The mess in Syria

weso1 said:
The only reason he did it though was for political reasons and particularly because of the mid term elections. Imo, if the President knows without a doubt that he has authority to use military action (I believe he does) and he strongly believes that he should use military action, then he should just do it. He's essentially punting this one.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
What is there to argue. You said you believe the President has the authority to unilaterally use military action.

That makes me laugh that you believe that
 
sturg33 said:
What is there to argue. You said you believe the President has the authority to unilaterally use military action.

That makes me laugh that you believe that
Click to expand...

The President does not need authorization from congress for a short bombing campaign.
 
weso1 said:
The only reason he did it though was for political reasons and particularly because of the mid term elections. Imo, if the President knows without a doubt that he has authority to use military action (I believe he does) and he strongly believes that he should use military action, then he should just do it. He's essentially punting this one.
Click to expand...

Here's where we start to disagree. I think the President can act unilaterally when American interests are clearly in play, but that's a slippery slope. I don't know if they are here, just like I didn't think the war in Iraq made that much sense from an interests standpoint. A case can be made the Saddam Hussein was a bad actor and was repressing his people to a horrifying extent, but I still don't think that adds up to "an American interest." We have propped up a ton of similar, though not as heinous, dictators (including Hussein early in his tenure). One can pull out St. Augustine's theory of just war all they want, but it still doesn't add up if the cause of action isn't clear and the war aims similarly so.
 
weso1 said:
Only in extreme cases.

So you really don't think the President has authority to use unilateral military action in any instance?
Click to expand...

I'm asking in the case of Syria.

And I believe the President has authority if there is an imminent attack - which of course, there isn't.
 
sturg33 said:
I'm asking in the case of Syria.

And I believe the President has authority if there is an imminent attack - which of course, there isn't.
Click to expand...

It's not what you believe...it's what the law states. And unfortunately it's pretty broad.
 
War and "military intervention" are two different things. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Historically the President has been granted authority in the role of commander in chief to utilize the military as he sees fit.

Like it or not. Agree with it or not
 
The irony in all of this is that it could actually be better for the anti war crowd if Obama does a quick Syrian strike without approval from congress. Because if he is able to convince congress to give him an authorization of military force then he could possibly do whatever he wanted in Syria. If not then technically he's only allowed to do his thing for 60 days without Congress shutting it down.

The absolute worst case scenario here for the don't do anything in Syria crowd is that Obama actually convinces the congress to do what he wants.
 
BedellBrave said:
Where's the anti-war crowd when you need them?
Click to expand...

They are still out there protesting that thing our troops are already doing. If we actually invade Syria for some reason, I'm sure they'll make their way on over; that is, if they haven't died from Obama-broken hearts yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top