Dave Hinz wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 12:10:12 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

Had the Gulf War I ever technically ended?

It ended with a cease-fire,

Is a cease-fire a formal end to a war?

Arguable but the armistice agreement negotiated between
General Schwartzkoff his Iraqi counterpart, who were
authorized agents of their respective commanders-in-chief,
were as formal as anything on the part of either Saddam
Hussein or GHB that preceded the initiation of hostilites
between the US and Iraq.

Has that become a peace treaty
now, or is it a "we'll stop shooting if you do"?

It is somewhere in-between the two I should think.

Was the question rhetorical? Socratic?


Of course the Congress did not DECLARE the 1991 war either.
Once the Congress authorized the use of military force in 1990
(or was it 1991 when the Congress voted?)
and in 2002 subsequent military action by President Bush and
President Bush respectively, was legal by US law.

So then, what's the problem?

Could you be a little more specific? Better yet, you take a
turn and see if you can say what the problem is, calmly,
rationally, without insults or derisive comments.


AFAIK, the only US president to commit an apparant violation
of the War Powers Act since it was adopted, is Clinton
who never sought explicit Congressional approval in
advance of or during the extended military action in
Bosnia or Kosovo.

How unexpected.

I expected better of Clinton. I wasn't at all sure how
the court case woudl play out, though I was pretty sure it
woudl not end with the USSC ordering the troops back home.
(AFAIK the cae never got to the USSC, probably they declined
to review the lower court ruling.)

--

FF