[Akalabeth Angel]

A few other facts:
-Canada wasn't a country in 1812, it was two different British colonies and Britain was at war with the United States.

    Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.

Considering that war cannot be conducted without funding from Congress which must be authorized several times a year, I suggest you research how the American system actually works rather than relying on Wikipedia.

    What does funding have to do with anything? Supply money to the armed forces and sending those troops into conflict are two entirely different things. As I understand it, Congress has two powers. To fund the troops, and to declare war or to authorize military force (ie go to war without a formal declaration)
     The Executive has the power to defend the country from attack, and act as the head of the armed forces.

     Now take the recent Iraq conflict. According to http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm, congress did NOT approve the Iraq war. They approved following the mandate set down in the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act, authorizes the president to go to war if the the danger to the US is "clear and imminent". That was not the case. The Iraq army was in shambles, there was no PROOF of WMDs, only hunches and supposition (and lies). And yet America invaded anyway. That was essentially a war without the approval of congress, and a violation of the American constitution as what defines the Executive's powers under the War Powers Act. So that's at least one war, perpetrated by the United States, that was not directly endorsed/authorized by congress.

-The conflict now is purely self-serving, but WW2, the Korean War, and the Gulf War were all breaks with isolationism, as have been the numerous economic programs in place following WW2 set to influence world politics.

    America only official entered WW2 when Pearl Harbour was attacked. This by the very nature of the quote I gave you is isolationism in that they're acting in defense of their nation. Likewise, it was Germany and Italy that first declared war on American and then the United States responded in kind.
    

[NGTM-1R]

Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.

Trade sanctions is a funny way of putting the kidnapping and pressganging of US citizens into Royal Navy service, and delibrately attacking an American warship at sea.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.

Trade sanctions is a funny way of putting the kidnapping and pressganging of US citizens into Royal Navy service, and delibrately attacking an American warship at sea.

    If by kidnapping you mean re-patrioting and if by US citizens you mean Royal Navy deserters then sure. (ie there are two sides to every coin)

[General Battuta]

Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Just need to get those folks to vote...

The biggest problem in modern democracy is people not voting.

Well, thank goodness I can't vote, because once I become of age in Singapore, I will be forced to do so.

[karajorma]

Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.

Looks at the current leadership.

Not enough of them though.

[General Battuta]

True, true. *sigh* Well, if Bush ran for reelection right now, he'd certainly lose. People just didn't catch on quick enough.

[Mars]

Angel, there are documented cases of people being kidnapped and pressed into BRN service. If you don't believe me just google it.

[MP-Ryan]

Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.

Britain still wasn't recognizing the US as an independent state at that point in history, and as many others have already pointed out, had conducted numerous acts of war against the United States.  It went to war out of necessity, not any warmongering desire.

   What does funding have to do with anything? Supply money to the armed forces and sending those troops into conflict are two entirely different things. As I understand it, Congress has two powers. To fund the troops, and to declare war or to authorize military force (ie go to war without a formal declaration)
     The Executive has the power to defend the country from attack, and act as the head of the armed forces.

     Now take the recent Iraq conflict. According to http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm, congress did NOT approve the Iraq war. They approved following the mandate set down in the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act, authorizes the president to go to war if the the danger to the US is "clear and imminent". That was not the case. The Iraq army was in shambles, there was no PROOF of WMDs, only hunches and supposition (and lies). And yet America invaded anyway. That was essentially a war without the approval of congress, and a violation of the American constitution as what defines the Executive's powers under the War Powers Act. So that's at least one war, perpetrated by the United States, that was not directly endorsed/authorized by congress.

Funding is everything.  For a war to be waged, funding must be approved.  Had Congress cut off the funding in 2003 there would have been no Iraq war.  Yes, the President declared war without the authorization of Congress, but Congressional consent must be given to EVERY war in the form of military funding.  No funding, no war.  Planes don't fly without fuel, nor do troops fight without food.  Thus, had Congress opposed the war and been unwilling to allow the US to fight in it, they could have denied the funding.  So like I said, whether or not they explicitly declare war is irrelevant - they gave their approval by their votes.

   America only official entered WW2 when Pearl Harbour was attacked. This by the very nature of the quote I gave you is isolationism in that they're acting in defense of their nation. Likewise, it was Germany and Italy that first declared war on American and then the United States responded in kind.

The US broke with isolationist policy after the attack on Pearl Harbour when they entered both the European and Pacific theatres and re-affirmed the Atlantic Charter in January (which explicitly laid out the principle of self-determination).  Such goals for post-war interference in the affairs of other states stand in stark contrast with isolationist policy.  Roosevelt advocated the explicit breach with that former policy in his address to Congress following Pearl Harbour.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.

Looks at the current leadership.

Not enough of them though.

      My thoughts exactly. From what I've learned in the past few days the US has a very good system and the potential to be a truly great nation but the current leadership is basically stifling it. I saw a statistic somewhere, that what, the US was ranked 37th in the world in education? How is that possible? No offense to Americans but a colleague of mine theorizes that the American education system is intentionally ****ty to keep the populace ignorant and easy to control basically.
      As for new leadership,

      It doesn't help that :
      A - presidential debates aren't really debates in the first place, rather they're basically co-interviews
      B - more importantly, 3rd party requirements to enter debates are very high such that a 3rd party representative can't even enter the debate. Of course the debates are run/organized by former democrats/republicans.

      Furthermore 3rd party candidates are given very little air time, and when they are on television they're dismissed as a waste of time. (ie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEw0qKjP7hk ). ie, this guy says "Ralph Nader, you're not going to become president, what's your deal?"

       And what do debates have to do with anything? Well, what's his face . . . Jesse Ventura won the governor position in Minnesota when he was allowed into the debates.

        Not sure about the other 3rd party candidates, but Nader has quite a few good ideas "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7_-H_kSWQ". Ie, Health Care. The US government doesn't implement some sort of social health care, but the current system is the most expensive in the world both per capita and in general. And it costs the patients a hell of a lot too from what I understand. Those that can actually afford it.

Funding is everything.  For a war to be waged, funding must be approved.  Had Congress cut off the funding in 2003 there would have been no Iraq war.  Yes, the President declared war without the authorization of Congress, but Congressional consent must be given to EVERY war in the form of military funding.  No funding, no war.  Planes don't fly without fuel, nor do troops fight without food.  Thus, had Congress opposed the war and been unwilling to allow the US to fight in it, they could have denied the funding.  So like I said, whether or not they explicitly declare war is irrelevant - they gave their approval by their votes.

      When exactly is the funding for the military voted upon relative to the invasion of Iraq? If the US army invades, and two weeks later is the periodic voting time what exactly do you think they'll vote? "Let's vote no and screw our troops and the Iraqi people." I'd be curious to know when exactly the vote was, but I couldn't find anything, oh wait, yes I did

Okay, so the invasion of Iraq was roughly
March 20th to May 1st 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)

Congress approves 79 Billion in April, 2003
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pent-s26.shtml

       So the American Army invades, routes the Iraqi army in basically a week or two. And then they're left with a country in the ****ter. And THEN congress votes on what to do. Well what do you think they're going to do? Vote NO? Please.
   
        Once the army commits, Congress has to follow suit. There's no choice in the matter. Invade a country, smash the infrastructure, then pull out a week later and leave it in tatters???

         The executive, Bush, started a war and Congress had NO CHOICE but to approve it after the fact. Congress as I understand it, is not supposed to follow suit. They're supposed to AUTHORIZE or declare war.


       

[MP-Ryan]

You think the massive troop and materiel transportation effort required to intiate the war was funded by what, the standing budget?

[Polpolion]

Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.

Looks at the current leadership.

Not enough of them though.

Yes, that definitely makes it okay to generalize everyone. I mean, it's obviously accurate because only 20% of the US population liked Bush enough to vote for him. Why not generalize with statistics like that?

[Akalabeth Angel]

You think the massive troop and materiel transportation effort required to intiate the war was funded by what, the standing budget?

    How does approving troop movements equate to approving military action?
    So what, they approved the movement of troops.
    Then they approved the following the mandate under the War Powers Act.

    Neither of which is approving a war.

    Then the war starts.

    And THEN congress approves funding when they really have no choice to do so.


    I mean realistically, everyone knew they were going to invade. But under the letter of the law, the President (ie the executive) started a war which he had NO LEGAL RIGHT to do. Or is the american consitution and american law simply some massive gray area to be bent and broken at will for the sake of the situation?

     'Everyone has the right to an attorney and due process, unless they're a suspected terrorist in which case we'll deny them that right'

     'Everyone has the right to privacy, unless it's for the sake of nation security then we can spy on their asses all we want'

     'Under Geneva all prisoners of war have certain rights, but this isn't a war and they're not soldiers so we're going to hook up wires to their balls and confine them without rights in some legal limbo loophole for 5 years'


      If the US never had any intention except to go to War, congress should have approved the use of military force, not approved following the mandate under the War Powers Act. Then sure, it would've been a legal war under US law, but they didn't, and it's not. And there's no gray area about that. I'm not sure what the bigger problem is, the fact that the Executive started an illegal war, or the fact that no one gives a damn about it. But hey, throw Clinton in a room with an intern and the whole country is up in arms for months to impeach the bastard.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Oh, and btw regarding Congressional Funding.

According to the documents regarding H.R. 108-55.
This is the funding bill or whatever you call it passed April 16, 2008.

Chapter 3 - Department of Defense, Military

"In his supplemental budget request, the President requested
$62,409,500,000 for programs and activities funded through
defense appropriations acts. . . these funds are required at this time in
order to--"

"Reimburse the Department of Defense and other
        agencies for costs already incurred as a result of
        preparatory activity and other actions associated with
        operations in and around Iraq (which has since been
        named ``Operation Iraqi Freedom''), as well as a
        portion of those costs associated with ongoing military
        operations in and around Afghanistan, the global war on
        terrorism generally, and related activities, including
        the Department of Defense's involvement in homeland
        security; and" (emphasis mine)

According to: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_reports&docid=f:hr055.108


    Incase you missed it, the bill's funding was to REIMBURSE the defense dept in part for PREPARTORY activities re: Iraqi Freedom.

    Or in plain english, Congress DID NOT FUND the troop deployment until AFTER it had happened, and until AFTER the war had started. ie the Executive authorized military operations without either the specific funding of Congress, and without "clear and imminent" danger under the War Powers Act. Hence, Illegal war.

     End of story.

[General Battuta]

Akalabeth, again, I know you're probably not aware, but the Bush administration supplied false information to Congress, the UN, and the American public in order to get support for the war. And the torture programs were carried out by the Bush administration, quite illegally, without congressional oversight.

The Bush administration has been expert in creating (or at least arguing for) just the kind of gray areas you worry about.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Akalabeth, again, I know you're probably not aware, but the Bush administration supplied false information to Congress, the UN, and the American public in order to get support for the war. And the torture programs were carried out by the Bush administration, quite illegally, without congressional oversight.

The Bush administration has been expert in creating (or at least arguing for) just the kind of gray areas you worry about.

     Exactly. Bush broke the law, and got away with it. One Congressman brought up terms for impeachment, which were swept under the rug. What's the next Democrat or Republican President going to get away with? When there's a precedence in-place for breaking the law and pursuing illegal invasions of sovereign countries. American laws and the constitutional rights of Americans are being violated, how many people know and how many people care? Come election time they're probably going to vote in another Bush (Obama, McCain, what's the difference really??) . Assuming of course that they even vote, which is not very likely. The voter turnout is what, 30%? Canada's not much better mind you.

[Mars]

I suppose in your country the government is entirely trustworthy and reliable, and politicians never have hidden agendas.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I suppose in your country the government is entirely trustworthy and reliable, and politicians never have hidden agendas.

      I'm not saying my country is better than yours.
      I'm saying your country can be better than it is, if you want it to be. It can be what it was intended to be, not what it's eroded into being.

       America does need change, but I seriously doubt either McCain or Obama will bring it. When is America going to wake up and realize they have more than two options? Like Ralph Nader said

"The lesser of two bads is not good enough for the American people"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEw0qKjP7hk) <-btw you should take 8 minutes out of your life to watch that, you might learn something if you're a voting American. Excepting the fact the CNN host is a total idiot.



(And for the record Canada needs some electoral and governmental reform as well).

[karajorma]

Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.

Looks at the current leadership.

Not enough of them though.

Yes, that definitely makes it okay to generalize everyone. I mean, it's obviously accurate because only 20% of the US population liked Bush enough to vote for him. Why not generalize with statistics like that?

Not generalizing. Simply saying it isn't enough. It needs to be more.

[MP-Ryan]

     End of story.

You're losing sight of my original point - which was that the President is not the sole office you need to effect change in in order to prevent a recurrence of debacle's like Iraq.  Congress and the voter electorate have approved and re-approved the entire mess multiple times.  Thus, a social change is needed - merely altering the type of President that is elected isn't going to do squat.

Furthermore, the US had been posturing for the better part of six months before war was declared - had Congress wanted to prevent it, they could have passed a resolution or cut the funding in advance.  Instead, they were and remain complicit in funding and supporting the war.

You can't just lay this mess at the foot of the Presidential office and say "That's what we need to change in the future to make things better!"  The entire country, or at least the majority of the electorate who actually gave enough of a crap to bother voting, is at least partially responsible.

And thus we return full circle - it's not just the President, it's the entire society.  Warmongering, no.  Misguided, absolutely.