Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh God, not again.... At this rate I'll be here all week!

To be honest, I think the inconsistency Ouze is talking about is coming up because nobody really has any concrete information being handed to us. We all know how many have been killed, and we can pretty much guess who did it, but everybodies opinions are trapped in the 'damned if we do, damned if we don't' mindset. On one hand, I personally can say that I'm disappointed that Parliment has voted the UK out. I personally feel that it is our obligation to put an end to this wanton slaughter. On the other hand though, I feel 'Why should we get engaged in another Middle Eastern debacle. Hell, the 7th Brigade, 1st (UK) Armoured Division has been into the desert so many times it's now widely known as 'The Desert Rats'! For once, why can't we not get involved in another embroilment.

TL;DR: Nobody can make up their mind as it's a war between morality and practicality.

Serious question to those who may know. Does Obama have to seek congress' approval for intervention?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Serious question to those who may know. Does Obama have to seek congress' approval for intervention?

According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.

He's doing this to "pass the buck" though. He "wants" to do intervention, but he's content sitting on it for a couple of weeks, and if Congress says no? Well... it'll be those bad Republicans fault.

I guess he's sincerely wishing he had Royal Prerogative now... (Shouldn't have rebelled then )

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Serious question to those who may know. Does Obama have to seek congress' approval for intervention?

I'll give you two answers:

1) Legally... See The Warpower Act of 1973:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

What's arguable is that the President could engage the military w/o Congressional approval for 60 days.

2) Politically... Obama’s rhetoric against during the 2007-8 (ish?) presidential campaign made his hypocrisy on executive power painfully obvious, with even his own party insisting that he needed to get a Congressional blessing first. So... Obama's decision to seek congressional authority puts Congress on spot, especially... if they vote no and Assad uses sarin again.

 whembly wrote:
So... Obama's decision to seek congressional authority puts Congress on spot, especially... if they vote no and Assad uses sarin again.

Or any other poison gas, really. It's hard to get re-elected when your opponents can claim your indecisiveness got hundreds or even thousands killed. (cue pictures of dead children in the streets during election commercials).

@Baronlveagh - Something like this?:

Ok, I'll start this off by saying ignore the partisanship of the article, look at the substance. That being said, he raises an extremely good point.

He was so eager to take the axe to us, cutting 20% of our budget, he apparently didn't think about how it would impact our ability to wage war. As it stands, we don't have the money to do this Syria thing, and we gotta go begging for it now.

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/08/barack-honcho-obama-shoots-foot/#yyFkeVPBFHMxfrsp.99

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, I'll start this off by saying ignore the partisanship of the article, look at the substance. That being said, he raises an extremely good point.

He was so eager to take the axe to us, cutting 20% of our budget, he apparently didn't think about how it would impact our ability to wage war. As it stands, we don't have the money to do this Syria thing, and we gotta go begging for it now.

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/08/barack-honcho-obama-shoots-foot/#yyFkeVPBFHMxfrsp.99

Nah... if we go to war.. he'll get the $$$ from Congress. Or, link up the debt-limit ceiling fight with defense budget.

 djones520 wrote:
He was so eager to take the axe to us, cutting 20% of our budget, he apparently didn't think about how it would impact our ability to wage war.

I can see that we are hurting bad. I guess we must be down to 3 guys with slingshots and an NCO with halotosis.

The UK must be Ol' Toby sitting on a fold out chair watching the coast with a megaphone hurling nasty language at anyone that dares approach, what with their miniscule budget.

Post all the silly charts you want Ahtman, the military is broke.

We spent a good chunk of the year not flying, and training, keeping our pilots the best in the world. We've had things like Tuition Assistance cut. Moving our troops around to help keep them proficient in various tasks of their jobs have been slowed. We've had to strike one of our Nuclear subs because we couldn't afford to repair it. We've got a carrier sitting at dock because we can't afford to refuel it.

The military IS BROKE.

And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.


Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.


Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.

You can damn well bet they don't spend a quarter of their budget on ensuring a moderate quality of life for their service members as well.

Edit: I just checked, a Russian Soldier of equivalent rank gets 1/3rd the pay I do.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.


Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.

You can damn well bet they don't spend a quarter of their budget on ensuring a moderate quality of life for their service members as well.

Edit: I just checked, a Russian Soldier of equivalent rank gets 1/3rd the pay I do.

And I'll bet the Chinese get paid even less.



They also don't spend tons of money on super advanced equipment when average equipment will get the job done.

I kinda wish we started taking a hint out of that playbook. Have plenty of lower tech equipment to cut costs. Keep the high tech stuff for the special forces.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.


Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.

You can damn well bet they don't spend a quarter of their budget on ensuring a moderate quality of life for their service members as well.

Edit: I just checked, a Russian Soldier of equivalent rank gets 1/3rd the pay I do.

And I'll bet the Chinese get paid even less.

Maybe we should stop pointing this out. You'll get some of the more anti-military folks* out there shouting more about how we get paid to much for what we do. *rolls eyes*



* This was not a reference to anyone here specifically, so don't try to read it as such.

Maybe we should stop pointing out that the bloated military budget is bloated. You'll get some poor thinkers who equate that with being anti-military and start trying to make it into an idiotic 'us versus them' turf war.

Just saw O's speech...

I gotta give the Prez some kudos asking for congressional approval. At least he's consistent.

@djones520 - Welcome to the club - It's not just the US military who get fethed over by their own government. The UK military, despite having the 4th largest military expenditure and the 2nd largest power projection in the world (Owing to our status as the only other nation, aside from the US, who can conduct and independent combined arms assault overseas) regularly takes yearly cuts, mostly in order to fund such wonderful schemes as building a high speed rail link between cities (Which will be nigh unaffordable to regular commuters). The high speed link is proposed to cost £42 billion and yet, we have no carrier capability until 2018 when we get two new carriers. Each of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers (Similar in size to the USS Nimitz) cost in the region of £3.9 billion - so you tell me which would be a more sensible use of funding? Potentially building a further 10 Nimitz sized carriers or joining bankers second homes together with a fancy train system?

It's honestly a shocking state of affairs. I don't mean to be scathing at all here, but the British Army has regiments that are literally older than the US nation, and yet all that history is thrown out of the window when they are disbanded to save money that is then put into building a shiny new office block for Councillor so and so. Bizarrely, the UK government seems to think that reducing the number of regular, experienced troops and replacing them with territorial troops (Who, whilst dedicated, are simply not as experienced or rigorously trained) is a viable solution to cut costs and maintain military capability...

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Serious question to those who may know. Does Obama have to seek congress' approval for intervention?

Very sticky legally.... the war powers act from the 70's basically tried to curtail the president's capability to wage war, limiting him to 60 days of "war" (i put this in quotations on purpose - the statue is long, and hte exact language of it has often been a sticking point - it defines war as , paraphrasing, "putting american troops at risk of death or severe bodily harm for a substantial, pervasive, and ongoing amount of time").


Basically the President can enact hostilities, and there's feth all congress can do for 60 days. At that point he's supposed to get their permission (in reality if he goes for 60 days thumbing his nose at them, good luck). However, they will not call it a "war", and then the whole situation gets muddy - humanitarian action, peacekeeping mission, interdiction operation, etc etc etc.

Congress at this point has one major recourse they can employ: they can deny funding. Technically there's other things they can do, but this is the one sure-fire, no nonsense way they can stop a military action (despite whatever label has been put on it).

Edit: for some general sense making clarifications. I'm tired, and i haven't put my international law hat on in years. lol

 djones520 wrote:
According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.

He's doing this to "pass the buck" though.

If he hadn't sought congressional approval, there would have been people in here screaming about how he should be impeached for violating the war powers resolution. Again, you guys are trying to have it both ways.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.

He's doing this to "pass the buck" though.

If he hadn't sought congressional approval, there would have been people in here screaming about how he should be impeached for violating the war powers resolution. Again, you guys are trying to have it both ways.

Then how would you square this?

...
A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.
...

Juuuust asking...

That's because every administration since it's been written has held that it's unconstitutional, while simultaneously following it. The reason they do so is because no one really wants to have it somehow get before the Supreme Court and have a decision come down one way or the other. It's more politically palatable for each side to feel like they have the upper hand simultaneously.

For the purposes of this argument, though, it's irrelevant; unless we're going to have a little piece of theater ourselves here and pretend that no one would make an argument that engaging in hostilities without any attack on the US, without congressional approval, wouldn't be a high crime and misdemeanor. That's the best part about this whole situation for the right wing; every choice is somehow wrong.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.

He's doing this to "pass the buck" though.

If he hadn't sought congressional approval, there would have been people in here screaming about how he should be impeached for violating the war powers resolution. Again, you guys are trying to have it both ways.

Us guys? I say go in guns a blazing. Bring the Missouri out of mothballs, and park it 15 miles off the coast. Go to town.

Ok, so "you guys" aren't a cohesive hive mind, that was a poor choice of words; but I think my point still stands.

 Ouze wrote:
at's the best part about this whole situation for the right wing; every choice is somehow wrong.

I agree with what you posted... except ^^^ that part ^^^^

If the (R)'s in the House voted not to support it... and there's more atrocity in Syria... they'll be blamed for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


Us guys? I say go in guns a blazing. Bring the Missouri out of mothballs, and park it 15 miles off the coast. Go to town.

I think I now approve...

Especially about the battleship Missouri...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Ok, so "you guys" aren't a cohesive hive mind, that was a poor choice of words; but I think my point still stands.

Also... I'd like to add that opponents to engage Syria isn't all Republicans... there's a diverse set of groups (R)'s, (D)'s, libertarians and the usual vocal anti-war folks.

 whembly wrote:

I think I now approve...

Especially about the battleship Missouri...

Nah, Send NJ. She has experience when it comes to sending Syrian generals to see Allah. Hopefully though this time the Navy doesn't screw with the powder before they send her though.

So, serious question.

If the military budget is 682 billion dollars, how the hell is the military broke?! Are they buying every soldier hookers and blow instead of spending it on carrier fuel?

 RatBot wrote:
So, serious question.

If the military budget is 682 billion dollars, how the hell is the military broke?! Are they buying every soldier hookers and blow instead of spending it on carrier fuel?

It was actually like $660 billion at the start of the fiscal year, then about another 50 billion was lopped off with the sequestration. Next year it's gonna be even lower.

But we spend about $160 billion of that on things like pay, medical costs, etc... for all of the personnel. There's about a million Active Duty guys, and twice that many civilians.

About $240 billion of that is for operations. Things like flying the President around (which is a lot, and involves a lot), shipping all of our equipment to and from Afghanistan, training exercises.and a multitude of other operations that take place.

R&D eats up about $70 billion. Gotta make sure we're staying on top of the heap.

The military doesn't waste a lot of money. We're very fiscally sound, so to speak. We are also very busy though, and everything we do costs money. We were already running at the red line for the year with all the cuts we had received, and now we've got this dropped in our lap.

Ah, interesting. Thanks!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I'd have to ask you to clarify then what tax you're talking about, then.

Any transaction the a citizen of the SNI engaged in which involved a citizen of the US, prior to 1924, would have been subject to federal tariffs and federal income taxes.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I admitted that I mistyped. I was thinking of Ghent and wrote Versailles.

Repeatedly mistaking the Treaty of Ghent for the Treaty of Versailles is not a typo.

 whembly wrote:

Lemme have my fun would ya?

No.

You constantly rail against the concept of scoring points for political reasons. And yet here you are, admitting that you are trying to score points for political reasons while lamely hiding such activity behind .gifs of female breasts.

To me it reads as: "Hey everybody, don't pay attention to anything I said, let us all objectify this famous woman!"

 whembly wrote:

If the (R)'s in the House voted not to support it... and there's more atrocity in Syria... they'll be blamed for it.

By whom?