There has not been a legitimate war since WW2

[rturner76]

That was the last time that Congress approved a declaration of war. Every "war" we have entered since then has been an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Whether or not you like or dislike the politics of the nations that we have invaded. We had no legal right to do so. That is why US troops were kicked out of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The US hasn't won a "war" since the invasion of Berlin. The military has been kicked out of every country since.

No disrespect to the men and women of the US military. They were simply following orders thereby doing their job. It's the US government that should be blamed for risking the lives of these brave men and women by asking them to illegally invade other sovereign nations with no declaration of war.

It makes me proud of the individual men and women who chose to risk their lives but ashamed of our money and resource-grubbing government that invades other countries just to take their natural resources where big businesses like Haliburton make a few billion off the backs of our young men and women and our taxpayers.

Americans, how does knowing that make YOU feel?

 

[Yttrium]

I disagree. I think the Gulf War in 1990-1991 was a "legitimate" war. The US and many other nations responded directly to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It wasn't an attempt at regime change or to grab resources. The purpose was to free Kuwait and contain Iraq from further aggression.

 

[perplexed]

I disagree. I think the Gulf War in 1990-1991 was a "legitimate" war.

Yep, Saddam would have just kept invading more countries if he was not stopped. The "peace" was pretty pathetic though , for Germany and Japan the "peace" was spectacular.

 

[Arcangl86]

That was the last time that Congress approved a declaration of war. Every "war" we have entered since then has been an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Whether or not you like or dislike the politics of the nations that we have invaded. We had no legal right to do so. That is why US troops were kicked out of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The US hasn't won a "war" since the invasion of Berlin. The military has been kicked out of every country since.

No disrespect to the men and women of the US military. They were simply following orders thereby doing their job. It's the US government that should be blamed for risking the lives of these brave men and women by asking them to illegally invade other sovereign nations with no declaration of war.

It makes me proud of the individual men and women who chose to risk their lives but ashamed of our money and resource-grubbing government that invades other countries just to take their natural resources where big businesses like Haliburton make a few billion off the backs of our young men and women and our taxpayers.

Americans, how does knowing that make YOU feel?

Congress is given the power by the Constitution to declare war, but what that looks like is never really defined. So there is an argument that any use of military force authorized by Congress fits the Constitutional definition of a declaration of war.

 

[JSRG]

That was the last time that Congress approved a declaration of war. Every "war" we have entered since then has been an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Whether or not you like or dislike the politics of the nations that we have invaded. We had no legal right to do so.

Your definition of "illegal" here seems to be whether it is legal by US law. However, even if absent a declaration of war, in many of those cases congress did pass some kind of authorization of force, which would seem to make it (at least by US law) legal.

That is why US troops were kicked out of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The US hasn't won a "war" since the invasion of Berlin.

You don't think the Gulf War or even the Korean War counted as a win?

The military has been kicked out of every country since.

There are nearly 30,000 US troops stationed in Korea right now.

 

[perplexed]

You don't think the Gulf War or even the Korean War counted as a win?

??? Why do say the Korean war was a win? What concessions where made by China?
I thought the Chinese backed away because diplomats explain that even if China won with conventional weapons there would have been nuclear escalation and the conventional war had basically nothing to do with the Chinese decision.

 

[Matt5]

That was the last time that Congress approved a declaration of war. Every "war" we have entered since then has been an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Whether or not you like or dislike the politics of the nations that we have invaded. We had no legal right to do so. That is why US troops were kicked out of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The US hasn't won a "war" since the invasion of Berlin. The military has been kicked out of every country since.

No disrespect to the men and women of the US military. They were simply following orders thereby doing their job. It's the US government that should be blamed for risking the lives of these brave men and women by asking them to illegally invade other sovereign nations with no declaration of war.

It makes me proud of the individual men and women who chose to risk their lives but ashamed of our money and resource-grubbing government that invades other countries just to take their natural resources where big businesses like Haliburton make a few billion off the backs of our young men and women and our taxpayers.

Americans, how does knowing that make YOU feel?

In order to win a war, one must defeat the enemy military and civilians. You do that by killing them until they publicly give up and stop fighting. But that is a big war crime today.

The last time America won a war was when it nuked Japanese cities. It couldn't do that today.

Now you know why America will never win another war again. America can win battles against enemy militaries, but it can't defeat the civilians who keep coming back, over and over. Notice how Israel is in this boat too.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There has been no declared war. No 'official' war.

We had no legal right to do so.

IANAL, but the 'authorizations of the use of force' or whatever would seem to be sufficient legal basis to make use of the US military to go kill specified people in foreign lands.

 

[rturner76]

In order to win a war, one must defeat the enemy military and civilians. You do that by killing them until they publicly give up and stop fighting. But that is a big war crime today.

The last time America won a war was when it nuked Japanese cities. It couldn't do that today.

Now you know why America will never win another war again. America can win battles against enemy militaries, but it can't defeat the civilians who keep coming back, over and over. Notice how Israel is in this boat too.

Exactly so why are we still raiding other countries in order to acquire their natural resources and who gets to decide when and where we invade other sovereign nations without a declaration of war?

 

[Laodicean60]

Every "war" we have entered since then has been an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

I personally think any conflict that kills other humans is a crime. But I do understand that nations have a right to defend themselves. But the USA using other people for their proxy wars is not right in my opinion.

 

[JSRG]

??? Why do say the Korean war was a win? What concessions where made by China?

As far as I understand it, the goal of the United States in the Korean War was to stop North Korea from taking over South Korea. The result of the Korean war was... North Korea was stopped from taking over South Korea. How is that not a win?

I thought the Chinese backed away because diplomats explain that even if China won with conventional weapons there would have been nuclear escalation and the conventional war had basically nothing to do with the Chinese decision.

How does that change the above points?

 

[rturner76]

I personally think any conflict that kills other humans is a crime. But I do understand that nations have a right to defend themselves. But the USA using other people for their proxy wars is not right in my opinion.

Not right in my opinion either.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Exactly so why are we still raiding other countries in order to acquire their natural resources and who gets to decide

War is big business, a significant U.S. export. We have a whole military-industrial complex to feed. Defense company stockholders expect dividends. Your government officials' re-elections are partially funded by defense lobbyists. 'Murica!

 

[Laodicean60]

military-industrial complex to feed.

Sadly, the kids pay the price. Even though I am a patriot and served I deterred my children from serving because the conflicts seemed endless.

 

[MForbes]

As far as I understand it, the goal of the United States in the Korean War was to stop North Korea from taking over South Korea. The result of the Korean war was... North Korea was stopped from taking over South Korea. How is that not a win?


How does that change the above points?

The Korean War halted with an armistice. No winner, no loser. The armistice was designed to “ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.”

No final peace settlement has ever been negotiated.

 

[JSRG]

The Korean War halted with an armistice. No winner, no loser. The armistice was designed to “ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.”

No final peace settlement has ever been negotiated.

Even if no peace settlement was ever formally negotiated, the war effectively stopped with the armistice, and hostilities have ceased. And in that armistice, North Korea failed to achieve it goals (it was unable to take over South Korea), while the United States succeeded in achieving it goals (it succeeded in preventing South Korea from being taken over).

There is really no plausible way to look at it other than the United States winning the war.

 

[Tuur]

Exactly so why are we still raiding other countries in order to acquire their natural resources

Begging your pardon, but if this is the premise, then it would have been well to have stated it in the original post. Be that as it may, Afghanistan still has all its natural resources. So does Libya, and we invaded Tripoli in the early 19th Century.

and who gets to decide when and where we invade other sovereign nations without a declaration of war?

Both the President and the Congress of the United States. Occasionally the US military (1st Seminole War came to mind). It's worth noting that the bloodiest conflict in US history was an undeclared war. Whether or not that entailed invading a sovereign nation is subject to debate.

The OP seems to have had the premise that undeclared war means invading a sovereign nation is illegal, but that also has the premise that all military actions against a foreign country or group in a foreign country must be accompanied by a declaration of war. That's not necessarily the case (the war against the Barbary Pirates comes to mind, as does Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa).

If the issue is the legitimacy of military action, then that falls under the question "What is a just war?" By its nature, that's on a case by case basis.

 

[rturner76]

Both the President and the Congress of the United States. Occasionally the US military (1st Seminole War came to mind). It's worth noting that the bloodiest conflict in US history was an undeclared war. Whether or not that entailed invading a sovereign nation is subject to debate.

The OP seems to have had the premise that undeclared war means invading a sovereign nation is illegal, but that also has the premise that all military actions against a foreign country or group in a foreign country must be accompanied by a declaration of war. That's not necessarily the case (the war against the Barbary Pirates comes to mind, as does Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa).

If the issue is the legitimacy of military action, then that falls under the question "What is a just war?" By its nature, that's on a case by case basis.

I think that invading a sovereign nation without a declaration of war is or should be illegal. If the President and/or the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot convince Congress that it would be just to take our military into another country, I see it as an illegal invasion. Often this is done under the guise of dec;laring war on a concept or idea. Take Communism for example......Our country invaded Vietnam in order to stop the spread of Communism. Why we fail is not just because it was an infantry against guerilla conflict but the people there wanted Communism so we could either kill the majority of people who live in that country or pull out and let them decide their own future.

Same thing in Afghanistan....If the people there had risen up in a civil war against the Taliban, there may have been cause enough to support the rebellion. Even in that case war should be declared against the occupying regime in order to legitimately overthrow their government. What we did is start a draft for kids to fight a "war" that was never actually a war.

In both cases, we were there in order to control the opiate trade in the region.

Begging your pardon, but if this is the premise, then it would have been well to have stated it in the original post. Be that as it may, Afghanistan still has all its natural resources. So does Libya, and we invaded Tripoli in the early 19th Century.

Do they really? Or did Haliburton raid the cookie jar and get paid hundreds of billions to do so?

 

[Tuur]

I think that invading a sovereign nation without a declaration of war is or should be illegal.

That doesn't mean that it is. The United State's first declared war was the War of 1812. Prior to that, there were five different conflicts, none of them a declared war. That's a strong indication that no, the lack of a declaration of war doesn't make entering a sovereign nation illegal. You can make an argument that a declaration of war should be required, but that doesn't make it illegal. As it happens, the US has declared war 5 times, but has been in 103 armed conflicts.

Oh, here's a cite: List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia

And here's another: How Many Times Has the US Officially Declared War? | HISTORY

Do they really? Or did Haliburton raid the cookie jar and get paid hundreds of billions to do so?

Odd: Haliburton wasn't around for the Quasi-War, or many other assorted conflicts.

Now, you are quite welcome to believe that all US conflicts had profit as a motive. I'm sure you'll find ample support here for that assertion.

Have a nice day.

 

[NxNW]

I disagree. I think the Gulf War in 1990-1991 was a "legitimate" war. The US and many other nations responded directly to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It wasn't an attempt at regime change or to grab resources. The purpose was to free Kuwait and contain Iraq from further aggression.

Bush's ambassador to Iraq essentially told Hussein that the US didn't care if Iraq invaded Kuwait. US. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’

I think it's even on video somewhere. So they did invade. Suddenly Bush's tune changed, and Iraq had to be stopped.