What shall the Security Council determine and for what purpose and on what authority and furthermore, what power does it possess to enforce its determination?

ANSWER: The Security Council shall determine, whatever, for the purposes of executing a decision so that it may influence, to the degree that it is able, some resolution where the council itself can come to agreement on a particular course of action. However, the Security Council is a committee of opposing forces and rarely comes to agreement on anything... thus where the Security Council does not agree, a resolution cannot be determined and thus the issue continues to fester... THIS is why no nation is obligated, BY LAW to comply with ANYTHING that the UN decides… ALL nations however are urged to cooperate, towards the goal of peace, or they face the risk of cooperative efforts by those member states which, given whatever the necessity may be, could well result in detrimental consequences… See: The Afghan and Iraq campaigns within the US war on terror.

The UN Security Council has absolutely NO AUTHORITY! NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA... it stands as a representative body of ideologically opposed nations whose only concern is the best interests of their respective nations.

The UN Security Council has NO POWER: NONE...

The only power that the UN has is that which the member states agree to exert through their respective military capability... Not ONE MEMBER is bound by ANY LAW to comply with UN Sanctions, or UN demands for troops to execute the decisions of the Security Council.

Do you see anyone besides radical anti-American pro-terrorists leftists (pardon the redundancy) calling for sanctions against the US for invading Iraq? Are there any sovereign members of the UN advancing their respective militaries against the US for this would-be violation of which you speak?

ANSWER: NO, you do not...

Why not?

ANSWER: Because no such violation exists and they have neither the authority nor the power on which to act...

Thus friend your assertion is conclusively proven to be NONSENSE...

I hope that clears that up for you.

[/quote]
Show me the legislation that showed Congress declared war. They didn't. You're wrong.

Congress has to declare war. What they do instead, is pass off that authority to the President of the US. Which is again, wrong.

If 9/11 didn't happen, we still would have fought in Iraq one way or another. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 though.

Show me the legislation that showed Congress declared war. They didn't. You're wrong.

Congress has to declare war. What they do instead, is pass off that authority to the President of the US. Which is again, wrong.[/quote]

The USC states that congress shall declare war, not the means by which they will do so, so this legislation is all the authority the US need to take action. See the vote was on whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq, not whether nor not to pass the buck as you say. So they voted to use force, how does this not equate to a declaration of war?

__________________

The USC states that congress shall declare war, not the means by which they will do so, so this legislation is all the authority the US need to take action. See the vote was on whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq, not whether nor not to pass the buck as you say. So they voted to use force, how does this not equate to a declaration of war?[/quote]
Because they passed it off to the President.

Good analogy:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0402a/i...itutional.html

So the President is commander and chief, he was authorized by congress to use force. The act of congress authorizing the use of force is a declaration of war, no matter how you try and twist it.

__________________

I guess you completely missed the analogy or just didn't give a crap.

No I'm not interested in analogies. I'm trying to stick to reality. If congress grants the power for the chief exec to use force, they've made a declaration of war, no other point needs to be made.

__________________

They passed the power to the President.

You can't do that under the Constitution of the United States.

Only Congress can authorize force. They can't grant the President the power to authorize force.

They didn't pass the buck, they authorized the use of force(like you said). The authorization of the use of force is a declaration of war. I'm not sure I can explain this any more simply.

Authorization for the use of force = declaration of war. Period.

__________________