is bush admitting defeat?

Originally posted by Black Samurai
You do know that the President can not go to war without the authorization of congress, right?

Technically yes but realistically no.  Gulf War, Korean War, & Vietnam War were without the formal approval of Congress.  Probably won\'t get approval from Congress for the next war either.

Saddam supported terrorism by paying the families of dead terrorists thousands of dollars.  And don\'t forget about the $10B he stole from the Iraqi people in the Oil-for-Food scandal, which was supposed to be watched & executed by the highly efficient UN. :rolleyes:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
October 2, 2002

Taken from Wikipedia
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114) was a resolution passed in October 2002 by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the 2003 invasion of Iraq under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by U.S. President George W. Bush, and it passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23, receiving significant support from both major political parties. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

Hmm both links have some great insite, thanks.  And just for some trivia here\'s another quote:

The last time Congress formally declared war was in December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor more than a half-century ago.

Thanks THX.  Black, you\'re entitled to your opinion, but nothing you are going to say is going to change my mind. I have taken a bit of a break post-election, but I follow politics and the news pretty closely and it\'ll take a lot to shake the opinions I\'ve formed from everything I\'ve read and seen about this war.

Just a note, since you don\'t seem to quite understand, Bush requested certain powers, not an official declaration of war. We are not at war with Iraq, we are at war with \'terror\'.

^^^I\'m not trying to change your mind. Nothing that I posted was opinion. If you choose to look at the facts as presented to you and disregard them then more power to you.

Originally posted by EThuggV3
Just a note, since you don\'t seem to quite understand, Bush requested certain powers, not an official declaration of war. We are not at war with Iraq, we are at war with \'terror\'.

BTW, Since YOU don\'t seem to understand. The president can not use our military without the approval of congress (At least he should not be able to). The authorization to use force has been the US equivalent of a declaration of war for many years now. The last time the US officially declared war was in WW2.

Back in 2001, Congress gave Bush the authorization to use force on those tied to 9/11. As already stated Bush was then given authorization to use force in Iraq. It is not possible to have a "war with terror". Symbolically it works; but for you to state it like it is equivalent to a "war with Iraq" is absolutely ridiculous. You CAN go to war with a sovereign nation or a political entity. You can NOT go to war with a tactic.

You can go to war against a movement or ideology - it is much better to say that this is a War on Terror than a War on Fundamentalist Islam.  Wouldn\'t you agree?  You are arguing semantics.  Radical Islam\'s chief "tactic" is terror, so in saying we are at War with Terror would also be accurate.

You can have a war against a movement but not an ideology. You can not have a war against something intangible. Like I said it makes sense symbolically but factually it does not hold water. That is why you can not compare a tangible "War in Iraq" with a broad intangible "War on Terror".

It may be semantics but I think its arguable. I\'m just trying to dispute EThugg\'s idea that we are at war with terror and not at war with Iraq.

Originally posted by Black Samurai
You can have a war against a movement but not an ideology. You can not have a war against something intangible. Like I said it makes sense symbolically but factually it does not hold water. That is why you can not compare a tangible "War in Iraq" with a broad intangible "War on Terror".

It may be semantics but I think its arguable. I\'m just trying to dispute EThugg\'s idea that we are at war with terror and not at war with Iraq.

What do you call the Second World War?  That was a war against ideologies.  Japanese Imperialism and National Socialism.  The Vietnam War was a war against an ideology as well - Communism.

Symbolically, they were wars against ideologies. They weren\'t called the War on Nazism or the War on Commies. I am not arguing the symbolic aspect of a war. Adding symbolism to a cause is how you get the people to support. What I am arguing is the idea that WW2 was a war against National Socialism and NOT against Germany et al. That is what EThugg is contending; That you can have a war against a symbolic enemy without having a war against a tangible enemy.

I\'m not disregarding any facts kiddo, you are misrepresenting them. You\'ve read completely the opposite of what I said. I did not say we are/can be at war with an ideology, I said we aren\'t in a real war. Try actually reading what is posted. I only called it the war on terror because, amazingly, that\'s what its called. Its just a phrase, like the war on poverty or the war on drugs. YOU are the one insisting we are at war. We aren\'t and I never argued we were.

So now we aren\'t even at war?

We haven\'t been. It\'s a conflict/military operation, yes, but not a war. We are killing terrorists, not the Iraqi military. There is no Iraqi military. We are not fighting a recognized government or an entire nation. We are killing terrorists and helping a country facilitate the creation of a legitamite government that represents the citizens of Iraq. If you want to expand the word war to include such military/government operations, then you must expand it to include ideological wars as well, which you don\'t seem to want to, so... *shrugs*

So what recognized government/nation are we fighting in the war on terror?

[Viper_Fujax]

thats why its not a war..and its impossible to fight.

Even if it was verse a military, presidents cant call for war so they just label it as an operation and what-not to avoid having congress declare war.

Oh please people.  Was Vietnam not a war, yet Congress never declared it one?  

Impossible to fight terrorism?  :rolleyes: