Are we at "war" or are we not at war?

Yes, we are spending billions and billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we haven't been attacked since 9/11, at least, we haven't been attacked by any religious radicals that have hijacked an airplane.

But, the Repubs remind us that we are "at war" every time they get caught doing something illegal? That's also their latest excuse for the NSA spying and eavesdropping. Are we really at war?

We do have troops dying in Iraq but they are not being killed by al Qaeda. That is who we are supposed to be "at war" with, correct? When was the last time we killed or captured any al Qaeda? And when was the last time any Administration cut taxes during wartime? It has never been done. But this Adminsitration continues to cut taxes as we spend like crazy on our invading Army in Iraq.

Our troops are getting killed, not because we are "at war", but because we preemptively invaded another country and their people, united as rebels, are fighting the invading forces, our very own US military. So it is not a war, in my opinion.

though they have enabled a lotta bad behavior in pursuit of one....

Constitutionally an authorization of force is the exact same thing as a declaration of war. The specific terms "declaration of war" have obscure diplomatic and protocol significance but no legal or Constitutional distinction from an authorization of force.

Any of the many times Congress has authorized force since WWII have constitutionally been as much a "state of war" as WWII was.

When Reagan dropped shells on Beirut that were the size of VWs, was that a declaration of war? Was the invasion of Granada and Panama "declarations of war"? I'm not sure I buy that argument?

And conflicts, and border security incidents. They're all polite words for "war".

If people in US Uniforms are shooting and getting shot on the orders of the President, and if Congress authorized him to give those orders, that's legally "war". It doesn't matter what particular words Congress used to describe their declaration. And as I mentioned there are some diplomatic and protocol ramifications that come from using the word "war" so there are times Congress will want to authorize force without using it.

And if not stopped, they will destroy our financial well being, our freedoms, and in their final stages, our very lives if that's what it takes for them to survive and rule.

I will never forgive the Dems for not insisting that if W. wanted his war against Iraq, a sovereign nation, not shadowy terrorists, he must declare war in accordance with the Constitution. I was spitting tacks through most of the run up to the war in 2002-2003 I was so furious, and now it's worse than ever.
http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Story+Image_thumb_051006_story1.jpg

"We're on a violent oil acquisition" thing.

I guess it is not so simple anymore. But being "at war" then also does not contain the same connotations and shouldn't allow the executive the same expansions of power that it traditionally did.

Life in the US is little different and none of the rationalizations for the expansions of power exist. They meant of course if some foreign country invaded in 18th century terms.

For example, when Lincoln tried to suspend habeas corpus, he was going on the authorization for that in the Constitution based on the public disturbance of the war. But now, with the war going on in Iraq, the courthouses are open. They aren't under fire. So there is no need for it. Bushco uses all this as a technicality. The war is not causing public disturbance here in the way the founders imagined.

dismantling Constitutional safeguards, it's because we're "at war".

If it's to ask why we are not treating captives by the internationally accepted standards accorded to P.O.W.s etc., then we are "not at war".

Iraq is at war. They didn't attack us, Bu$h invaded them.