MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs

[RANA]

MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider thef ollowing statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 .......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 .......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992
..........1,293 ---------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 .......... 2,465
>>1996 .......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 .......... 2,252
>>1999
..........1,984 ------------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007
>>2003 .......... 1,410 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 .......... 919
>>2006........... 920

If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I. Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr.Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And,I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step totwist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda? Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant;that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, aremostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>European descent (White) .....................69.12%
>>Hispanic .....................................12.5%
>>Black.........................................12 .3%
>>Asian......................................... 3.7%
>>Native American............................... 1.0%
>>Other ........................................ 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years inIraqi Freedom:
>>European descent (white) .....................74.31%
>>Hispanic .....................................10.74%
>>Black ........................................ 9.67%
>>Asian ........................................ 1.81%
>>Native American .............................. 1.09%
>>Other ........................................ 0.33%

You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are publishedby Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by any one at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Now ask yourself these two questions: 'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?' and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

[JDawg1536]

-------------nm---------

[Tock]

I suppose that makes the fact that Shrub (the younger Bush) deliberately lied
to get the USA into this mess.

Also, this mess in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a war. Wars are declared by Congress (according to the US Constitution, anyway).

[Logan13]

I suppose that makes the fact that Shrub (the younger Bush) deliberately lied
to get the USA into this mess.

Also, this mess in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a war. Wars are declared by Congress (according to the US Constitution, anyway).

It means that your and others hysterics are unwarranted and irrational........
The facts speak for themself. Your opinion is not fact, No matter how much you want it to be.

[Logan13]

MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider thef ollowing statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 .......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 .......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992
..........1,293 ---------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 .......... 2,465
>>1996 .......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 .......... 2,252
>>1999
..........1,984 ------------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007
>>2003 .......... 1,410 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 .......... 919
>>2006........... 920

If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I. Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr.Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And,I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step totwist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda? Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant;that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, aremostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>European descent (White) .....................69.12%
>>Hispanic .....................................12.5%
>>Black.........................................12 .3%
>>Asian......................................... 3.7%
>>Native American............................... 1.0%
>>Other ........................................ 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years inIraqi Freedom:
>>European descent (white) .....................74.31%
>>Hispanic .....................................10.74%
>>Black ........................................ 9.67%
>>Asian ........................................ 1.81%
>>Native American .............................. 1.09%
>>Other ........................................ 0.33%

You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are publishedby Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by any one at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Now ask yourself these two questions: 'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?' and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

Unfortunately, the old adage "the truth will set you free" does not ring true anymore. These days, the truth throws off many peoples' hysterical view of the world. Regardless, it is nice to see others searching for the truth.

[Logan13]

MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider thef ollowing statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 .......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 .......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992
..........1,293 ---------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 .......... 2,465
>>1996 .......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 .......... 2,252
>>1999
..........1,984 ------------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007
>>2003 .......... 1,410 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 .......... 919
>>2006........... 920

If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I. Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr.Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And,I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step totwist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda? Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant;that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, aremostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>European descent (White) .....................69.12%
>>Hispanic .....................................12.5%
>>Black.........................................12 .3%
>>Asian......................................... 3.7%
>>Native American............................... 1.0%
>>Other ........................................ 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years inIraqi Freedom:
>>European descent (white) .....................74.31%
>>Hispanic .....................................10.74%
>>Black ........................................ 9.67%
>>Asian ........................................ 1.81%
>>Native American .............................. 1.09%
>>Other ........................................ 0.33%

You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are publishedby Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by any one at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Now ask yourself these two questions: 'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?' and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

I posted this in my blog, and sighted "Rana" as the author. I hope that you do not mind but I thought is was worth getting it out there.

[RANA]

I posted this in my blog, and sighted "Rana" as the author. I hope that you do not mind but I thought is was worth getting it out there.

Of course I don't mind, I just felt people need to know the facts!

[soccer#3]

u can sit and argue about those numbers all day but they're still too high imo. tell that to their families.

[Logan13]

u can sit and argue about those numbers all day but they're still too high imo. tell that to their families.

1 death is too high. But it still needed to be framed according to the facts in order to add perspective.

[peteroy01]

good read!!!

[Kingweb50]

During the clinton years where were all those 13000 some people getting killed at? I didnt know much was going on then.

[bigacct]

MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider thef ollowing statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 .......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 .......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992
..........1,293 ---------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 .......... 2,465
>>1996 .......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 .......... 2,252
>>1999
..........1,984 ------------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007
>>2003 .......... 1,410 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 .......... 919
>>2006........... 920

If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I. Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr.Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And,I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step totwist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda? Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant;that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, aremostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>European descent (White) .....................69.12%
>>Hispanic .....................................12.5%
>>Black.........................................12 .3%
>>Asian......................................... 3.7%
>>Native American............................... 1.0%
>>Other ........................................ 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years inIraqi Freedom:
>>European descent (white) .....................74.31%
>>Hispanic .....................................10.74%
>>Black ........................................ 9.67%
>>Asian ........................................ 1.81%
>>Native American .............................. 1.09%
>>Other ........................................ 0.33%

You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are publishedby Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by any one at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Now ask yourself these two questions: 'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?' and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

Dude,

People like you are dangerous. Obviously you can't even read the statistics properly. The totals you posted don't even match the document. Especially during the Clinton years! Total Deaths for each year (Entire Military) are in bold. See Below:

Table 4. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006,
Part I, Total Military Personnel
Calendar
Year Active Dutya Full-Time (est.) Guard-Reserve Selected Reserve FTEb Total Military FTE Total Deaths

1980 2,050,758 22,000 86,872 2,159,630 2,392
1981 2,093,032 22,000 91,719 2,206,751 2,380
1982 2,112,609 41,000 97,458 2,251,067 2,319
1983 2,123,909 49,000 100,455 2,273,364 2,465
1984 2,138,339 55,000 104,583 2,297,922 1,999
1985 2,150,379 64,000 108,806 2,323,185 2,252
1986 2,177,845 69,000 113,010 2,359,855 1,984
1987 2,166,611 71,000 115,086 2,352,697 1,983
1988 2,121,659 72,000 115,836 2,309,495 1,819
1989 2,112,128 74,200 117,056 2,303,384 1,636
1990 2,046,806 74,250 137,268 2,258,324 1,507
1991 1,943,937 70,250 184,002 2,198,189 1,787
1992 1,773,996 67,850 111,491 1,953,337 1,293
1993 1,675,269 68,500 105,768 1,849,537 1,213
1994 1,581,649 65,000 99,833 1,746,482 1,075
1995 1,502,343 65,000 94,585 1,661,928 1,040
1996 1,456,266 65,000 92,409 1,613,310 974
1997 1,418,773 65,000 94,609 1,578,382 817
1998 1,381,034 65,000 92,536 1,538,570 827
1999 1,367,838 65,000 93,104 1,525,942 796
2000 1,372,352 65,000 93,078 1,530,430 758
2001 1,384,812 65,000 102,284 1,552,196 891
2002 1,411,200 66,000 149,942 1,627,142 999
2003 1,423,348 66,000 243,284 1,732,632 1,228
2004 1,411,287 66,000 234,629 1,711,916 1,874
2005 1,378,014 66,000 220,000 1,664,014 1,942
2006 1,378,014 66,000 220,000 1,664,014 1,858

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division,


You also talk about 1980 during Carter's administration. Where you an adult then? Do you remember Nicaragua and El Salvador and our cocaine (Oliver North)...ooops I mean military operations that were going on during those years? Not to mention all of the covert actions taking place in Iran (hostage crisis) and in Angola backed by the CIA. How many people do you think gave their lives? You CHANGED the numbers during the Clinton years to suit your non factual statement. There were only 9,390 during his years in office. Not too smart my friend.....

[Tock]

It means that your and others hysterics are unwarranted and irrational........
The facts speak for themself. Your opinion is not fact, No matter how much you want it to be.

Facts?

Ha!

Facts, my virgin a--!

You're just spreading another Urban Legend, mon petite.


I thought those numbers were off quite a bit. I vaguely recalled that back in the 1990's there was some controversy over too many military people dying from accidents, and there was considerable $$$ and effort spent to make the military a safer place.

Anyway, check this out:
================================================== ===

http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...ary_deaths.htm


U.S. Military Casualties Since 1980

Netlore Archive: Email flier purports to demonstrate that there were more U.S. military casualties under the Bill Clinton administration than there have been during the Iraq War under George W. Bush

Description: Email flier
Circulating since: Nov. 2007
Status: Mostly false


Email example contributed by Chris L., Jan. 25, 2008:
Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS---

Bet you didn't know the following! I surely did not..

Military losses for 20 years

These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

>> 1980 ......... 2,392
>> 1981 ......... 2,380
>> 1984 ......... 1,999
>> 1988 ......... 1,819
>> 1989 ......... 1,636
>> 1990 ......... 1,508
>> 1991 ......... 1,787
>> 1992 ......... 1,293 ---------------------------
>> 1993 ......... 1,213
>> 1994 ......... 1,075
>> 1995 ......... 2,465
>> 1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>> 1997 ......... 817
>> 1998 ......... 2,252
>> 1999 ......... 1,984 ---------------------------
>> 2000 ......... 1,983
>> 2001 ......... 890
>> 2002 ......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @9,016 deaths
>> 2003 ......... 1,410
>> 2004 ......... 1,887
>> 2005 ......... 919
>> 2006 ......... 920 ---------------------------

If you are confused when you look at these figures... so was I.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:

>> European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
>> Hispanic ....................... 12.5%
>> Black .......................... 12.3%
>> Asian ........................... 3.7%
>> Native American ................. 1.0%
>> Other ........................... 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

>> European descent (white) ....... 74.31%
>> Hispanic ....................... 10.74%
>> Black ........................... 9.67%
>> Asian ........................... 1.81%
>> Native American ................. 1.9%
>> Other ............................ .33%

You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure... and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )

Now ask yourself these two questions:

'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?' and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'



Comments: The claim that there were more U.S. military fatalities during the Bill Clinton administration than there have been to date under George W. Bush is false. Moreover, that erroneous conclusion was based on falsified statistics.

Using the actual figures from the Congressional Research Service report cited above, the total military deaths under each of the two administrations are as follows:

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ............. 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) .... 8,792 deaths

Moreover, of the 7,500 fatalities that occurred on Clinton's watch, only 76 were attributable to hostile action; the rest were the result of accidents, homicide, illness, self-inflicted injuries, or unknown causes.

For the record, here are the accurate totals for the past 26 years, including those omitted from the message above:

U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006

1980 .... 2,392
1981 .... 2,380
1982 .... 2,319
1983 .... 2,465
1984 .... 1,999
1985 .... 2,252
1986 .... 1,984
1987 .... 1,983
1988 .... 1,819
1989 .... 1,636
1990 .... 1,507
1991 .... 1,787
1992 .... 1,293
1993 .... 1,213 1994 .... 1,075
1995 .... 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 827
1999 ....... 796
2000 ....... 758
2001 ....... 891
2002 ....... 999
2003 .... 1,228
2004 .... 1,874
2005 .... 1,942
2006 .... 1,858

Note that the erroneous totals in the message were arrived at not only by adding up falsified numbers for each president, but also by specifying incorrect starting and ending dates for their administrations. Bill Clinton was inaugurated on January 20, 1993 and left office on January 20, 2001, the same date George W. Bush was inaugurated. In addition, the correct totals comprise only six years of the Bush administration, not seven as claimed.

While it is true that there were 2,392 military fatalities during the final year of the Jimmy Carter administration, what the message fails to share with us -- and there is no clearer indication of its partisan intent -- is a full accounting of military casualties attributable to the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. Those are as follows:

Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1988) ........ 17,201 deaths

George H. W. Bush (1989 - 1992) .... 6,223 deaths

Racial demographics

The portion of the message covering the racial demographics of military casualties over the past few years is accurate enough to stand. Based on the CRS raw numbers for 2003 to 2007, I calculated the following percentages:

White .................... 75.07%
Hispanic ................ 10.57%
Black ....................... 9.19%
Asian ....................... 1.88%
Native American ...... 1.05%
Other ...................... 2.24%

These figures correspond closely enough to the ethnic composition of the general population (cf. 2000 census) to validate the claim that minorities have not suffered disproportionate military casualties during the specified period of time.



Email This Article
Sources and further reading:

American War & Military Operations Casualties
Congressional Research Service, Updated June 29, 2007
Population of the United States by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin
Information Please Database, 2007

Last updated: 01/26/08

[soccer#3]

exactly!

[Tock]

Now ask yourself these two questions: 'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'

Most likely it's because the statistics you cited are not true.

and 'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'

I am unaware that was the situation. Just about every mainstream newspaper and TV station that I know of has a growing internet presence.

Perhaps you can tell us exactly which of the "mainstream media" hates the web, and why you think they hold their opinion.
Somehow, I doubt that you can. But I'd like to see what information you base this notion on . . .

If you can't produce any reasonable evidence supporting your assertion that the "mainstream media" hates the web, then the answer to your question, "Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?" is most likely, "Because of the false rumors, urban legends, and unmitigated pure BS that is mindlessly circulated by conspiracy nutcases."

[Tock]

MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs
These are some rather eye-opening facts:
- - - - ( major BS snipped ) - - -
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are publishedby Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by any one at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
'

Evidently you didn't check these statistics, or else you would have decided against putting your name to this little trophy of nonsense.

Click on your source, then go to Table 5 (page CRS8) and look at the figures under the columns Accident and Hostile Action. Then come back, and let's talk about figures that don't lie, and who the Media-liars are who figure.

[Tock]

Unfortunately, the old adage "the truth will set you free" does not ring true anymore. These days, the truth throws off many peoples' hysterical view of the world. Regardless, it is nice to see others searching for the truth.

Hmmm . . .

And how much truth did you find in the original post?

[Tock]

Originally Posted by Logan13
I posted this in my blog, and sighted "Rana" as the author. I hope that you do not mind but I thought is was worth getting it out there.

Of course I don't mind, I just felt people need to know the facts!

Wow . . . did you actually write all that nonsense? Or did you just copy it from somewhere?

Either way, you might want Logan to remove the attribution, so that people don't think that you're nuts.

[Logan13]

I own up to my mistake, as I have had to do elsewhere for re-posting this. I should have checked the source more thoroughly before running with it. I am sure that rana made this same mistake.

[RANA]

Well, I have royally screwed up, all I can say as I am sorry and this won't happen again. I guarantee that this was not done intentionally.

[Schmidty]

I suppose that makes the fact that Shrub (the younger Bush) deliberately lied
to get the USA into this mess.

Also, this mess in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a war. Wars are declared by Congress (according to the US Constitution, anyway).

Then what the fvck do u call it?

[Tock]

Then what the fvck do u call it?

According to the War Powers Act of 1973,
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541
Prev | Next
§ 1541. Purpose and policy



http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...1----000-.html

It must be a "National Emergency."

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


=================================================
See also the full text of the War Powers Act
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._50_10_33.html
====================

Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution says,

Section 8.


The Congress shall have Power To
lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

================================================

Here's an interesting article on the topic:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1008290

What War Powers Does the President Have?

Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001, at 6:37 PM ET

President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?
Declaring War
The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.

Declaring Less Than War
In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
Shoot To Kill?
Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law
The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.

[Logan13]

I suppose that makes the fact that Shrub (the younger Bush) deliberately lied
to get the USA into this mess.

Also, this mess in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a war. Wars are declared by Congress (according to the US Constitution, anyway).

There goes your own argument about this being an "illegal war".

[IronReload04]

I'd guess that right now, 74% of forces are white european

[thegodfather]

There goes your own argument about this being an "illegal war".

So, because it is not a war, then it cannot be called an "illegal" war. Is that the premise that you are arguing?

Well, what Tock posted is pretty clear. The President is exerting power that he doesn't actually have, legally speaking. The laws are pretty clear in that regard. He has put our troops into a military "campaign" if you prefer that to the word war. And he has done so without proper authority and has subverted the proper checks and balances. Do you support these illegal actions by the President?

[Logan13]

So, because it is not a war, then it cannot be called an "illegal" war. Is that the premise that you are arguing?

Well, what Tock posted is pretty clear. The President is exerting power that he doesn't actually have, legally speaking. The laws are pretty clear in that regard. He has put our troops into a military "campaign" if you prefer that to the word war. And he has done so without proper authority and has subverted the proper checks and balances. Do you support these illegal actions by the President?

We have been through this already. For those of you who have short memories and for those who only wish to recall that which fits into your world view:

Uinformed people piss me off! More specifically, those who make statements that have no basis in fact piss me off. Unfortunately, some people attempt to pass off their feelings as facts. So let's set the record straight in regards to "the war in Iraq is illegal" montra that seems to spill from the Left.

I have asked numerous individuals, both online and in person, to sight exactly what laws have been broken. To date, no one has submitted anything factual to answer this simple question. The majority of responses that I have received can be summed up as "because we shouldn't be there". Sorry guys, that just doesn't cut it.

Let's break this down, one claim at a time:

(1) "The President does not have the right to send troops into battle without Congressional approval"

US Constitution: Article 2, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.....
Let's not forget about the 17 UN resolutions that called for the fighting in Iraq to cease, as long as Iraq met the requirements of said resolution. In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website.
- Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
- Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
- States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

War Powers Act (WPA).

The WPA sought to clarify the separation of authority between branches. It can also seen as a power grab by Congress.
The President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent fighting are limited to the following situations:

- A Declaration of War by Congress
- Specific statutory authority
- A national emergency created by an attack on the United States of America or its forces.

(2)"Since Congress did not make a Declaration of War, the President has broken the law by sending and keeping troops in Iraq"

US military conflicts since WW2. None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War:
Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........)
Bay of Pigs (1961)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Vietnam War (1961-1973)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001–present)
Iraq War (2003–present)

Another bit of trivia: (Wikpedia)
There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

(3) "Congress did not authorize troops to be deployed into Iraq"

As this is a very long document, I will simply supply the link. This is the actual Congressional Authorization.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

I have no problem with anyone's opinion, as we are all entitled to one. If you do not like the war in Iraq, fine. But when opinion is passed off as fact, people need to be called out and held accountable for their outlandish statements. Next time ignorance is brought your way by one of your Liberal friends, educate them.

-Logan13

[thegodfather]

We have been through this already. For those of you who have short memories and for those who only wish to recall that which fits into your world view:

Uinformed people piss me off! More specifically, those who make statements that have no basis in fact piss me off. Unfortunately, some people attempt to pass off their feelings as facts. So let's set the record straight in regards to "the war in Iraq is illegal" montra that seems to spill from the Left.

I have asked numerous individuals, both online and in person, to sight exactly what laws have been broken. To date, no one has submitted anything factual to answer this simple question. The majority of responses that I have received can be summed up as "because we shouldn't be there". Sorry guys, that just doesn't cut it.

Let's break this down, one claim at a time:

(1) "The President does not have the right to send troops into battle without Congressional approval"

US Constitution: Article 2, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.....

Let's not forget about the 17 UN resolutions that called for the fighting in Iraq to cease, as long as Iraq met the requirements of said resolution. In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website.

I have no interest in hearing about UN resolutions which seriously diminish the United States sovreignty and ability to make and set its own policies as it sees fit. I see no reason we should be enforcing UN resolutions and using such things as a justification for war. This is simply a policing tactic.


- Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
- Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
- States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

None of these violations of a UN resolution EVER posed a National Security threat to the United States, a pre-requesite for declaring war against a country. In addition Iraq never attacked the United States.


http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

War Powers Act (WPA).

The WPA sought to clarify the separation of authority between branches. It can also seen as a power grab by Congress.
The President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent fighting are limited to the following situations:

- A Declaration of War by Congress
- Specific statutory authority
- A national emergency created by an attack on the United States of America or its forces.

(2)"Since Congress did not make a Declaration of War, the President has broken the law by sending and keeping troops in Iraq"

US military conflicts since WW2. None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War:

You have posted these military campaigns several times before. What is your point? A clear history of usurping Congressional approval to send troops into other countries makes the standards for a sending our troops into other countries any less legitimate? Im not sure I understand your point.

Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........) Another example of US occupation and Imperialism which further galvanizes hatred for the United States and contributes to blowback. We have no threat to our national security in Korea, and therefore have no legitimate reason to be occupying a sovereign nations land. We would object to such occupation in our own country, so I ask Logan what reason or justification do you believe we have for occupying theirs?

Bay of Pigs (1961)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Vietnam War (1961-1973)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001–present)
Iraq War (2003–present)

Another bit of trivia: (Wikpedia)
There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

I bet those 386,000 troops would do a fine job of securing our border with Mexico.

(3) "Congress did not authorize troops to be deployed into Iraq"

As this is a very long document, I will simply supply the link. This is the actual Congressional Authorization.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

I have no problem with anyone's opinion, as we are all entitled to one. If you do not like the war in Iraq, fine. But when opinion is passed off as fact, people need to be called out and held accountable for their outlandish statements. Next time ignorance is brought your way by one of your Liberal friends, educate them.

-Logan13

Replies are in bold...

[Tock]

Uinformed people piss me off! More specifically, those who make statements that have no basis in fact piss me off.

You must have forgotten your comments in posts # 4 and #5 in this thread.

[Logan13]

You must have forgotten your comments in posts # 4 and #5 in this thread.

you get schooled so often, it is no wonder why you will lean on a thread which I did not post in the first place. You can hate all you want.

[Logan13]

Replies are in bold...

you have not yet pointed to how this amounts to an "illegal war", not once. How about you post some facts to support your stance now.

[Logan13]

Replies are in bold...

I have no interest in hearing about UN resolutions which seriously diminish the United States sovreignty and ability to make and set its own policies as it sees fit. I see no reason we should be enforcing UN resolutions and using such things as a justification for war. This is simply a policing tactic.

The US Congress independently mandated such actions against Iraq, because UN mandates are not binding. If you would have read the link, you would know this to be true. You would have also saved yourself the time of typing this paragraph and saved me the time or replying to it.........
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

- Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
- Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
- States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

None of these violations of a UN resolution EVER posed a National Security threat to the United States, a pre-requesite for declaring war against a country. In addition Iraq never attacked the United States.

The possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons does not pose a security threat? Um, OK...?
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

War Powers Act (WPA).

The WPA sought to clarify the separation of authority between branches. It can also seen as a power grab by Congress.
The President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent fighting are limited to the following situations:

- A Declaration of War by Congress
- Specific statutory authority
- A national emergency created by an attack on the United States of America or its forces.

(2)"Since Congress did not make a Declaration of War, the President has broken the law by sending and keeping troops in Iraq"

US military conflicts since WW2. None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War:

You have posted these military campaigns several times before. What is your point? A clear history of usurping Congressional approval to send troops into other countries makes the standards for a sending our troops into other countries any less legitimate? Im not sure I understand your point.
Bypassing Congressional approval does not make it illegal, your facts are skewed in this area.

Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........) Another example of US occupation and Imperialism which further galvanizes hatred for the United States and contributes to blowback. We have no threat to our national security in Korea, and therefore have no legitimate reason to be occupying a sovereign nations land. We would object to such occupation in our own country, so I ask Logan what reason or justification do you believe we have for occupying theirs?
Korea asked us to stay on, what part of this do you not understand?

Another bit of trivia: (Wikpedia)
There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

I bet those 386,000 troops would do a fine job of securing our border with Mexico.
Pick apart anything you wish, you still have not given anything to support YOUR stance. Nothing besides your "feelings" on the matter.


MY answers in bold.

[thegodfather]

I have no interest in hearing about UN resolutions which seriously diminish the United States sovreignty and ability to make and set its own policies as it sees fit. I see no reason we should be enforcing UN resolutions and using such things as a justification for war. This is simply a policing tactic.

The US Congress independently mandated such actions against Iraq, because UN mandates are not binding. If you would have read the link, you would know this to be true. You would have also saved yourself the time of typing this paragraph and saved me the time or replying to it.........

And what authority does the US Congress have over the actions of a sovereign nation, Iraq? None. They are proclaiming authority where none existed. This is another example of an inflammatory US foreign policy where we think we are able to police the world and tell sovereign nations what they can and cannot do. So I disagree with the entire notion that the United States Congress has any authroity over a sovereign nation to tell them what they are and are not able to do within the borders of their own country, and additionally do not think US soldiers lives should be sacraficed to enforce this false authority. An unjust law is no law at all.



http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

- Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
- Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
- States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

None of these violations of a UN resolution EVER posed a National Security threat to the United States, a pre-requesite for declaring war against a country. In addition Iraq never attacked the United States.

The possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons does not pose a security threat? Um, OK...?

It certainly did not pose a national security threat to the homeland of the United States. I really dont give two shits if it posed a security threat to Israel or its other neighbors. This isn't Israel, and they have their own army and are a sovereign nation who can take care of themselves as far as I'm concerned. Pakistan or N.Korea pose more of a security threat if they posessed nuclear weapons than Saddam Hussein. Saddam was not a "radical islamic extremist," the term all of the presidential hopefuls have been using. In addition to that he had no links to Al-Qaeda what so ever, and therefore if he had posessed nuclear weapons it would not have posed any imminent threat to the homeland of the United States, and therefore there was never a legitimate reason to goto war.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

War Powers Act (WPA).

The WPA sought to clarify the separation of authority between branches. It can also seen as a power grab by Congress.
The President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent fighting are limited to the following situations:

- A Declaration of War by Congress
- Specific statutory authority
- A national emergency created by an attack on the United States of America or its forces.

(2)"Since Congress did not make a Declaration of War, the President has broken the law by sending and keeping troops in Iraq"

US military conflicts since WW2. None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War:

You have posted these military campaigns several times before. What is your point? A clear history of usurping Congressional approval to send troops into other countries makes the standards for a sending our troops into other countries any less legitimate? Im not sure I understand your point.
Bypassing Congressional approval does not make it illegal, your facts are skewed in this area.

Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........) Another example of US occupation and Imperialism which further galvanizes hatred for the United States and contributes to blowback. We have no threat to our national security in Korea, and therefore have no legitimate reason to be occupying a sovereign nations land. We would object to such occupation in our own country, so I ask Logan what reason or justification do you believe we have for occupying theirs?
Korea asked us to stay on, what part of this do you not understand?

Another bit of trivia: (Wikpedia)
There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

I bet those 386,000 troops would do a fine job of securing our border with Mexico.
Pick apart anything you wish, you still have not given anything to support YOUR stance. Nothing besides your "feelings" on the matter.


MY answers in bold.

red and bold

[Logan13]

red and bold

The US Congress independently mandated such actions against Iraq, because UN mandates are not binding. If you would have read the link, you would know this to be true. You would have also saved yourself the time of typing this paragraph and saved me the time or replying to it.........

And what authority does the US Congress have over the actions of a sovereign nation, Iraq? None. They are proclaiming authority where none existed. This is another example of an inflammatory US foreign policy where we think we are able to police the world and tell sovereign nations what they can and cannot do. So I disagree with the entire notion that the United States Congress has any authroity over a sovereign nation to tell them what they are and are not able to do within the borders of their own country, and additionally do not think US soldiers lives should be sacraficed to enforce this false authority. An unjust law is no law at all.

It is called a cease-fire agreement, come on quit reaching so much.........

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

- Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
- Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
- States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

None of these violations of a UN resolution EVER posed a National Security threat to the United States, a pre-requesite for declaring war against a country. In addition Iraq never attacked the United States.

The possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons does not pose a security threat? Um, OK...?

It certainly did not pose a national security threat to the homeland of the United States. I really dont give two shits if it posed a security threat to Israel or its other neighbors. This isn't Israel, and they have their own army and are a sovereign nation who can take care of themselves as far as I'm concerned. Pakistan or N.Korea pose more of a security threat if they posessed nuclear weapons than Saddam Hussein. Saddam was not a "radical islamic extremist," the term all of the presidential hopefuls have been using. In addition to that he had no links to Al-Qaeda what so ever, and therefore if he had posessed nuclear weapons it would not have posed any imminent threat to the homeland of the United States, and therefore there was never a legitimate reason to goto war.

You are bordering on irrational.

[shifty_git]

hmmmm a lot of complicated points in this thread..

but bottom line, shouldnt a government and the media be putting across the same facts so theres no debate on whos correct?

that alone shows a system that is broken...

[Kratos]

I suppose that makes the fact that Shrub (the younger Bush) deliberately lied
to get the USA into this mess.

Also, this mess in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a war. Wars are declared by Congress (according to the US Constitution, anyway).

Just so you know the only time the US congress has declared war was: the war of 1812, The spanish american war, the mexican american war, world war I, and world war II. So, there are a few other wars that don't count under your definition.

[Tock]

Just so you know the only time the US congress has declared war was: the war of 1812, The spanish american war, the mexican american war, world war I, and world war II. So, there are a few other wars that don't count under your definition.

Nevertheless, that's what the US Constitution requires.
I prefer living in a nation of laws, rather than a nation where politicians do whatever they want.

[Tock]

hmmmm a lot of complicated points in this thread..

but bottom line, shouldnt a government and the media be putting across the same facts so theres no debate on whos correct?

that alone shows a system that is broken...

One of these days (and it won't be long) the folks who own the media

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml
Vivendi Universal
AOL Time Warner
Disney
News Corp (Fox)
Viacom
Bertlesmann

. . . will own the politicians and tell them what to say, and then gov't and media will be saying the same thing.

Something to look forward to . . .

[Schmidty]

According to the War Powers Act of 1973,
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541
Prev | Next
§ 1541. Purpose and policy



http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...1----000-.html

It must be a "National Emergency."

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


=================================================
See also the full text of the War Powers Act
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._50_10_33.html
====================

Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution says,

Section 8.


The Congress shall have Power To
lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

================================================

Here's an interesting article on the topic:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1008290

What War Powers Does the President Have?

Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001, at 6:37 PM ET

President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?
Declaring War
The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.

Declaring Less Than War
In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
Shoot To Kill?
Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law
The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.

Listen guy, im not going to argue with you about what its called "Legally" U know as well as i know what it is. Im in the military and ill let you say to the familys of my dead friends that this isnt a war. On that note, im not coming back in this thread. So say what you wish