|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:30 SnipedSoul wrote:
I can't find anything on whether Congress approved military strikes against Syria. I see that a resolution passed in the Senate and that it was going to be close in the House, but I can't find a final vote count.
Did Obama get approval and then not act on it, or did Congress not approve military intervention in Syria?
He never went through with the consultation, he just said he would and left it at that.
|
Blaming the other party is not a cop out. You are simply wrong. The issue at question was on consensus; consensus is not the exclusive domain of the president, but is by definition, something that comes from multiple sides being willing to work together. If one side is not willing to work together, then the lack of consensus is their fault.
And you assert he is an idiot, but the evidence does not bear that out. He might not be hyper-aggressive, that is not the same as idiocy. It is also not necessary to have a so-called grand strategy in order to conduct effective foreign policy; some would argue it's more likely to be a detriment, as it needlessly pigeonholes your options; it's also well known that unpredictability is an asset when dealing with enemies.
I refer to this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons_(S.J.Res_21)
I can find no indication that the house even voted on their own version of the bill; nor that they ever had a vote on the senate bill. Public polling and numbers from analysts indicate it was quite unlikely to pass.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:32 zlefin wrote:
Blaming the other party is not a cop out. You are simply wrong. The issue at question was on consensus; consensus is not the exclusive domain of the president, but is by definition, something that comes from multiple sides being willing to work together. If one side is not willing to work together, then the lack of consensus is their fault.
And you assert he is an idiot, but the evidence does not bear that out. He might not be hyper-aggressive, that is not the same as idiocy. It is also not necessary to have a so-called grand strategy in order to conduct effective foreign policy; some would argue it's more likely to be a detriment, as it needlessly pigeonholes your options; it's also well known that unpredictability is an asset when dealing with enemies.
Non-responsive. You need to specifically address how embarking on policy and then reversing on it is a net benefit to United States foreign policy. It is precisely because he is hyper-aggressive in establishing commitments for the United States that is the problem.
|
On June 06 2014 12:26 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:24 farvacola wrote:
How dare you disagree with Rothkopf! And no mention of "grand strategy", zlefin? tsk tsk. You are free to engage any time. We can also return to regularly scheduled Talking Points Memo re-links, as well.
You're talking to the wrong guy for this one.
|
On June 06 2014 12:32 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:30 SnipedSoul wrote:
I can't find anything on whether Congress approved military strikes against Syria. I see that a resolution passed in the Senate and that it was going to be close in the House, but I can't find a final vote count.
Did Obama get approval and then not act on it, or did Congress not approve military intervention in Syria? He never went through with the consultation, he just said he would and left it at that.
Congress was actively voting on resolutions that would authorize the use of military strikes in Syria.
I want to know if they were approved or not.
|
On June 06 2014 12:32 zlefin wrote:
Blaming the other party is not a cop out. You are simply wrong. The issue at question was on consensus; consensus is not the exclusive domain of the president, but is by definition, something that comes from multiple sides being willing to work together. If one side is not willing to work together, then the lack of consensus is their fault.
And you assert he is an idiot, but the evidence does not bear that out. He might not be hyper-aggressive, that is not the same as idiocy. It is also not necessary to have a so-called grand strategy in order to conduct effective foreign policy; some would argue it's more likely to be a detriment, as it needlessly pigeonholes your options; it's also well known that unpredictability is an asset when dealing with enemies.
The fuck? You don't want to be unpredictable when you are the world's superpower. You want stability and order -- your country's imposed order. Unpredictability is an asset when you're looking to create chaos an undermine existing orders.
|
Being predictably terrible isn't very good either.
|
On June 06 2014 12:38 SnipedSoul wrote:
Being predictably terrible isn't very good either.
It is when you're the United States. That's my whole point. Predictability helps ensure order, which is exactly what the US wants given that the world has been under the American order.
|
On June 06 2014 12:34 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:32 zlefin wrote:
Blaming the other party is not a cop out. You are simply wrong. The issue at question was on consensus; consensus is not the exclusive domain of the president, but is by definition, something that comes from multiple sides being willing to work together. If one side is not willing to work together, then the lack of consensus is their fault.
And you assert he is an idiot, but the evidence does not bear that out. He might not be hyper-aggressive, that is not the same as idiocy. It is also not necessary to have a so-called grand strategy in order to conduct effective foreign policy; some would argue it's more likely to be a detriment, as it needlessly pigeonholes your options; it's also well known that unpredictability is an asset when dealing with enemies. Non-responsive. You need to specifically address how embarking on policy and then reversing on it is a net benefit to United States foreign policy. It is precisely because he is hyper-aggressive in establishing commitments for the United States that is the problem.
dude, you are outright lying and/or wrong AGAIN.
He didn't reverse policy; he said he wanted to do a military action in response, but only with the approval of congress. Congress did not approve, so he did not do so.
Nor is it clear that there was ever a reversal on Ukraine; the American people never wanted to go to war over Ukraine, and Obama has stuck to that.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:36 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:32 itsjustatank wrote:On June 06 2014 12:30 SnipedSoul wrote:
I can't find anything on whether Congress approved military strikes against Syria. I see that a resolution passed in the Senate and that it was going to be close in the House, but I can't find a final vote count.
Did Obama get approval and then not act on it, or did Congress not approve military intervention in Syria? He never went through with the consultation, he just said he would and left it at that. Congress was actively voting on resolutions that would authorize the use of military strikes in Syria. I want to know if they were approved or not.
It died in committee.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/sjres21?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss#
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:34 itsjustatank wrote:On June 06 2014 12:32 zlefin wrote:
Blaming the other party is not a cop out. You are simply wrong. The issue at question was on consensus; consensus is not the exclusive domain of the president, but is by definition, something that comes from multiple sides being willing to work together. If one side is not willing to work together, then the lack of consensus is their fault.
And you assert he is an idiot, but the evidence does not bear that out. He might not be hyper-aggressive, that is not the same as idiocy. It is also not necessary to have a so-called grand strategy in order to conduct effective foreign policy; some would argue it's more likely to be a detriment, as it needlessly pigeonholes your options; it's also well known that unpredictability is an asset when dealing with enemies. Non-responsive. You need to specifically address how embarking on policy and then reversing on it is a net benefit to United States foreign policy. It is precisely because he is hyper-aggressive in establishing commitments for the United States that is the problem. dude, you are outright lying and/or wrong AGAIN. He didn't reverse policy; he said he wanted to do a military action in response, but only with the approval of congress. Congress did not approve, so he did not do so. Nor is it clear that there was ever a reversal on Ukraine; the American people never wanted to go to war over Ukraine, and Obama has stuck to that.
Incorrect. He stated that he was going to strike based on the red line against the use of chemical and biological weapons that he created. It is under his authority to do so without consultation of Congress for 60 days under the War Powers Act; he just has to notify them that he is going to do so within 48 hours. He talked about consulting Congress (another future constraint on American foreign policy created by him) after he got cold feet.
Russia is clear cut. He and the European Union established red lines around the integrity of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. He goes on to allow Russia to annex Crimea and do nothing aside from minor sanctions.
|
In fairness to Obama, he should have gotten cold feet about striking Syria. Where he screwed up was in drawing the redline in the first place when he was not 100% prepared to follow through with it.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:
In fairness to Obama, he should have gotten cold feet about striking Syria. Where he screwed up was in drawing the redline in the first place when he was not 100% prepared to follow through with it.
Also with Crimea. Unless you want to go nuclear, you aren't going to make Russia pay in any way for taking it.
Ukraine is a long-term problem that arose as a result of the complacency after the end of the Cold War. Ukraine should have been made a NATO member. Russia would never have done what it did if Article 5 was in play.
|
On June 06 2014 12:49 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:
In fairness to Obama, he should have gotten cold feet about striking Syria. Where he screwed up was in drawing the redline in the first place when he was not 100% prepared to follow through with it. Also with Crimea. Unless you want to go nuclear, you aren't going to make Russia pay in any way for taking it.
Yes, that too.
|
Where did he say he was going to strike? Please provide a citation;
I cite for my side the speech on Aug 31;
http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000002415685/obama-speaks-on-syria.html?ref=middleeast
time mark 2:50 where he talks about how he will consult congress before going ahead with it.
Furthermore, the war powers act is an option, not a requirement. You cannot in any way fault a president, for choosing to ask congress for authorization for force, in a situation where there is no immediate urgency.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:49 itsjustatank wrote:On June 06 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:
In fairness to Obama, he should have gotten cold feet about striking Syria. Where he screwed up was in drawing the redline in the first place when he was not 100% prepared to follow through with it. Also with Crimea. Unless you want to go nuclear, you aren't going to make Russia pay in any way for taking it. Yes, that too.
But (oh boy) does saying 'costs' and 'red lines' sound so good on CNN!
|
On June 06 2014 12:51 zlefin wrote:Where did he say he was going to strike? Please provide a citation; I cite for my side the speech on Aug 31; http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000002415685/obama-speaks-on-syria.html?ref=middleeasttime mark 2:50 where he talks about how he will consult congress before going ahead with it. Furthermore, the war powers act is an option, not a requirement. You cannot in any way fault a president, for choosing to ask congress for authorization for force, in a situation where there is no immediate urgency.
I'm not sure why you're arguing about this. The foreign press in just about every country in the world either mocked or lamented Obama's screw up.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:51 zlefin wrote:Where did he say he was going to strike? Please provide a citation; I cite for my side the speech on Aug 31; http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000002415685/obama-speaks-on-syria.html?ref=middleeasttime mark 2:50 where he talks about how he will consult congress before going ahead with it. Furthermore, the war powers act is an option, not a requirement. You cannot in any way fault a president, for choosing to ask congress for authorization for force, in a situation where there is no immediate urgency.
A US military attack against Syria was unexpectedly put on hold on Saturday, after president Barack Obama said that while he backed the use of force after what he called "the worst chemical weapons attack of 21st century", he would first seek the approval of Congress.
Obama said he had decided the US should take military action against Syria and had been told by his advisers that while assets were in place to launch strikes immediately, the operation was not "time sensitive". He said Congressional leaders had agreed to hold a vote when lawmakers return to Washington next week.
It was a dramatic turnaround by the White House, which had earlier in the week indicated it was on the verge of launching strikes against Syria without the approval of Congress. Only on Friday, secretary of state John Kerry had delivered a passionate case for taking action against Assad.
In an address to the nation from the Rose Garden at the White House, Obama said he had decided that the US should take military action that would be "limited in duration and scope", designed to "hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behaviour and degrade their capacity to carry it out".
The surprise came when Obama said that he had made a second decision: to seek the approval of Congress before launching any strikes. The president said he had listened to members of Congress who had expressed a desire for their voices to be heard, and that he agreed.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syrian-air-strikes-obama-congress
Your own evidence even makes it clear he had a plan and then decided to consult, by the way.
President Obama put on hold Saturday a plan to attack Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons, arguing that the United States had a moral responsibility to respond forcefully but would not do so until Congress has a chance to vote on the use of military force.
|
There's nothing wrong with making the plan first, then asking for congressional approval. After all, one of the key elements Obama noted is that the US military had determined the strike need not be done immediately, but that could be done at a later date. If the planned strike had to be done immediately before things shifted, then he would have struck; since it was not necessary, he chose to consult.
The use of the phrase put on hold by the newspaper is far less compelling then Obama's own quotes on the matter; which are a far more direct source.
Obama didn't say he would strike then didn't; he said he wants to strike, but wants to consult congress as well.
That is quite different from what you are asserting.
Please reread the evidence.
also it'd be nice if some neutral parties could chip in.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On June 06 2014 13:04 zlefin wrote:
There's nothing wrong with making the plan first, then asking for congressional approval. After all, one of the key elements Obama noted is that the US military had determined the strike need not be done immediately, but that could be done at a later date. If the planned strike had to be done immediately before things shifted, then he would have struck; since it was not necessary, he chose to consult.
The use of the phrase put on hold by the newspaper is far less compelling then Obama's own quotes on the matter; which are a far more direct source.
Obama didn't say he would strike then didn't; he said he wants to strike, but wants to consult congress as well.
That is quite different from what you are asserting.
Please reread the evidence.
We make plans all the time. Did you know the United States has a plan to invade Canada? We don't make them publicly known unless it is for political reasons. He let them be publicly known and then retrenched. This is exactly what I am talking about. I have read the evidence just fine and found it flows my direction, not yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
