Not trying to stir controversy, but why "undeclared"? I thought the US launched an assault on Afghanistan, adhering to the confines of the Geneva Convention, on October 7th, 2001 in response to terrorist activites targeted at the United States and its' people.
"Undeclared" because it is my understanding that the Congress (aka the duly elected representatives of the citizens of the United States) must pass a resolution declaring war on another political entity. It is not solely up to the supposed President to say "We're at war" for it to be so.
That is true Suzanne. "War" can only be declared by Congress, but the President has the power to take military action (as Commander in Chief) at his discretion. Congress does have the power to stop him if they see fit, but in this case I doubt they will. Though, we are not "technically" at "War", I am sure the history books will view it differently. BJ (Bush Jr.) got away with it much more easily than his dad, because he didn't downright "declare" war on Afganistan like his father did with Iraq. His father's boldness and presumption ruffled feathers in congress, whereas his son merely outlined a campaign to be brought against al queda and the Taliban, and went ahead with the plan with the implied consent of Congress. To this day, though he has said numerous times, that we are "at war" with terrorism, etc. He has never, once "declared" war on anyone. Yes, it is all a matter of semantics, but in the political arena, semantics can make all the difference, especially when you have so many egos involved.
Though I am not much of a Bush supporter (I can't stand most of his politics), I have to support most of his decisions in regards to terrorism, and the actions he has taken. He is walking a very tight rope, though. A number of decisions and statements, he has made have started to make the rest of the world a little leary about his plans for the future. He needs to be careful. We need the support of the rest of the world.
All good points there, Pete. I am very concerned about the way our government (and Prez) relate to our allies and the rest of the world. We must garner support, not alienate those who wish to help us in this matter.
Good topic, Suzanne. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll be reading with great interest, as it's in the forefront of my mind on a daily basis.
I think I'll be keeping a low profile on this one though.
Does anyone have any comments on his Nuclear Plan that was broadcast by CNN today?? It is on the www.latimes.com site. He lists Russia, China, Iraq, Lybia, Syria and N korea as potential targets. I don't know much about politics and would like some clarification to this confusing article. Does he plan to attack them? or Is he waiting until they attack us to attack them?
Is everyone gonna be building nuclear weapons now like back in the cold war days?
Allow me to play he part of the reactionary right wing nut. It's not that big a stretch True, Suzanne, Congres has not issued a declaration of war. I do not hear a lot of complaining from the Hill. As Pete points out, they attacked us. In Viet Nam we were cleaning up someone else's mess. Now we are defending our selves.
Against who? The Taliban government which "ruled" Afghanistan at the time was never recognized by the United States as a legitimate government, it was only recognized by Iraq and Pakistan. This means Afghanistan was not a true nation in the eyes of the world, and we can't declare war against a non-nation, which is why we're not officially at war.
Shawnty, the US is devolping a new plan or stradegy for use in a nuclear, chemical, or biological conflict. Our attack plan has become outdated since the fall of the USSR. The immediate danger is the fact that former Soviet missles are now in the hands of some governments that are, shall we say, less than stable, and the fact that more and more nations are closer to achievin nuclear capabilities. There are many more unknown factors in this new world than in the world that was "divided" by the US and USSR. Most of these documents are based on "what-if" scenarios where we would be retaliating or defending ourselves against a strike, though I am sure they are also updating their offensive, nuclear stradegies also. The government pays people a lot of money to attempt to see the future, and then to come up with plans for every possible scenario that could happen.
A very dear friend of mine's wife is in the Navy reserves as a front line nurse, they own a restaurant and have a 1 year old daughter... she has been put on notice that she is being shipped out for a year.
Good movie out now from Bosnia, I saw it last week....it spoke volumes....what was the name of it???
In my practice, I work with a lot of Vets. Whenever there are conflicts such as terroist acts, symptons of PTSD certainly increase. There are many good programs through Vet. centers across the country, that I would encourage anyone having flashbacks to seeking counselor and talk about it.
Assuming you mean is America in a place where it doesn't belong? Absolutely not. Anyone remember a little event we refer to as September 11? In schoolyard-speak, they started it.
Don't screw with the US, least of all, New York. If you kick the bully in the shins, you better have rockets attached to your feet, not to mention a good plastic surgeon. If we find you, it's all over.
Big difference here between Vietnam and Afghanistan - Vietnam was a very unpopular "war". This conflict has the support of the vast majority of Americans (not to mention the rest of the world.)
In terms of the use of the word "war", the "war on terrorism" would be akin to the "war on drugs". (Except this time we really mean it!)