Conservatives on the use of force!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
I LOVE the result of the fighting on Syria. For decades, I have believed that unless it is an emergency situation a President should go to Congress for approval to use military force. Reagan violated this belief of mine as did President Clinton. It generally has been the Liberals who have wanted this limit on the use of military power. The Conservatives generally being more tolerant of the use of force without approval.

This time the question of use of force in Syria provoked Conservative outrage, mostly due to the fact that President Obama was leading the charge. I have heard arguments based on the Constitution, the idea that President Obama in incompetent, or that some Christians might be harmed.

So the President relented, giving in to Conservative demands that he get Congressional approval.

This sets a PRECIDENT that I have wanted to see. I hope in the future Republican Presidents will also be required to get approval to use power in non-emergency situations.
 
I expected some feeble response from the Conservatives....

Chirp chirp?
 
Those of you who insisted that the President was required to get Congressional Approval to bomb Syria, what are your thoughts about what Reagan did to Libya or what Clinton did in Kosovo?
 
Jarod said:
Those of you who insisted that the President was required to get Congressional Approval to bomb Syria, what are your thoughts about what Reagan did to Libya or what Clinton did in Kosovo?
Click to expand...
I'd prefer Congressional authorization -that said the POTUS is also Commander in Chief.

Congress has the power to declare war - so the War Powers Act was supposed to be the balance - giving POTUS ability to act quickly.

The problem (IMHO) is that POTUS also acts in matters beyond of Defense - and Congress won't usually check him on war powers

This is better than I can state it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/09/02/blame-congress-on-war-powers/

How Congress should act would have involved months of hearings on Syria. It would have involved tough questions for Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and other executive branch nominees when they were up for confirmation, perhaps with commitments for action once they were confirmed.
It wouldn’t have involved waiting to see if the president would ask them to act.

So good for Obama for forcing Congress to get involved, but don’t forget as this process moves forward that it’s not his job to ask Congress; under the constitutional system, Congress is supposed to be stepping up and acting.

And for those looking to reform the system, I’d advise less worry about finding a way to rein in presidential overreach, and more effort to change Congressional incentives in order to make it more likely they will assert themselves in the future.
Click to expand...
 
annata said:
I'd prefer Congressional authorization -that said the POTUS is also Commander in Chief.

Congress has the power to declare war - so the War Powers Act was supposed to be the balance - giving POTUS ability to act quickly.

The problem (IMHO) is that POTUS also acts in matters beyond of Defense - and Congress won't usually check him on war powers

This is better than I can state it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/09/02/blame-congress-on-war-powers/
Click to expand...

I threw in Conservatives because they are the ones usually screaming about overstepping the Constitution, and generally the ones who want the president to have more military power.
 
Jarod said:
I threw in Conservatives because they are the ones usually screaming about overstepping the Constitution, and generally the ones who want the president to have more military power.
Click to expand...
maybe at one time, i tend to think it's more about partisanship -todays Dems that screamed about Iraq, said nothing about CIA signature strikes (drones) in Waziristan -KNOWING at least 25% of the time we had no target.

Or Libya. Or Yemen. the trend is towards a unitary POTUS, irregardless of which party they are
 
Keeping a sense of humor in Syria

syrian-humor.jpg


syria-CO-4.gif
 
annata said:
maybe at one time, i tend to think it's more about partisanship -todays Dems that screamed about Iraq, said nothing about CIA signature strikes (drones) in Waziristan -KNOWING at least 25% of the time we had no target.

Or Libya. Or Yemen. the trend is towards a unitary POTUS, irregardless of which party they are
Click to expand...
. Iraq was a years long boots on the ground mission killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
 
Jarod said:
I LOVE the result of the fighting on Syria. For decades, I have believed that unless it is an emergency situation a President should go to Congress for approval to use military force. Reagan violated this belief of mine as did President Clinton. It generally has been the Liberals who have wanted this limit on the use of military power. The Conservatives generally being more tolerant of the use of force without approval.


This sets a PRECIDENT that I have wanted to see. I hope in the future Republican Presidents will also be required to get approval to use power in non-emergency situations.
Click to expand...

This is not a precident in the least....

When did Reagan violate this 'belief' of yours....
 
Jarod said:
Those of you who insisted that the President was required to get Congressional Approval to bomb Syria, what are your thoughts about what Reagan did to Libya or what Clinton did in Kosovo?
Click to expand...

Just as the WPA stipulates....Reagan retaliated in direct response to a terrorist attack against American Troops by Lybian agents....and an attack 12 days before on the UN NAVY fleet in the Med.

On March 24, 1986, Libya launched six SA-5 missiles against the U.S. Sixth Fleet, which was conducting maneuvers nearby in the Mediterranean. The attacks failed, and in subsequent strikes and counterstrikes, the Americans sunk two Libyan vessels.

On April 5, 1986, a bomb exploded in Berlin's La Belle discotheque, killing a U.S. soldier and a Turkish civilian, and injuring some 200 others, including 63 U.S. soldiers.

Ten days later, late in the evening of April 15, the United States prepared for air strikes against Libyan ground targets in five areas: the Aziziya barracks, known as a command and control post for terrorist activities; the military facilities at the Tripoli international airport; the Side Bilal base, said to be a facility for training terrorists in underwater sabotage; the Jamahariya military barracks in Benghazi, another terrorist command post; and the Benina air base southeast of Benghazi.

You might prefer to ignore what happened 12 days before the discotheque bombing, I don't...
1...Libya attacked the Navy Fleet in the Med....
2...Libya bombed the discotheque
3...Reagan approved air strikes in Libya....

These are the historical facts...glad to teach you some history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top