|
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. |
On April 07 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 06:29 zlefin wrote:
plansix -> legally, Trump could probably order an attack or two fine without congressional approval (not completely sure on that)
plasmid -> yes, the US can afford ot go to war (from an economic standpoint). it'll hurt economically, depending on the scale of the war and post-war efforts. I can give oyu some vague rough numbers if you want.
it might well derail efforts to get an infrastructure bill done though. It has been a very long time since congress has authorized any additional military actions. Obama still had to operate under the authorization that allowed us to go to the Iraq war for a lot of the stuff dealing with ISIS. There is no authorization for the military to attack the Syrian Government. That is why Obama had to ask when Assad crossed the Red Line way back when. He can order it and it might happen, but all the experts I have been hearing has been saying any attack on Assad without congressional approval is legal questionable at best.
which experts have you been reading? I'd be interested to read what they're saying. do you have the articles/links handy or easy to find?
|
On April 07 2017 06:34 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 06:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 06:25 plasmidghost wrote:
Can the US even afford to go to war? We have so much crumbling infrastructure that Trump proposed to spend a trillion dollars on fixing, if we go to war, there's no way anything near what he proposed will get done It's not too expensive in the moment to bomb-n'-leave, and let others take care of the problems. It will bite you in the ass in the future, but for the moment, you get by fine. We could always stay and stabilize the country before leaving, but I highly doubt that will happen, American history has shown that policy is bomb first, then when an al-Qaeda/ISIS/whatever pops up in that region, bomb it again
Unless you want to devote like 500,000 troops or more and 10 years, that isn't an option. 500,000 is pretty small really. It make take a couple million to keep is locked down on all fronts.
On April 07 2017 06:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2017 06:29 zlefin wrote:
plansix -> legally, Trump could probably order an attack or two fine without congressional approval (not completely sure on that)
plasmid -> yes, the US can afford ot go to war (from an economic standpoint). it'll hurt economically, depending on the scale of the war and post-war efforts. I can give oyu some vague rough numbers if you want.
it might well derail efforts to get an infrastructure bill done though. It has been a very long time since congress has authorized any additional military actions. Obama still had to operate under the authorization that allowed us to go to the Iraq war for a lot of the stuff dealing with ISIS. There is no authorization for the military to attack the Syrian Government. That is why Obama had to ask when Assad crossed the Red Line way back when. He can order it and it might happen, but all the experts I have been hearing has been saying any attack on Assad without congressional approval is legal questionable at best. which experts have you been reading? I'd be interested to read what they're saying. do you have the articles/links handy or easy to find?
Not on hand. This was back in 2015-2016 in relation to congress's hands off approach to Syria and foreign relations in general.
|
|
|
Current operations in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere all fall under the anti-terrorism stuff.
|
|
|
On April 07 2017 06:42 plasmidghost wrote:
Does the authorization to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan affect Yemen as well?
iirc yes. not completely sure.
I think it basically allows going after al-qaeda wherever al-qaeda is; and there is some al-qaeda in yemen.
|
|
|
On April 07 2017 06:47 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 06:44 a_flayer wrote:
Current operations in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere all fall under the anti-terrorism stuff. Okay, so it would more than likely be unconstitutional for Trump to start bombing Assad directly, but if he did so, would Congress be able to stop him?
I mean congress pays the army's paychecks. In theory they could just refuse to cut any checks to fund military operations they don't approve of. If there's a will to do that is a much different question.
|
Basically Congress told Bush "Handle all the terrorist stuff, here is a blank check" and then checked out for like 16 years. Obama has had to use that same authorization because Congress is pretty happy with just heckling, rather than acting. Since Assad's goverment does not meet the very loose requirements of being a terrorist, Congress has to authorize it.
The moral of the story is that this terrorist/Middle East stuff is hard and Congress loves to dump it all on the executive branch and whine about how it is handled.
Edit: Congress can stop him by not paying for the operation. Though when they start defunding stuff to stop the president, that is when everyone needs to start investing in a bug out bag and precious metals.
|
On April 07 2017 06:47 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 06:44 a_flayer wrote:
Current operations in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere all fall under the anti-terrorism stuff. Okay, so it would more than likely be unconstitutional for Trump to start bombing Assad directly, but if he did so, would Congress be able to stop him?
they could impeach him; or pass a law directly prohibiting it with enough votes to override presidential veto.
But they're not that likely to take much action unless public opinion demands it, as others have noted.
if trump goes in without congress, then if anything turns bad, the blame all falls on trump. Some people are kinda fine with going after Assad, but don't want to take the heat if things go bad, so they'd be willing to let it happen for now.
|
|
|
It's not gonna go well, I wouldn't be worried about that possible scenario.
It is possible that the true consequences of any war won't be revealed until after BushTrump leaves office, and so those consequences will then be blamed on the next president.
|
If Trump asks, congress will likely approve the operation. Even the Democrats are not pissed off enough to try an stop it. The fear is that he acts without asking at all.
|
On April 07 2017 06:05 Doodsmack wrote:A massive air campaign in Syria would certainly take attention away from the Russia investigation  . Didn't Clinton bomb Yugoslavia to distract from his scandal?
You mean that and the ethnic cleansing going on at the time right?
Just realized this proves my point on how the US public started tiring of NATO right around this time as Europe was unable to do anything or simply wouldn't lift a finger to stop the Wars in the first place, for example Germany which, If I remember, was under a "Constitutional Crisis" aka didn't want to do anything.
|
We repaired a house in my home town and gave it to some refugees from Bosnian. They were the most grateful people I have ever meet, but I never really believed they lived in the woods for like 2 years. I was also a shitty teenager. Then I got older and read about how fucked up that conflict was, I realized living in the woods might have been the highlight.
S.Blue is right that the EU was pretty content with just sitting around and waiting for the conflict to sort itself out. Or cheer the US on as they tried to resolve it.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 07 2017 06:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 06:25 plasmidghost wrote:
Can the US even afford to go to war? We have so much crumbling infrastructure that Trump proposed to spend a trillion dollars on fixing, if we go to war, there's no way anything near what he proposed will get done It's not too expensive in the moment to bomb-n'-leave, and let others take care of the problems. It will bite you in the ass in the future, but for the moment, you get by fine.
I'm quite amused, after a year of machisto bullshit and bravado crap, to see Trump deal with an extremely delicate situation in which there is actually no good answer.
It's really easy to blame Obama for being weak and blablablablabla, but how unconvenient when it's you who have to chose between an elusive moderate opposition lost in the middle of a sea of more or less radical jihadi factions, and a bloody dictator who uses chemical weapons on his own people.
Good luck with that to Donald, I go fetch the popcorns and watch him struggle with this shit that, oh surprise! is actually more complex than what he depicted all campaign long to the dummies who believed he had a clue.
The palestinian thing is fucking tragic though.
|
On April 07 2017 07:20 plasmidghost wrote:
Not to switch the topic, but Trump just greeted the Chinese president in Florida. What's going to be the outcome of these talks? Will Trump be able to get progress on rewriting trade agreements with China? Will China and the US approve of action against North Korea? I think that if the US and China can agree to some action, we could easily wipe out all of North Korea's nuclear capabilities (although the fallout from that would be immense, literally and figuratively)
No and no.
|
On April 07 2017 07:20 plasmidghost wrote:
Not to switch the topic, but Trump just greeted the Chinese president in Florida. What's going to be the outcome of these talks? Will Trump be able to get progress on rewriting trade agreements with China? Will China and the US approve of action against North Korea? I think that if the US and China can agree to some action, we could easily wipe out all of North Korea's nuclear capabilities (although the fallout from that would be immense, literally and figuratively)
That isn't happening. We can't attack NK and China will never let that take place. NK will continue to be a problem until something internal changes. There is no wiping out their nukes. Once a nation has nukes, they have them. You can't take them away with an airstrike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
