Was our involvement in World War II unconstitutional?

[Knightskye]

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

We participated (officially) in World War II for four years. Defending our national security, yes, but did it violate that statute?

Also, should we change the statute?

[Matt Collins]

Our involvement in WWII was unnecessary. Pat Buchanan had a book out on this topic.

Essentially our government's messing with the Japanese in their part of the world provoked them into attacking our fleet at Pearl Harbor. And if our government hadn't have been involved in WWI then it's quite likely that Hitler wouldn't have come to power.

[angelatc]

It may have been unnecessary, but Japan attacked us. Then Germany declared war on us. We declared war on them. Then we nuked Japan into immediate submission and finished the job that the Europeans couldn't quite do themselves.

War was declared. If you're trying to argue that disarming Japan after Pearl Harbor wasn't self-defense, thanks for driving people away from us.

I am guessing that there was more than one appropriation made.

[MelissaWV]

It may have been unnecessary, but Japan attacked us. Then Germany declared war on us. We declared war on them. Then we nuked Japan into immediate submission and finished the job that the Europeans couldn't quite do themselves.

War was declared. If you're trying to argue that disarming Japan after Pearl Harbor wasn't self-defense, thanks for driving people away from us.

Take down the time, date, etc.... I'm agreeing (slightly) with Matt Collins.

Before Pearl Harbor, there was US involvement in Japan's affairs. This doesn't differ much from the way the US has meddled all over the world more recently; we were involved in an embargo. Japan did not take kindly to this. They didn't just wake up one morning and "hate our freedom," they calculated that the attack would be a suitably loud and strategically advantageous warning shot that we would back off and be unable to pester their dealings in Asia. That was a sore miscalculation on their part.

[Paulfan05]

I wonder why nation building worked in Japan, unlike Iraq

[TCE]

I wonder why nation building worked in Japan, unlike Iraq

The people wanted us to rebuild their country. They welcomed us spending all of our money on their new technology. Iraq is completely different. They despise us, and for good reason. We destroyed their country just because one man (Bush) said to. Sure, Congress should have cut all funding for the war, but Bush essentially ordered for the destruction of their country and culture.

On the purpose of WWII:

1. Had we stayed out of WW1, WWII never would have happened. There would have been no League of Nations, and in extension, no United Nations. The Cold War likely wouldn't have happened since there would have been much less of a reason to remove the Russian Tsar from power, and thus the Bolsheviks would have likely not been able to take over so easily.

Translation: If we would have stayed out of WWI, the world would have bee a much better place.

2. The U.S. was cutting off trade to Japan, I believe. Eventually, the talks completely broke down and Japan decided to attack us in retaliation. Had we just come to an agreement with Japan, they would have no reason to attack us.

3. FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attacks were coming days ahead of time. Instead of removing the valuable equipment and most of the population of Pearl Harbor, he did nothing. He waited for them to attack just so he could look like the hero and declare war.

4. At the Munich Conference in 1938, Britain and France allowed Hitler to take more land than was agreed to by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler later stated that, had Britain and France denied him the land grab, then Hitler would have backed down since he was unprepared to fight both Britain and France.

[Knightskye]

It may have been unnecessary, but Japan attacked us. Then Germany declared war on us. We declared war on them. Then we nuked Japan into immediate submission and finished the job that the Europeans couldn't quite do themselves.


There was a four-year gap between them attacking us and us bombing them, so... is that a 'yes' to the changing the statute question?


Take down the time, date, etc.... I'm agreeing (slightly) with Matt Collins.

:D

[TCE]

There was a four-year gap between them attacking us and us bombing them, so... is that a 'yes' to the changing the statute question?



:D

While I haven't searched the Congressional records, at least in modern times, and I would guess they would have to historically as well, appropriations are made each year for the next fiscal year. So, Congress would have appropriated a certain amount of money for each year, making the war Constitutional.

[Matt Collins]

It may have been unnecessary, but Japan attacked us.
War was declared. If you're trying to argue that disarming Japan after Pearl Harbor wasn't self-defense, thanks for driving people away from us.
But why did Japan attack our military? Because our military, by orders of our government, was committing an act of war upon Japan by blocking their trade.





I wonder why nation building worked in Japan, unlike IraqWell for one thing the Japanese do not/did-not have a quasi-state-religion with elements/factions so radical that they want to kill or conquer anyone who wasn't a believer.

Also WWII was a REAL war with very few if any rules of engagement. It also wasn't micromanaged by politicians like today's "conflicts" are. In other words the full might of our military was brought to bear on our declared enemies (justly or not) whereas today almost every conflict means our military is limited and restricted in what they are allowed to do (not necessarily a bad thing but not conducive to "winning").


The simple version? The way the military fights is different now than it was then.



Take down the time, date, etc.... I'm agreeing (slightly) with Matt Collins.Awesome. Will you be in Atlanta? If so does that mean I can get a hug from you? ;):p:):cool::D

[Knightskye]

While I haven't searched the Congressional records, at least in modern times, and I would guess they would have to historically as well, appropriations are made each year for the next fiscal year. So, Congress would have appropriated a certain amount of money for each year, making the war Constitutional.

Oh, okay. I misunderstood the statute, then. It means Congress can't appropriate five years worth of money. Gotcha. Thank you. :)

[jmdrake]

Well for one thing the Japanese do not/did-not have a quasi-state-religion with elements/factions so radical that they want to kill or conquer anyone who wasn't a believer.


Actually it did. Japan's official religion was Shintoism. The emperor was worshiped as a god. The kamikaze was their equivalent of the "suicide bomber". There were also mass suicides of civilians right before Japan fell. (Today the claim is the military forced the suicides. To this day I can't see how someone can force someone else to kill themselves. If you give me a grenade to kill my self and my family I'm pulling the pin, counting to 2 and tossing it back to you.)

MacArthur forced the Japanese emperor to publicly admit he wasn't a god. You can't exactly do that with Islam as Mohammed is long dead. Besides, there are (at least) two main factions of Islam in Iraq (and most muslim countries). And under Saddam Iraq didn't even have a state religion. He was a secularist. His second in command is/was a Christian.

I think a far more important difference is that you didn't have two strong factions vying for power in postwar Japan. Also by keeping the emperor alive as a figurehead we had a mouthpiece to mollify the people. Instead we killed Saddam's sons, his grandson, and turned him over to his enemies to be killed. Maybe that's what they deserved. But that precluded the MacArthur postwar strategy.

A better model for Iraq is Northern Ireland anyway. You have similar religious factions that hate each other, militias, terrorism, bombing, a failed occupation and an eventual (if uneasy) power sharing agreement.



Also WWII was a REAL war with very few if any rules of engagement. It also wasn't micromanaged by politicians like today's "conflicts" are. In other words the full might of our military was brought to bear on our declared enemies (justly or not) whereas today almost every conflict means our military is limited and restricted in what they are allowed to do (not necessarily a bad thing but not conducive to "winning").


Well in Iraq we won the "real" war (defeating the military) rather quickly. I suppose the "shock and awe" of the first two atomic bombs might have prevented further resistance in Japan. But again there weren't the two or three warring factions ready to kill each other the first chance they got. But shifting gears to Afghanistan, I don't think there were any limits to the way the Soviets fought that war. They were sent packing with their tails between their Spentznez legs.



The simple version? The way the military fights is different now than it was then.


I'm not sure if we had tried to take Afghanistan back then we'd have been any more successful than the British before us. And barefoot fighters routed Moussolini in Ethiopia. There are just no guarantees in war.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[surf]

3. FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attacks were coming days ahead of time. Instead of removing the valuable equipment and most of the population of Pearl Harbor, he did nothing. He waited for them to attack just so he could look like the hero and declare war.

my understanding is that many of the aircraft carriers just happened to be out of Pearl Harbor when the attack occured.

[Brian4Liberty]

I wonder why nation building worked in Japan, unlike Iraq

Let's not forget that the fact that most of their able-bodied men were dead, and the threat of total nuclear destruction was there. They had already been an industrial nation, and well-united as "Japanese". Uniting them as a nation and (re)creating a modern economy were not obstacles.

Warfare generally ends when everyone who has an uncontrollable urge to participate has already been killed. Wars will eventually end due to sheer attrition on one or both sides.

[TCE]

my understanding is that many of the aircraft carriers just happened to be out of Pearl Harbor when the attack occured.

Over 2000 people dying is terribly unnecessary considering he knew about it days in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

[surf]

Over 2000 people dying is terribly unnecessary considering he knew about it days in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

not saying it is. i made a speech in a HS speech class many years ago calling for the censure of FDR for this. the teacher was stunned, but gave me a good grade anyway. i learned about it in a history class taught by an Austrian economist (in a public school no less).

point i was trying to make was to validate with - if i remember correctly - some items that would validate the aspect that FDR knew about this and that the supposition that most valuable military "assets" were lost may be incorrect.

[Matt Collins]

Interesting perspectives John. I learn something new every day!