Export thread
Obama asks for official declaration of war against ISIS.
#1
Dave
Dave
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/11/obama-proposes-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/
This would mean boots on the ground. Not sure I like this. They are NO danger to the US. Add in the fact that we're thinking of arming Ukraine and you have a very ignominious ending for the presidency of a guy who got the Nobel Peace Prize (undeservedly).
This would mean boots on the ground. Not sure I like this. They are NO danger to the US. Add in the fact that we're thinking of arming Ukraine and you have a very ignominious ending for the presidency of a guy who got the Nobel Peace Prize (undeservedly).
#2
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Obama is so hardcore right-wing drone murderer that I'm terrified to see what a named Republican would do differently.[DOUBLEPOST=1423672586,1423672423][/DOUBLEPOST]also, here's a link from an actual news organization: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...litary-authorisaion-political-infighting-aumf
#3
Terrik
I lost my faith in Obama thr minute he let the Patriot act go into renewal.
Terrik
Here's a hint: nothing. It should be fairly obvious that the differences between Bush and Obama have been fairly superficial.Obama is so hardcore right-wing drone murderer that I'm terrified to see what a named Republican would do differently.
I lost my faith in Obama thr minute he let the Patriot act go into renewal.
#4
Bubble181
Sorry? Besides the fact that they've committed several terrorist acts on allies - you know, NATO members - they're easily 10x more numerous and far richer than Al Qaeda ever was or is. Thinking they're not a danger to the US is shortsighted.
I'm fairly against arming Ukrain, because that is meddling where you shouldn't be. Going to war against IS, on the other hand, is using your army for what it's for.
Bubble181
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/11/obama-proposes-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/
Sorry? Besides the fact that they've committed several terrorist acts on allies - you know, NATO members - they're easily 10x more numerous and far richer than Al Qaeda ever was or is. Thinking they're not a danger to the US is shortsighted.
I'm fairly against arming Ukrain, because that is meddling where you shouldn't be. Going to war against IS, on the other hand, is using your army for what it's for.
#5
GasBandit
GasBandit
So is this the part where we admit we got out of Iraq too soon?
Gulf War 3 ahoy!
Gulf War 3 ahoy!
#6
Bubble181
Bubble181
you should never have gone there in the first place, as, as we're seeing all over the Middle East and Northern Africa, the only thing keeping fundamentalists in check was autocratic secular regimes (Egypt, Iraq, Tunesia, Libya, Syria and, going slightly furter back, Iran and Lebanon). Once you did go there, yes, you absolutely did pull out far too early, much like practically every other war where the US was slowly losing. Ask the Koreans how they're doing. The Vietnamese...well, they've mostly recovered, but had a couple of really shitty years too. And the US presence in Afghanistan is only half what it should be.
#7
GasBandit
GasBandit
Well, the Kuwaitis were kinda happy we did the first time.you should never have gone there in the first place.
#8
Bubble181
Bubble181
You know full well I meant the second time, for the WMD junk. The first one, well, you can discuss for ages whether or not it was the US' place to intervene or not, but there was at least a good reason for someone to step up.Well, the Kuwaitis were kinda happy we did the first time.
#9
GasBandit
GasBandit
My father, who was there the first time (but had retired by the second time) often said he'd never forgive Bush 1 for pulling out before the job was finished. And that was waaaay before Gulf War 2. In fact, it was before 9/11. Maybe we'd not have had to do 2 (and now, 3) if we'd done 1 right.You know full well I meant the second time, for the WMD junk. The first one, well, you can discuss for ages whether or not it was the US' place to intervene or not, but there was at least a good reason for someone to step up.
#10
Bubble181
Of course, we (the West) supported and helped Saddam in '88, so you can just as easily say that had we not done that, then the Gulf War wouldn't have been necessary. And so on, and so forth. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, when the decolonization of the Middle East started, they should've redistributed the national borders to recoincide (that's not a word is it?) with earlier, more tribal borders, instead of the Western straight-line-on-a-map borders that're still most prevalent in the region today. It's the same in Africa, where it's also lead to nothing but civil wars with one tribe feeling oppressed by another and vice versa. The Kurds, Aryans, Syrians, Jezidi, and other groups with fairly well-established borders would've been a lot happier for it. But oh my, that's racist speak, I guess.
Bubble181
Many Gulf War Veterans felt so, because they anticipated you'd go back in to once again defend some small neighbouring country against Saddam's aggression. If you'd taken out Saddam in '91 or '92, I doubt the result would've been much better than it is now. No IS, probably, but perhaps an earlier 9/11, and/or possibly a stronger Iran and/or a second Shiite theocracy.My father, who was there the first time (but had retired by the second time) often said he'd never forgive Bush 1 for pulling out before the job was finished. And that was waaaay before Gulf War 2. In fact, it was before 9/11. Maybe we'd not have had to do 2 (and now, 3) if we'd done 1 right.
Of course, we (the West) supported and helped Saddam in '88, so you can just as easily say that had we not done that, then the Gulf War wouldn't have been necessary. And so on, and so forth. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, when the decolonization of the Middle East started, they should've redistributed the national borders to recoincide (that's not a word is it?) with earlier, more tribal borders, instead of the Western straight-line-on-a-map borders that're still most prevalent in the region today. It's the same in Africa, where it's also lead to nothing but civil wars with one tribe feeling oppressed by another and vice versa. The Kurds, Aryans, Syrians, Jezidi, and other groups with fairly well-established borders would've been a lot happier for it. But oh my, that's racist speak, I guess.
#11
GasBandit
Of course, Turkey would have shit fire at that.
GasBandit
He did also often speak of cutting Iraq into pieces and divvying it up amongst Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and the Kurds, etc.Many Gulf War Veterans felt so, because they anticipated you'd go back in to once again defend some small neighbouring country against Saddam's aggression. If you'd taken out Saddam in '91 or '92, I doubt the result would've been much better than it is now. No IS, probably, but perhaps an earlier 9/11, and/or possibly a stronger Iran and/or a second Shiite theocracy.
Of course, we (the West) supported and helped Saddam in '88, so you can just as easily say that had we not done that, then the Gulf War wouldn't have been necessary. And so on, and so forth. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, when the decolonization of the Middle East started, they should've redistributed the national borders to recoincide (that's not a word is it?) with earlier, more tribal borders, instead of the Western straight-line-on-a-map borders that're still most prevalent in the region today. It's the same in Africa, where it's also lead to nothing but civil wars with one tribe feeling oppressed by another and vice versa. The Kurds, Aryans, Syrians, Jezidi, and other groups with fairly well-established borders would've been a lot happier for it. But oh my, that's racist speak, I guess.
Of course, Turkey would have shit fire at that.
#12
GasBandit
GasBandit
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-war-authorization-congress-isil-115108.html
Turns out neither Democrats nor Republicans are happy with the wording of Obama's requested AUMF. It's unlikely to see a vote until week after next. Republicans think the verbiage puts unreasonable restraints on the military, and Democrats complain the wording is too vague - despite assurances from the white house that it does not authorize "boots on the ground."
Turns out neither Democrats nor Republicans are happy with the wording of Obama's requested AUMF. It's unlikely to see a vote until week after next. Republicans think the verbiage puts unreasonable restraints on the military, and Democrats complain the wording is too vague - despite assurances from the white house that it does not authorize "boots on the ground."
#13
Dave
Dave
Yeah we've heard that one before. Giving him a greenlight is tantamount to mission creep.
But I'd be willing to bet that republicans are waiting to see whether or not he vetoes the Keystone XL. He has 10 days to do that. I'd be willing to bet we get the short end of the stick on both - he lets Keystone go through and they approve the resolution.
But I'd be willing to bet that republicans are waiting to see whether or not he vetoes the Keystone XL. He has 10 days to do that. I'd be willing to bet we get the short end of the stick on both - he lets Keystone go through and they approve the resolution.
#14
GasBandit
GasBandit
It will surprise me if he doesn't veto KXL. He's made too much noise about doing so. To back off on that would truly be to signal that he is the lamest of ducks... and he thinks too much of himself to allow that to come to pass.Yeah we've heard that one before. Giving him a greenlight is tantamount to mission creep.
But I'd be willing to bet that republicans are waiting to see whether or not he vetoes the Keystone XL. He has 10 days to do that. I'd be willing to bet we get the short end of the stick on both - he lets Keystone go through and they approve the resolution.
#15
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I'm kind of surprised a president is even wanting to declare war these days. Even Bush didn't do that aside from the vague "war on terror".
#16
GasBandit
GasBandit
He's not *really* declaring war, we haven't actually declared war since WW2, as I'm sure you were referencing. He just wants a congressional authorization to use military force - which is the same thing that was granted for Iraq (both times), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon and Bosnia.I'm kind of surprised a president is even wanting to declare war these days. Even Bush didn't do that aside from the vague "war on terror".
#17
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Oh, so the usual Team America: World Police shtick. Topic title is misleading then. I thought he was actually insisting on a declaration of war.He's not *really* declaring war, we haven't actually declared war since WW2, as I'm sure you were referencing. He just wants a congressional authorization to use military force - which is the same thing that was granted for Iraq (both times), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon and Bosnia.
#18
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I'd be much less likely to be against the principle of AUMF if it wasn't always our fucking go-to course of action whenever we get involved in actual wars but don't want to use the W-word.
#19
GasBandit
GasBandit
Oh, so the usual Team America: World Police shtick. Topic title is misleading then. I thought he was actually insisting on a declaration of war.
Yeah, AUMFs are "weasel declarations." It allows you to say you're declaring war when looking hawkish will buy you political points, but still be able to say you didn't when it's more politically expedient.I'd be much less likely to be against the principle of AUMF if it wasn't always our fucking go-to course of action whenever we get involved in actual wars but don't want to use the W-word.
#20
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Like, I can understand an AUMF for actual low-intensity open conflict, like sending teams of Marines to Haiti or Liberia, or Peacekeeper stuff, or whatever the hell they called Somalia in early-90s, or the airstrike/drone stuff (whatever your thoughts on the actual actions taken).
But once you're getting enough boots/material on the ground to actively kick the shit out of other armies/countries/army-sized groups of opponents (especially ones wearing uniforms), in practical terms that's a WAR, whatever political/diplomatic handwaving you may be doing.
But once you're getting enough boots/material on the ground to actively kick the shit out of other armies/countries/army-sized groups of opponents (especially ones wearing uniforms), in practical terms that's a WAR, whatever political/diplomatic handwaving you may be doing.
#21
ThatGrinningIdiot!
I'd have no problem with my country committing military intervention against the likes of ISIS or Boko Haram, but we need more than just military intervention such as a better comprehension of why these fringe extremist groups keep rising to power. Otherwise this is going to be a song that will be stuck on repeat for a very long time, and given that we always have more destructive toys each decade I don't think it's in humanity's best interest to continue to have these conflicts.
ThatGrinningIdiot!
It always amazed me that politicians believed that people are so easily duped - that their intentions or worded statements somehow obfuscated their actions from being what the really are. I would guess that your government is trying to craft a carefully worded statement that allows them to claim all credit if things go well, but render them immune from criticism or being held accountable if they don't. Another ploy in politics.But once you're getting enough boots/material on the ground to actively kick the shit out of other armies/countries/army-sized groups of opponents (especially ones wearing uniforms), in practical terms that's a WAR, whatever political/diplomatic handwaving you may be doing.
I'd have no problem with my country committing military intervention against the likes of ISIS or Boko Haram, but we need more than just military intervention such as a better comprehension of why these fringe extremist groups keep rising to power. Otherwise this is going to be a song that will be stuck on repeat for a very long time, and given that we always have more destructive toys each decade I don't think it's in humanity's best interest to continue to have these conflicts.
#22
GasBandit
GasBandit
Yes. That is exactly what they want in this, and all other situations, always.I would guess that your government is trying to craft a carefully worded statement that allows them to claim all credit if things go well, but render them immune from criticism or being held accountable if they don't.