Can Obama start a war?

[shortylickens]

Not sure.

I do know for a fact that the law never gets in his way.

 

[Incorruptible]

Of course the idiot can't but he won't obey the Constitution which requires the congress to declare war.

 

[OGOC]

He has to play catch up to Bush's 2 wars.

He already wanted to continue Iraq past the end time Bush signed before he left office, and Afghanistan continues, and then there's Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya, and I think I'm forgetting another one. Obama is already ahead of Bush as far as number of wars go.

 

[Double Trouble]

He has to play catch up to Bush's 2 wars.

Like them or not, as ill advised as they might have been, they were properly authorized by congress, something people who were in congress at the time seem to want to conveniently forget (hello Hillary!).

I don't know how congress feels about action in this case. If they really oppose action on both sides of the isle, they could raise a big stink and the president would take a major political beating if he takes action. I don't think congress is all that united on this issue, so the president has some wiggle room.

 

[umbrella39]

Uh, Dubya did get authorization from Congress to attack Iraq.

Uh, Dubya got authorization from Congress to use military force against Iraq.

Not exactly the same thing... no matter how many times people try to revise it.

 

[nehalem256]

Uh, Dubya got authorization from Congress to use military force against Iraq.

Not exactly the same thing... no matter how many times people try to revise it.

Can you explain how attacking Iraq would not be "using military force"?

Seems to me that libs are just butt-hurt because they got bamboozled by a stupid monkey.:awe:

 

[TerryMathews]

Can you explain how attacking Iraq would not be "using military force"?

Seems to me that libs are just butt-hurt because they got bamboozled by a stupid monkey.:awe:

You, uh, might want to clarify which president you are talking about.

 

[nehalem256]

You, uh, might want to clarify which president you are talking about.

This one.()

If this guy bamboozled me I would certainly be embarrassed.

 

[LostPassword]

the last formal declaration of war was WW2. which means every *war* since (korean, vietnam, middle east) was because the president said so.
i no longer support obama, but he's just doing what every president since fdr has done.
they are no longer wars, they are *conflicts* now.

edit:
and to be honest, i don't mind air striking a regime that used chemical weapons on its people, as long as we don't stay there. strike then leave and let the UN clean it up. its time the UN fucking do its job.

 

[MiniDoom]

 

[Doppel]

the last formal declaration of war was WW2. which means every *war* since (korean, vietnam, middle east) was because the president said so.
i no longer support obama, but he's just doing what every president since fdr has done.
they are no longer wars, they are *conflicts* now.

edit:
and to be honest, i don't mind air striking a regime that used chemical weapons on its people, as long as we don't stay there. strike then leave and let the UN clean it up. its time the UN fucking do its job.

As mentioned, Bush acted with at the very least tacit approval from congress in the iraq war. Obama unequivocally does not have it yet.

 

[IGBT]

the obama clown can't even put together a international coalition of cooperatives for a simple one day missile strike.

 

[TerryMathews]

the obama clown can't even put together a international coalition of cooperatives for a simple one day missile strike.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." - W

 

[Incorruptible]

the obama clown can't even put together a international coalition of cooperatives for a simple one day missile strike.

Just shows how stupid he is. This guy is willing to attack a sovereign country just so he doesn't look bad.

 

[Fern]

the last formal declaration of war was WW2. which means every *war* since (korean, vietnam, middle east) was because the president said so.
i no longer support obama, but he's just doing what every president since fdr has done.
they are no longer wars, they are *conflicts* now.
-snip-

Nope.

Congress passed the AUMF Sept '01.

The SCOTUS has ruled that an AUMF is a declaration of war by Congress. Technically, there are some relatively minor differences between a 'full blown' declaration of war and an AUMF, but for all practical purposes they are the same thing.

As mentioned, Bush acted with at the very least tacit approval from congress in the iraq war. Obama unequivocally does not have it yet.

It was overt. See above.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I agree with you, but just for the sake of clarity the reasoning is that the president can send troops into harm's way without asking congress if there is no intent to declare a war. If the rule were strictly interpreted, i.e. no troops in harm's way without a vote of congress, then things like rescue missions would not be possible, or at least would be much harder to pull off. There probably needs to be a middle ground. As it stands right now the President can basically sail the country into full-scale conflict with nobody's permission.

Rescue mission =/= attacking a sovereign nations. That's making war, no way around it.

I disagree that a President "can basically sail the country into full-scale conflict with nobody's permission." If there's an imminent threat he can, other than that nope, not without Congress's prior approval. Now, whether Obama follows the law (Constitution) or Congress has the balls to demand compliance is a whole 'nother matter.

IMO, Congress is in a bind here. But also know that they are not in session in Washington and aren't scheduled to be until about 2 weeks from now. But otherwise, if I were in Congress I wouldn't want to touch this with a 10' pole. I'd tell Obama he's on his own and look the other way. It's a no-win for Congress: Deny the President in a 'time of war', embarrass and weaken him, or approve and take the blame. F that crap.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Nope.

Congress passed the AUMF Sept '01.

The SCOTUS has ruled that an AUMF is a declaration of war by Congress. Technically, there are some relatively minor differences between a 'full blown' declaration of war and an AUMF, but for all practical purposes they are the same thing.

You're thinking of the Sept 2002 one. The AUMF passed in 2001 would have been very shaky grounds for Iraq. (2001 AUMF was to go blow up those responsible for 9/11, 2002 was Iraq specific.) But yes, those were explicit Congressional approvals of military action. While invading Iraq was a horrible idea, it's impossible to say that Congress wasn't onboard.

The president has a pretty large amount of leeway to engage in short military operations without Congressional approval. It's highly unlikely that anyone would be able to stop Obama from bombing Syria without congressional authorization. Their best bet would be to try and enforce the 60 day deadline. They could always defund operations against Syria, but that would actually require taking a stand on the issue, and we know how cowardly Congress is.

 

[Fern]

You're thinking of the Sept 2002 one. The AUMF passed in 2001 would have been very shaky grounds for Iraq. (2001 AUMF was to go blow up those responsible for 9/11, 2002 was Iraq specific.) But yes, those were explicit Congressional approvals of military action. While invading Iraq was a horrible idea, it's impossible to say that Congress wasn't onboard.

Yes. Thank you.

The president has a pretty large amount of leeway to engage in short military operations without Congressional approval. It's highly unlikely that anyone would be able to stop Obama from bombing Syria without congressional authorization. Their best bet would be to try and enforce the 60 day deadline. They could always defund operations against Syria, but that would actually require taking a stand on the issue, and we know how cowardly Congress is.

Haha. Yeah, I don't think they want to touch this, at all.

Fern

 

[OGOC]

IMO, Congress is in a bind here. But also know that they are not in session in Washington and aren't scheduled to be until about 2 weeks from now. But otherwise, if I were in Congress I wouldn't want to touch this with a 10' pole. I'd tell Obama he's on his own and look the other way. It's a no-win for Congress: Deny the President in a 'time of war', embarrass and weaken him, or approve and take the blame. F that crap.

If I were in Congress, I'd stream Biden and Obama's Iraq/Iran war statements 24/7 on my Youtube channel and website.

 

[sportage]

Yep. For everything anti Obama that many hoped would be Obama's downfall, and was not, this one could be it. Remember GW's approval ratings? How low could they go?
Obama is setting himself up for a like disaster.
If the public, especially supporters and those that re elected him, turn on him, then that could easily lead to his base pulling support on other issues like Obamacare.
The old domino effect.

The people that really supported this president, believed in what he believes in, these folks are NOT war supporters.
Nor was Obama in his past pre president era.
That was one main reason how he beat Hillary in 2008, BTW.
For Obama to become a war hawk goes against his grain, or perception of his grain.
Yes, shit happens in this big bad world we live in.
That doesn't justify designing a reason for war, when no clear cut reason otherwise exists.

If republican Obama haters are looking for that magic nail for his coffin, Obamawar will be it.
If the president really wants to preach on death and illness and the injustice with humanity in general, talk up the republican attempt to kill off US healthcare reform.
There you will find plenty of inhumane evil and terrorist acts to preach aout within our own borders by our very own.
He doesn't need a war to prove anything.
And.... I always felt picking John Kerry was THE WORST decision Obama ever made.
The decision that will eventually bite him in the butt.

 

[Anarchist420]

Given that the Executive will lie to go to war, an authorization from Congress doesn't really mean a lot.

Hamilton got his Constitutional Monarchy, the form of govt here was modeled after UK other than the Constitution just wrote it down.

Uh, Dubya got authorization from Congress to use military force against Iraq.

The U.S. military had already been there for at least 10 years.

 

[OGOC]

The people that really supported this president, believed in what he believes in, these folks are NOT war supporters.
Nor was Obama in his past pre president era.
That was one main reason how he beat Hillary in 2008, BTW.
For Obama to become a war hawk goes against his grain, or perception of his grain.

Let's also remember that's the foreign policy George Bush ran on in 2000. Bush was all about a "modest" foreign policy and not nation building.

A lot of people forget that, before the neocons took over around that time, Republicans used to be elected to stop wars.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well that's a weird DP

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yep. For everything anti Obama that many hoped would be Obama's downfall, and was not, this one could be it. Remember GW's approval ratings? How low could they go?
Obama is setting himself up for a like disaster.
If the public, especially supporters and those that re elected him, turn on him, then that could easily lead to his base pulling support on other issues like Obamacare.
The old domino effect.

The people that really supported this president, believed in what he believes in, these folks are NOT war supporters.
Nor was Obama in his past pre president era.
That was one main reason how he beat Hillary in 2008, BTW.
For Obama to become a war hawk goes against his grain, or perception of his grain.
Yes, shit happens in this big bad world we live in.
That doesn't justify designing a reason for war, when no clear cut reason otherwise exists.

If republican Obama haters are looking for that magic nail for his coffin, Obamawar will be it.
If the president really wants to preach on death and illness and the injustice with humanity in general, talk up the republican attempt to kill off US healthcare reform.
There you will find plenty of inhumane evil and terrorist acts to preach aout within our own borders by our very own.
He doesn't need a war to prove anything.
And.... I always felt picking John Kerry was THE WORST decision Obama ever made.
The decision that will eventually bite him in the butt.

I'll say this for you, you are partisan but won't accept this based on blind faith in Obama or find excuses for any action like some others here.

People were complaining about picking principles over compromise and a lack of cooperation. I fear they are going to get what they asked for. The Hawks and political sycophants will stand behind Obama and just trust him for a strike on Syria.

I hope I'm wrong but I see a distinct possibility and I don't give a crap about Obama's reputation. He's earned it already. For Syrians it's death by us.

Time may provide independent evidence of the truth but that does not exist for now. At that point we need to make decisions based on facts not faith and ask "what happens next". Will a strike make things better or worse and is that the best option?

We should but I doubt we will. We don't do considered. We wants it Precious.

What savages we are.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Reports: Sarin's been used in Syria before

World leaders have said previously that sarin has been used in the Syrian civil war.

In April, the United States said it had evidence sarin was used in Syria on a small scale.

In May, a U.N. official said there were strong suspicions that rebel forces used the deadly nerve agent.

In June, France said sarin had been used several times in the war, including at least once by the Syrian regime.

China 'gravely concerned'

"We are gravely concerned that some country may take unilateral military actions," Chinese foreign affairs spokesman Hong Lei said Monday.

"We believe that any action taken by the international community should abide by the purposes and principles of the U.N. charter ... so as to avoid complicating the Syrian issue and bringing more disasters to the Middle East region."

The United Nations, meanwhile, said evidence that could show whether chemical weapons were used in Syria was being delivered to a lab on Monday. But a U.N. spokesman would not estimate how long it may take to get results. Even when results are released, they won't show who was responsible.

Russia: 'There are no such facts'

Russia rejects Kerry's claim that the U.S. already has answers.

"We absolutely were not convinced by that (evidence) that our American partners, as well as the British and the French, showed us," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, according to the state-run RIA Novosti news agency.

"There are no facts, there's only talk about what we know for certain. When we ask for more detailed evidence, they say, 'You know, it's all secret, so we can't show you.' That means that there are no such facts."