was virtually unanimous in its support.




UN mandate, yeah, after James Baker flew around the world and made
threats of loss of aid and promises of new aid.
The devil is in the details.

There is no evidence that shows Hussein wanted to "conquer the middle east". The Iran/Iraq war. Never mind US gov't encouragement or
even US supplying Hussein with weapons (which we supplied to Iran as well, real nice people those in gov't are) and supplied Hussein with satellite photos of Iranian troop movements.

Hussein invaded Kuwait. Why? What were his claims.
There was the claim of it being a provence of Iraq, which it was
until the British empire serperated it for better colonial control purposes.
History, but now Kuwait is clearly a sovereign nation, yes.
But we should not ignore the history lest the politicians can say simply,
aaahhh, see x person is mad. (Hussein is, but that's not my point).

Iraq accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into the oil fields in their country.
Iraq should not just invade but take things to the UN or something.
He did. They didn't do anything. Maybe not even taking it up for
discussion or something? More details to get a better understanding
that the television cannot, or does not.

Iraq was set to invade Saudi Arabia.
Not true actually. The administration at the time claimed
Iraqi troops were lined up on the S.A. border.
Russian sattelite photos later proved this to be false.


There's a lot of people Arabs and Jews who are not happy with
the Israeli gov't's treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied
territories. Hussein, like many politicians, I'm sure attempted
to claim that as a cause of his as well.

All that,
is not trying to defend attrocities Hussein committed
using weapons bought from the US, France, and Germany,
on his own people and Iranians (international crime. he should
get an internatinoal war crimes tribunal)

No you are dead wrong . It says he is commander in chief of the military( PERIOD) . he is commander in chief of the militia when called into duty .

It never says that the President is only CnC during wartime, only that Congress can declare war only.


The fact that A) He is named as CnC of all armed forces which means, you know, he can command the military B) Only Congress can declare War. Try putting two and two together and you'll understand.



2nd ~graph,
exactly my point. B) ONLY congress can declare war.

"Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

the prez be Chief, when X called into the actual Service

That sugguests he is CiC,
no it says he is CiC when actually called into sevice, i.e. a congressional
declaration of war. Without declaration of war, s/he is not CiC
of those forces.

and even if s/he was CiC during
non war times, there still is nothing
in the constitution that says s/he can use people
(the forces) for anything other than repel an actual invasion.
Even that might be up only to the states that are invaded
w/out a formal declartion.

UN mandate, yeah, after James Baker flew around the world and made
threats of loss of aid and promises of new aid.
The devil is in the details.

Source it.

There is no evidence that shows Hussein wanted to "conquer the middle east". The Iran/Iraq war. Never mind US gov't encouragement or
even US supplying Hussein with weapons (which we supplied to Iran as well, real nice people those in gov't are) and supplied Hussein with satellite photos of Iranian troop movements.

Source it.

Hussein invaded Kuwait. Why? What were his claims.
There was the claim of it being a provence of Iraq, which it was
until the British empire serperated it for better colonial control purposes.
History, but now Kuwait is clearly a sovereign nation, yes.
But we should not ignore the history lest the politicians can say simply,
aaahhh, see x person is mad. (Hussein is, but that's not my point).

So give your home back to the Native Americans.

Once again. Source it.

Iraq accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into the oil fields in their country.
Iraq should not just invade but take things to the UN or something.
He did. They didn't do anything. Maybe not even taking it up for
discussion or something? More details to get a better understanding
that the television cannot, or does not.

Iraq was set to invade Saudi Arabia.
Not true actually. The administration at the time claimed
Iraqi troops were lined up on the S.A. border.
Russian sattelite photos later proved this to be false.

Source it.


There's a lot of people Arabs and Jews who are not happy with
the Israeli gov't's treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied
territories. Hussein, like many politicians, I'm sure attempted
to claim that as a cause of his as well.

All that,
is not trying to defend attrocities Hussein committed
using weapons bought from the US, France, and Germany,
on his own people and Iranians (international crime. he should
get an internatinoal war crimes tribunal)

And who would do that if no one went in and took him out?

If you're going to try and argue things, at least have sources to back them up. "Seems likes" and "I heard once" doesn't mean much.

No you are dead wrong . It says he is commander in chief of the military( PERIOD) . he is commander in chief of the militia when called into duty .




You might be correct on this point.
I think you are.

On the matter of president being commander in chief of the armed
forces in general during all times.

This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989 list that was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A detailed description and analysis are not undertaken here.


The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization. Five of the instances are declared wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in 1917, and World War II declared in 1941.


Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the military action although it did not declare war.


The majority of the instances listed were brief Marine or Navy actions prior to World War II to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests. A number were actions against pirates or bandits. Some were events, such as the stationing of Marines at an Embassy or legation, which later were considered normal peacetime practice. Covert actions, disaster relief, and routine alliance stationing and training exercises are not included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the West

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm

If this thread is based on this above reffenced report , why do I not come to the same conclusions as the origional poster ? Could it be its because I actually read the thing ?

2nd ~graph,
exactly my point. B) ONLY congress can declare war.

"Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

the prez be Chief, when X called into the actual Service

That sugguests he is CiC,
no it says he is CiC when actually called into sevice, i.e. a congressional
declaration of war. Without declaration of war, s/he is not CiC
of those forces.

and even if s/he was CiC during
non war times, there still is nothing
in the constitution that says s/he can use people
(the forces) for anything other than repel an actual invasion.
Even that might be up only to the states that are invaded
w/out a formal declartion.


and since the military is always in service, the President is always CIC. And there's nothing in there that says the president CANNOT use the military for other purposes.

Can you cite any SCOTUS decision that says otherwise? Do you have any arguement besides "I think that...suggests"?

1798-1800 -- Undeclared Naval War with France. This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts.

1801-05 -- Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and USS Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia. Tripoli declared war but not the United States.

1806 -- Mexico (Spanish territory). Capt. Z. M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from Gen. James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers.

1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Capt. John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter.

1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.

1812 -- Amelia Island and other - parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.

1812-15 -- War of 1812. On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Among the issues leading to the war were British interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France.

1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus U.S. advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.

1813-14 -- Marguesas Islands. U.S. forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.

1814 -- Spanish Florida. Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.

1814-25 -- Caribbean. Engagements between pirates and American ships or squadrons took place repeatedly especially ashore and offshore about Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan. Three thousand pirate attacks on merchantmen were reported between 1815 and 1823. In 1822 Commodore James Biddle employed a squadron of two frigates, four sloops of war, two brigs, four schooners, and two gunboats in the West Indies.

1815 -- Algiers. The second Barbary War was declared by the opponents but not by the United States. Congress authorized an expedition. A large fleet under Decatur attacked Algiers and obtained indemnities.

1815 -- Tripoli. After securing an agreement from Algiers, Decatur demonstrated with his squadron at Tunis and Tripoli, where he secured indemnities for offenses during the War of 1812.

1816 -- Spanish Florida. United States forces destroyed Nicholls Fort, called also Negro Fort, which harbored raiders making forays into United States territory.

1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a resort for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under Generals Jackson and Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.

1817 -- Amelia Island (Spanish territory off Florida). Under orders of President Monroe, United States forces landed and expelled a group of smugglers, adventurers, and freebooters.

1818 -- Oregon. The USS. Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon territory. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.

1820-23 -- Africa. Naval units raided the slave traffic pursuant to the 1819 act of Congress.

1822 -- Cuba. United States naval forces suppressing piracy landed on the northwest coast of Cuba and burned a pirate station.

1823 -- Cuba. Brief landings in pursuit of pirates occurred April 8 near Escondido; April 16 near Cayo Blanco; July 11 at Siquapa Bay; July 21 at Cape Cruz; and October 23 at Camrioca.

1824 -- Cuba. In October the USS Porpoise landed bluejackets near Matanzas in pursuit of pirates. This was during the cruise authorized in 1822.

1824 -- Puerto Rico (Spanish territory). Commodore David Porter with a landing party attacked the town of Fajardo which had sheltered pirates and insulted American naval officers. He landed with 200 men in November and forced an apology. Commodore Porter was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.

1825 -- Cuba. In March cooperating American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates.

1827 -- Greece. In October and November landing parties hunted pirates on the islands of Argenteire, Miconi, and Androse.

1831-32 -- Falkland Islands. Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington investigated the capture of three American sealing vessels and sought to protect American interests.

1832 -- Sumatra - February 6 to 9. A naval force landed and stormed a fort to punish natives of the town of Quallah Battoo for plundering the American ship Friendship.

1833 -- Argentina - October 31 to November 15. A force was sent ashore at Buenos Aires to protect the interests of the United States and other countries during an insurrection.

1835-36 -- Peru - December 10, 1835, to January 24, 1836, and August 31 to December 7, 1836. Marines protected American interests in Callao and Lima during an attempted revolution.

1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Tex.), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.

1838-39 -- Sumatra - December 24, 1838, to January 4, 1839. A naval force landed to punish natives of the towns of Quallah Battoo and Muckie (Mukki) for depredations on American shipping.

1840 -- Fiji Islands - July. Naval forces landed to punish natives for attacking American exploring and surveying parties.

1841 -- Drummond Island, Kingsmill Group. A naval party landed to avenge the murder of a seaman by the natives.

1841 -- Samoa - February 24. A naval party landed and burned towns after the murder of an American seaman on Upolu Island.

1842 -- Mexico. Commodore TA.C. Jones, in command of a squadron long cruising off California, occupied Monterey, Calif., on October 19, believing war had come. He discovered peace, withdrew, and saluted. A similar incident occurred a week later at San Diego.

1843 -- China. Sailors and marines from the St. Louis were landed after a clash between Americans and Chinese at the trading post in Canton.

1843 -- Africa -- November 29 to December 16. Four United States vessels demonstrated and landed various parties (one of 200 marines and sailors) to discourage piracy and the slave trade along the Ivory coast, and to punish attacks by the natives on American seamen and shipping.

1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed U.S. forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry.

1846-48 -- Mexican War. On May 13,1846, the United States recognized the existence of a state of war with Mexico. After the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States and Mexico failed to resolve a boundary dispute and President Polk said that it was necessary to deploy forces in Mexico to meet a threatened invasion.

1849 -- Smyrna. In July a naval force gained release of an American seized by Austrian officials.

1851 -- Turkey. After a massacre of foreigners (including Americans) at Jaffa in January, a demonstration by the Mediterranean Squadron was ordered along the Turkish (Levant) coast.

1851 -- Johanns Island (east of Africa) -- August. Forces from the U.S. sloop of war Dale exacted redress for the unlawful imprisonment of the captain of an American whaling brig.

1852-53 -- Argentina -- February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.

1853 -- Nicaragua -- March 11 to 13. U.S. forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances.

1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition.

1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands. Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce.

1854 -- China -- April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife.

1854 -- Nicaragua -- July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.

1855 -- China -- May 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong.

1855 -- Fiji Islands -- September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for depredations on American residents and seamen.

1855 -- Uruguay -- November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.

1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada -- September 19 to 22. U.S. forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.

1856 -- China -- October 22 to December 6. U.S. forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag.

1857 -- Nicaragua -- April to May, November to December. In May Commander C.H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, who had been attempting to get control of the country, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels Saratoga, Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.

1858 -- Uruguay -- January 2 to 27. Forces from two United States warships landed to protect American property during a revolution in Montevideo.

1858 -- Fiji Islands -- October 6 to 16. A marine expedition chastised natives for the murder of two American citizens at Waya.

1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States."

1859 -- Paraguay. Congress authorized a naval squadron to seek redress for an attack on a naval vessel in the Parana River during 1855. Apologies were made after a large display of force.

1859 -- Mexico. Two hundred United States soldiers crossed the Rio Grande in pursuit of the Mexican bandit Cortina.

1859 -- China -- July 31 to August 2. A naval force landed to protect American interests in Shanghai.

1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- March 1. American residents at Kissembo called upon American and British ships to protect lives and property during problems with natives.

1860 -- Colombia, Bay of Panama -- September 27 to October 8. Naval forces landed to protect American interests during a revolution.

1863 -- Japan -- July 16. The USS Wyoming retaliated against a firing on the American vessel Pembroke at Shimonoseki.

1864 -- Japan -- July 14 to August 3. Naval forces protected the United States Minister to Japan when he visited Yedo to negotiate concerning some American claims against Japan, and to make his negotiations easier by impressing the Japanese with American power.

1864 -- Japan -- September 4 to 14. Naval forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands compelled Japan and the Prince of Nagato in particular to permit the Straits of Shimonoseki to be used by foreign shipping in accordance with treaties already signed.

1865 -- Panama -- March 9 and 10. U.S. forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.

1866 -- Mexico. To protect American residents, General Sedgwick and 100 men in November obtained surrender of Matamoras. After 3 days he was ordered by U.S. Government to withdraw. His act was repudiated by the President.

1866 -- China. From June 20 to July 7, U.S. forces punished an assault on the American consul at Newchwang.

1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.

1867 -- Formosa -- June 13. A naval force landed and burned a number of huts to punish the murder of the crew of a wrecked American vessel.

1868 -- Japan (Osaka, Hiolo, Nagasaki, Yokohama, and Negata) -- February 4 to 8, April 4 to May 12, June 12 and 13. U.S. forces were landed to protect American interests during the civil war in Japan over the abolition of the Shogunate and the restoration of the Mikado.

1868 -- Uruguay -- February 7 and 8, 19 to 26. U.S. forces protected foreign residents and the customhouse during an insurrection at Montevideo.

1868 -- Colombia -- April. U.S. forces protected passengers and treasure in transit at Aspinwall during the absence of local police or troops on the occasion of the death of the President of Colombia.

1870 -- Mexico -- June 17 and 18. U.S. forces destroyed the pirate ship Forward, which had been run aground about 40 miles up the Rio Tecapan.

1870 -- Hawaiian Islands -- September 21. U.S. forces placed the American flag at half mast upon the death of Queen Kalama, when the American consul at Honolulu would not assume responsibility for so doing.

1871 -- Korea -- June 10 to 12. A U.S. naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.

1873 -- Colombia (Bay of Panama) -- May 7 to 22, September 23 to October 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during hostilities over possession of the government of the State of Panama.

1873 -- Mexico. United States troops crossed the Mexican border repeatedly in pursuit of cattle and other thieves. There were some reciprocal pursuits by Mexican troops into border territory. Mexico protested frequently. Notable cases were at Remolina in May 1873 and at Las Cuevas in 1875. Washington orders often supported these excursions. Agreements between Mexico and the United States, the first in 1882, finally legitimized such raids. They continued intermittently, with minor disputes, until 1896.

1874 -- Hawaiian Islands -- February 12 to 20. Detachments from American vessels were landed to preserve order and protect American lives and interests during the coronation of a new king.

1876 -- Mexico -- May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoras temporarily while it was without other government.

1882 -- Egypt -- July 14 to 18. American forces landed to protect American interests during warfare between British and Egyptians and looting of the city of Alexandria by Arabs.

1885 -- Panama (Colon) -- January 18 and 19. U.S. forces were used to guard the valuables in transit over the Panama Railroad, and the safes and vaults of the company during revolutionary activity. In March, April, and May in the cities of Colon and Panama, the forces helped reestablish freedom of transit during revolutionary activity.

1888 -- Korea -- June. A naval force was sent ashore to protect American residents in Seoul during unsettled political conditions, when an outbreak of the populace was expected.

1888 -- Haiti -- December 20. A display of force persuaded the Haitian Government to give up an American steamer which had been seized on the charge of breach of blockade.

1888--89 -- Samoa -- November 14, 1888, to March 20, 1889. U.S. forces were landed to protect American citizens and the consulate during a native civil war.

1889 -- Hawaiian Islands -- July 30 and 31. U.S. forces protected American interests at Honolulu during a revolution.

1890 -- Argentina. A naval party landed to protect U.S. consulate and legation in Buenos Aires.

1891 -- Haiti. U.S. forces sought to protect American lives and property on Navassa Island.

1891 -- Bering Strait -- July 2 to October 5. Naval forces sought to stop seal poaching.

1891 -- Chile -- August 28 to 30. U.S. forces protected the American consulate and the women and children who had taken refuge in it during a revolution in Valparaiso.

1893 -- Hawaii -- January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.

1894 -- Brazil -- January. A display of naval force sought to protect American commerce and shipping at Rio de Janeiro during a Brazilian civil war.

1894 -- Nicaragua -- July 6 to August 7. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution.

1894-95 -- China. Marines were stationed at Tientsin and penetrated to Peking for protection purposes during the Sino--Japanese War.

1894-95 -- China. A naval vessel was beached and used as a fort at Newchwang for protection of American nationals.

1894-96 -- Korea -- July 24, 1894 to April 3, 1896. A guard of marines was sent to protect the American legation and American lives and interests at Seoul during and following the Sino-- Japanese War.

1895 -- Colombia -- March 8 to 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attack on the town of Bocas del Toro by a bandit chieftain.

1896 -- Nicaragua -- May 2 to 4. U.S. forces protected American interests in Corinto during political unrest.

1898 -- Nicaragua -- February 7 and 8. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at San Juan del Sur.

1898 -- The Spanish--American War. On April 25, 1898, the United States declared war with Spain. The war followed a Cuban insurrection against Spanish rule and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in the harbor at Havana.

1898--99 -- China -- November 5, 1898 to March 15, 1899. U.S. forces provided a guard for the legation at Peking and the consulate at Tientsin during contest between the Dowager Empress and her son.

1899 -- Nicaragua. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests at San Juan del Norte, February 22 to March 5, and at Bluefields a few weeks later in connection with the insurrection of Gen. Juan P. Reyes.

1899 -- Samoa -- February-May 15. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests and to take part in a bloody contention over the succession to the throne.

1899--1901 -- Philippine Islands. U.S. forces protected American interests following the war with Spain and conquered the islands by defeating the Filipinos in their war for independence.

1900 -- China -- May 24 to September 28. American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.

.

1901 -- Colombia (State of Panama) -- November 20 to December 4. U.S. forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.

1902 -- Colombia -- April 16 to 23. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.

1902 -- Colombia (State of Panama) -- September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.

1903 -- Honduras -- March 23 to 30 or 31. U.S. forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortez during a period of revolutionary activity.

1903 -- Dominican Republic -- March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.

1903 -- Syria -- September 7 to 12. U.S. forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Moslem uprising was feared.

1903-04 -- Abyssinia. Twenty-five marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the U.S. Consul General while he negotiated a treaty.

1903-14 -- Panama. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21 1914 to guard American interests.

1904 -- Dominican Republic -- January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting.

1904 -- Tangier, Morocco. "We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisula dead." A squadron demonstrated to force release of a kidnapped American. Marine guard was landed to protect the consul general.

1904 -- Panama -- November 17 to 24. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection.

1904-05 -- Korea -- January 5, 1904, to November 11, 1905. A Marine guard was sent to protect the American legation in Seoul during the Russo-Japanese War.

1906-09 -- Cuba -- September 1906 to January 23, 1909. U.S. forces sought to restore order, protect foreigners, and establish a stable government after serious revolutionary activity.

1907 -- Honduras -- March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro Laguna and Choloma.

1910 -- Nicaragua -- May 19 to September 4. U.S. forces protected American interests at Bluefields.

1911 -- Honduras -- January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras.

1911 -- China. As the nationalist revolution approached, in October an ensign and 10 men tried to enter Wuchang to rescue missionaries but retired on being warned away and a small landing force guarded American private property and consulate at Hankow. A marine guard was established in November over the cable stations at Shanghai; landing forces were sent for protection in Nanking, Chinkiang, Taku and elsewhere.

1912 -- Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortez. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action.

1912 -- Panama. Troops, on request of both political parties, supervised elections outside the Canal Zone.

1912 -- Cuba -- June 5 to August 5. U.S. forces protected American interests on the Province of Oriente, and in Havana.

1912 -- China -- August 24 to 26, on Kentucky Island, and August 26 to 30 at Camp Nicholson. U.S. forces protect Americans and American interests during revolutionary activity.

1912 -- Turkey -- November 18 to December 3. U.S. forces guarded the American legation at Constantinople during a Balkan War.

1912-25 -- Nicaragua -- August to November 1912. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attempted revolution. A small force, serving as a legation guard and seeking to promote peace and stability, remained until August 5, 1925.

1912-41 -- China. The disorders which began with the Kuomintang rebellion in 1912, which were redirected by the invasion of China by Japan and finally ended by war between Japan and the United States in 1941, led to demonstrations and landing parties for the protection of U.S. interests in China continuously and at many points from 1912 on to 1941. The guard at Peking and along the route to the sea was maintained until 1941. In 1927, the United States had 5,670 troops ashore in China and 44 naval vessels in its waters. In 1933 the United States had 3,027 armed men ashore. The protective action was generally based on treaties with China concluded from 1858 to 1901.

1913 -- Mexico -- September 5 to 7. A few marines landed at Ciaris Estero to aid in evacuating American citizens and others from the Yaqui Valley, made dangerous for foreigners by civil strife.

1914 -- Haiti -- January 29 to February 9, February 20 to 21, October 19. Intermittently U.S. naval forces protected American nationals in a time of rioting and revolution.

1914 -- Dominican Republic -- June and July. During a revolutionary movement, United States naval forces by gunfire stopped the bombardment of Puerto Plata, and by threat of force maintained Santo Domingo City as a neutral zone.

1914-17 -- Mexico. Undeclared Mexican--American hostilities followed the Dolphin affair and Villa's raids and included capture of Vera Cruz and later Pershing's expedition into northern Mexico.

1915-34 -- Haiti -- July 28, 1915, to August 15, 1934. U.S. forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.

1916 -- China. American forces landed to quell a riot taking place on American property in Nanking.

1916-24 -- Dominican Republic -- May 1916 to September 1924. American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.

1917 -- China. American troops were landed at Chungking to protect American lives during a political crisis.

1917-18 -- World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war with Germany and on December 7,1917, with Austria-Hungary. Entrance of the United States into the war was precipitated by Germany's submarine warfare against neutral shipping.

1917-22 -- Cuba. U.S. forces protected American interests during insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions. Most of the Uni States armed forces left Cuba by August 1919, but two companies remained at Camaguey until February 1922.

1918-19 -- Mexico. After withdrawal of the Pershing expedition, U.S. troops entered Mexico in pursuit of bandits at least three times in 1918 and s times in 1919. In August 1918 American and Mexican troops fought at Nogales.

1918-20 -- Panama. U.S. forces were used for police duty according to treaty stipulations, at Chiriqui, during election disturbances and subsequent unrest.

1918-20 Soviet Russia. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements.

1919 -- Dalmatia. U.S. forces were landed at Trau at the request of Italian authorities to police order between the Italians and Serbs.

1919 -- Turkey. Marines from the USS Arizona were landed to guard the U.S. Consulate during the Greek occupation of Constantinople.

1919 -- Honduras -- September 8 to 12. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution.

1920 -- China -- March 14. A landing force was sent ashore for a few hours to protect lives during a disturbance at Kiukiang.

1920 -- Guatemala -- April 9 to 27. U.S. forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.

1920-22 -- Russia (Siberia) -- February 16, 1920, to November 19, 1922. A Marine guard was sent to protect the United States radio station and property on Russian Island, Bay of Vladivostok.

1921 -- Panama -- Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.

1922 -- Turkey -- September and October. A landing force was sent ashore with consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities, to protect American lives and property when the Turkish Nationalists entered Smyrna.

1922-23 -- China. Between April 1922 and November 1923 marines were landed five times to protect Americans during periods of unrest.

1924 -- Honduras -- February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American lives and interests during election hostilities.

1924 -- China -- September. Marines were landed to protect Americans and other foreigners in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities.

1925 -- China -- January 15 to August 29. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai brought the landing of American forces to protect lives and property in the International Settlement.

1925 -- Honduras -- April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.

1925 -- Panama -- October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests.

1926 -- China -- August and September. The Nationalist attack on Han brought the landing of American naval forces to protect American citizens. A small guard was maintained at the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nation forces captured Kiukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners November 4 to 6.

1926-33 -- Nicaragua -- May 7 to June 5, 1926; August 27, 1926, to January 1933. The coup d'etat of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of United States. United States forces came and went intermittently until January 3, 1933. Their work included activity against the outlaw leader
Sandino in 1928.

1927 -- China -- February. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and marines to be increased. In March a naval guard was stationed at American consulate at Nanking after Nationalist forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire to protect Americans and other foreigners. Subsequently additional forces of marines and naval
forces were stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientsin.

1932 -- China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.

1933 -- Cuba. During a revolution against President Gerardo Machada naval forces demonstrated but no landing was made.

1934 -- China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate.

1940 -- Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, - Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana. Troops were sent to guard air and naval bases obtained by negotiation with Great Britain. These were sometimes called lend-lease bases.

1941 -- Greenland. Greenland was taken under protection of the United States in April.

1941 -- Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). In November the President ordered American troops to occupy Dutch Guiana, but by agreement with the Netherlands government in exile, Brazil cooperated to protect aluminum ore supply from the bauxite mines in Surinam.

1941 -- Iceland. Iceland was taken under the protection of the United States

1941 -- Germany. Sometime in the spring the President ordered the Navy to patrol ship lanes to Europe. By July U.S. warships were conveying and September were attacking German submarines. In November, the Neutrality Act was partially repealed to protect U.S. military aid to Britain.1941-45 -- World War II. On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war with Japan, on December 11 with Germany and Italy, and on June 5, 1942, with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. The United States declared war against Japan after the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor, and against Germany and Italy after those nations, under the dictators Hitler and Mussolini, declared war against the United States.

1945 -- China. In October 50,000 U.S. Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 U.S. forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.

1946 -- Trieste. President Truman ordered the augmentation of U.S. troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed U.S. Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia. Earlier U.S. naval units had been dispatched to the scene.

1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the U.S. Consul General.

1948 -- Berlin. After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the U.S., British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.

1948-49 -- China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.

1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions.

1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.

1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated U.S. civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.

1956 -- Egypt. A Marine battalion evacuated U.S. nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.

1958 -- Lebanon. Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of its government to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside.

1959-60 -- The Caribbean. 2d Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect U.S. nationals during the Cuban crisis.

1962 -- Cuba. President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about U.S. nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.

1962 -- Thailand. The 3d Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by Jul 30 the 5000 marines had been withdrawn.

1962-75 -- Laos. From October 1962 until 1976, the United States played a role of military support in Laos.

1964 -- Congo. The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.

1964-73 -- Vietnam War. U.S. military advisers had been in South Vietnam a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position the Saigon government became weaker. After the attacks on U.S. destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked for a resolution expressing U.S. determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against U.S. forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a U.S. installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543 000 in April 1969.

1965 -- Dominican Republic. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent more troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.

1967 -- Congo. The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.

1970 -- Cambodia. U.S. troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked U.S and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.

1974 -- Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated U.S. civilians during hostilities between Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces.

1975 -- Evacuation from Vietnam. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported U.S. naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and U.S. nationals from Vietnam. (Note 3)

1975 -- Evacuation from Cambodia. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of U.S. citizens from Cambodia.

1975 -- South Vietnam. On April 30 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 U.S. citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones near the U.S. Embassy in Saigon and the Tan Son Nhut Airfield.

1975 -- Mayaguez incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayaguez, a merchant vessel en route from Hong Kong to Thailand with U.S. citizen crew which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.

1976 -- Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1974, helicopters from five U.S. naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.

1976 -- Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American military personnel were killed while in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea for the purpose of cutting down a tree.

1978 -- Zaire. From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.

1980 -- Iran. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue American hostages being held in Iran.

1981 -- El Salvador. After a guerilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional U.S. military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.

1981 --Libya. On August 19, 1981, U.S. planes based on the carrier Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.

1982 -- Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.

1982 -- Lebanon. On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 80 marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left Sept. 20, 1982.

1982 -- Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On Sept. 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.

1983 -- Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.

1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed U.S. military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.

1983 -- Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.

1983 -- Grenada. On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported a landing on Grenada by Marines and Army airborne troops to protect lives and assist in the restoration of law and order and at the request of five members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

1984 -- Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a U.S. AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.

1985 -- Italy . On October 10, 1985, U.S. Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.

1986 --Libya. On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported to Congress that, on March 24 and 25, U.S. forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.

1986 -- Libya. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in Libya.

1986 -- Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.

1987-88 -- Persian Gulf. After the Iran-Iraq War resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased U.S. Navy forces operating in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Gulf. President Reagan reported that U.S. ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 23, October 10, and October 20, 1987 and April 19, July 4, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.

1988 -- Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as pressure grew for Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, U.S. lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 U.S. military personnel already in Panama.

1989 -- Libya. On January 4, 1989, two U.S. Navy F-14 aircraft based on USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The U.S. pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.

1989 -- Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade- sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 11,000 U.S. forces already in the area.

1989 -- Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50- 100 U.S. military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2-12 persons to train troops in the three countries.

1989 -- Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1 U.S. fighter planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from the U.S. Navy base at Subic Bay to protect the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

1989 -- Panama. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.

1990 -- Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.




1990 -- Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.

1991 -- Iraq. On January 18, 1991, President Bush reported that he had directed U.S. armed forces to commence combat operations on January 16 against Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and U.N. Security Council resolutions. On January 12 Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1). Combat operations were suspended on February 28, 1991.

1991 -- Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated in a status report to Congress that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.

1991 -- Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, U.S. Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Mnshasa. U.S. planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled back American citizens and third country nationals from locations outside Zaire.

1992 -- Sierra Leone. On May 3, 1992, U.S. military planes evacuated Americans from Sierra Leone, where military leaders had overthrown the government.

1992 -- Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspection teams.

1992 -- Iraq. On September 16, 1992 President Bush stated in a status report that he had ordered U.S. participation in the enforcement of a prohibition against Iraqi flights in a specified zone in southern Iraq, and aerial reconnaissance to monitor Iraqi compliance with the cease-fire resolution.

1992 -- Somalia. On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed U.S. armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a U.N. Security Council Resolution determining that the situation constituted a threat to international peace. This operation, called Operation Restore Hope, was part of a U.S.-led United Nations Unified Task Force (UNITAF) and came to an end on May 4, 1993. U.S. forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II), which the U.N. Security Council authorized to assist Somalia in political reconciliation and restoration of peace.

1993 -- Iraq. On January 19, 1993, President Bush said in a status report that on December 27, 1992, U.S. aircraft shot down an Iraqi aircraft in the prohibited zone; on January 13 aircraft from the United States and coalition partners had attacked missile bases in southern Iraq; and further military actions had occured on January 17 and 18. Administration officials said the United States was deploying a battalion task force to Kuwait to underline the continuing U.S. commitment to Kuwaiti independence.

1993 -- Iraq. On January 21, 1993, shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton said the United States would continue the Bush policy on Iraq, and U.S. aircraft fired at targets in Iraq after pilots sensed Iraqi radar or anti-aircraft fire directed at them.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On February 28, 1993, the United States bagan an airdrop of relief supplies aimed at Muslims surrounded by Serbian forces in Bosnia.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.

1993 -- Iraq. In a status report on Iraq of May 24, President Clinton said that on April 9 and April 18 U.S. warplanes had bombed or fired missiles at Iraqi anti-aircraft sites which had tracked U.S. aricraft.

1993 -- Somalia. On June 10, 1993, President Clinton reported that in response to attacks against U.N. forces in Somalia by a factional leader, the U.S. Quick Reaction Force in the area had participated in military action to quell the violence. The quick reaction force was part of the U.S. contribution to a success On July 1, President Clinton reported further air and ground military operations on June 12 and June 17 aimed at neutralizing military capabilities that had impeded U.N. efforts to deliver humanitarian relief and promote national reconstruction, and additional instances occurred in the following months.

1993 -- Iraq. On June 28, 1993, President Clinton reported that on June 26 U.S. naval forces had launched missiles against the Iraqi Intelligence Service's headquarters in Baghdad in response to an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait in April 1993.

1993 -- Iraq. In a status report of July 22, 1993, President Clinton said on June 19 a U.S. aircraft had fired a missile at an Iraqi anti-aircraft site displaying hostile intent. U.S. planes also bombed an Iraqi missile battery on August 19, 1993.

1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. armed forces to Macedonia to participate in the U.N. Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia

And who would do that if no one went in and took him out?

If you're going to try and argue things, at least have sources to back them up. "Seems likes" and "I heard once" doesn't mean much.



That's all information that is known, to many people outside
the US and many of those who don't rely on television
for their only source of information.

Heck, at the time I supported the Gulf War.
I didn't know any better.

I don't know why you slipped the give the land back
to the first nations in there.

Why did we need to take an aging dictator out?
Last time he committed any of his wide scale attrocities
was when we were his sugar daddy, his ally,
back in the 80s when Donald Rumsfeld was envoy
to Iraq and shook Hussein's hand. And he did not raise
the issue of gas use on humans. So no, I do believe
Rumsfeld, if he claimed concern for ordinary Iraqis
recently, was being very disingenuous.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Here's the hand shake.



As much as I'd like to stay and chat I must get
out and play.
Posting my sources I'd like to do, but for now I need a break.

That's all information that is known, to many people outside
the US and many of those who don't rely on television
for their only source of information.

Heck, at the time I supported the Gulf War.
I didn't know any better.

I don't know why you slipped the give the land back
to the first nations in there.

Why did we need to take an aging dictator out?
Last time he committed any of his wide scale attrocities
was when we were his sugar daddy, his ally,
back in the 80s when Donald Rumsfeld was envoy
to Iraq and shook Hussein's hand. And he did not raise
the issue of gas use on humans. So no, I do believe
Rumsfeld, if he claimed concern for ordinary Iraqis
recently, was being very disingenuous.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Here's the hand shake.



As much as I'd like to stay and chat I must get
out and play.
Posting my sources I'd like to do, but for now I need a break.


So what you're saying is you don't have any sources to back up your assertions and just return to veiled insults and red herrings. Gotcha.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm

If this thread is based on this above reffenced report , why do I not come to the same conclusions as the origional poster ? Could it be its because I actually read the thing ?




I was about to say, wow, you posted that list,
pretty disgusting isn't it.

What?
All those uses of the armed forces and only 5 declared wars.
Wow. Presidents throughout the centuries building empire(which
is piss evil in its own right) and violating the US constitution while
doing it. Maybe this whole thread is merely academic and
the real crimes are not violating the constitution, but the imperialism
of manifest destiny and elsewhere that people like Mark Twain opposed.
yes.
I am an anti-imperialist.

Was I trying to say that link had any sort of analysis? No.
I never implied it did.
It is merely a list.

So what you're saying is you don't have any sources to back up your assertions and just return to veiled insults and red herrings. Gotcha.


No.

I've been in front of this thing since I woke up this morning for over
3 hours
and havn't eaten breakfast yet.


How about this.
I'll book mark the page and come back before Mon noon.
Maybe even Sun noon.

Why do you have to declare war to send 20 marines to protect your ambassador ? Or to respond to a dictator firing missles at your aircraft ?

It seems to me that NOT declaring war in the vast majority of the posted instances was not only the proper thing to do but actually saved the countrys involved from actually fighting a war .

I do not see how you reach your conclusions from that list .

1993 -- Iraq. On January 21, 1993, shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton said the United States would continue the Bush policy on Iraq, and U.S. aircraft fired at targets in Iraq after pilots sensed Iraqi radar or anti-aircraft fire directed at them.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On February 28, 1993, the United States bagan an airdrop of relief supplies aimed at Muslims surrounded by Serbian forces in Bosnia.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.

1993 -- Iraq. In a status report on Iraq of May 24, President Clinton said that on April 9 and April 18 U.S. warplanes had bombed or fired missiles at Iraqi anti-aircraft sites which had tracked U.S. aricraft


You would have declared war ? For this ? You make no sense .

Let's cut through the bullshit here and now S. Cite in the Constitution where it says the military can only be used during a time of war, where the President is only CnC during a time of war, and where sending Marines to guard an embassy or chase after pirates would require a declaration of War by the Congress.

I was about to say, wow, you posted that list,
pretty disgusting isn't it.

What?
All those uses of the armed forces and only 5 declared wars.
Wow. Presidents throughout the centuries building empire(which
is piss evil in its own right) and violating the US constitution while
doing it. Maybe this whole thread is merely academic and
the real crimes are not violating the constitution, but the imperialism
of manifest destiny and elsewhere that people like Mark Twain opposed.
yes.
I am an anti-imperialist.

Was I trying to say that link had any sort of analysis? No.
I never implied it did.
It is merely a list.

You have already shown you have little knowledge of the US Constitution or the workings of the Gov't and have still shown no proof of any violations of the Constitution.

If you try arguing that Imperialism and Manifest Destiny were morally wrong, that would be a whole seperate thing.

That's all information that is known, to many people outside
the US and many of those who don't rely on television
for their only source of information.

Heck, at the time I supported the Gulf War.
I didn't know any better.

I don't know why you slipped the give the land back
to the first nations in there.

Why did we need to take an aging dictator out?
Last time he committed any of his wide scale attrocities
was when we were his sugar daddy, his ally,
back in the 80s when Donald Rumsfeld was envoy
to Iraq and shook Hussein's hand. And he did not raise
the issue of gas use on humans. So no, I do believe
Rumsfeld, if he claimed concern for ordinary Iraqis
recently, was being very disingenuous.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Here's the hand shake.



As much as I'd like to stay and chat I must get
out and play.
Posting my sources I'd like to do, but for now I need a break.
Masterful copout! (stands and applauds, then shakes head)

No.

I've been in front of this thing since I woke up this morning for over
3 hours
and havn't eaten breakfast yet.


How about this.
I'll book mark the page and come back before Mon noon.
Maybe even Sun noon.

So you're going to wait almost two days before trying to back up all the assertions you've made in this thread?

IIRC, that's borderline trolling according to forum rules.

I was about to say, wow, you posted that list,
pretty disgusting isn't it.

What?
All those uses of the armed forces and only 5 declared wars.
Wow. Presidents throughout the centuries building empire(which
is piss evil in its own right) and violating the US constitution while
doing it. Maybe this whole thread is merely academic and
the real crimes are not violating the constitution, but the imperialism
of manifest destiny and elsewhere that people like Mark Twain opposed.
yes.
I am an anti-imperialist.

Was I trying to say that link had any sort of analysis? No.
I never implied it did.
It is merely a list.

And how many of those incidents had congressional approval without declaring war? I personally don't know, although I know the 1991 Gulf War did. The incredible scope usually associated with the term "war" when authorized by Congress, and the pure sluggishness that Congress moves with, make it thoroughly impractical for the President to get a declaration of war on every minor issue that requires the military's attention (such as pirates, hostage situations, etc.). That's why the Constitution names the President as CiC, not Congress.

On the Iraqi troops supposedly lining up on the Saudi Arabian border


http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim5.shtml



There is also a very infamous other lie
about Iraqis supposedly dumping Kuwaiti babies
out of incubators.

This was a lie told by a young Kuwaiti woman
to the US congress.
It was concocted by a PR company called Hill & Knowlton
and the yound woman was a Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter.

So how many years would our presidents be serving in prison
for flagrantly, oh so flagrantly violating the constitution
without the required declaration of war by congress,
over the life of our country.
Would anybody care to try and calculate that?

In actuality, none. That's because, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president can deploy those forces without a declaration of war by Congress. The latter is a serious matter, and shouldn't be used for any military action. For example, the Vietnam War was fought to maintain the South Vietnamese regime against a Communist insurgency. However, we were not at war with the country of North Vietnam, else we would have invaded it. Yeah, I know we bombed the hell out of them, but it's not the same thing as actually trying to overthrow their government. Not that I supported the Vietnam War, mind you, but I also don't deny that the various presidents at the time had a right to deploy U.S. troops there. In the case of Iraq, we were primarily after one man and his henchmen. Having captured Saddam, we should pull out.

Now if you want to talk about countries were really were out to conquer other peoples, try the British or French empires in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, or Nazi Germany. They really WERE out to conquer the world, and had no problem saying so!

Shingo, stop trying to dodge the bullet and answer our questions.

You have already shown you have little knowledge of the US Constitution or the workings of the Gov't and have still shown no proof of any violations of the Constitution.

If you try arguing that Imperialism and Manifest Destiny were morally wrong, that would be a whole seperate thing.



every use of the armed forces, save the national guard without
a delaration of war is clearly unconstitutional.

just because you have some emotional connection to one
or the other political parties or some historical figure blown up
to mythological proportions you believe it to be 'ok'.

Or, it may be "this is my side". Why would my side do something wrong.
We imagine some connection with those that run the gov't.
So we buy into their self-justifications.



-----
to someone else,
and how do you get trolling out of it.
People have lives you know.
If I suddenly had to get up and rush my daughter to the
hospital you'd be posting "troller", "cut & run".
But I actually give an explanation of why I do not want
my eyes to blow up and suddenly I am bad.
see you later.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)
--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm

Seems that the senate and congress believe the president has broad use of military power short of declaring war .

I can find thousands of examples.
You make a very bad argument .

every use of the armed forces, save the national guard without
a delaration of war is clearly unconstitutional.
Obviously not, or you wouldn't be the only person arguing for it.

I'll repeat my question again: Cite in the actual Constitution (not what you opinions are, but clear constitutional proof of what you're arguing) where it says the military can only be used during a time of war, where the President is only CnC during a time of war, and where sending Marines to guard an embassy or chase after pirates would require a declaration of War by the Congress.

every use of the armed forces, save the national guard without
a delaration of war is clearly unconstitutional.


This statement is just flat out wrong .


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm

There's a link to the constitution of the US . Read it .

also your biggest assumption is that the president did not have authorization from congress to take these actions .

You make a very poor argument to support your point .

Obviously not, or you wouldn't be the only person arguing for it.

I'll repeat my question again: Cite in the actual Constitution (not what you opinions are, but clear constitutional proof of what you're arguing) where it says the military can only be used during a time of war, where the President is only CnC during a time of war, and where sending Marines to guard an embassy or chase after pirates would require a declaration of War by the Congress.



No you are dead wrong . It says he is commander in chief of the military( PERIOD) . he is commander in chief of the militia when called into duty .


To B&G I admitted I was wrong with the US prez being CiC of
armed forces at all times. THAT does not mean he can use
them at his whim. It would be a little naive on our
part if we let them get away with that type of argument.

I wish someone would post where [i]exactly[i] in the us constitution it says the president can use the armed forces at
her/his whim.

In the constitution it says the the use of the armed forces
shall be when the congress declares war or there is an actual
invasion, i.e. actual self-defense (it's pretty sad that one
has to put the word [i]actual[i] in there, one would think
self-defense would be self-explanatory)


I just don't get it, "troops can't be used for things other
than war." I suppose, maybe they can be ordered to mow
the lawn of the white house or go to buger king for him and pick
up some woppers, do his grocery shopping, give him a pedicure, etc... The constitution doesn't exactly
say the president cannot order that of the armed forces whenever he wants. So..., it must be constitutional. After all, it is impossible to prove a negative.


I think we're ignoring a very important fact in
this exchange. That:
Troops fighting IS war.
Some are trying to say, that Vietnam is not a war,
because 1) the congress never declared it so;
2) the US never invaded the northern half of Vietnam,
only tried to prop up the puppet gov't of South Vietnam
that the US created, and only bombed N Vietnam so that
wasn't actually 'invading' anyway. harhar.
I guess to Poland WW2 wasn't war either, because afterall,
they didn't invade anyone.
No, war is war. War is when armed forces are fighting.
Therefore, whenever a president uses armed forces
for fighting, it is war. Spin it as "police action" or
"humanitarian intervention" or whatever. It is still war.
War is war.

And, if we are indeed "at war", then why hasn't the
congress actually declared war?
No. I am not at war.

This statement is just flat out wrong .


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm

There's a link to the constitution of the US . Read it .

also your biggest assumption is that the president did not have authorization from congress to take these actions .

You make a very poor argument to support your point .



Where in the constitution does it say the president can make
war, i.e. use US armed forces in combat, other than with
a congressional declaration of war or to repel an (actual)
invasion?

Does it even imply such? Maybe I missed it?
I suppose it does not say in the constitution that
a president cannot order troops to put a new roof on his
house; nor does it say s/he cannot order the armed forces
to mow his lawn. Since the constitution does not say a president cannot do these things, it must be legit.

Source it.


Here are some sources I came across during the mid-90's when I was first exposed to the idea that 1) Gulf War was about oil; and 2) (in the later 90s) that the sanctions on Iraq were killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.
One of the first people I met to be against the sanctions was
a veteran of the Gulf War


The Persian Gulf TV War by Douglas Kellner (1992)
(online book, w/footnotes)
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwar1.htm

CHALLENGE TO GENOCIDE: LET IRAQ LIVE (1998)
(chapter excerpts online)
http://www.iacenter.org/ctglil.htm

The Scourging of Iraq : Sanctions, Law and Natural Justice (Paperback) by Geoff Simons

Placing the Poet
Badr Shakir al-Sayyab and Postcolonial Iraq
Terri DeYoung - Author

Political Gain and Civilian Pain: The Humanitarian Impacts of Economic Sanctions
http://hwproject.tufts.edu/publications/abstracts/pgacp.html
Chapter 7 on Iraq online

War in the Gulf, 1990-91
The Iraq-Kuwait Conflict and Its Implications
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/?ci=0195149793&view=usa
This is a must read for all interested in Mid East politics. ~reviewer at amazon

THE ECONOMY OF IRAQ
Oil, Wars, Destruction of Development and Prospects, 1950-2010 (Contributions in Economics and Economic History)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9782228
(online library)

The Final Sack of Nineveh : The Discovery, Documentation, and Destruction of King Sennacherib`s Throne Room at Nineveh, Iraq


These are books all related to the destruction of Iraqi civilization. Previously Iraq had been known as the Germany
of the middle east do to its industrial know-how.
Also, women in Iraq had a level of social status unknown to
other middle eastern countries. But since the first Gulf-war...

The above sources came to me via
a US based group called "Education for Peace in Iraq Center"
run by Americans including Gulf War Veterans.

also there is Voices In The Wilderness
http://vitw.org/
Both worked during the 90s to end the brutal sanctions
that US media repeatedly failed to cover.

Journalist John Pilger also has reported
on events in Iraq, you can watch some of his
documentaries online.
http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq


http://www.nodraftnoway.org/

The constitution says the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the armed forces. It doesnt define " war " It makes no restrictions on the presidents use of the armed forces nor does it imply any . Congress has attempted to address this in many ways with the war powers act and the isolationist legislations enacted before WW2 . if the president were to act against the will of congress it would be up to the supreme court to make a decision as to the constitutionality of his actions .
Because you feel some of these acts are not constitutional is irrellevant , its only the Supreme court of the United States that can determine that and so far after more than two hundred years they have not .
I feel very safe therefore in saying you are wrong .

1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


Thats the Presidents role per the Constitution.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

13. To provide and maintain a navy:

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:


Thats the role of congress .

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###



Thats your declaration .

Thats your declaration .


Oh, the congress declared war on Iraq?

I must have missed it.

I guess you did . Saddam didnt .

Congress declared war?

Write your congress person and ask her if she or the person in
her office at the time "Declared War"

not passed a 'resolution' stating a 'sense of congress',
which is utterly meaningless as far as law goes.

Steve Largent supported a resolution that passed telling the
administration that the congress favored a dissolution of the IRS,
but it still exists. It had no legal standing.

Again with the stupid word games .

Hague convention info..

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3c8e4...7f?OpenDocument
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html


Quote:
ARTICLE 2. -- APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION


[p.27] Neither the Tenth Hague Convention of 1907 nor the Geneva Conventions of 1929 defined the conditions for their application. Their very titles and purpose made it clear that they were intended for use in war-time and that notion Heeded no defining. The Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities provided that "hostilities... must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war giving the reasons on which it is based or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war" (1). Since 1907, Parties to a conflict have in many instances contested the legitimacy of the Government of the adverse Party on various pretexts, or have refused to recognize the existence of a state of war. Now, the Geneva Conventions are not so much contracts concluded on a basis of reciprocity in the interest of the parties as a solemn affirmation of principles respected for their own sake, a series of unconditional commitments on the part of each of the Contracting Parties ' vis-à-vis ' the others.
Furthermore, as we shall see later, the application of the Hague Conventions was still subject to the lausula si omnes. If one of the belligerents was not a Contracting Party, the other belligerents were relieved from all their obligations.
Lastly, the Geneva Conventions have today achieved a much greater degree of universality than the 1907 Conventions.
For all these reasons, since the provisions applicable to maritime warfare have been embodied in the "Geneva law", their application is now more extensive (2).

PARAGRAPH 1. -- ARMED CONFLICTS INVOLVING
THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION

By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for [p.28] evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient.
It remains to ascertain what is meant by "armed conflict". The substitution of this much more general expression for the word "war" was deliberate. It is possible to argue almost endlessly about the legal definition of "war". A State which uses arms to commit a hostile act against another State can always maintain that it is Hot making war, but merely engaging in a police action, or acting in legitimate self-defence. The expression "armed conflict" makes such arguments less easy. Any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2 , even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place. The respect due to the human person as such is not measured by the number of victims. Nor, incidentally, does the application of the Convention necessarily involve the intervention of cumbrous machinery. It all depends on circumstances. If there is only a single shipwrecked person as a result of the conflict, the Convention will have been applied as soon as he has been collected and tended, the provisions of Article 12 observed in his case, and his identity notified to the Power on which he depends. All that can be done by anyone; it is merely a case of taking the trouble to save a human life.





Yes they declared " use of force " so sue them - tell them to give Saddam back his hole . :D

A war is a war is a war...according to the Hague they declared "hostile intent " Leave in 48 hrs etc . WAR WAR WAR ..... :D

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

END 8:15 P.M. EST


WAR WAR WAR WAR !!!!! :D

Yes they declared " use of force " so sue them - tell them to give Saddam back his hole . :D

A war is a war is a war...according to the Hague they declared "hostile intent " Leave in 48 hrs etc . WAR WAR WAR ..... :D



One of the points I was making.
Some have said, if no war was officially declared,
then it was not war. I objected saying use of force
was in fact war, with or without the US congress's
legally required declaration.
Some have implied that because these were not "officially "
declared wars, that they were not wars and therefore it
didn't matter what a president did with the armed forces.


You seem really gunho on the issue of war.
I hope you are being a true leader on the matter
and are on the front lines. (not that I hope you
get injured, because I do not) A leader will lead,
not tell others to go fight.

you sound like me when I was in about high school.
I thought war was pretty cool. I never took
the time to think about those if affects or
find out what is behind every single war in the
history of man kind. $ 'War is a Racket' ('and it
always has been'), said
Smedley Darlington Butler, re Marine. One of America's
most decorated soldiers ever.

As commander in chief of the armed forces, the president is perfectly authorized to do whatever he wants in regards to the military. However, checks and balances do exist. Congress, for instance, has the power of funding the military, and under the commerce clause, can impose domestic regulations to facilitate war. Those have only been used five times, four of which during declared wars. The fifth, being Vietnam, was used six months (it was a price and wage cap).

2nd ~graph,
exactly my point. B) ONLY congress can declare war.

"Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

the prez be Chief, when X called into the actual Service

That sugguests he is CiC,
no it says he is CiC when actually called into sevice, i.e. a congressional
declaration of war. Without declaration of war, s/he is not CiC
of those forces.

and even if s/he was CiC during
non war times, there still is nothing
in the constitution that says s/he can use people
(the forces) for anything other than repel an actual invasion.
Even that might be up only to the states that are invaded
w/out a formal declartion.

1: My father is in the USAF. His CiC is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

2. The militia=the National Guard. The Guard are under the direction of the State Governor until they are called to active duty. When Called to active duty, they are then placed under the President's command and NOT the governor.

You sir, really need to begin to understand this. Also, it is the president's duty to defend and protect the CITIZENS of the United States whereever they are at. If that means sending troops to a foriegn country then so be it.

The only thing the President can't do is Declare war. Other than that, he has full discretion to do with the military whatever he pleases.

One of the points I was making.
Some have said, if no war was officially declared,
then it was not war. I objected saying use of force
was in fact war, with or without the US congress's
legally required declaration.

And yet, the President doesn't need Congress's declaration of war to send troops to protect our interests. If he sends them into a hot zone meaning military action, then he just has to report to Congress after so many number of days and if Congress doesn't give him the authorization to continue to use force then they come home.

However, from what I'm seeing, the President had authorization for:

Korea
Vietnam
1st Gulf War
2nd Gulf War
Operation Desert Fox
Operation Enduring Freedom
and a few others.

As Commander and Chief, he can use the military however he sees fit. He just can't declare war on another nation.

Some have implied that because these were not "officially "
declared wars, that they were not wars and therefore it
didn't matter what a president did with the armed forces.

Do you believe this?

You seem really gunho on the issue of war.

Anyone who loves war is a fool

"Its a good thing war is hell, otherwise we'll grow to like it" General Sherman of the Union Army fighting against the Confederate States of America (an undeclared war)

I hope you are being a true leader on the matter
and are on the front lines. (not that I hope you
get injured, because I do not) A leader will lead,
not tell others to go fight.

Some leaders do a good job in the back while others don't.

Shingogogol ...You are right about congress never formaly declaring war .
Congress has not done so since WW2 . It has alot to do with the almost dictatorial powers that a formal declaration of war gives the president . They get around the Constitution by giving the president the authority by a joint resolution . But by any definition giving the President the authority to use what ever force needed at a time and place of his choosing ..is war . In the case of Iraq ..congress aproved the money to pay for it AFTER the invasion and before the invasion. The American people supported the decision and the President consulted with both houses of congress BEFORE he invaded to get the approval TO INVADE IRAQ and TO REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN . Thats war buddy.. like it or not .

"Its a good thing war is hell, otherwise we'll grow to like it" General Sherman of the Union Army fighting against the Confederate States of America (an undeclared war)

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E Lee, actually.

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E Lee, actually.

Thanks. I thought it was Shermon for some reason!