Obviously US history isn't my strong point but I do believe that Presidents CAN go to war without the approval of the Congress.

Basically leaders will do whatever they think they can get away with. Bush consulted Congress because he was sure of their support on this occasion.

But didn't Truman go to war in Korea without approval of Congress? He got a UN resolution to support action against North Korea, bypassing Congress. Only when he needed more troops because the war was going badly did he get Congressional support.

Lincoln commenced the American Civil War whilst congress was in recess.

The original Gulf War and the war in Kosovo were both "undeclared" wars, started without Congressional permission.

In fact the President can go to war for 60 days without permission. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>I readily admit that Political Science is one of my weakest areas, so my info could very well be wrong. I suppose there are loopholes available that would allow a POTUS to "go off on a rampage" for a short while, but it wouldn't take very long before our own government either curtailed his efforts or replaced him completely.

I'm not certain about Gulf War I being started without Congressional permission. It was well known that we were going to attack. Of course, we were acting on behalf of the U.N. again at that time, so maybe U.N. support does offer a loophole to bypass Congressional permission - at least temporarily.

Still, Congress is going to have to be "brought on board" and the POTUS will have to gain their approval to continue any aggression sooner or later. But I suppose it would be possible for the POTUS to act without their permission and launch a war on his own. But it would still just be a temporary act and Congress would either have to approve more funding for continued attacks or the POTUS would be forced to either "stand down" or get thrown out of office.</font>

Mrs. Bush. [img]tongue.gif[/img] ;)
Edit: Also, Cerek, I understand whast you're saying, but as far as pure potential, I think the POTUS (or she who controls him!) is the most dangerous. As was said, 60 days, man. That's plenty of time. Do you have any idea how many ICBMs he has control of? How many times could we potentially blow up the world, now? 35? [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

[ 09-06-2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Dron_Cah ]

Well, I don't remember anyone in the congress saying 'We should throw a nuke at Hiroshima'. I don't know if the congressmembers have little red buttons that have a 'Use only when in need of obliteration' labels. Now, I agree with the rest of your post, Cerek, it's a good run-down of the situation, but at this point I disagree. The US president can decimate a country in 60 days, and wether the congrees likes it or not, shoot the president in the head or not, but if the country bombed is by any chance Russia, or China, bang, WWIII, no stopping the chain of events now. I say yup, the US president is the biggest threat to world peace on the planet. And the most powerful man on the planet, with the second most powerfull being the pilot of a B2 with 18 2-megatonne nukes. But thank God, there's three of them in the plane.

Bollocks to all those people. Power obtained by threat of violence is nothing. In 1400s - 1500s Europe, the Duc de Urbino might have been a dangerous person to cross, but who cares about him now? We remember Leonardo Da Vinci, we remember Michaelangelo. Who affects more people now: King Herod, or Jesus H. Christ? True power comes from ideas. Governments can rise and fall because of ideas derived from art, literature and music hundreds of years old. The most dangerous person in the world is anyone with an idea and a pen.

Meg, do you have a fan club I can sign up for or anything?

As Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, under The War Powers Resolution, can engage in hostilities for at least 60 days without violation of any laws. However, the Congress still controls the funding. Furthermore, and more importantly, only Congress can Decalre War.


Sidebar; a B2 with 18 2 megatonne nukes. OR, a Ohio-Class (SSBN) AKA 'Trident' submarine with (classified) ICBM @ 3.8 megatonne each?

Most dangerous:

</font>

• Any leader of a country with nuclear weapons, or other WoMD. This includes Bush, Putin and Jintao amongst others. These I only view as potential dangers as I don't believe neither of them are interrested in causing trouble.</font>
• bin Ladin. Fanatic troublemaking terrorist.</font>
• Kim Jong-Il. North Korea appears almost paranoid in my eyes, and if they have nukes too...</font>

Being dangerous generally also mean that you have a certain power and influence (not neccessarily political power) so anyone who fits those criteria can be potentially dangerous.

If he's so dangerous, how come you're still alive?

I think that a nuclear sub holds some 36 nukes, with 8 launching tubes. Not sure tho. But it's much easier to kill two more crewmembers in a plane then the 160 on a sub. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, discussing ICBM, remember that each one has up to 50 individually-targeting warheads.

And R. Cheney gets my vote -- the brains behind the operation. Our very own Rasputin. :D