3 ms·

What war are you talking about? What is the objective? What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?

by pantalaimon 13y ago

nickff 13y ago
When you have an army shooting at people in a foreign country, there is a war; call it whatever you want.
- peterashford 13y ago
  So, as a New Zealander, I can hire some people to gun down innocents in the US and be on the moral high ground because I'm conducting a 'war' and not terrorism? Neato.
  - nickff 13y ago
    I have never said that war is virtuous. 'Some people' do not make an army.[1] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army
dragonwriter 13y ago
> What war are you talking about? Presumably the one that was either (a) initiated by the 9/11 attacks and formally recognized as already existing by Congress in Public Law 107-40, or (b) was provoked by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress in Public Law 107-40, depending on how you choose to look at it. > What is the objective? "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by" "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President determines] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". > What would have to happen for this 'war' to end? Given the rather fluid definition in PL 107-40, it is not clear that it could formally and completely end absent a subsequent resolution of Congress terminating it.
- eropple 13y ago
  The AUMF is not a declaration of war; it expressly avoids being called a "war" in much the same way as ye olde Vietnam. What it is is probably illegal under international law, but nobody has the standing to make the United States back down.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The AUMF is not a declaration of war It most certainly is an exercise of Congress' Constitutional power to declare war. It may not be a formal declaration of war under international law, but those are two very different things. > it expressly avoids being called a "war" in much the same way as ye olde Vietnam. Vietnam was also a war for which Congress exercised its Constitutional power to declare war. See, e.g., Orlando v. Laird, 443 F.2d 1039 (2nd Cir., 1971). > What it is is probably illegal under international law Please cite the provision of international law (either a treaty to which the US is a party, or a generally accepted provision of customary international law -- and, if the latter, please also provide evidence that the cited principle is a generally accepted provision of customary international law) under which the AUMF itself is illegal.

What war are you talking about? What is the objective? What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?

nickff 13y ago

When you have an army shooting at people in a foreign country, there is a war; call it whatever you want.

peterashford 13y ago
So, as a New Zealander, I can hire some people to gun down innocents in the US and be on the moral high ground because I'm conducting a 'war' and not terrorism? Neato.
- nickff 13y ago
  I have never said that war is virtuous. 'Some people' do not make an army.[1] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army

dragonwriter 13y ago

> What war are you talking about? Presumably the one that was either (a) initiated by the 9/11 attacks and formally recognized as already existing by Congress in Public Law 107-40, or (b) was provoked by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress in Public Law 107-40, depending on how you choose to look at it. > What is the objective? "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by" "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President determines] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". > What would have to happen for this 'war' to end? Given the rather fluid definition in PL 107-40, it is not clear that it could formally and completely end absent a subsequent resolution of Congress terminating it.

eropple 13y ago
The AUMF is not a declaration of war; it expressly avoids being called a "war" in much the same way as ye olde Vietnam. What it is is probably illegal under international law, but nobody has the standing to make the United States back down.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The AUMF is not a declaration of war It most certainly is an exercise of Congress' Constitutional power to declare war. It may not be a formal declaration of war under international law, but those are two very different things. > it expressly avoids being called a "war" in much the same way as ye olde Vietnam. Vietnam was also a war for which Congress exercised its Constitutional power to declare war. See, e.g., Orlando v. Laird, 443 F.2d 1039 (2nd Cir., 1971). > What it is is probably illegal under international law Please cite the provision of international law (either a treaty to which the US is a party, or a generally accepted provision of customary international law -- and, if the latter, please also provide evidence that the cited principle is a generally accepted provision of customary international law) under which the AUMF itself is illegal.