- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,749
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And the congress, notwithstanding all the republican tough talk, is too scared to declare war on ISIS
Has there ever been a Congress that has declared war that wasn't requested by a sitting president? I can't find any in my brief research. However, the last declaration of was in June 1942.
Has there ever been a Congress that has declared war that wasn't requested by a sitting president? I can't find any in my brief research. However, the last declaration of was in June 1942.
Is it your hope that this war will be confined to the Middle East and not have consequences elsewhere?bring all of our troops home, and let the region handle its own problems. the problems of the Middle East cannot be solved by US military force.
Is it your hope that this war will be confined to the Middle East and not have consequences elsewhere?
So we will depend on other nations in the surrounding areas to defeat islamism and, while that's going on, cut back on our oil consumption. That seems an optimistic POV. The problem is that Islamism is not being confined to the Middle East, though it does serve as source for much of the terror the world is experiencing.one of my hopes is that we'll pull out of the region, forcing the regional powers to squash their religious disagreements and put out the bonfire in their backyard. US involvement has not solved the problem, nor do i think that it can. short of that, i suppose other countries closer to the region will actually have to invest in their militaries when Uncle Sam doesn't step in pro bono every time someone there farts. most importantly, though, we should make replacing oil a top priority.
So we will depend on other nations in the surrounding areas to defeat islamism and, while that's going on, cut back on our oil consumption. That seems an optimistic POV. The problem is that Islamism is not being confined to the Middle East, though it does serve as source for much of the terror the world is experiencing.
We simply do not declare war anymore, and all since have been "conflicts" including the Korean "War," Vietnam, Iraq the first time, Afghanistan, Iraq the second time, and many other engagements of various scopes throughout.
I doubt that the courts will all of a sudden bring a stop to 70-80 ('ish) years of governmental use of our military power.
one of my hopes is that we'll pull out of the region, forcing the regional powers to squash their religious disagreements and put out the bonfire in their backyard. US involvement has not solved the problem, nor do i think that it can. short of that, i suppose other countries closer to the region will actually have to invest in their militaries when Uncle Sam doesn't step in pro bono every time someone there farts. most importantly, though, we should make replacing oil a top priority.
Therein lies the rub. We should not be engaging in warfare without a declaration of war. Claiming the mantle of "world policeman" is no justification for use of military forces.
There have been a lot of arguments in favor of police actions; usually based on stopping the spread of something whether it be communism (Korea, Vietnam), militant Islam (Afghanistan, Gulf War II, ISIS), or just naked aggression (Gulf War I). In each case the argument claims it will be a short conflict with minimum loss of life...a "quick in-and-out" which can be handled without a major commitment to war requiring a vote of Congress. The historical example was the First Barbary War, where Congress never voted a declaration, they just passed an act allowing the President to deal with government supported piracy with force.
The confusion comes from a lack of understanding about the declaration of war requirement. Our government recognized that American forces could not remain inactive in the face of foreign aggression waiting for a Congressional declaration of war. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and has the authority to command an immediate military response to such aggression. Traditionally before the War Power Act of 1973 there was really no clear limit to this "response" which allowed involvement in both Korea and Vietnam.
Part of our problem is that we keep allowing military incursions that claim to be "in-and-out" and end up lasting for years.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. It is entirely possible that SCOTUS could interpret such "war powers" as unconstitutional and outline more limits on the President's power to commit major military forces without a clear declaration of war.
That's giving people too much credit IMO
I tend to agree. The democracies depend far too much on the USA to defend international interests when everyone should be contributing. Now those who haven't helped, especially in Europe, will be paying the price.the US can't fix Middle East by acting as regional hegemon. it doesn't work, as is evidenced by the past few decades. even those who argue that this can be done aren't willing to pay more in taxes to fund the effort, so, quite frankly, i don't believe them.
bring all of our troops home, and let the region handle its own problems. the problems of the Middle East cannot be solved by US military force.
But a declaration of war against whom? That's the problem.Therein lies the rub. We should not be engaging in warfare without a declaration of war.
But a declaration of war against whom? That's the problem.
We are fighting a 21st Century war with 20th Century ideas. All the nuclear weapons man can manufacture cannot do any good now, and the Islamists know it. They are well ahead in the war of ideas and how to defeat major powers.
That won't solve the problem of who to declare war against.If you don't like the way our Constitution is set up? Act to amend it.
There is no need to rule out any method of warfare.Meanwhile, do not use MILITARY force to address this problem because MILITARY forces work under the laws of land warfare. This causes more problems than it solves as exemplified in the Middle East today.
Yes.If you want to fight organizations that are not "national," then use organizations that are as covert as your enemy is. Allow the CIA to do it job outside the USA and the FBI and State law enforcement to do their jobs inside the USA.
Is it your hope that this war will be confined to the Middle East and not have consequences elsewhere?
I tend to agree. The democracies depend far too much on the USA to defend international interests when everyone should be contributing. Now those who haven't helped, especially in Europe, will be paying the price.
That won't solve the problem of who to declare war against.
Has there ever been a Congress that has declared war that wasn't requested by a sitting president? I can't find any in my brief research. However, the last declaration of was in June 1942.
June 1942?
WWII was declared by Congress in December 1941, right after Pearl Harbor.
Captain Nathan Smith is a brave and principled defender of the US Constitution, a patriot in that sense, but after this very politically incorrect stunt he will never be promoted again. He has dared to show that the Emperor Wears No Clothes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?