-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Turkish strikes on Kurdish areas in Syria have already begun.
- Thread starter Saya
- Start date
I dont think there are any, can't he just executive order it? Didn't bush go to war w/o congress?
lol our government is such horse shit..;
" For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congressshall have power to ... declare War." ... Since then, every American president has used military force without a declaration of war. "
they didn't fill out the form!!! the war form!!!
I'm almost positive they can prevent military actions, if voted on. If I'm wrong on this, then I take it back.
I think it is disingenuous to say it like that. Assuming the EU is more or less united just the Uk+ germany+ france military is very capable. If you add the rest of the countries I think you would find that with the exception of USA I highly doubt any country would be capable of military threaten the EU.
The president should not be able to go to war without congressional approval, but presidents really want to go to war and Congress don't want to be on the hook for any of that so we stopped doing it.
The US hasn't declared a war since WW2.
I am unaware however of any power congress is even supposed to have that would stop a president from ending a war though.
It has the power to declare a war, and theoretically, without declaring a war the president can't go to war (every US president since FDR just started laughing, in fact, many presidents before FDR started laughing too).
I am unaware of any power congress have to prevent troop movement or withdrawals, outside withholding funding, but that's just blackmailing the executive to compel it to do something it's not legally obliged to do.
Last edited:
Their military?
• Can EU command US forces?
• Can EU guarantee US rapid deployment in case of invasion?
• Are US forces patrolling any of the EU borders?
• Are US fighters patrolling the EU airspace? No (NATO fighters on rotation)
• Are US in position to assist in case of Russian aggression?
• Can EU request free military radars/defensive batteries/equipment/troops from US?
• Has EU ever invoked Article 5, or requested US military deployment in defense of offense of EU?
• Does EU not have their own military?
US is the biggest force in NATO, but it has never served anyone but US interests. It is in both US and EU interest to be in the alliance: US to project power, EU to have extra security and backing.
At no point US forces acted, or were expected to act as EU military.
You took my post way too literally. My point is the EU can get away with spending basically nothing on their military because the US protects them. Obviously the individual counties have their own militaries.
And the US allowing the EU to spend so little on military is a leading reason why the EU can afford it's vast social programs.
You wont find an argument from me. Our government needs laws. We have a king-lite right now.
Congress has the power to declare war.. but if you can go to war-lite without the official email sign off, then its pointless. Toothless even.
We have the laws, it's just that congress doesn't want to enforce them and the public doesn't really care as long as it's the president they voted for (and in fact, they don't usually care even when it's a president that they didn't vote for).
I would have hoped that having someone as dumb as Trump in the White House would make people see that it's is really problematic to just go to wars whenever the president wants, but I'm not really sure anymore.
I strongly disagree, I think many of the US would have not gone to many of their dumbest wars/interventions if the president had to get Congress to vote for them.
I think it's fairly certain that the US would have not been in northern Syria if that was the case.
Just saw this article posted:
UK government halts arms export licences to Turkey
Am I misreading this or is this decision as meaningless as it sounds? No future arms deals will be negoatiated but all exports under existing arms deal agreements will continue? The fucks the point then
UK government halts arms export licences to Turkey
Am I misreading this or is this decision as meaningless as it sounds? No future arms deals will be negoatiated but all exports under existing arms deal agreements will continue? The fucks the point then
I highly doubt that. The Middle-East has just too much strategic value.
Obama wanted congressional approval and they said no.
I also think it's really hard to argue that congress would have been okay with shit like the invasion of Grenada, but at least there you're discussion hypothetical.
In this deployment?
You have to argue that if congress knew that Obama wouldn't been able to just say "fuck it", and do it anyway they would have voted for the Syrian AUMF, instead of killing it, and I think that's a huge stretch.
edit: derp misread though tbh it wouldn't cost us massively to reach the 2% target it's just wildly inefficient to have 28 separate militaries.
You certainly do play an incredibly important part in NATO and why people are shitting on that here I don't know. Other than France and the UK our militaries are pretty shit.
Yes, as useless as it sounds.
Edit: honestly, that is as much as you can expect from neoliberal governments. Hey, we are doing something without affecting the deals we had before, pat our backs.
Last edited:
Before this thread, I've never before seen anyone disagree on the US importance in NATO. It's like the twilight zone in here.
then they aren't laws. if they aren't enforceable by anyone. Much like the war declaration, just a bunch of pretty words. There needs to be another body that cant be controlled by parties. It makes no sense that all you had to do was be racist and control the senate to win the game.
edit:
Oh well, back to the geopolitical disaster(s).
All laws are like this. Without compliance and enforcement they are literally just empty words.
Also, the war powers resolution is enforceable, it's just that congress doesn't want to enforce it, and they didn't want to do it even under a strong Democratic majority.
Mate, you have been brainwashed.
Military budgets 2018 %GDP:
US: 3.2%
UK: 1.8%
US: GDP per capita $60k
UK: GDP per capita $40k
After subtracting the military contributions ($1920 per person US, $720 UK per person), US still has WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more wealth per capita which is NOT redistributed through social programs. We can do a poor EU country for comparison, where GDP per capita is in the $10-20k range.
And the GDP is official, all the corporations hoarding wealth offshore do not contribute that wealth to GDP.
What you just wrote here doesn't dispute my point. At all. The US not spending on social programs has nothing to do with what I said. Nor does any of this have anything to do with the US military protection allowing the EU to spend so little on their military - which is what I'm saying.
Can you give us the breakdown on the correlation between military spending, Nato membership and social spending? Because that's the most unsupported hot take I've ever seen.
I need to provide a breakdown to show that the US allowing the EU to spend so little on military spending helps pay for social programs? C'mon bruh.
If you had bothered to take even a cursory look at the numbers involved, you wouldn't continue this.
Edit: I called DrewFu out about past behaviour. Even though I disagree pretty hard with him on this issue, I shouldn't have done that.
Last edited:
How am I shitting on the EU? Like at all? Pointing out that the US protects The EU isn't shitting on them.
I don't believe he's American at least thats how he comes off sometimes.
"US protection"
Yes, the EU really needs to be protected against hospitals in the middle east.
Well fine, I'll break it down for you DrewFu:
US social welfare spending is roughly 20% of GDP. Military spending is roughly 3%.
European social welfare spending is roughly 20-30% of GDP. Military spending is roughly 1.5-2%. In social spending the variance alone is several times larger than military spending. It is simply impossible for military spending to be a factor. It's a societal choice far deeper.
Also fun fact, if you count actual money spent (ie. also tax breaks and private spending), the US spends more than the EU on social welfare. In other words, when you neglect social spending, the inefficiencies alone dwarf any military spending.
edit: sorry for derail, I'll shut up now.
US social welfare spending is roughly 20% of GDP. Military spending is roughly 3%.
European social welfare spending is roughly 20-30% of GDP. Military spending is roughly 1.5-2%. In social spending the variance alone is several times larger than military spending. It is simply impossible for military spending to be a factor. It's a societal choice far deeper.
Also fun fact, if you count actual money spent (ie. also tax breaks and private spending), the US spends more than the EU on social welfare. In other words, when you neglect social spending, the inefficiencies alone dwarf any military spending.
edit: sorry for derail, I'll shut up now.
😂 What in the fuck am I Reading.
Military or not though, the EU won't do jack shit against Turkey considering the refugee crisis. Erdogan has them by the balls.
Now you are just playing stupid after losing instead of admitting it.
First about US being EU's military.
Second about social programs vs military spending.
Here are more stats:
• 65k US military personnel is deployed in EU + Turkey
• EU has 1.8m military personnel as reported in 2014
Instead of making the argument that US is the superpower of the alliance, and it allows other members to spend less on their military, you made this a binary argument how US is EU's army, which was bullshit.
And here is a another mind-blowing revelation: US spending as much as like the rest of the world on military does NOT mean that other countries should follow, or can only exist with US protection. EU's military budget is still more than 3x the Russia's (the only threat in the region)...
Bro, playing stupid is continuing to take my post about the US essentially being the EU military literally, after I specifically said I didn't mean it as such. My only point from the beginning of this is that the US protects the EU under its umbrella, and that allows the EU to spend significantly less on its military. And that that money helps the government, in part, pay for other things that it deems more important. That's it. And I also never said that other countries should spend wildly on their military like the US does, nor that the EU only exists because of US protection.
I've said Europe and not the EU. And shitting on Europe seems to be your MO, be it threads about politics or food. And no, I'm not a some post history stalker.
Also, please tell me from whom the US is defending us. Iran? North Korea? Russia?
Ok, so off the top of your head, when have I ever shit on Europe? Hell, I don't think I've ever talked about European food on here. You seem to be mistaking me with someone else.
Im curious if this will be the first interstate war in what, over a decade?
What was the last? Iran-Iraq? Im meaning a war fought by state armies.
What was the last? Iran-Iraq? Im meaning a war fought by state armies.
I'm not gonna dig through your post history mate. But apparently it's often enough that I noticed it, and I'm usually not a very confrontational person.
If you want to continue this, feel free to shoot me a DM.
His take is partly conjecture and a little hyperbolic however your math doesn't necessarily negate anything he's saying.
USA plays a major role in NATO as the main military power. It does act like the police around the world and that does allow other NATO allies to take somewhat of a backseat when it comes to military involvement. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily a good thing because if a fool like Trump is elected and demolishes the USA's military competence (like in this case) then European countries are left to dry. Case in point, Erdogan is talking direct smack to Merkel because he knows there is little that will be done by European countries against him, let alone militarily.
Of course the EU can easily exist without the USA as an ally, however their military prowess is not necessarily something to boast about. This situation is an example of that. What is the EU (or NATO in general excluding Turkey) going to do now aside from economic sanctions?
Sadly for the the world the main military power of NATO has a moron as Commander-in-chief.
Last edited:
Seems likely Turkey is attacking its own cities now and passong the blame onto YPG, with the recent case of Kiziltepe, to help justify their war and gain support.
Oh barely even know about that, Ill have to research it.