[News] Obama asks for official declaration of war against ISIS.

Dave · Feb 11, 2015

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/11/obama-proposes-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/

This would mean boots on the ground. Not sure I like this. They are NO danger to the US. Add in the fact that we're thinking of arming Ukraine and you have a very ignominious ending for the presidency of a guy who got the Nobel Peace Prize (undeservedly).

Charlie Don't Surf · Feb 11, 2015

Obama is so hardcore right-wing drone murderer that I'm terrified to see what a named Republican would do differently.[DOUBLEPOST=1423672586,1423672423][/DOUBLEPOST]also, here's a link from an actual news organization: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...litary-authorisaion-political-infighting-aumf

Terrik · Feb 11, 2015

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Obama is so hardcore right-wing drone murderer that I'm terrified to see what a named Republican would do differently.

Here's a hint: nothing. It should be fairly obvious that the differences between Bush and Obama have been fairly superficial.

I lost my faith in Obama thr minute he let the Patriot act go into renewal.

Bubble181 · Feb 11, 2015

Dave said:
They are NO danger to the US.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/11/obama-proposes-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/

Sorry? Besides the fact that they've committed several terrorist acts on allies - you know, NATO members - they're easily 10x more numerous and far richer than Al Qaeda ever was or is. Thinking they're not a danger to the US is shortsighted.
I'm fairly against arming Ukrain, because that is meddling where you shouldn't be. Going to war against IS, on the other hand, is using your army for what it's for.

GasBandit · Feb 11, 2015

So is this the part where we admit we got out of Iraq too soon?

Gulf War 3 ahoy!

Bubble181 · Feb 11, 2015

you should never have gone there in the first place, as, as we're seeing all over the Middle East and Northern Africa, the only thing keeping fundamentalists in check was autocratic secular regimes (Egypt, Iraq, Tunesia, Libya, Syria and, going slightly furter back, Iran and Lebanon). Once you did go there, yes, you absolutely did pull out far too early, much like practically every other war where the US was slowly losing. Ask the Koreans how they're doing. The Vietnamese...well, they've mostly recovered, but had a couple of really shitty years too. And the US presence in Afghanistan is only half what it should be.

GasBandit · Feb 11, 2015

Bubble181 said:
you should never have gone there in the first place.

Well, the Kuwaitis were kinda happy we did the first time.

Bubble181 · Feb 11, 2015

GasBandit said:
Well, the Kuwaitis were kinda happy we did the first time.

You know full well I meant the second time, for the WMD junk. The first one, well, you can discuss for ages whether or not it was the US' place to intervene or not, but there was at least a good reason for someone to step up.

GasBandit · Feb 11, 2015

Bubble181 said:
You know full well I meant the second time, for the WMD junk. The first one, well, you can discuss for ages whether or not it was the US' place to intervene or not, but there was at least a good reason for someone to step up.

My father, who was there the first time (but had retired by the second time) often said he'd never forgive Bush 1 for pulling out before the job was finished. And that was waaaay before Gulf War 2. In fact, it was before 9/11. Maybe we'd not have had to do 2 (and now, 3) if we'd done 1 right.

Bubble181 · Feb 11, 2015

GasBandit said:
My father, who was there the first time (but had retired by the second time) often said he'd never forgive Bush 1 for pulling out before the job was finished. And that was waaaay before Gulf War 2. In fact, it was before 9/11. Maybe we'd not have had to do 2 (and now, 3) if we'd done 1 right.

Many Gulf War Veterans felt so, because they anticipated you'd go back in to once again defend some small neighbouring country against Saddam's aggression. If you'd taken out Saddam in '91 or '92, I doubt the result would've been much better than it is now. No IS, probably, but perhaps an earlier 9/11, and/or possibly a stronger Iran and/or a second Shiite theocracy.

Of course, we (the West) supported and helped Saddam in '88, so you can just as easily say that had we not done that, then the Gulf War wouldn't have been necessary. And so on, and so forth. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, when the decolonization of the Middle East started, they should've redistributed the national borders to recoincide (that's not a word is it?) with earlier, more tribal borders, instead of the Western straight-line-on-a-map borders that're still most prevalent in the region today. It's the same in Africa, where it's also lead to nothing but civil wars with one tribe feeling oppressed by another and vice versa. The Kurds, Aryans, Syrians, Jezidi, and other groups with fairly well-established borders would've been a lot happier for it. But oh my, that's racist speak, I guess.

GasBandit · Feb 11, 2015

Bubble181 said:
Many Gulf War Veterans felt so, because they anticipated you'd go back in to once again defend some small neighbouring country against Saddam's aggression. If you'd taken out Saddam in '91 or '92, I doubt the result would've been much better than it is now. No IS, probably, but perhaps an earlier 9/11, and/or possibly a stronger Iran and/or a second Shiite theocracy.

Of course, we (the West) supported and helped Saddam in '88, so you can just as easily say that had we not done that, then the Gulf War wouldn't have been necessary. And so on, and so forth. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, when the decolonization of the Middle East started, they should've redistributed the national borders to recoincide (that's not a word is it?) with earlier, more tribal borders, instead of the Western straight-line-on-a-map borders that're still most prevalent in the region today. It's the same in Africa, where it's also lead to nothing but civil wars with one tribe feeling oppressed by another and vice versa. The Kurds, Aryans, Syrians, Jezidi, and other groups with fairly well-established borders would've been a lot happier for it. But oh my, that's racist speak, I guess.

He did also often speak of cutting Iraq into pieces and divvying it up amongst Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and the Kurds, etc.
Of course, Turkey would have shit fire at that.

GasBandit · Feb 11, 2015

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-war-authorization-congress-isil-115108.html

Turns out neither Democrats nor Republicans are happy with the wording of Obama's requested AUMF. It's unlikely to see a vote until week after next. Republicans think the verbiage puts unreasonable restraints on the military, and Democrats complain the wording is too vague - despite assurances from the white house that it does not authorize "boots on the ground."

Dave · Feb 11, 2015

Yeah we've heard that one before. Giving him a greenlight is tantamount to mission creep.

But I'd be willing to bet that republicans are waiting to see whether or not he vetoes the Keystone XL. He has 10 days to do that. I'd be willing to bet we get the short end of the stick on both - he lets Keystone go through and they approve the resolution.

GasBandit · Feb 11, 2015

Dave said:
Yeah we've heard that one before. Giving him a greenlight is tantamount to mission creep.

But I'd be willing to bet that republicans are waiting to see whether or not he vetoes the Keystone XL. He has 10 days to do that. I'd be willing to bet we get the short end of the stick on both - he lets Keystone go through and they approve the resolution.

It will surprise me if he doesn't veto KXL. He's made too much noise about doing so. To back off on that would truly be to signal that he is the lamest of ducks... and he thinks too much of himself to allow that to come to pass.

Hailey Knight · Feb 11, 2015

I'm kind of surprised a president is even wanting to declare war these days. Even Bush didn't do that aside from the vague "war on terror".

GasBandit · Feb 11, 2015

Zero Esc said:
I'm kind of surprised a president is even wanting to declare war these days. Even Bush didn't do that aside from the vague "war on terror".

He's not *really* declaring war, we haven't actually declared war since WW2, as I'm sure you were referencing. He just wants a congressional authorization to use military force - which is the same thing that was granted for Iraq (both times), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon and Bosnia.

Hailey Knight · Feb 11, 2015

GasBandit said:
He's not *really* declaring war, we haven't actually declared war since WW2, as I'm sure you were referencing. He just wants a congressional authorization to use military force - which is the same thing that was granted for Iraq (both times), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon and Bosnia.

Oh, so the usual Team America: World Police shtick. Topic title is misleading then. I thought he was actually insisting on a declaration of war.

SpecialKO · Feb 12, 2015

I'd be much less likely to be against the principle of AUMF if it wasn't always our fucking go-to course of action whenever we get involved in actual wars but don't want to use the W-word.

GasBandit · Feb 12, 2015

Zero Esc said:
Oh, so the usual Team America: World Police shtick. Topic title is misleading then. I thought he was actually insisting on a declaration of war.

SpecialKO said:
I'd be much less likely to be against the principle of AUMF if it wasn't always our fucking go-to course of action whenever we get involved in actual wars but don't want to use the W-word.

Yeah, AUMFs are "weasel declarations." It allows you to say you're declaring war when looking hawkish will buy you political points, but still be able to say you didn't when it's more politically expedient.

SpecialKO · Feb 12, 2015

Like, I can understand an AUMF for actual low-intensity open conflict, like sending teams of Marines to Haiti or Liberia, or Peacekeeper stuff, or whatever the hell they called Somalia in early-90s, or the airstrike/drone stuff (whatever your thoughts on the actual actions taken).

But once you're getting enough boots/material on the ground to actively kick the shit out of other armies/countries/army-sized groups of opponents (especially ones wearing uniforms), in practical terms that's a WAR, whatever political/diplomatic handwaving you may be doing.

ThatGrinningIdiot! · Feb 12, 2015

SpecialKO said:
But once you're getting enough boots/material on the ground to actively kick the shit out of other armies/countries/army-sized groups of opponents (especially ones wearing uniforms), in practical terms that's a WAR, whatever political/diplomatic handwaving you may be doing.

It always amazed me that politicians believed that people are so easily duped - that their intentions or worded statements somehow obfuscated their actions from being what the really are. I would guess that your government is trying to craft a carefully worded statement that allows them to claim all credit if things go well, but render them immune from criticism or being held accountable if they don't. Another ploy in politics.

I'd have no problem with my country committing military intervention against the likes of ISIS or Boko Haram, but we need more than just military intervention such as a better comprehension of why these fringe extremist groups keep rising to power. Otherwise this is going to be a song that will be stuck on repeat for a very long time, and given that we always have more destructive toys each decade I don't think it's in humanity's best interest to continue to have these conflicts.

GasBandit · Feb 12, 2015

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
I would guess that your government is trying to craft a carefully worded statement that allows them to claim all credit if things go well, but render them immune from criticism or being held accountable if they don't.

Yes. That is exactly what they want in this, and all other situations, always.