While the constitution does not explicitly prohibit going to war for any reason but self-defence, where it *does* mention any cause at all, it discuss only self-defence as a reason. We have a situation here where both common-sense and the Constitution say that self-defence justifies war. While common sense and common morality also suggest that a whim to destroy another nation does not justify war, the C. does not explicitly take a stand on such whims. However, I would argue that a C. designed to limit gov. power and one which discusses only self-defense as a cause for war leads to a reasonable interpretration that “our constitution does not allow us to go to war without self-defence as the cause.” You will note that the Bush administration used self-defense as justification (sans the actual justification.)

Here are some passages:

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the common defence*, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1 – Legislative

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common Defence* and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 3
Section 4 – Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall *protect each of them against Invasion*; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Remember, powers not ennumerated to the government are restricted to it, not granted carte blanche.

Clinton would use violence against Tehran

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday October 15, 2007 Guardian Unlimited

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton speaks at the University of New Orleans in Louisiana. Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.
In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
“True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.”
“If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives,” Ms Clinton wrote.
???????????????????????
Why Clinton is asking for Iran to help US for security in Middle East; while with her vote is US who started the war in Iraq to destabilize Middle East; why is US asking Iran for help in regard to Middle East peace; while it is non then Hillary Clinton that asks for more wars in the area by announcing that Iran “renounce sponsorship of terrorism”; why is US asking for Iran to be more understanding in regard to Israel and its apartheid policies; while it is US that’s been helping Israel to become where it is and what it is today. So why this nonsense about Iran nuclear “bomb” ambition while it is US that have “every options on the table” which have and will use it when it comes to Iran and Middle East; why is this “nuclear” social psychological warfare while it is US that poses the greatest fear and threats of wars in the world with its militarism regime and its nuclear warheads; why this nonsense, where there are 33000 nuclear bomb in this world and most of it owned by US and Europeans; why this nonsense while it is US that been making new bombs for last 10 years and been using them in Yugoslavia, in Iraq and against other countries for no reason at all, why this nonsense when it is USA that having the largest militarism budget in the world yet is afraid about Iran and its possible nuclear energy “bomb”?

During the Yugoslavian war the China embassy was bombed by US air force and 7 Chinese national including a Chinese journalist was killed, although USA announced that it was a “mistake” and blamed it on a “old map from CIA”, which this argument at first rises this question, why US Air Force needs CIA to provide a map for them to bomb a place in Yugoslavia?, second, while they were bombing Baghdad in 2003 every government buildings was hit but not the Oil ministry building, at the same time non of the Saddam palaces where these palaces housing the US militarism regime now in Baghdad, therefore, there is this perceptibility that US did wanted to start a bigger war with China, or at least see what the Chinese reaction would be to his provocation, this time around Iran and Russia is reacting before its getting late and before either been hit.
The peace in Middle East can only be achieved if US democrats and European governments are willing to put the leash on Israel and present US government in regard to human rights violation, war crime and act against humanity and their militaristic idea about the world and the humiliation of the Palestinians for last 60 years. Here, not that Iranian government is better but it is not Iran’s militarism that holds millions of Palestinians hostage and is not the Iranians that are in Iraq occupying the country and killing civilians there, it is not the Iranians whom have militaristic plans for neither Central Asia nor the African Horn, it is not the Iranians that are asking for missiles shield to be placed in Eastern Europe while Madeline Albright actively promoting the idea.
If there was nothing to hide about the future US war plan in central Asia and African Horn why have any missiles shields there (Eastern Europe) at all, if there were no such plan why implement the idea in militarizing the entire Middle East, Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Gulf of Oman? Why the nonsense that Iran is going to attack Europe or USA and that’s why this missile shields system in Poland or Czechoslovakia is needed? Why would they (Iranians) attack Europe, are they benefit if they do attack Europe or USA, what would they gain by doing such stupid move, for one thing there is no oil in Europe and they don’t need oil, for other, they are to of a small militarism with much less effectiveness then NATO militarism is?
This is the question that has to be answered first by Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright. Is Russia a threat to the world security, is China a threat to the world security, is India a threat to the world security, is Africa a threat to the world security and peace? For one thing non of these countries are fighting for oil nor they are looking to empower themselves to rule the world and non of these countries military are in Iraq, nor is their “privet security services” (mercenaries) or their military threatening rest of the world, so the entire matter becomes to the question about energy and what US needs is Oil.
Here and in this moment in mankind history it is obvious that US needs to learn to stay in line, cooperate and be more adaptable in its unjust and unrealistic demands, US needs to learn to be honest and transparent, the slavery is dead and prohibited by law, the world is not belongs to US, Iran, Israel nor the British or any other European or China nor India for that matter, it never was and it never will be. In the other hand and according to everyone, in one way or the other, they all have said: that Iraq war is about Oil, latest to be added in this list is nonetheless then General Abizaid: We’ve Treated the Arab World as a Collection of Big Gas Stations’
UPDATE: The Stanford Daily, which originally reported on the round table, incorrectly attributed some of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s comments to Gen. Abizaid. Though Abizaid did say “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” it was Friedman who said “We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations.” The Daily has posted a correction.
During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“. Here, there is no more evidence needed to prove this fact that Bush administration, so as British invaded Iraq for oil and oil only.
No country or government can deny that: world is an open market for civilizations to exist, therefore it is absolutely essential that peoples culture are exchanged, a just social economic system along with a social functioning democracy established where from these changes people will benefit, it is absolutely essential that a social justice is at work to implement justice whereby in a functioning democracy and its social principals people are protected from ideas in imperialism. If these basic matters by any industrialized country – governments are not recognized, the militarism regime in US would like to be the world empire, unless these basic matters are by religious Hypocrites and their daily lies is not understood, human and its social existence will face the brutality by all kind of religion regimes and militarism which hide its agenda behind its religious and its brutality. Such matter has happened, is happening and as we speak the evidence is Iraq, Iran and Burma,meaning, no to fundementalism, no to militarism and not imperialism. Funny, that in one hand they say what it is and wipe their saying by the other. Though Abizaid says that Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil “prices low,” the per-barrel cost of oil has risen dramatically since the U.S. first invaded. In March 2003, the price of oil was roughly US$35 a barrel. Today, prices reached “above $85 a barrel for the first time.” Bijan.

Prove that?
Cite the text from the Constitution that backs up your statement.

“I think that it’s really about stability in the Gulf. It’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It’s about aggressive dictators,” Gates said.

Stability in the oil supply. Dictators all over the world, we pick the one we had been beating on for over a decade.

Duh.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html

1:00 P.M. EST

MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a report on the President’s day. The President this morning has spoken with three foreign leaders. He began with Prime Minister Blair, where the two discussed the ongoing aspects of Operation Iraqi liberation. The President also spoke with President Putin to discuss the situation involving Iraq. They discussed cooperation on humanitarian issues. They both reiterated their strong support for the U.S.-Russia partnership, and agreed to continue, despite the differences that the two have over Iraq. And the two also discussed the United States’ concerns, which President Bush discussed, involving prohibited hardware that has been transferred from Russian companies to Iraq. Following the call, the President also spoke with Prime Minister Aznar of Spain.

Those who support this admin and their policies are ignorant and that is hurting us.

Gates’ quote is so ridiculous, a comedy script writer couldn’t get away with it.

Come on, Bobby. Get to the stall, keep your stance at a normal width, and empty out your system. Then get back in front of the microphone and apologize to all of us for letting shit come out of your mouth.

Of course the war is about oil. And you’re pathetic for not admitting this murderous fact.

It was for oil….OK, where’s the oil? Where is it going? If it was about oil Iraqi oil would be flowing to the US in huge quantity’s. Or we could have just bought it…it would have been cheaper than the war. Whats Abizaid talking about “big gas station” the US gets only a small portion of oil from the middle east? This guy was centcom commander……WOW!

Perhaps it would be true if the situation weren’t grossly mismanaged.

Comment by BARTLEBEE

It was OIL before some people started noticing the acronym and commenting on it. They then changed the operation name to freedom along with their changing reasons for going in in the first place.

Well, remember that Haliburton moved its headquarters to Dubais, last March. Their stated purpose is to increase marketing of oil to China.

That expains why Dick Cheney thinks his office is not part of the US executive branch. It is part of the exeutive branch of Dubais.

The US government has been hijacked by Haliburton, and serves no other purpose than to increase their profits…the worst conflict of interest in US history.

***Correction: In this article, The Daily inaccurately attributed a comment equating countries in the Arab world to gas stations to retired Army General John Abizaid. The comment was actually made by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.***

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that NOBODY here is disputing the Abizaid quote about the oil. It’s the SECOND paragraph that has created the controversy, you moron! I’ve known some stubborn, immature people in my lifetime but you take the prize by a long distance.

Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 4:24 am

Maybe your hairy ass is a better place to look duckie bartpeepee!

Another trademark of a troll.

Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 4:16 am

Do they also have 666 carved across their forehead? What kind of clothes do they wear? Do they like McDonald or Burger King? Wait, if that information is too secret you don’t have to tell me, I understand.

Bartman, you ever see the movie “A Beautiful Mind”? LMAZOFF!

What will you do when the article proves false? Will you weep?

I have an idea. Wack yourself upside the head. Maybe you’ll awaken your 2 brain cells.

OWNED!

Wake up fuctard!

OWNED!