War On Terror

I appreciate my opponents timely response. And now to address the points; War on Terror "A campaign initiated by the US government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States" Despite the attack on America 9 years ago, there is still a debate on defining the war on terror. The objective of the mission, the target group, distinguishing between hateful or terrorist speech. In my opinion the War on Terror is very vague, but since Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded under this umbrella, for arguments sake, I'll stick with those two countries. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First Iraq; the War against Iraq is unconstitutional. Congress can not declare War without stating the following;The start Date, The End Date, How much it will cost, and what the mission will be. In the case of Iraq this hasn't been done. "Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution." The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear. Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large." In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war. http://www.albionmonitor.com... American Soldiers have no business dieing in civil wars between Iraqis. Iraq's domestic problems is their problem; no where in the constitution does it state American Soldiers should be involved in nation building. If that's the case, why not send troops to every country in the world that is having Domestic issues or civil wars. (eg. Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen etc) -------------------------------------------------------- Now Afghanistan. After 911, it was clear America had enemies and the perpetrators of that horrific attack was said to be the Taliban/Al-Qaeda. The mission, at the beginning, was clear; defeat the enemy and hold them accountable. The problem today is; this war seems like an open ended war. What is the objective today? Are American troops dying for Nation building in Afghanistan? Who are the enemies? Is it still the Taliban, who are apparently seeking cabinet seats in the Afghan government http://www.nytimes.com... Why Reconcile with a group of individuals trying to kill American troops? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before I close my arguments in the 2nd round, I would like to address a couple of my opponents comments. ----->"Once we sort out the civil and domestic situations in Iraq, we can send some of those troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and then send them to Iran to put an end to their nuclear weapons movement."<------- It's clear this statement lacks consideration into how the current wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and the "anticipated war" with Iran will be funded. The United States government is broke. Period. America's debt is in the North of 10 trillion and once you take into consideration the entitlement programs and social security, that goes up to almost 50 trillion http://www.cbsnews.com... and the cost of wars keep going up...---------------> http://costofwar.com... Not only is it unwise to fight these wars the way America has been, its also economically stupid. For anyone whose rebuttal is "we need to defend ourselves" I direct you to Congressman Ron Paul statement, a Republican. Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons." http://en.wikipedia.org... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the 3rd round I plan to address the Economic Effects and The Lasting Social Effects of the wars