Should the United States be allowed to use the "War on Terror" banner as a blank cheque to attack whoever they want?

It's amazing how IGNORANT people can be despite the vast availibility of information as to why the United States is involved in the "war on terror". It's very obvious why if anyone care to do 5 minutes of self-imposed research. It would be helpful to anyone who cares to know why America is fighting in Somalia, please read the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 or "Iraq Resolution" or "Iraq War Resolution".

The resolution doesn't give the President a "blank check". It gave him "global reach." There's a difference between global reach and blank check. It clearly states that the president has the authority to go after "terrorists wherever they are and those who habour them." (That's if anyone dares to read it).

No president of the United States, until Bill Clinton, has ever used military force, gone to war, in any other country, i.e., Kosovo, (Google it), without the consent of Congress. I wonder how many innocent civilians were killed from bombs been dropped 15,000 feet?

The Constitution ofthe UNITED STATES clearly states that ONLY congress can authorized WAR or "military force" and fund such war or conflict.

If congress believes that the President of the United States is going beyond his call of duty they have the constitutional power to "CUT OFF" the funds for the war as they did in Vietnam. America didn't lose the Vietnam war. Congress did.

Bil Clinton fled Somalia after a few soldiers died. The problemwas never resolved . That's why we're there again.

No President of the United States can ever stop a war until defeat or victory or else he faces IMPEACHMENT. That's what the left want President Bush to do. If he pulls out and millions of people are killed as a result he WILL face impeachment.

The left wing media and liberals KNOW that. That's why the'd like to see the UNITED STATES lose the war.

By the way, the UNITED NATION is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL agency.

Cayne

I think the point here is that many people in the world feel like the US has decided it has the right to wage war on whoever it feels like. The US has become the global bully and the UK has largely follow however, in both the UK and the US public opinion and appetite for conflict has been severely eroded.

Stating events like Kosovo, is all good and well, but it must be stated as well that the US does not just play the role of the knight in shining white armour. The US public mostly seem to disregard and ignore the US foreign policy decision that have not been good for other areas of the world. A large number of people all around the world are currently disillusioned with US foreign policy.

If I read this question properly it is not about Bush, but the US in general. The internal administrative mechanisms that sanction the US to use force are what the problem would seem to be. The US take unilateral decisions to use force on whichever group they feel is a threat, even if there is little or no evidence of a threat.

If "terrorists" are planning to attack the US, perhaps the US should be asking why, instead of sanctioning the use of force.

The point is the US seems to be destabilising major areas, through their poor intelligence and decision making processes. There were no WMD, the intelligence was wrong, why can citizens of the world not question the US's actioned which are based on the US's intelligence structures and decision making processes which have been proved flawed?

Whether President Bush is impeached or not, is not really relevant to this issue.

I think the war on terror should be stopped. It is illegal and illegitimate.

It makes me embarrised to admit I am from the USA. They have set an unpleasant precident. I hope someone realises that America shows them the same curitisy as they have shown the middle east!