Senate Intervention in Syria: Yay or Nay?

Well good for Turkey, I didn't remember that their response was so extensive.

 

It's befitting. This is outside the purview of this thread, but it wouldn't surprise me if they've got the best military in the ME besides the Israelis.

 

Obama's decision to put intervention in Syria to vote in Congress has worried Senator Lindsey Graham. In the event of a future campaign in Iran, he doesn't want any delays or obstacles for the President, so he's being proactive and is preparing to put intervention in Iran to vote in Congress ahead of time, as in now. It's nice to see that at the very least, Syria has created a precedent for following the correct constitutional procedures.

 

Well Iran has actually been an hot and then cold issue for many years now. Syria is recent in comparison. So it's not really ahead of time in a way. I'm actually surprised the senate didnt give the president the go-ahead earlier.

 

It's also worried both Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, but for different reasons:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/syria/2013/syria-130918-rianovosti05.htm]GSO[/url] HERE

 

Wouldn't surprise me if the War Powers Act eventually winds up being a hot topic again, as that's where the confusion really stems from.

 

From what I understand, the President cannot unilaterally declare war unless there's a clear and imminent threat to national security? Is that correct?

 

This is about the first link that seemed to actually know what it was talking about (any lawyers, please feel free to correct it obviously):

Balance Of War Powers

The U.S. Constitution empowers the president to wage wars as commander in chief while Congress has the power to declare wars--in fact to authorize hostilities at any level--and fund them. Legal scholars largely agree that presidents can order U.S. troops to fight when the country is attacked or attack appears imminent but chief executives from both major parties often differ with Congress over their ability to initiate military force in other combat situations. Presidents have demonstrated greater power to wage wars since the end of World War II. "The president has been commander in chief since 1789, but this notion that they can go to war whenever they want, and [ignore] Congress, that's a post-World War II attitude," says Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project (and former specialist in constitutional law at the Library of Congress)

I'd suggest the level of the threat in WW2 is where that attitude comes from-Hitler was obviously a huge threat, and of course the USSR loomed even larger with the potential for WW3 being a 18-hour-long long nuclear exchange from the first ICBM launch to the last bombers hitting their targets; obviously there'd be no time for Congress to even convene in the event of a surprise nuclear attack.

The Cold War is with us still, to be honest.

 

I agree with that. As long as we have the power to obliterate one another (and everyone else) in a matter of hours, the line between imminent and non-imminent danger is blurred. As far as I'm concerned, the Cold War only had a start. It will never end.

 

"The Obama Doctrine." I'm on board.

 

aint going to matter. the laws and constitution were shredded when bush was in power and is still being torn up currently by the current president. i have learned to accept that all we are is sheep and no matter what we the people say it isnt going to matter since we are not the ** elite**. i know that may piss off some military guys here but thats just how i feel.

 

Nor here-mod edit

 

Um, I didn't post the second part of the above post. The author might want to edit where the second "V-03" is placed. Currently, it's at the bottom of the quoted post, which makes it look like I wrote it when I did not.

Thank you.

 

but vaderize how do you feel about the dirty mexicans vis-a-vis syria, while we're on the topic?

 

Ah, yes, the debate strategy of bringing a whole host of other, unrelated issues into the mix to cloud the argument.. Good job, thebadge.

 

Sorry it means nothing I hit the keyboard my accident and they made the post.

 

Turkey controls Constantinople and the straits, its a huge deal and has been for over 200 years.

 

I've always thought how great it would be next time Israel is boxed in and was in at hand-That a big ro-ro transport dock and unload and entire German Mechanized Corps. Preceded by say 200 German fighter aircraft along with, food, medical supplies, ammo, etc. Then both German Parachute divisions land along with the transports and tankers staying in Israeli.

A little payback for her sins and seeing a modern organized professional military join up to support the Israelis', I know Im dreaming but the' can'
of whoop a** would be out.

 

Not to come off the wrong way.... but I don't understand your last post there in terms of what is happening to who.

 

i think he's envisioning some sort of german-driven Final Solution to the israeli question...?

 

If that worked, we wouldn't be dealing with this problem in the first place.

 

He's envisioning Germany coming to Israel's aid at the last minute, and together they fight their way through the enemy with great vengeance and furious glorious anger.

 

Some developments:

Saudi Arabia campaigned for two years to be voted into the UN Security Council, and then rejected the seat when offered it back in October. Why? The guy in this op-ed gives his thoughts. Agree?

In December, their ambassador to Britain penned this New York Times op-ed where he announces that the kingdom will go it alone in Syria, absent Western support.

In March, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE had a falling out with Qatar and recalled their envoys to the country.