“Most wars are started by Democrats.” Huh?

[Archivist]

American soldiers are killed in all over the world for various reasons.

Reporters sometimes get killed too.

Send humans into harms way and there's a good chance they'll be injured or killed.

Then the US entered the war under Eisenhower. I understand that the soldiers who died when Eisenhower was president are included on the wall.

 

[Dale]

BTW, Grenada and Panama were police actions, not full blown wars.

George H.W. Bush had been US Navy and Airforce to monitor drug trafficking from Central America. It was working well until Bill Clinton became president and ended it. With the signing of NAFTA the drug cartels were elated as they could drive their drugs right across the Mexican Border as there were way too many vehicles bringing goods made in Mexico to the US and the border agents couldn't inspect them efficiently.

George Bush (the first one) SIGNED NAFTA. He signed it at an international conference. I have seen a photo of him doing it.
... no matter what the rightist media told you.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Then the US entered the war under Eisenhower. I understand that the soldiers who died when Eisenhower was president are included on the wall.

Because all wars have a beginning and an end those names were added. However, Eisenhower merely sent advisors in, not full combat units.

 

[The Barbarian]

Send humans into harms way and there's a good chance they'll be injured or killed.

Yep. When Eisenhower committed troops to Vietnam, that was inevitable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because all wars have a beginning and an end those names were added. However, Eisenhower merely sent advisors in, not full combat units.

Actually, there never was an official war. We just kind of slid into it, beginning with Eisenhower.

 

[Archivist]

Because all wars have a beginning and an end those names were added. However, Eisenhower merely sent advisors in, not full combat units.

Yes, and some of those advisors were killed in combat. That was the beginning, at least for the US.

 

[Dale]

Fact: the American Civil War was started by Democrats.

Ace of Spades,
Hello, since I don’t remember seeing you on CF before.

I assume that you are saying that Jefferson Davis and other politicians of the Confederate States of America were mostly Democrats. It’s an odd point, since the USA and the CSA are definitely distinct. Historians describe Confederate politicians as “former Democrats” and “former Whigs.” The first Confederate Congress was appointed by Governors and legislatures rather than elected. When elections were held, it is my understanding that they were non-partisan, candidates ran as individuals.

Again, it’s an odd point because the Democratic Party has changed so much since then. If you insist on calling Confederate politicians “Democrats,” they were slave-owning Democrats. How many Democrats today own slaves?

 

[Dale]

So, I have not read through four pages thus far, but I popped in to say: the last time CONGRESS declared war was WW2. Congress has not declared war since then. They’ve all been power moves by the executive branch, and those are called “conflicts,” not war. A technicality in the constitution: only the legislative branch has the power to declare war, Presidents cannot.

That depends on whether you insist on Congress using the word “war.”
It could also depend on whether you insist that the measure passed by Congress name a specific country. The following Resolution doesn’t use the word “war” and it doesn’t name a country or countries. It does authorize the use of force, the use of US armed forces.

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 against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Link
Text of S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, there never was an official war. We just kind of slid into it, beginning with Eisenhower.

Not a declared war but the Vietnam conflict was in fact called a war.

That being said, Eisenhower didn't commit the US to the conflict even sending in advisors.

He like JFK, opposed getting into a war that wasn't supported by the populace.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, and some of those advisors were killed in combat. That was the beginning, at least for the US.

Not killed fighting, but from gorilla attacks which would be also called terrorist attacks.

People killed in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 were not killed in a war.

 

[Archivist]

Not killed fighting, but from gorilla attacks which would be also called terrorist attacks.

They were killed while advising troops of South Vietnam. The attacks were not conducted by terrorists, but by gorillas of North Vietnam. North Vietnam was then engaged in a war with South Vietnam.

People killed in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 were not killed in a war.

Those killed on 9-11 were largely civilians.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not killed fighting, but from gorilla attacks which would be also called terrorist attacks.

[snark]Actually, there are no gorillas in SE Asia. Orangutans, but no gorillas.

People killed in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 were not killed in a war.

Neither were the people killed in Korea or Vietnam, if you think there can't be a war without a formal declaration. But 9/11 is different than Korea or Vietnam; George W. Bush declared 9/11 part of the war on terrorism. Not formally true, but a war, nevertheless.

Look up the etymology of "guerrilla"; it might be important.[/snark]

I get the confusion, BTW, I remember as a kid, listening to news reports on U.S. troop fighting "gorillas", and thought it was remarkably brave of them.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They were killed while advising troops of South Vietnam. The attacks were not conducted by terrorists, but by gorillas of North Vietnam. North Vietnam was then engaged in a war with South Vietnam.



Those killed on 9-11 were largely civilians.

Advising with the brass of those units mostly. There weren't in foxholes with the South Vietnamese combat troops. Gorillas of the north essentially created terror in the south to dissuade the civilian populations from supporting the Southern Regime.
North Vietnam was engaged in a civil war with the South. It wasn't our war and therefore Eisenhower didn't take us into the war per se.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

[snark]Actually, there are no gorillas in SE Asia. Orangutans, but no gorillas.



Neither were the people killed in Korea or Vietnam, if you think there can't be a war without a formal declaration. But 9/11 is different than Korea or Vietnam; George W. Bush declared 9/11 part of the war on terrorism. Not formally true, but a war, nevertheless.

Look up the etymology of "guerrilla"; it might be important.[/snark]

I get the confusion, BTW, I remember as a kid, listening to news reports on U.S. troop fighting "gorillas", and thought it was remarkably brave of them.

Les see, when I was in the Marines during the Vietnam War, we trained in gorilla warfare.

I guess that was a fallacy according to you, eh?

 

[Justin-H.S.]

That depends on whether you insist on Congress using the word “war.”
It could also depend on whether you insist that the measure passed by Congress name a specific country. The following Resolution doesn’t use the word “war” and it doesn’t name a country or countries. It does authorize the use of force, the use of US armed forces.

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 against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Link
Text of S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us

Correct. GWOT was an AUAF.

 

[Archivist]

Advising with the brass of those units mostly. There weren't in foxholes with the South Vietnamese combat troops. Gorillas of the north essentially created terror in the south to dissuade the civilian populations from supporting the Southern Regime.
North Vietnam was engaged in a civil war with the South. It wasn't our war and therefore Eisenhower didn't take us into the war per se.

There was a war going on. Eisenhower sent American troops. Some of those troops died. It was he who got us involved in the war.

 

[Archivist]

I’m curious, why does it matter what the party of the president was when the US got involved in a war? As was pointed out, some wars were forced on us. The Civil War started after Lincoln took office, but it was the Confederates who fired on Fort Sumpter. The US entered WWII under Roosevelt, but it was the Japanese attack that brought us into the war.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There was a war going on. Eisenhower sent American troops. Some of those troops died. It was he who got us involved in the war.

Eisenhower sent advisors and special ops. Not combat divisions as is done in time of war.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m curious, why does it matter what the party of the president was when the US got involved in a war? As was pointed out, some wars were forced on us. The Civil War started after Lincoln took office, but it was the Confederates who fired on Fort Sumpter. The US entered WWII under Roosevelt, but it was the Japanese attack that brought us into the war.

It boils down to why was war voted for or not ?

The war in Iraq, which those who supported Hillary claimed she didn't vote for the war, as the resolution she voted for didn't have the word "war," in it. However, this is tap dancing around the issue that she and the majority in Congress did in fact vote for the resolution knowing that it gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq. He was massing troops at the border in Kuwait before the vote was taken. Everyone knew he was preparing for war and it was called, the Iraq War. People like Hillary and Biden, voted for the war out of political expediency. When it started going bad and no WMD's were found, they turned against it and claimed they didn't vote for war.

In today's political environment, support for war has to do which way the political winds are blowing.

 

[Archivist]

Eisenhower sent advisors and special ops. Not combat divisions as is done in time of war.

He sent soldiers, some of whom were killed by the enemy.