Talk:Declaration of war by the United States

Untitled

I will do my part at our local pizza place by leaving the parmesan shaker top perched precariously on top of the cheese container. ~Semper Fi~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.119.18 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This article fails to include the many, many military conflicts between the USA and American Indian nations that meet the technical definition of foreign wars and are consistently referenced as such. This list might begin with the Cherokee-American Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4580:13D0:60E5:AF2:2DDA:F18 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Who Wrote The Civil War Paragraph

It is written as if The Civil War was wrong based on the idea that it was illegal, I dont know if this person knows anything about the Constitution, since they say all the points making it an illegal war are based on the Constitution. Especially that no new states may be formed without approval from Congress, and all powers not given to the Federal Government are given to the State; gives them the right to secede. Whoever wrote this article please put some references, and rewrite it making it clearer, or just delete the whole section or maybe most of the whole article as its one of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia, especially since it just has to do with how, when and why we've declared war.

--KC-W (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the second paragraph relating to the Civil War. That was the work of a single editor back in March, and that editor appears to have been attempting to justify the secession through his own arguments based on the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. An interesting argument, but more appropriate for a scholarly work, and not an encyclopedia.

--uFu (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph?

"Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. Opponents of the uses of military force since began to argue, chiefly, that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States."

This paragraph seems to imply that the Iraq War is directly connected to 9/11.68.238.4.77 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The two events are obviously related. Removed the "verification needed" tag. This opinion from the USDOJ, [1], is in large part a response to the "heated debate" subsequent to 9/11 regarding presidential authority to conduct military actions absent formal declarations of war. Azi Like a Fox 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This united states are young. We are the rable that sent the British gentry running home, those of use that choose to live free, that believed a person has a right to be whom they wish, whom they could be. This war was not started by free men, a free man has no reason for war. Only men with hate in their haert and want begains such things.Only men of hate elected or not start such killings. Free men let and be let, understand that life is worth more then buildings,land,power or pride,. People are free ! choose to be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.75.198 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire article is written as if the phrase "Declaration of War" had specific meaning under US law. There is no defined legally required format for "Declaration(s) of War." Therefore, the article takes a point of view. That is, it assumes the authors view of the meaning of "Declaration of War" is correct. The article is not really salvagable in the manner it is constructed and needs a major re-write to avoid the blunder. --138.162.0.41 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

US Constitution, Article One, Section Seven: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

It would be silly and confusing to not use phrases like "declare war" or "declaration of war" when that is the very text of the US Constitution.

Furthermore, "declaration of war" is the standard term that everyone uses about this subject, even if your claim is correct that it isn't a specific legal term. (I wonder about your claim. Got a citation for that?)

If yours is the reason for the NPOV, then I think the flag should be removed immediately.

I checked the history of the NPOV flag -=- and the person who put it on gave no reasoning (that I could see) and it was an anonymous user, anyway. I say remove it. (I won't, only because I'm not actively engaged in this article.)

The article isn't perfect but it's about as neutral as any others here on Wikipedia regarding law and politics. If users detect a bias, correct the passage -- don't just slap a NPOV flag on it!

--Calan 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

the declaration of war is from the point of view of the US constitution Realfakebezalbob (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeanette Rankin

I don't think the House vote for declaration of war against Japan in 1941 was indeed unanimous. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin voted against it, according to both my memory and the article about her. I would change it, but I'm not sure how many members of the House of Representitives there were in 1941. Kairos 04:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There were 435. See United States Congressional Apportionment. -- Seth Ilys 04:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in both the "December 7, 1917, HR: 365-1" and "December 8, 1941, HR: 388-1" votes, the "1" was Jeannette Rankin -- maybe that could be mentioned in the article... AnonMoos 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

Yesterday I made a few minor edits so that military conflicts were refered to not by their military operation names (i.e. Operation Just Cause) but by their colloquial names. I retained the operation names as an a.k.a.

Today Copperchair changed "Invasion of Afghanistan a.k.a. Operation Enduring Freedom" to "War on Terrorism a.k.a. Operation Enduring Freedom." I have reverted the change but post here because I'm not sure if this will be controversial due to the political overtones.

My justification for the revert is that War on Terrorism is generally understood to refer to a global campaign not confined to any particular conflict or country. It's a "meta" term not unlike the "War on Crime" or "War on Cancer." I reverted for reasons of clarity.

I also wonder whether the operation names should be included at all.

68.174.9.162 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think you've got a good idea here. Colloquial names are better than military operation names. I simply changed it to 'Enduring Freedom' because I really didn't know what else to call it, and I say that "Just Cause" was already used.

I believe you should specify by the proper name then use a.k.a. to refer to a more non-specific term. Common usage does not supercede definition usually (tissue/kleenex). Also, by referring to, say, operational names in cases that lack a declaration of war (e.g. 90's gulf war) the separate stages of the overall conflict can be made clearer (desert shield vs. desert storm). Using this you can hopefully then more clearly define a broader colloquial term such as "The Gulf War." The parts better define the whole, but an absolutely clear whole name would be better if possible (occam razor). The complexity of these descriptions belie the political complexities that bore them, (Bush and Co. said current iraq conflict would take under a year ('03-'04), M. Daniels said total costs would be well under 100BUSD; as of Jan 07 many speculate full pull out to be outside of '09 and total costs between 1T and 2TUSD) and show the shifting nature of the conflicts (WMD to nation building to civil conflict intervention).

However, Copperchair's insistence on calling the invasion of Afghanistan the "War on Terror" is simply incorrect. The War on Terror is a concept that refers to a larger conflict that is not strictly married to any specific war, battle, opearation or arrest. Congress authorized war with the Taliban. They didn't say, 'hey go get terrorists' and Afghanistan is where the army ended up.

While I think it's absurd to say so, Bush claims the Iraq War was part of the war on terror. The arrest of the Buffalo sleeper cell a while back was certianly part of it. Any actions taken against militant Islamic inspired terrorists is part of the war on terror. Spaltavian 19:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I won't change it again. And Spaltavian, you are absolutely right about the Iraq war/War on Terrorism lie. Copperchair 08:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A LIE??? By what definition is Saddam Hussein not a terrorist? 12.144.20.254 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

By what definition are YOU not a terrorist? --Booch 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, define terrorist. A person who commits criminal acts is not necessarily a terrorist. I would say that generally speaking a terrorist is concerned with spreading an ideology and working on a complex, but smale scale operation (in comparison to a full scale military, or even a special ops operation) that tries to achieve maximum political advantage, for instance. In this regard SH doesn't fit the definition at all, including the fact that the allegations of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq are completely unfactual. Killing some people doesn't make you a terrorist. What Saddam did was just dictatorial 101. North Korea does not engage in terrorism by this definition as well. State sponsored acts of hostility are not terrorism by this definition as well, although a state could sponsor a terrorist operation. Threatening to build a nuke by a state is not terrorism (Iran currently), imo. When Lenin and Hitler slaughtered people they were not acting as terrorists. There is a lengthy article on wikipedia on terrorists and terrorism which you may find useful.

It doesn't matter if Bush is satan incarnate, and he invaded Iraq cause he was bored. Connections between Al-Queda and Hussein are also irrelevant. Iceland hand no ties to Nazi Germany, but that did not mean its invasion was not part of WWII. The connection between 9/11 and the Iraq War is entirely state side. 9/11 caused a change in policy, part of which is called the War on Terror. The War on Terror, is not a literal war, although it does involve warfare. rather it is like the War on Drugs. The War on Terror is not just a war on Al-queda, but on all terrorist threats, real or imagined. The same way the PATRIOT act is still the PATRIOT act, even though it may lack patriotism. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

War Powers Resolution

I quote:

It should also be pointed out that the Second Gulf War should really not be considered separate from the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein signed a Cease Fire Agreement on April 4th, 1991 that halted military action. He then proceeded over the next 12 years to violate 17 U.N. resolutions, including that Cease Fire Agreement. Therefore the so called "Second Gulf War" is, in reality, a RESUMPTION of the FIRST Gulf War based on Saddam Hussein vacating the agreement.

I believe this to be a NPOV statement, and in fact biased for the current conflict in Iraq. Perhaps it should be reworded to read something like "One argument supporting the current conflict in Iraq is…" or something like that. --Micahbrwn 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It also seems to ignore the conventions for naming conflicts. For example, the 1st and 2nd Barbary wars. really I don't see how it is relative to this article. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of war vs "Military engagements authorized by Congress"

Is there a NPOV objective distinction between a "Declaration of War" and a "Military engagement authorized by Congress"? I'm worried it may merely be an attempt by critics of the USA's foreign policy to portray the .Andjam 05:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Congress seems to think there is an objective distinction, since they went to the trouble of actually declaring war in some cases and not in others. "Military engagement authorized by Congress" is pretty bland wording, it's hard for me to see how it could POV. I mean, what else should we call it? They objectively are not a declarations of war, to call them such would be inaccurate. Spaltavian 08:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The appropriate term should be "statutory authorization", which is the word embodied in the Article 2(c)(2) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. LordKadghar 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting problems

The page has some serious formatting problems. The article as it currently stands has the words "Headline text" and other meta-information strewn across the top of the table. I'm not familiar enough with wiki markup to fix it.

I restored the page to a previous version.--81.83.223.152 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Doe v. Bush

It seems to have passed notice, but the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 with regards to constitutional declarations of war by Congress in a case called Doe v. Bush. In their ruling the Court holds essentially that if it walks like a declaration of war and quacks like a declaration of war, then it's a declaration of war, whether or not the magic words "declaration of war" are any part of the text of the Congressional action.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf

Operation Allied Force? And NPOV

No mention in this article is made of the US's participation in the air war against Yugoslavia in 1999, aka Operation Allied Force. Was there a Congressional authorization under the War Powers Act for this action? I do recall that a Congressman with ethnic roots in the region (was it Kucinich?) called for a formal declaration of war against Serbia so as to place the conflict more firmly under international norms and law.

Also, what exactly is the NPOV dispute over the "The War Powers Resolution" section? There doesn't seem to be any discussion of it here. --Jfruh (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Panama

I'm pretty sure Congress never gave authority to Pres. George H.W. Bush for the use of force in Panama. I just weeded through every House of Reps. resolution related to American use of force abroad and the only thing they ever issued out of committee was a declaration of sorrow for the loss of American life and commendation to the President for an expressed goal to bring the troops home soon. If somebody could fix the article that would be great. unsigned

• Put a link to House of Reps. resolutions here.--Patchouli 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized the table with the removal of Manuel Noriega from power.--Patchouli 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitution

Any reason NOT to mention what the U.S. Constitution has to say on the subject (Article 1 Section 8)? I don't want to start a war over this, but the Constitution is pretty important rewinn 05:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Border War / Pancho Villa

I couldn't find anything to support the assertion that the USA declared war against Pancho Villa as an individual. It's not included in the tables listing declared or undeclared wars. Nor is it included in the article on Pancho Villa, or the Pancho Villa Expedition. I didn't find any article on the (relevant) Border War. This makes me seriously question the completeness of those tables. --Booch 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force.

Is there a citation for this assertion? 165.124.253.153 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed, as no one provided a citation even after a fact tag was in place for more than three months. --Brouhaha (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

"The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions."

If Congress didn't 'authorize' it in some way where did Truman get the money? Misleading choice of words.

Don't you find it a bit odd that we have prominent mention of the intervention in the Bolshevik Revolution, an incredibly minor skimish in Paraquay, a note on the fight with the Apache's being quite long but we have no mention whatsoever of The Amevican Civil War?

I don't think "There are many undeclared "wars" missing from this list. The United States fought in Korea in 1870 and in Nicaragua in 1927." quite covers it.

And it would be a bit of a stretch to say Congress didn't 'authorize' it, although there was certain no DOW from the Fedearal Congress. But to mention Paraquay and leave out the Civil War (not to mention the American Revolution and the Phillipine Insurrection) leaves me speechless. Ks28 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Kenneth Schultz

List of US military interventions since 1890

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html It is quite long. What, if not war, is war making, i.e. troops fighting. I do not have the time now. And it would probably be added. What if not "The use of troops" is the obvious definition of war. The "suppression of silver miners' strike by the Army" in IDAHO, 1892 would not be considered war by today's mainstream. But it certainly was understood by all sides involved back then. Only those that ordered it probably called it something different, especially with the yellow journalism of that day that held the same economic interests as the bosses. The strikers I'm sure understood that there was a war declared on them. Maybe it was called "humanitarian intervention" or "securing of interests". The first "NPOV" here is a joke. It's just that the constitution has always been ignored when those with power view their interests to be threatened. So they ensure there is "no defined legally required format for "Declaration(s) of War." " But it is pretty common sense that the congress alone has the ability to authorize the executive the power to order troops to fight, using the words "declare war" as written in the US constitution. (State & Fed gov't can also order troops if actually or about to be attacked, as per the constitution) Whatever. The above entire list should be added as undeclared wars. But I thought there should be debate about it first. 21:25, 29 October 2006 -Shazbotz

World War Two - who declared war first?

Japan attacked on the 7th and then sent a declaration of war. Had the US received it when they declared war in turn? Does US law require it when the enemy has already made a declaration of war?

Likewise on the 11th, was it Nazi Germany that declared war first? It seems to have been the same day, but what was the sequence?

--GwydionM 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now confirmed - the other side started it. --GwydionM 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is required, but traditionally each nation makes its own declaration. a declaration doesn't start a war, just makes it official. There have been plenty of cases where one nation has attacked another, and the result is not war. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

the japense WERE going to declare war before pearl harbor but some delay caused the declaration to be announced after the bombing Realfakebezalbob (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwydion, declaring war is not the same as starting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.30.83 (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be plagarised anyway

This article was lifted off another website (and, therefore, is plagiarized unless done so by the original author): http://experts.about.com/e/d/de/declaration_of_war_by_the_united_states.htm Neither the Wiki article nor the “All Experts” article has links to the other, so I cannot tell which came first. Either way this article has significant shortcomings – not the least of which is the grossly inadequate list of “undeclared” wars. Recktenbenwald 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the very bottom of the other page: it says This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia.

I agree it could be improved. --GwydionM 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The War Between the States?

Why is the largest war in US histoy not included on the list of (undeclared) wars? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frissell (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Removing NPOV tag

Since no one objected and this article is a objective as most on Wiki, I'm removing the tag. --Calan 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

American Civil War

Where would the American Civil War fit in here? Ripberger 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the US Congress never declared war on the Conferency in large part because it was felt that such a declaration would give legitmacy to the Confederate govt. It also would have been virtually unheard of C. 1860 to declare war on a seperatist goverment; the norm at the time would have been to just send the troops in to (attempt to) put the revolt down. Jon 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc.

Would this article be the place to mention U.S. presidential or congressional initiatives to which their authors applied the word "war" to? There's an article on Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and Richard Nixon's War on Drugs, for example, and perhaps other "wars" as well. patsw 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing first paragraph

First paragraph needs to be cleaned up . It is too biased with too many legalisms and opinion mixed in with fact. The definition should be stated clearly first and then any debate should remane further down the article. Or it is just too confuisng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.63.110 (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungary

It's noted that an argument could be made that the US twice declared war on Hungary. This argument is VERY valid, as Austria-Hungary was a personal union and dual monarchy. "It is not to be confused with a federation, which internationally is considered as a single state." The two states were both sovereign, but sharing a head of state. They are essentially two separate states. I would support changing those few sentences for these reasons. Grsz11 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One big table

This page might work better if it had one big table that incorporated all U.S. military actions, whether there was a specific declaration of war, whether there was a congressional authorization of military force, or whether there was not declaration or congressional authorization. There's a good list of U.S. military actions here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation Just Cause

I removed Operation Just Cause from the list of authorized operations because I read that the operation was not authorized before or during the operation itself and I was not able to find any post-fact authorization. I could be wrong. If someone knows better and you know where Congress authorized the operation I invite the revert.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A Useful Reference on this Topic

May I suggest that those who are at work on this page have a look at the very useful book by Brien Hallett, The Lost Art of Declaring War (1998, Uni. of Illinois Press)? Someone who had examined Hallett would be able to clarify the sections on the ‘Controversy’ and the ‘Current status of the US debate’. --M.H. d. Ä. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.10.4 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lost Art of Declaring War Hallett, Brien (1998). The Lost Art of Declaring War. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252024184.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Signature?

There appears to be a conflict between this and another article. The question is whether or not a formal declaration of war requires the President to approve of it. I know that there are pictures of FDR signing declarations of war against Japan and Germany, but was he required to do so? The Resolution (law) article says that Congress can declare war through a joint resolution which seems to imply that Presidential approval is not required. This article specifically, does not say either way. So which is it? Andy120290 (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this has worked in the real world but, the US Const. Art. 1 Sec. 7 reads in part, "Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill." 76.99.142.49 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pasha informally declares war, May, 1801.

From Wikipedia, First Barbary War#Declaration of war and naval blockade:

Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

This was certainly an informal way for the Pasha to declare war, and Congress responded to authorize fighting, but legally, was this an early, if not the first time the United States of America fought a war without declaring it? Some people seem to think this was a modern development, but maybe not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct dates for U.S. Declarations against Germany & Italy

Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal

The chart displaying formalized declaration of war by the USA previously showed the U.S. Congress as having declared was on Germany & Italy on December 11th, 1941. That is an error; 12/11/41 is the date Germany declared war on the USA (not sure when Italy so declared). The U.S. Congress actually issued formal declarations of war against Germany on January 10, and Italy on January 12 (1942).

Unfortunately, I was not familiar with the somewhat esoteric format of the display chart, hence the date for U.S. Declaration of War upon Italy is shifted one column farther to the right than it should be (thus pushing all the rest of the Italy-related data one column over to the right in turn). If someone better versed in the technical rigours of that charting code would be so helpful as to fix my (undoubtedly minor) error, that would be ideal. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml, this http://johnshadegg.house.gov/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF, and this http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-08-congress-war.htm all indicate the declarations of war against Germany and Italy occurred on December 11, 1941. Unless you have another source that disproves these, the December 11 date stands. Andy120290 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In point of fact, my 1959 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia does state quite definitively that the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany on January 10th, 1942, and on the Kingdom of Italy on January 12th, 1942. But I will endeavour to locate a readily verifiable online source (albeit probably not tonight) before I seek to change those dates again. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Declaration of War," or otherwise, against Algiers on May 10, 1815

The Miller Center of Public Affairs, of the University of Virginia, would seem to claim that the Congressional authorization of military action against the then city-state of Algiers, constituted a formal declaration of war. The relevant text is as follows: "May 10, 1815

With Madison having secured a declaration of war on Algiers, Captain Stephen Decatur leads a flotilla from New York against the Mediterranean pirates, who attack American ships during the War of 1812. Algiers surrenders on June 30."

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/keyevents/madison

Do we have a reliable source, or sources, which definitively claim otherwise?

I am not familiar with the conflict with Algiers, but it is not uncommon for sources, such as books and what-not, to use the phrase "declare war" and the like even when a formal war declaration was not passed. For example, I have heard some variant on the phrase "President Bush declared war on Iraq" even thought there was no formal war declaration. Most likely, whoever wrote the web page was not familiar with the technical definition of a war declaration. You can be sure that all formal war declarations are listed in the article. If there was another good source, the Algiers conflict might go into the "Military engagements authorized by Congress" section. Andy120290 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The conflict itself is already listed in the article; its merely a question of whether it is being presented in the appropriate table. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Korean War conclusion

The end of the Korean War was accomplished by the legal, binding document called the Korean Armistice Agreement. Wikisource link now provided in the article. Also see Armistice for info (and discussion) as to the legal effects of an armistice. Any info regarding the aftermath of the Korean War vis-a-vis a peace treaty is off-topic and should be avoided. Besides, the PRC Army was a signatory to the Armistice -- if there is no peace treaty in Korea, does that mean that a "state of war" continues with China? Hardly. Any arguments that say the Korean War continues is POV notwithstanding recent skirmishes and attacks, etc. --S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Enduring Freedom was not sanctioned by the Security Counsel

Hi. I wanted to point out a discrepency bettween this paragraph [2] and this list [3]. Operation Enduring Freedom was not per se sanctioned by the UN according to the former, whereas the UN Resolutions sanction by article 51 a memberstate's righ to defend itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilocus (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

All the citations needed can be found at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf. Sorry, I'm not apt at citing; I've recently discovered the tool in the bar at the top does not cite in the proper format, so I've pretty much stopped trying to add citations. When it gets more user friendly I'll try again.Yopienso (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This got no traction, so I went ahead, figuring a gap is worse than a golly. I know the citations are made poorly, but it's my best shot, and I think more helpful to the reader than a "Citation needed." I'm assuming someone will be along to put the citations in proper order.

The document I cite is from the Congressional Research Service, updated March 8, 2007. It is very detailed and thoroughly reliable. Pages are numbered CRS-1, CRS-2, etc. The information I accessed there today is summarized:

• Mexico, p. 4
• Austria-Hungary, p. 5
• Hungary, p. 5
• Romania, p. 6 (Called Rumania.)

Yopienso (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean all the "citation needed" tags in a certain section? This said nothing about Geronimo and the American Indian Wars, and a tag was there. (I've since changed the wording to allow for more ambiguity) Either way, thanks for your work to try to get rid of those tags. Kansan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

UN approval

what is the role of congress in the approving UN security council resolutions? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend asking that at the Wikipedia reference desk. Kansan (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

insurrection act

could the insurrection act be relevant? I noticed this article mentions the American civil war, but not other internal conflicts that the government was a part of. Although the Civil War seems to be the only one where rebels were given belligerent status. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ISIL

I've been hearing various things about whether the U.S. is actually in a state of war with ISIL. Should we add this to the page, or wait until we have a conclusive answer? Jontiben (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Declaration of war by the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Unattributed assertion in the lead

The lead contains

Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning.

The {{who}} tag there is dated April 2010.

That assertion may have been sourced from the description seen on Google Books for this book (" Many have postulated 'Declaration(s) of War' must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning." -- click More there to see that). I'm not sure whether or not that assertion is repeated or expanded upon inside the book itself. Perhaps some editor who has access to the book can check that and, if so, attribute and support that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Declaration of war by the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828005906/http://history.state.gov:80/milestones/1861-1865/Confederacy to http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Confederacy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Declaration of war by the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Confederacy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910042906/http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert: five wars out of (however many)

Here, I've reverted the addition of "out of twelve" by an anon. The edit summary of the reverted edit led me to this article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, which does list twelve wars. That referred-to article corresponds to the List of the lengths of United States participation in wars article hee, which currently lists 25 wars. It looks me as if some reconcilliation, some clarification, and some supporting cites are needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)