Syria
-
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17517
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
- Harlowe
- Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
- Posts: 10640
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
- Location: My underground lair
Re: Syria
If we're going to do something, I'd like everyone to sign off on it. This is how it's supposed to work according to our Constitution isn't it? Whether you love or hate your current Congress, if this isn't a US emergency, you want it to be more than just a decision from the current administration.
The majority of "the people" aren't behind it, that's for sure.
The majority of "the people" aren't behind it, that's for sure.
-
- President: Rsak Fan Club
- Posts: 11674
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
- Location: Top of the food chain
Re: Syria
I don't think congress necessarily has to agree with a military action, as long as it is short of declaring war on a country. The President merely has to consult with Congress. President's take military action all the time without the blessing of Congress. A President is, however, precluded from declaring war on another state. That's the purview of Congress.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar
Alarius
Embar
Alarius
-
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17517
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
Re: Syria
I don't the President even has to consult Congress on an action that will not lead to war. He just has to inform them after the fact. In terms of limitations, I'd say he can't do anything that could be termed an "act of war" against another nation. I'd go so far as suggest that he can also make whatever preemptive moves are necessary to defend the nation from imminent and material military threats.
Dd
Dd
-
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 7185
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am
Re: Syria
It really depends on whether or not you think two countries can engage in hostilities without going to war. Personally I do. In certain cases limited exchanges can and do occur that do not require a full on war declaration and that is not solely a US concept. Even though their territory was invaded, the UK never declared war on Argentina during the Falklands Islands skirmish.Harlowe wrote:If we're going to do something, I'd like everyone to sign off on it. This is how it's supposed to work according to our Constitution isn't it? Whether you love or hate your current Congress, if this isn't a US emergency, you want it to be more than just a decision from the current administration.
The majority of "the people" aren't behind it, that's for sure.
I believe the President as Commander and Chief has the Constitutional authority to engage in short term military action without the advice or consent of Congress. If Congress does not approve of such action, they have the ability to defund the military.
The War Powers Act is an unconstitutional encroachment of the Legislature into the Executive.
-
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 7185
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am
Re: Syria
President Obama wrote:"We gather today to mourn the loss of so many lives and celebrate those who saved them, honor those who survived, and contemplate the obligations of the living."
"But while we are here today to bear witness to the human capacity to destroy, we are also here to pay tribute to the human impulse to save."
"How do we ensure that never again isn't an empty slogan or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action? I believe we start by doing what we are doing today, by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-conspirator."
"We have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy, to recognize ourselves in each other, to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take, whether confronting those who tell lies about history or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur."
- Harlowe
- Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
- Posts: 10640
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
- Location: My underground lair
Re: Syria
The problem I have with that is - when have these actions in the Middle East been "short term" military actions? They are actions that tie us up for years and years, create more ill will in the Middle East and cost us trillions of dollars.Kulaf wrote: It really depends on whether or not you think two countries can engage in hostilities without going to war. Personally I do. In certain cases limited exchanges can and do occur that do not require a full on war declaration and that is not solely a US concept. Even though their territory was invaded, the UK never declared war on Argentina during the Falklands Islands skirmish.
I believe the President as Commander and Chief has the Constitutional authority to engage in short term military action without the advice or consent of Congress. If Congress does not approve of such action, they have the ability to defund the military.
The War Powers Act is an unconstitutional encroachment of the Legislature into the Executive.
Politically, it was absolutely the right thing to do. The administration has nothing to lose by tossing it to Congress. Then it's not something held over a single party. It makes it a bipartisan action. I'm hoping for no action at all, or if any action it's just humanitarian.
- Harlowe
- Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
- Posts: 10640
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
- Location: My underground lair
Re: Syria
When do we ever just do a "single" strike on anything with regard to issues in the Middle East? Iraq was all about Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction", this is a country with a stockpile of chemical weapons...you think we'd just do a single strike if we got involved?
-
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17517
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
Re: Syria
Are you sure about that? I'd say a nation-state has immense power to reprise in assymetric warfare, from kidnappings and hostage taking through state-funded terrorism (we know they have chemical weapons), to cyber-warfare (given the number of successes the Syrian Electronic Army has had, do you really feel confident in your power or water systems?).Kulaf wrote:Why would a missile strike against Syria tie us up? Syria has no means of reprisal against us.
I would say Syria has the ability to cause massive damage to the US for a very small investment on their part.
Dd
- Harlowe
- Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
- Posts: 10640
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
- Location: My underground lair
Re: Syria
By the way, this certainly doesn't look like a single-strike plan -
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the- ... ery-broad/
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the- ... ery-broad/
-
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 7185
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am
Re: Syria
What's stopping them from doing that now? Nothing. So nothing will change.Ddrak wrote:Are you sure about that? I'd say a nation-state has immense power to reprise in assymetric warfare, from kidnappings and hostage taking through state-funded terrorism (we know they have chemical weapons), to cyber-warfare (given the number of successes the Syrian Electronic Army has had, do you really feel confident in your power or water systems?).Kulaf wrote:Why would a missile strike against Syria tie us up? Syria has no means of reprisal against us.
I would say Syria has the ability to cause massive damage to the US for a very small investment on their part.
Dd
-
- Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
- Posts: 11322
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
- Location: Rockford, IL
Re: Syria
A smart liberal bloc would refuse to sign off on a Syria AUMF without getting rid of the Iraq one.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
-
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17517
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
- Arathena
- kNight of the Sun (oxymoron)
- Posts: 1622
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:37 pm
Re: Syria
Rand Paul is a giant flaming cock of a stopped clock that's right on this one, as much as I would like to see a cross shaped metor of gold fly out of space at random and stake his vile heart.
We have no viable strategic, tactical, or political objectives in Syria. What the FUCK are we doing, other than waving our imperial cock around?
We have no viable strategic, tactical, or political objectives in Syria. What the FUCK are we doing, other than waving our imperial cock around?
Archfiend Arathena Sa`Riik
Poison Arrow
Poison Arrow
-
- President: Rsak Fan Club
- Posts: 11674
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
- Location: Top of the food chain
Re: Syria
The only reason we are in this shit right now is because Obama made a stupid statement a year ago, and he's trying to preserve some street cred. He's trying to save face. His absolutely false statements that he didn't say "red line" are incredulous. Now he's putting the "red line" statement on Congress and world treaties (of which Syria is not a part of)Arathena wrote:Rand Paul is a giant flaming cock of a stopped clock that's right on this one, as much as I would like to see a cross shaped metor of gold fly out of space at random and stake his vile heart.
We have no viable strategic, tactical, or political objectives in Syria. What the FUCK are we doing, other than waving our imperial cock around?
The more I learn about this, the more I'm convinced we should stay out of it now. Let Iran and Saudi Arabia duke it out over there. If either side wins the battle its a lose-lose for the US. Better to let them expend resources on each other than to lean on the US. I hate saying that from a humanitarian aspect. In that vein, Obama can't claim a humanitarian position. If he did, we'd be in Africa and some of South America.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar
Alarius
Embar
Alarius
- Arathena
- kNight of the Sun (oxymoron)
- Posts: 1622
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:37 pm
Re: Syria
There's nothing humanitarian to be served by shooting things with missiles in any case. The best you can do is cause a shitload of collateral damage and make enemies out of people that don't currently care about you one way or another. If you want humanitarianism, call off the damned military, send food and shelter aid to the neighbors, and build an asylum network for the millions that just want to run the hell away.Embar Angylwrath wrote:The only reason we are in this shit right now is because Obama made a stupid statement a year ago, and he's trying to preserve some street cred. He's trying to save face. His absolutely false statements that he didn't say "red line" are incredulous. Now he's putting the "red line" statement on Congress and world treaties (of which Syria is not a part of)Arathena wrote:Rand Paul is a giant flaming cock of a stopped clock that's right on this one, as much as I would like to see a cross shaped metor of gold fly out of space at random and stake his vile heart.
We have no viable strategic, tactical, or political objectives in Syria. What the FUCK are we doing, other than waving our imperial cock around?
The more I learn about this, the more I'm convinced we should stay out of it now. Let Iran and Saudi Arabia duke it out over there. If either side wins the battle its a lose-lose for the US. Better to let them expend resources on each other than to lean on the US. I hate saying that from a humanitarian aspect. In that vein, Obama can't claim a humanitarian position. If he did, we'd be in Africa and some of South America.
Archfiend Arathena Sa`Riik
Poison Arrow
Poison Arrow
- Harlowe
- Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
- Posts: 10640
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
- Location: My underground lair
Re: Syria
My thoughts as well. Stay out....we have no horse in this race. As far as the humanitarian part goes, launching missiles won't help that. It's only going to drag us into a losing battle either way.The more I learn about this, the more I'm convinced we should stay out of it now. Let Iran and Saudi Arabia duke it out over there. If either side wins the battle its a lose-lose for the US. Better to let them expend resources on each other than to lean on the US. I hate saying that from a humanitarian aspect. In that vein, Obama can't claim a humanitarian position. If he did, we'd be in Africa and some of South America.
This...absolutely.There's nothing humanitarian to be served by shooting things with missiles in any case. The best you can do is cause a shitload of collateral damage and make enemies out of people that don't currently care about you one way or another. If you want humanitarianism, call off the damned military, send food and shelter aid to the neighbors, and build an asylum network for the millions that just want to run the hell away.