Siegfried X says I am a pacifist - that’s pretty funny considering I grew up on the West Side...I enjoy a good fight.
Given that however, I believe in smart foreign policy. I love our troops so much that I want them to return to the safety of our borders as quickly as possible...I have friends there, and I understand what they are going through - and they are all displeased with our policies (they are hardcore Republicans by the way, though I think that is changing).
I don’t understand how constitutionality is an issue. Congress NEVER declared war as required in Article I, Section 8, clause 11; period. Furthermore our goals and objectives were long abandoned; where is Osama and his cohorts? He is the only reason we should be there and we squandered every opportunity to get him.
Our nation is falling apart and we are on the verge of complete economic collapse, illegal immigration is still a major problem and all anyone can talk about is more spending.
Bring the troops home now. Defend our borders from illegals AND terrorists...the one main job Congress has completely failed. Keep our Navy active and well equipped. Spend money on missile defense and screw any country that has a problem with that.
I am about America. 234 years ago our country’s citizens chose to die on their own feet rather than live on their knees...and that’s what others need to do for themselves...that’s when their Liberty will be appreciated, and earned.
China is about to win an economic war without firing a single shot. We need to get things under control here before we become a destitute nation.
Pacifist? No way...I am fighting for our lives...
Article 1, Section 8 gives three ways to authorize to use the military. 1- clause 11 as you cited in a declaration of war. 2- clause 15, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. & 3- clause 10, to punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.
Clauses 10 & 15 are important because the current wars we are in fall under 'offenses against he laws of nations' instead of wars against a specific state. The laws of nations accounts for issues such as breach of treaties (which, according to the Constitution, are to be considered high law of the land and honored), attacks in international waters (see Jefferson's actions as an example), etc. In other words, it covers threats to the Nation's security that may not directly come from a nation in which one can declare war against. The Iraq war had several standpoints in this- one, the breach of treaties. Two, attacks on our interests, such as shooting at planes in no-fly zones, that were there due to a treaty they signed. Three, support for international terrorist organizations that do not operate specifically under a national banner. Et. Al. I could keep going if you like. The old elementary school level Ron Paul excuse that the 'authorization to use force' wasn't Constitutional is horse-hockey and is playing with the Constitution in the same way Fred Phelps uses the Bible. Just twisting it to justify a pre-conceived belief.