Should Congress declare war on Russia?

[sarisataka]

Let's not hide behind euphemisms of 'intervention' or 'no fly zones' and acknowledge we will fight the enemy we spent decades preparing for. If we do go into Ukraine at least some of NATO (the Baltic States, Norway, Poland, Romania) would follow; the majority would probably support the effort to various degrees.

There is no doubt we would "win" but there will be a cost yet to be determined. It is also possible the conflict would spread beyond Ukraine to Russia, Europe and the United States.

Should the US go to war with Russia?

33 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	2 (6%)
	No
	28 (85%)
	We have had plenty of wars without a declaration, Biden needs to get our military over/in Ukraine ASAP
	3 (9%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Dan]

1. I'm not sure - what be the reasons or justification to go to war with Russia?

[sarisataka]

3. As a response

To their aggressive war against Ukraine and to stop the crimes being committed by Russian troops against civilians.

[Bucky]

13. Using Iraq 2003 as a precedent?

"Someone out there being evil in the world" isn't really a casus belli

[Dan]

14. They are not our allies....

35 years ago, we would have been spending money to fight them as part of the USSR.

[CrackityJones75]

2. WTF???

[sarisataka]

6. There are near daily threads

About what degree of support to send, sometimes multiple threads advocating "direct intervention"

I am not hiding behind soft terminology. If we intervene, we are at war. Do we declare war or just do like we have every conflict since WW2?

[CrackityJones75]

7. We should not declare war.

[sarisataka]

8. I agree and also

Do not believe we should get our troops involved whether or not we declare war.

What I find interesting is a different poll today calls it intervention and 60% are in favor, call it war and 85% (at this time) oppose. It is the same thing no matter if it is called intervention, police action, special military operation, UN sponsored action or any of the other terms we use to tell ourselves we are not going to war. It is war

[Mariana]

15. That poster even clarified within the thread

that "direct intervention" means "war with Russia".

[sarisataka]

27. Yet some said yes there

But no here...

[CrackityJones75]

33. Right.

Marketing is a powerful tool.

[lagomorph777]

26. We are already intervening. Are we at war?

(No)

[sarisataka]

28. Are American soldiers shooting at Russian soldiers?

(No)

When people post we are not doing enough and we should intervene do they mean American soldiers will fight Russian soldiers?
(Yes)

[yagotme]

4. If Russia decided to start rolling across Europe, invading NATO countries, yes.

Gettin' their a**es handed to them in Ukraine, no.

[Marvin Marvin]

5. I voted no, though in a sense we are already at war.

We should stick with dealing with the situation through the UN, unless Russia directly attacks a NATO country.

[Mariana]

9. Thank you, sarisataka, for slicing through the bullshit.

The use of euphemisms to hide the actual meaning of questions or proposals is profoundly dishonest.

[sarisataka]

16. I have low tolerance for intellectual dishonesty

When I was in service I would ask my Marines, and the soldiers when I worked with the Guard, "what is your job".

Those who answered radio operator, truck driver, cook, mechanic or even infantry I would tell them they were wrong. "Your job," I would tell them, "is to kill people. How you do it may be direct or indirect but never forget it. Otherwise you may someday face an enemy who is willing to do his job, to kill you."

Perhaps it was harsh, however I never lost a person in combat.

I was not in a "War" but the bodies I saw were dead anyway.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

29. +100.

I am dead set against any US/NATO boots on the ground or any CAP, unless a NATO country is attacked or Putin uses NBC in Ukraine.

Semper Fi Marine.

[ripcord]

10. The U.N. should authorize a peacekeeping mission

The U.N. opposes wars of conquest but with Russia on the Security Council the U.N. is impotent.

[Mariana]

18. Even if a "peacekeeping mission" could get approved

what exactly would they do there? The countries are already at war, so they wouldn't really be peacekeeping.

[ripcord]

23. The U.N. stated objective in the Korean was was to establish peace

It is considered peacekeeping to restore peace.

[Mariana]

35. Why not just call them "soldiers" whose mission would be "combat"?

It would certainly be more honest to say that.

[dameatball]

11. No. Don't expect a war with Russia to have some kind of rules. It won't. Ukraine is not asking us

to go to war. They are asking for weapons and assistance.

[milestogo]

12. We should declare war on the real enemy -

The Republican Party.

[USALiberal]

17. Silly

[sarisataka]

21. How so? nt

[Torchlight]

43. lol ok nt

[Iggo]

19. No.

Still.

Jeez.

[Celerity]

20. No, of course not, as that would almost guarantee a nuke launch.

[sarisataka]

25. The question is would an "intervention"

Have less nuclear risk than a "war"?

Have you noticed the most hawkish who describe Putin as mad will credit him with being rational when nukes are discussed? Picture the phone call:

Vlad, Joe here.
*
Good, how are you and the mistress?
*
Hey, I just wanted to give you a heads up, we are intervening in your invasion of Ukraine.
*
Yeah, special military operation, whatever. Either way right about now I have F-22s sweeping every one of your aircraft out of the sky. We'll cross the border soon so you should pull your troops out.
*
Yes I'm serious. Tell them to walk though, we're going to blow up every moving vehicle.
*
I thought you'd appreciate the warning. I just want to be sure we are on the same page here. This is only an intervention so no nukes, right?
*
I knew I could count on you.
*
Yes, we will stop at the border, more or less. Ciao
*
Oh, almost forgot, Donnie says hi and asks if you could give him a call some day. I think he misses you.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

22. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that fucking clear enough?

[Rizen]

24. We declare war on Russia, what does China do?

That could start WW3.

[marie999]

32. I think China would sit it out. Their nukes aren't needed by either side.

And if it stays a conventional war China will still sit it out and take what it can from what is left of Russia.

[brooklynite]

30. https://www.usa.gov/join-military

No sense dawdling if you voted "yes"

[yagotme]

34. A call away...

Embassy Of Ukraine · Phone
3350 M St NW, Washington, DC 20007
[phone]

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. Very satisfied, so far,

at the results of this poll.

[Emile]

38. Me too, gives me faith that the majority of DUers think President Biden is

approaching this war correctly!

[sarisataka]

39. It is reassuring on one hand

But on the other there are a number who think war by another title is something more acceptable.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. Yep,

the biggest one being, IMO, is the "let's impose a no fly zone", which you and I know is actually a CAP and would require engaging Russian jets in combat.

[Strelnikov_]

36. "There is no doubt we would "win" but there will be a cost yet to be determined. "

wtf?

Makes "Home before the leaves fall" seem very pessimistic.

[sarisataka]

40. It was meant to be

A US-Russia fight in Ukraine could be a quick matter with a few hundred casualties. Or it could spread around the world and affect billions.

[AntiFascist]

37. This is a matter for Europe to decide...

if we suddenly declared war it would play right into the Russian narrative of US interference into their matters, and would likely turn even more of the Russian populace against us. European nations are not ready to go to war, although Poland has expressed interest in sending humanitarian peacekeeping forces.

[LuckyCharms]

42. Absolutely not, because...

the declaration and subsequent hot war with Russia ensures the death and injury of even more people than are being killed or harmed now. Both soldiers, and civilians.

Add to that fact that it could indeed cause a chain reaction of events leading to an existential catastrophe.

Events occurring now are heinous, infuriating and impossibly sad, so in a way, I can emphasize with anyone who feels that the US should declare war. This notion is probably even a natural gut reaction.

But in actually, it means that we would be causing even more suffering and death if we were to initiate a hot war.

War should always be the last and final option, that is on the second page on the list of options, after all other options have been exhausted. In fact, it could be argued that it should not be an option at all, offensively.

Defensively, I would say that it has to be an option if the country that you lead is attacked, but we don't lead other countries.

I suppose that if and when an escalation of the war in Ukraine leads to the attack of multiple other countries, a hot war would be unavoidable.

But as things stand now, I think it is being handled well and correctly. The best we can do is to apply as much non-direct combat support that we are able to, and to apply as many sanctions that we can.

[tenderfoot]

44. Yes voters should sign up for service

eom