If Obama needs to go to war with ISIS,...

Post Reply New Topic

...then he should make it legit. He should call a joint session of Congress urging them to declare war, let each House vote on the Joint Resolution for war, and if Congress approves sign the legislation and prosecute the war in the most effective manner possible, aiming to bring it to the fastest and cheapest end possible.

I can't see getting the public's support on going to war.

He should but he won't, rule of law only applies to proles l like us not the upper echelons of power. This country is a joke and won't change until it all comes tumbling down as it inevitably don't worry as those in power have their golden parachutes handy.

Lets say he had a joint session of Congress. Lets say they voted to "declare war on ISIS".

What then?

What IS this "fastest,cheapest, way possible"?

Its sounds like you want to just redo what Bush did in 03 and get congress to okay a land invasion.But it would be twice the fun this time around because instead of just conquering and occupying Iraq, we would be conquering and occupying Syria AND Iraq. As with W Bush in Iraq we would dispose of ISIS as quickly as Bush did the Iraqi Army. But then we would have a decade of asymetrical warfare directed out our troops in both Syria and Iraq while we try to keep the Iraqies from restarting their civil war AND we try to keep the Syrians from restarting thier civil war, while we try to do nation building in both countries at the same time.

Is THAT what you mean by "quick, cheap, and easy"?

It is in the power of Congress, not the President, to declare war. The President should not make war without a declaration from Congress.

Personally, I am opposed to going to war with ISIS. I was merely mentioning what he needed legally to do it.

I think Obama can shame any opposition to involvement if he goes to congress for an official declaration of war, especially if that opposition are Republican chicken hawks who have attacked him for honoring Bush's timetable for troop withdraw.

Interesting conundrum.

A full combined arms operation pacified Fallujah for several years. Now, it's even worst than what it was that began that assault. This means the underlying unrest wasn't due to "radicals", rather widespread discourse.

I don't see IS losing, rather, they and their Sunni buddies will have to separate from Iraq, with the Shiites and Kurds also having their own areas (unless they can somehow get along).

Dropping bombs and doing some spec op raids might make some people feel less impotent, but it'll do nothing militarily.

Doing nothing and letting them kill each other would be the best thing IMO.

But a whole lot of innocent people, including children, would also die on the world's TV screens. Are we content to just sit and watch that happen?

Technically, Obama does not need any authorization to initiate military action. It is sustained military action that falls outside of his authority. And even then, as long as it is labelled a "conflict" or an "operation," the only way congress can block it is either on budgetary and funding grounds (come time to pass a budget or pass a stop gap measure) or through explicit resolution(s) by majority votes prohibiting/ending it. Congress does have to authorize "war," but there has not been a "war" in the official federal sense since WWII. That is how the DC and military folks can still run around bragging about how we have never lost a "war."

Technically, Obama has the authority to mobilkize out entire worldwide armed forces for immediate occupation of Guatemala on humanitarian grounds.

Declaring war would mean the US recognizes ISIS as a country, right? I don't think they are going to do that.
And I'm still in favor of a system where if the executive branch loses their majority, they automatically step down.

There is nothing legal or constitutional about waging any semblance of a war on Islamic State, Syria, or Libya. What sense would it make for the president to be able to commit acts of war but not declare it? It would be kind of a major loophole don't you think? Our founders were against the idea of even maintaining a standing army, we're far ways away from that. Most of what our government does isn't legal or constitutional which to me what our founders intended and the president is above the law, that's the reality. At least Bush talked to congress before he did things and sought and got AUMF, Obama is the most lawless president in our history and it will probably get even worse with whatever turd he gets replaced with.

Our government kills a whole lot innocent people including children every single day, our "humanitarian" wars always kill more innocent people that whatever supposed atrocity we're trying to stop. There is so much blood on the US's hands, we create our own problems by intervening and waging wars. If the US didn't invade Iraq, IS would not exist period.

Meh.

I'd put him in the middle. I will say he is worse in that regard then W, but with the caveat that I would put W as worse if I actually believed that he knew what Cheney and Runsfield were up to half the time.

I'd put Reagan in the top for those in my lifetime. The large number of miltary actions, all kinds of shady funding and arming of foreign fighters (most notably those who became Al Qaeda after we abandoned them), the ridiculously hippocrital "war on drugs" while tacitly approving cash inflow from the drug trade (cocaine, most notably), Massively wazsteful government spending.

FWIW Reagan was probably in even less control than W, Mr. CIA was his VP after all and the US started funding the mujahedin in Afghanistan under the Carter administration. Reagan was probably better than most of our recent presidents when it came to foreign policy(not saying it is good otherwise), believed in diplomacy and showed restraint while still appearing strong. He was smart enough to pull out of Lebanon when our troops got attacked, he said it was his greatest regret as president sending them in there. Met with Gorbachev and reduced the number of nuclear weapons both countries had. Think about what we'd do if Russia shot down an airliner with a US congressman now. A lot of Republicans misrepresent and warp Reagan's views, they made him into a total caricature.

What Obama is doing just doesn't seem as bad since its all so normalized now, Watergate seems like child's play to most people nowadays. There is very little difference between the parties and administration to administration really, things seem to get progressively worse and Obama is just adding more s**t to s**t mountain than most. The CIA does all the same stuff it did 30 years ago, it does even more now.

Stopping it will end up killing just as many innocent people, in addition to US casualties. (It'll also have to be a long drawn out affair too, with constant US forces there, which will bring constant US casualties due to Iran's proxies).

You can say the US has an obligation to help, as they kicked out the Sunnis from power and allowed the beaten down Shiites to take over -- who can't seem to stop the Sunnis from coming back, at least in the majority Sunni areas. (The Shiites aren't exactly the most thankful either, even though they should be due to their oppressor Saddam being taken out. The problem with helping people that can't help themselves... .)

The Sunnis have come back, and with reinforcements.

Hence, best to just let them fight it out. Like with Syria (which has the same religious and ethnic problems going on).

Congress doesn't want him to. They'd rather he just takes care of it and then they can throw stones at him when he doesn't do it exactly as they'd like.