America - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

Please disclose where you got that information from?

As it was apparently very easy to persuade a large proportion of the American public that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks, convincing them now that it was, in fact, Iran shouldn't be too much of a stretch. And given that the US laid waste to a Middle Eastern country on the flimsiest of evidence, Iran seems entirely justified in trying to obtain a nuclear deterrence.

 

[ryzno]

Bush did 9/11. /s

 

[TenEightyOne]

Bush did 9/11. /s

Quite right. Jet beams can't steal melt fuel.

 

[Imari]

As it was apparently very easy to persuade a large proportion of the American public that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks, convincing them now that it was, in fact, Iran shouldn't be too much of a stretch. And given that the US laid waste to a Middle Eastern country on the flimsiest of evidence, Iran seems entirely justified in trying to obtain a nuclear deterrence.

Let's be honest; the public really has very little say in whether the US goes to war. There have been numerous wars since WWII where there has been significant public opposition and very little in the way of strong justifications for why the US should be involved. Whether the public is persuaded or not seems kind of moot.

If the administration wants to go to war, there will be an excuse dredged up or manufactured. And if that turns out to be falsified after the fact, well, it's a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted. Which I'm sure Bolton and his friends are well aware of.

 

[Liquid]

Not even Congress can stop the United States going to war and that's Congress' job.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not even Congress can stop the United States going to war and that's Congress' job.

Fast tracking impeaching Trump could stop it. But that would need backing from many republicans in both the senate as congress though

 

[Northstar]

Fast tracking impeaching Trump could stop it.

I somehow doubt that since whoever replaced him (whether donkey or elephant) would be just as likely to start a pointless war.

 

[ryzno]

Fast tracking impeaching Trump could stop it. But that would need backing from many republicans in both the senate as congress though

I don't know why you think he needs to be impeached, he took the casualty rate for retaliation of the downing of an unmanned drone into account.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't know why you think he needs to be impeached, he took the casualty rate for retaliation of the downing of an unmanned drone into account.

I am against his impeachment personally. I was reacting to the suggesting that Congress cant stop going to war. Isnt it the whitehouse thats out for war?

 

[Dotini]

Per the Constitution, only Congress can declare and fund war. But those pusillanimous money-grubbers have, over decades, abdicated their responsibilities and passed various laws and act devolving their proper authority to the executive branch. They have only themselves to blame.

 

[PocketZeven]

Per the Constitution, only Congress can declare and fund war. But those pusillanimous money-grubbers have, over decades, abdicated their responsibilities and passed various laws and act devolving their proper authority to the executive branch. They have only themselves to blame.

What happens when the presidents commands an act of war, without congress approval?

 

[Biggles]

I somehow doubt that since whoever replaced him (whether donkey or elephant) would be just as likely to start a pointless war.

Actually, to be fair to Trump, he does seem to be genuinely reluctant to go to war. My sense is that his strategy is to bluff (bully) his perceived adversaries & hope that that does the trick. This is an Art of the Deal type trick that may have limited success in the international arena with hard-boiled protagonists like NK, Iran & Russia. Combined with Trump's oddly fragile ego it could be very problematic, because when an adversary calls his bluff he either has to back down & seem weak, or go to war. Of course, the bald-faced lie also seems to have worked quite well for Trump.

Let's be honest; the public really has very little say in whether the US goes to war. There have been numerous wars since WWII where there has been significant public opposition and very little in the way of strong justifications for why the US should be involved. Whether the public is persuaded or not seems kind of moot.

I think you may be over-estimating the amount of opposition. True, there has typically been a very vocal minority opposing, say the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, but they were always a minority, since "American Patriots" of all stripes always seem willing to rally around the flag, no matter who dubious the cause or justification.

 

[PocketZeven]

Actually, to be fair to Trump, he does seem to be genuinely reluctant to go to war. My sense is that his strategy is to bluff (bully) his perceived adversaries & hope that that does the trick. This is an Art of the Deal type trick that may have limited success in the international arena with hard-boiled protagonists like NK, Iran & Russia. Combined with Trump's oddly fragile ego it could be very problematic, because when an adversary calls his bluff he either has to back down & seem weak, or go to war. Of course, the bald-faced lie also seems to have worked quite well for Trump.



I think you may be over-estimating the amount of opposition. True, there has typically been a very vocal minority opposing, say the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, but they were always a minority, since "American Patriots" of all stripes always seem willing to rally around the flag, no matter who dubious the cause or justification.

I actually think he genuinly wants to go to war. Every "great" president had won a war. He is immensely eager to secure his "legacy". Hence him prematurely saying he won against ISIS etc. His perceived reluctancy during his election campaign, was just for the sake of opposing anything Obama was doing.

That said, to avoid confusion about my stance, I am still firmly against impeachment.

 

[Dotini]

What happens when the presidents commands an act of war, without congress approval?

A few congressmen will bitterly reread the fine print of their self-inflicted laws, others wring their hands, and most "rally 'round the flag". Once enough stupid carnage and futility pass under the bridge, the people will react en masse as they did against the war in Vietnam.

 

[ryzno]

I actually think he genuinly wants to go to war. Every "great" president had won a war. He is immensely eager to secure his "legacy". Hence him prematurely saying he won against ISIS etc. His perceived reluctancy during his election campaign, was just for the sake of opposing anything Obama was doing.

That said, to avoid confusion about my stance, I am still firmly against impeachment.

The last 2 Presidents didn't finish the war and Trump hasn't finished it either. What a legacy.

 

[PocketZeven]

The last 2 Presidents didn't finish the war and Trump hasn't finished it either. What a legacy.

I wasnt referring to recent presidents. Trump likes to compare himself often with Lincoln, Washington, roosevelt and Churchill etc.

 

[mustafur]

I do get the Impression Trump doesn't want a war, However everyone in his inner circle is thirsty for War, History says this will happen eventually hopefully nothing happens before the election though, maybe it could be a key point going into it, I don't Feel Trump would have too much support this time if he does go ahead from the populace.

 

[Imari]

Per the Constitution, only Congress can declare and fund war. But those pusillanimous money-grubbers have, over decades, abdicated their responsibilities and passed various laws and act devolving their proper authority to the executive branch. They have only themselves to blame.

Sort of, although I think a lot of that is a hang over from the Cold War. During the period in which the end could have come in any given 15 minutes, there was a fear that holding the reins of the military too tightly would prevent an appropriate and timely military response to Soviet aggression. It might even encourage the Soviets to try a decapitation attack, where the top levels of government were so shattered that a reasonable military response was impossible.

It's debatable how good an idea it actually was, but the dominant military paradigm of the time was that there could be no such thing as a limited war between the superpowers. With that in mind, it at least sort of makes some sense. However, the last few decades have shown that limited wars with nuclear powers are very much possible, and indeed preferable to all sides involved. Nobody really wants to be in a nuclear war. So we have missile and drone strikes, proxy wars, limited occupations, etc.

As much as Trump and KJI like to flash their nuclear willies around, we're not really in the era where there's suddenly going to be a surprise nuclear launch against anyone. There's more than enough time for Congress and the American people to be deliberate about whether they wish to use their massive military in an aggressive fashion. Sadly, I suspect that any politician that ran on the idea of removing power from the military would be a dead duck, and so y'all are probably stuck hoping that there are enough generals like Mattis that know that the true purpose of a military is to never have to go to war.

 

[UKMikey]

Is the AUMF still in place and if so, could a hawkish administration use it to bypass Congress and declare war on another country?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is the AUMF still in place and if so, could a hawkish administration use it to bypass Congress and declare war on another country?

I thought the POTUS could send the military to war for fewer than 60 days without Congressional approval? Given that a war with Iran would likely be a naval obliteration of the country it should take less than that. And if it doesn't... he'd have to be removed from office to bring them back.

From what I read in the US press (of varying standards) few observers outside Fox seem able to believe that the constitution is being so sorely tested, and coming up so short.

 

[Joey D]

I feel like this is a good way to anger every political ideology.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/beto-orourke-war-tax-veterans-plan/index.html

Perhaps if the government can't support veterans, it should either shrink the military or stop sending people to areas where they're going to get killed and injured for no good reason.

 

[Imari]

I feel like this is a good way to anger every political ideology.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/beto-orourke-war-tax-veterans-plan/index.html

Perhaps if the government can't support veterans, it should either shrink the military or stop sending people to areas where they're going to get killed and injured for no good reason.

I'm sure there are any number of military materiel programs that could be shrunk without harming national security in the slightest. I mean, I'm pretty sure they don't need 11 aircraft carriers when everyone else has one or two at most. The money to crew, supply and maintain just one of those behemoths would I'm sure go a long, long way to helping a lot of veterans.

I agree completely with the sentiment that if the military can't afford to follow through on proper care for it's veterans, then it shouldn't be employing them in the first place. Soldiers put themselves in potentially harmful situations for the sake of their country, there should be no question of them being adequately supported and cared for should they actually be harmed.

 

[Biggles]

I'm sure there are any number of military materiel programs that could be shrunk without harming national security in the slightest. I mean, I'm pretty sure they don't need 11 aircraft carriers when everyone else has one or two at most. The money to crew, supply and maintain just one of those behemoths would I'm sure go a long, long way to helping a lot of veterans.

I agree completely with the sentiment that if the military can't afford to follow through on proper care for it's veterans, then it shouldn't be employing them in the first place. Soldiers put themselves in potentially harmful situations for the sake of their country, there should be no question of them being adequately supported and cared for should they actually be harmed.

The reason the US "needs" 11 aircraft carriers is because it's the only global superpower. It needs to be capable of controlling the agenda in every part of the world: the Middle East, the Pacific, Europe, the Far East, South America, the Arctic, you name it. Maintaining all this is the cost of empire - being Great doesn't come cheap.

 

[GranTurNismo]

I feel like this is a good way to anger every political ideology.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/beto-orourke-war-tax-veterans-plan/index.html

Perhaps if the government can't support veterans, it should either shrink the military or stop sending people to areas where they're going to get killed and injured for no good reason.

I'd like to add that frankly, both the Democrats and Republicans do not care about the current state of homeless/disabled veterans, and that's indisputable. The difference is this: while Democrats almost never talk about "helping our vets" as one of their talking points, Republicans are the party that tells vets that they care about them and do things for them and that the Democrats don't, yet I can't think of a single Republican president or representative in the US who has passed a bill which cracks down on homelessness, mental illness, and addiction amongst Veterans. It's sad that these people, often the most vulnerable, continue to be left out.

 

[TexRex]

Presumably it'll just be ignored because it's just easier to hate on dirty liberals because they're dirty liberals instead of having a real reason.

Nailed it!

Actually, to be fair to Trump, he does seem to be genuinely reluctant to go to war.

Counterpoint:

His actions (in this case the appointments of Laurel and Hardy up there) are at odds with such a notion.

 

[mustafur]

He says he wants a Deal with Iran to stop them having Nuclear Weapons, so what was the reason for the cancellation of the deal that already existed?

It just sounds like he didn't like it because Obama did it so by default it must be bad.

Everything that has happened from the cancellation of that deal is all on Trump, most people can see this including basically every American Ally so what is it going to take here?

 

[Biggles]

Nailed it!


Counterpoint:

His actions (in this case the appointments of Laurel and Hardy up there) are at odds with such a notion.

Honestly, I just don't think Trump has any idea what he's doing. As mustafur says: Trump is anti-anything done under the Obama administration. I think he also gravitates towards people who suck up to him &/or are hated by the liberal establishment. Beyond that, I think there's no clear plan ... he really is as clueless as he often seems.

 

[TexRex]

Honestly, I just don't think Trump has any idea what he's doing. As mustafur says: Trump is anti-anything done under the Obama administration. I think he also gravitates towards people who suck up to him &/or are hated by the liberal establishment. Beyond that, I think there's no clear plan ... he really is as clueless as he often seems.

I'm sure you've hit the nail on the nose with much of that, but I also think he's done much with a plan...and that plan is chaos.

 

[Imari]

I'm sure you've hit the nail on the nose with much of that, but I also think he's done much with a plan...and that plan is chaos.

I don't think the plan is chaos, that would require actual malice. I think pretty much everything he's done is easily attributed to him being a super-populist. He'll do and say whatever he thinks people want him to do and say. He just wants to be seen as the greatest president/businessman/whatever the world has ever seen, but because he's not actually skilled at anything he's substituted public opinion for real excellence.

I suspect the only reason he hasn't actually gone to war with anyone yet is that he has (correctly) intuited that it would make him one of the worst presidents in modern history. Yet war-mongering rhetoric still gets lots of people giving him props, and so he's probably going to keep doing it. Little does he know that countries like Iran can't rationally assume that he's just a egotistical child waving his nuclear willy around, and if he's too aggressive they may decide that it's necessary to take action to protect themselves.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think the plan is chaos, that would require actual malice. I think pretty much everything he's done is easily attributed to him being a super-populist. He'll do and say whatever he thinks people want him to do and say. He just wants to be seen as the greatest president/businessman/whatever the world has ever seen, but because he's not actually skilled at anything he's substituted public opinion for real excellence.

I suspect the only reason he hasn't actually gone to war with anyone yet is that he has (correctly) intuited that it would make him one of the worst presidents in modern history. Yet war-mongering rhetoric still gets lots of people giving him props, and so he's probably going to keep doing it. Little does he know that countries like Iran can't rationally assume that he's just a egotistical child waving his nuclear willy around, and if he's too aggressive they may decide that it's necessary to take action to protect themselves.

You are right on the money. He is a very selfish man I think. He is more occupied with his legacy then his country. If you review all his speeches, tweets etc. he genuinly wants to be acknowledged as the greatest president ever, without actually accomplishing anyhting great himself. Hence his decisions on spaceforce, the wall, Paris accords, iran deal etc. he is doing anything to get his name in the historybooks.

The problem is he loves surrounding himself with loyalists and the problem with that strategy is that he lives in a bubble with a lot of yay sayers or "wormtongues" (for the LOTR fans). All the people who would challenge him or keep his feet on the ground are already fired or working covertly to keep him in check. Having someone like Conway, hannity etc as topadvisors is dangerous. They only feed his distorted realityview and keep him in his bubble.
Ideally a leader should have people who challenge their views in multiple ways in the interest of the american public and not for the sake of being loyal.