So, You Say You're a Hawk for the War in Iraq?

An Immoral, Illegal, Expensive War, that Breeds Jihadist

By Deez, published Jan 19, 2008
Published Content: 47  Total Views: 16,884  Favorited By: 20 CPs
Rating: 4.3 of 5
I have noticed there are a lot of content producers on AC that are Hawkish on the War in Iraq. I have asked them why in an honest attempt at fact finding. I thought I just might be missing something. Something that made these very intelligent "War Hawks" feel that "Operation Freedom" was the most important thing we could be doing in the world right now. These folks I asked...well, I respect their opinion. They are obviously well read and intelligent and they do have a firm grasp on a lot of issues. But just like every other opinion they do employ spin to make their argument. Some of these folks see nothing wrong with what we are doing in our foreign policy as a whole. The only thing they think that we possibly did wrong was not implementing proper military tactics. They feel the tactics that we have employed could have been improved upon. This article will address just some of the things that I feel are wrong in regards to "Operation Freedom" specifically and why I feel this was an unnecessary and potentially dangerous war.

First lets examine whether or not "Operation Freedom" is, in fact, a legal War:

"Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term."

"Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title." Under the Constitution, war powers are divided and not equal."

"Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.

So, You Say You're a Hawk for the War in Iraq?
So, You Say You're a Hawk for the War in Iraq?

Demonstrators who support the Iraq war protest in front of crosses commemorating dead soldiers placed on a hill in Lafayette, Calif., by antiwar activists.

Credit: Getty Images

Copyright: Getty Images

Takeaways
  • Corruption in Iraq!
  • An Illegal War!
  • Was this war necessary? The answer should be self evident!
Did You Know?
Modern Americans will never be able to understand what it is like to go through a war on our own soil, but September Eleventh brought us close to understanding. So, think about this for a minute, was this war necessary? The answer should be self evident!
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 28
Next >>
 
Bingo!

Posted on 05/23/2008 at 7:05:51 PM

 
Legalities aside, we went into the wrong country. All but one of the 9-11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia. I understand the Bush family's feeling of loyalty to the Saudi Royal Family, but if they're really our friends, you'd think they'd be willing to let us to what we need to do, and help out within the borders of their own country. Something seems really fishy about that whole thing. What many people on the right (and not just the libertarian right)are starting to realize too, is that we just can't afford any more of this BS financially. Haliburton profits are way this year!

Posted on 05/20/2008 at 1:05:43 PM

 
Boy, you can't win for losing no matter which side of this issue you take.

Posted on 03/28/2008 at 11:03:48 PM

 
UN Resolution 687 was all of the legal documentation necessary to resume the conflict. Whether a criminal buffoon like Kofi Annan says it's legal or not isn't relevant, Kofi Annan (and his co-conspirator Jacques Chirac) were too busy enriching themselves on the backs of starving Iraqis in the criminal "Oil for Food" scam, which they didn't want ended to be a credible source of anything, especially ending their cash flow by ceasing the program and continuing the war which we had complete legal justification for.

Posted on 01/28/2008 at 11:01:47 AM

 
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Oh I'm sorry I already covered that didn't I?

Posted on 01/28/2008 at 7:01:08 AM

 
In February 24, 2003, the U.S., the UK and Spain presented a draft resolution to the Security Council which declared that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it resolution 1441. The resolution split the UN and led to serious diplomatic rifts, with the U.S. and the UK coming under sustained criticism from France, Russia and Germany. The resolution was eventually withdrawn, with the sponsors contending that it had been sabotaged by France's threat to veto the new resolution "whatever the circumstances", while critics (and France itself) argued that the French position had been intentionally misrepresented and that the majority of the Security Council had opposed the proposed resolution. So we invaded anyway! With out being attacked or with our the UN security councils approval! Thereby, making this a war of aggression.

Posted on 01/28/2008 at 7:01:05 AM

 
Actually Deez, you're wrong about both my position as well as the legality of "going back there". According to UN resolution 687, several obligations were encumbered upon the nation of Iraq to maintain the cease fire that covered the following years. Iraq broke the resolution at a minimum of 92 times in only a single area covered, not to mention the hundreds of cases of attempting to shoot down patrolling planes in the no fly zone, any ONE of them giving legal recourse of continuation of the war which was previously authorized. ONE breaking of the conditions is enough to continue the very legal war. Further, Bush sought, and attained Congressional approval for the "next round" even though he didn't have to, he already had it from 1990, but he got it anyhow. The war was completely legal, and the war part of it was over WELL before the 60 day deadline. It then moved into a new phase, which is not in any way, shape, or form war, and doesn't fall under the guidelines you attempt

Posted on 01/27/2008 at 9:01:33 PM

 
So what your saying is, it was illegal for us to go there (by our own rule book) and no one (UN) said it was ok for us to go there or stay there (by everyone else's play book), but it's ok by you? Well if that's the way you feel and your a self proclaimed realist then realize this..."You Are A War Hawk!"

Posted on 01/27/2008 at 5:01:51 AM

 
Losing Soldiers doesn't constitute a "war", the context in which the soldiers are in the position they are is what determines whether or not were "at war", and the context is that we're assisting an ally in rebuilding their nation, and in the security of said nation. We actually have more UN justification for being in Iraq than we do Korea, as the ceasefire agreement which ended hostilities in Iraq in the first gulf war was broken literally hundreds of times by Iraq. I'm not "hawkish" in relation to this war, because there is no such distinction, as it's not a war. I'm a realist, and due to this, and due to the fact that I feel that the US has a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people rebuild rather than to simply annihilate their government, then turn our backs on the people while they are repressed by thugs who decide to fill in the power vacuum that the actual war created.

Posted on 01/26/2008 at 6:01:25 PM

 
cont ... -the Korean Conflict - rather than a war, largely in order to avoid the necessity of a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. The war powers act wasn't passed in Congress until 1973 in a direct response to Korea and Vietnam. The only reason this conflict is not illegal is a UN security council resolution for us to be there, all of which can be explain within this article. Now once again I'll ask you to please save the debate for your own content. Thanks!

Posted on 01/25/2008 at 7:01:36 AM

 
Two more points and I'll drop this debate. Point number one: you stated, "Al-Qaeda is being confronted head-on by Iraqis in record numbers, from Salvation councils, to Awakening councils, volunteers all across Iraq are almost universally these days, turning on their Al-Qaeda tormentors, and towards US forces in a spirit of cooperation." To that I say, "GREAT" maybe we can bring our troops home more sooner than later but judging from Mc Cain's statement, "Maybe we will be their another 100 years," I doubt it. And point number two: You made reference to Korea in the following statement, "we actually ARE at war with one nation, perhaps you didn't know this, but that is North Korea" to that I say, The Korean War was an escalation of a civil war between two rival Korean regimes, each of which was supported by external powers, with each trying to topple the other through political and guerrilla tactics. In the United States, the conflict was officially termed a police action... cont.

Posted on 01/25/2008 at 7:01:13 AM

 
The point of this article was not to say we, as a war mongering nation, couldn't possibly be successful in our attempts at global hegemony. However, considering that the cost of this said effort might just prove to be our undoing, I doubt it. The point was to say that it is an illegal, immoral and unnecessary war. You made a couple of statements like, "I did read the article, and it doesn't explain in any way how we're in a state of war,"and " which is most definitely not anything resembling a state of "war"." To that I say, this past year we (The US) lost approximately 901 soldiers compared to the 2003 totals of 486. And this doesn't resemble a WAR?! So, my friend, lets just call you what you are, "Hawkish for the War," and leave a long drawn out debate for some other time. Also I have noticed you have never posted any article on AC about anything. So if you would like to share your opinion do it on your own AC producer page, Thanks.

Posted on 01/25/2008 at 7:01:47 AM

 
Ahh yes, incidentally, aside from using very dated sources for your non news, your assertion that US occupation is driving young Iraqis to Al_Qaeda is the opposite of the truth, as several articles have shown time and time again, which you conveniently ignore, Al-Qaeda is being confronted head-on by Iraqis in record numbers, from Salvation councils, to Awakening councils, volunteers all across Iraq are almost universally these days, turning on their Al-Qaeda tormentors, and towards US forces in a spirit of cooperation. The sad part about this is, I know you are aware of this information, and chose intentionally to suppress it, as you've commented on several articles which discuss this in detail. That's sad for someone attempting to pass themselves off as trying to put forth truth, when you know the truth, and are completely suppressing it in your own articles to support an indefensible position, I feel bad for you.

Posted on 01/24/2008 at 8:01:28 PM

 
into a new status within the nation of Iraq, which is most definitely not anything resembling a state of "war". What's more, we actually ARE at war with one nation, perhaps you didn't know this, but that is North Korea. There has never been an actual cessation of hostilities between the US and North Korea, and that qualifies MUCH more as a "war" than does us providing security at the request of the government of Iraq. There is no constitutional mandate for congressional approval for using the military in this manner at all.

Posted on 01/24/2008 at 8:01:32 PM

 
I did read the article, and it doesn't explain in any way how we're in a state of war. A state of war, which you're calling "illegal", and what is defined in the constitution, which is what you unsuccessfully attempt to cite, requires us to be engaged in hostilities with another nation, not assisting another nation in their self defense as they attempt to rebuild. I'm attempting to have a civil discourse with you, there's no need to be one of the very buffoons you describe in another article of yours. You've tried to define it as illegal with the presumption that it's a war, while I would argue that indeed it cannot be an "illegal war" as it doesn't even qualify as a "war", thus the legality itself cannot be even tested or questioned. It's not an "illegal non-war", not all actions of the military are wars. We WERE, I would agree, at war, with a hostile nation, but we won that WELL within the time limits specified in the war powers act, and then entered into a new phase of mili

Posted on 01/24/2008 at 8:01:32 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 28
Next >>
Most Commented On