"But the world isn't like that."

[Terrance]

Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Iraq is only one issue on which the Bush Administration
> has thumbed its nose at the world community and gone
> on to advocate a dangerous unilateralism.

Not quite and besides none of the other issues quite compare. The tired
old argument runs, the USA is an  arrogant bully superpower with no
respect for the earth, the law, anyone else. But this argument is over
the top nonsense and only muddies the waters of the issue we are
confronted with--war with Iraq. First, while war would not even be on
the table if the USA did not put it there, the USA will not act alone.
There will be a coalition. How the USA will get the coalition is worth
looking into. Take a look at how Bush Sr. got his for starters. 



> 
> <<No, I'm not. As I understand you, you're talking about a US Declaration of
> War on Iraq, which so far has not been made.>>
> 
> The U.S. congress has little to do with intiating American
> aggression around the world which has resulted in the deaths
> many thousands of innocent people. 

Little? No. 



The only real power that
> congress has in foreign policy is economic. They can cut off
> funding. That's it. 

That's not little, is it? And they don't only cut off funding, they have
the power to fund in the first place. All politics is local but the
members of congress have the power to initiate aggression around the
globe, to start it, to fund it, and support it. And they do.  They just
voted to do so, so how can you argue that they don't? And some members
of congress pushed and were not pulled to pass these resolutions. 


Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically
provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own
powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any department or officer
thereof. 

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. 



Bush is correct when he states that he
> does not need congressional approval to enter into histilities.

This is one of the great debates in USA history. The pun hardly gets to
the surface of the war powers issues.  


> The recent debate in congress was a purely political exercise
> to make it appear to the UN, the world, etc., that Bush has
> the moral backing of the majority of us. We will be expressing
> our views on October 26, in Washington D.C., unmediated by
> our elected officials.

It was more than appearances. The Congress voted. If they had voted
against it, Bush would not be able to do what he is going to do. While
he may say he doesn't need their votes (war powers debate) and he may be
right, he would have no war without their votes. 


> 
> >>"Stop the bomb/ing" I can agree with, and this is what most nations which
> are represented at the UN, including, I think, the US, are working towards.
> Clearly, appeasement is not the solution.<<
> 
> The current US administration has made it abundantly clear
> that it is unconcerned with the opinion of the UN, excepting
> if that body chooses to support US- as defined by Bush- policies.

Not true. 


> Bush and his allies have used the term "appeasement" in
> their attempts brand the position of the world alliance, fragile
> as it is, as afraid to confront a threat which it is attempting
> to equate with Hitler.

The term is being tossed around and has been for about a year
unfortunately. 
Recall it was the USA that was accused of appeasement by Israel first.
Now the term is being tossed around the press and washington. How
stupid. I thought the stupid and dangerous language games might go away
with W in the house but apparently not. 




Though in theory the executive's war-making
powers are limited, in practice those limits have been
stretched since the first administrations.26 One broad avenue
by which Presidents have often sought to increase their
authority has been the conduct of foreign affairs.27 But
broad claims of authority have also been based on the
president's sworn duty "to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution," and as resident in the president's position as
leader of the military. When Lincoln issued his Final
Emancipation Proclamation, he did so "[b]y virtue of the
power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the army and
navy of the United States."28 Later in the century Grover
Cleveland would use that power to meet another kind of
emergency, a strike by organized labor. 

Congressional attempts to restrain the executive have
been no more successful.82 The War Powers Resolution,
intended to place strict controls on the President's ability to
engage in undeclared wars such as those in Korea and
Vietnam, is widely acknowledged a failure.83 Thus far, at
last, Congress has been unable to counter the fundamental
changes brought on by ***technology*** since World War II. As
Jules Lobel notes, "American dominance altered our notion
of national security. Every challenge to United States 
hegemony anywhere in the world began to be perceived as
a threat to national security."84 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61040-2002Aug25&notFound=true

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/timeline_politics1.html