The constitution declares that only congress can declare war. This is part of the Checks and Balances system. My question is what is the difference in what George Bush has enacted "The War on Terror" and an actual war designated so by congress. Have we not properly declared war or am I mistaken? This is another example of redefining in order to appease/entise the Stupid in this country. I must admit that I didn't pay much attention to this until I heard it discussed today on a local radio station. I am positive that noone on this site would oppose this military action to fight terrorism, but why do we not designate it as a war through the proper legal channels. I know that congress approved the funds for this so I am sure that they would have no problem in so designating such a title. Is there some other legal procedings or restrictions that by defining this as a war we would be limited in our military options? I understand that the terrorists are not unified under any nation but rather a religious flag and fighting any one nation would be difficult in accomplishing our goals. This being said we DID go into Afganistan and take out the political/military structure and set up a new government and with good reason. But why is this action not a legal war; or is it? I have never been opposed of the use of military force to defend our sovereignty but I do not like the idea of police actions at the whim of any politician. We have been too involved in too many areas of this world where we may not have needed to be. I do think we should protect our interests, but we do not need to go around whiping everyone's hiney. Alot of the actions we do are under the blanket of the UN and I for one have a problem with us being the UN police force (defined as there being little or no UN police force if we pullout). Any Takers?