VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:00:54 03/07/04 Sun
Author: Cousture
Subject: Re: Aristide and Iraq
In reply to: Dave Huber 's message, "Re: Aristide and Iraq" on 20:04:49 03/07/04 Sun

>As many Americans believe that the French, even though
>they opposed US efforts in Iraq, were not right in
>actively undermining the US position.

I can understand that. I don't agree, but I understand. I'd be more enclined to think that in the current world order we live in and giving your current President's general attitude when it comes to international affairs, it takes a lot of guts to disagree and try to stop the United States. I'm glad there's dissention, that means that some form of international democracy exists.

>>No. I think that once the enemy country capitulates,
>>soldiers should be freed unless they have committed
>>war crimes.
>
>Using your definition of "capitulation," has al
>Qaeda capitulated?

Well, Al Qaeda isn't a country, so my definition doesn't work in such a case. And given my understanding of this organization, capitulation by the head (Ben Laden for example) would not necessarily mean that all the different terrorist cells would lay down their arms. Realistically, these being a group of fanatics, I would not expect any sort of capitulation to occur and if Al Qaeda was somehow dismantled, I would expect certain elements to carry on the fight or found a new organization.

So there won't be a capitualtion and these men can't be held in jail indefinitely. They have to be found guilty of something, or they have to be released, in my opinion.

>Technically, the power to declare war is in the
>Constitution as reserved only for Congress. However,
>there are over 200 years of precedent that allows a US
>president to send troops abroad w/o Congressional
>approval, for limited amounts of time. He is, after
>all, the commander-in-chief.

Thanks for that, it's very interesting. Do I detect some sort of power struggle between Congress and the White House in this particular issue? I imagine some Presidents felt quite unhappy about having to ask for Congress' permission...

>There is also a thing
>called the War Powers Act. Do a Google search on that
>for a quick overview. Many in the US believe we should
>go back to a strict determination of who can "declare
>war."

Having a single man hold that power is very scary to me. It seems more wise to have Congress be in charge of it.

>Thanks for the clarification. You make an excellent
>case. The problem is that the UN's track record on
>"sending in an international peace force."

Could you elaborate on that?
.
.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.