|
Post by soulflower on Jan 11, 2024 20:23:00 GMT -5
Another Dem calls out the lack of involving Congress in the decision to launch strikes.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 11, 2024 20:23:04 GMT -5
If you go back through this thread you'll find that Soul has taken his stand with terrorists launching attacks against merchant vessels operating in international shipping lanes. Yeah I did and it was still a 🤷♂️
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 11, 2024 20:24:36 GMT -5
If you go back through this thread you'll find that Soul has taken his stand with terrorists launching attacks against merchant vessels operating in international shipping lanes. Yeah I did and it was still a 🤷♂️ The Founding Fathers were called “terrorists” too. It’s merely a slur against groups when you dislike their cause. All war is political violence. And for the record, it’s not being alleged by the White House that the Houthis killed any civilians in these attacks. They’re merely delaying shipping containers and increasing the cost of global shipping.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 11, 2024 20:35:55 GMT -5
Yeah I did and it was still a 🤷♂️ It’s merely a slur against groups when you dislike their cause. All war is political violence. And for the record, it’s not being alleged by the White House that the Houthis killed any civilians in these attacks. They’re merely delaying shipping containers and increasing the cost of global shipping. Striking merchant ships carrying non-military cargo in international shipping lanes is the definition of terrorism. So great, your 'cause' is to stick it to the United States, endanger merchant marines from various countries, and harm the world economy. Another great position for Soul.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 11, 2024 20:36:06 GMT -5
Option 1
Less War: Quiet down the Red Sea by pushing ceasefire in Gaza.
Option 2
More War: Fuel Gaza conflict with unconditional military support and bomb the Houthis for unclear and possibly unattainable ends.
Looks like US government has gone with option 2.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 11, 2024 20:39:01 GMT -5
It’s merely a slur against groups when you dislike their cause. All war is political violence. And for the record, it’s not being alleged by the White House that the Houthis killed any civilians in these attacks. They’re merely delaying shipping containers and increasing the cost of global shipping. Striking merchant ships carrying non-military cargo in international shipping lanes is the definition of terrorism. So great, your 'cause' is to stick it to the United States, endanger merchant marines from various countries, and harm the world economy. Another great position for Soul. My “cause” to the extent that I have one, is to wish for a ceasefire in Gaza that would kill two birds with one stone: De-escalation in Gaza and the Red Sea. I love my country and want our leaders to stop making dumb decisions. I thought Biden would be good on foreign policy due to his experience. He has proven me wrong. He continues to prove that Robert Gates was right about Biden’s poor foreign policy judgment… ’Robert Gates seems to double down on claim that Biden's been wrong on top foreign policy issues for decades’ Cooper pointed out a part in the book where Gates called Biden a man of integrity but wrote that he believes he’s "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."www.foxnews.com/politics/gates-seems-to-double-down-on-claim-that-bidens-been-wrong-on-top-foreign-policy-issues-for-decades
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 11, 2024 20:45:43 GMT -5
Striking merchant ships carrying non-military cargo in international shipping lanes is the definition of terrorism. So great, your 'cause' is to stick it to the United States, endanger merchant marines from various countries, and harm the world economy. Another great position for Soul. My “cause” to the extent that I have one, is to wish for a ceasefire in Gaza that would kill two birds with one stone: De-escalation in Gaza and the Red Sea. I love my country and want our leaders to stop making dumb decisions. Protecting international shipping and combating terrorism is not a 'dumb decision'. It is leadership. Speaking of dumb, what do you and the Houthis hope to accomplish by targeting cargo ships in international waters? And, how do you think that's going to help the innocent women and children living in Yemen?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 11, 2024 21:02:39 GMT -5
My “cause” to the extent that I have one, is to wish for a ceasefire in Gaza that would kill two birds with one stone: De-escalation in Gaza and the Red Sea. I love my country and want our leaders to stop making dumb decisions. Protecting international shipping and combating terrorism is not a 'dumb decision'. It is leadership. Speaking of dumb, what do you and the Houthis hope to accomplish by targeting cargo ships in international waters? And, how do you think that's going to help the innocent women and children living in Yemen? Obviously there’s no easy solution to this problem. These strikes alone are highly unlikely to succeed at deterring the Houthis. Anyone who has paid attention to the Saudi-Yemen war agrees. A political or diplomatic solution makes far more sense given the failures of past military conflicts in Yemen. Bush taking us into a dumb war in Iraq was called “leadership” too. Lastly, another Dem has called out Biden’s lack of consulting with Congress
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 11, 2024 21:18:55 GMT -5
Protecting international shipping and combating terrorism is not a 'dumb decision'. It is leadership. Speaking of dumb, what do you and the Houthis hope to accomplish by targeting cargo ships in international waters? And, how do you think that's going to help the innocent women and children living in Yemen? Obviously there’s no easy solution to this problem. These strikes alone are highly unlikely to succeed at deterring the Houthis. Anyone who has paid attention to the Saudi-Yemen war agrees. A political or diplomatic solution makes far more sense given the failures of past military conflicts in Yemen. Bush taking us into a dumb war in Iraq was called “leadership” too. Lastly, another Dem has called out Biden’s lack of consulting with Congress\ No, Bush taking us into a dumb war in Iraq was a giant mistake and it is irrelevant to the current conversation. How are Houthi terrorists striking merchant ships in international waters seeking a 'diplomatic' or 'political' solution? We've put up with this for months. I don't believe in kowtowing to terrorists. You obviously do. We disagree.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 11, 2024 21:26:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 11, 2024 21:28:45 GMT -5
2020 Biden would like to have a word with 2024 Biden
Not even considering any diplomatic solutions is the opposite of going to war as a “last resort”.
And David Frum is getting owned by Ro Khanna tonight
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 7:31:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 12, 2024 9:42:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 10:32:10 GMT -5
I need someone to explain how last night's airstrikes will resolve the crisis and not make it worse?
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Jan 12, 2024 10:44:23 GMT -5
I need someone to explain how last night's airstrikes will resolve the crisis and not make it worse? So the Houthis should be allowed to control the Red Sea?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 10:52:08 GMT -5
I need someone to explain how last night's airstrikes will resolve the crisis and not make it worse? So the Houthis should be allowed to control the Red Sea? They don't control the Red Sea. Most ships aren't getting attacked or hit. The problem is, the few attacks that the Houthis successfully carried out have increased the COST of shipping. Some freight carriers have decided to stop going through the Red Sea. Some insurers have raised the cost for shipping insurance. So we're sociopathically doing a military response to an economic problem which is unsurprisingy making the economic problem worse. There are no easy solutions but as I said earlier, a ceasefire in Gaza seems less costly (the political demand of Yemen's Houthi fighters) and makes more sense than striking Yemen while failing to stop these attacks...
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Jan 12, 2024 11:03:04 GMT -5
So the Houthis should be allowed to control the Red Sea? They don't control the Red Sea. Most ships aren't getting attacked or hit. The problem is, the few attacks that the Houthis successfully carried out have increased the COST of shipping. Some freight carriers have decided to stop going through the Red Sea. Some insurers have raised the cost for shipping insurance. So we're sociopathically doing a military response to an economic problem which is unsurprisingy making the economic problem worse. There are no easy solutions but as I said earlier, a ceasefire in Gaza seems less costly (the political demand of Yemen's Houthi fighters) and makes more sense than striking Yemen while failing to stop these attacks... And if the US calls for a ceasefire and Israel says no, then what? Or what if the Houthis see the success of firing rockets at ships and next decide for something else?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 11:13:30 GMT -5
They don't control the Red Sea. Most ships aren't getting attacked or hit. The problem is, the few attacks that the Houthis successfully carried out have increased the COST of shipping. Some freight carriers have decided to stop going through the Red Sea. Some insurers have raised the cost for shipping insurance. So we're sociopathically doing a military response to an economic problem which is unsurprisingy making the economic problem worse. There are no easy solutions but as I said earlier, a ceasefire in Gaza seems less costly (the political demand of Yemen's Houthi fighters) and makes more sense than striking Yemen while failing to stop these attacks... And if the US calls for a ceasefire and Israel says no, then what? Or what if the Houthis see the success of firing rockets at ships and next decide for something else? Diplomacy is hard and takes time (and pressure on our friends. Why won't Biden withhold military aid to Israel for example?). War is harder, more expensive, and more unpredicatable. Few experts believe these strikes will deter the Houthis. Which makes more sense to pursue given our three decades of failures in the Middle East? Peace talks or military escalation?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 12:08:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy Jazz on Jan 12, 2024 13:09:59 GMT -5
I like that Congress wants to reassert its authority here. I wish they would pass veto proof legislation that actually did something about it. My guess is, it wouldn’t pass and you only have a relative handful of people who care about this.
I think rerouting traffic around Africa was a fine way to deal with this. Egypt would lose Suez Canal revenue which is a massive contributor to their economy and large percentage of government revenue and the pressure would be on them to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Jan 12, 2024 13:13:51 GMT -5
I like that Congress wants to reassert its authority here. I wish they would pass veto proof legislation that actually did something about it. My guess is, it wouldn’t pass and you only have a relative handful of people who care about this. I think rerouting traffic around Africa was a fine way to deal with this. Egypt would lose Suez Canal revenue which is a massive contributor to their economy and large percentage of government revenue and the pressure would be on them to figure it out. The House is too busy trying to impeach the head of Homeland Security and shut down the government.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 14:11:05 GMT -5
I like that Congress wants to reassert its authority here. I wish they would pass veto proof legislation that actually did something about it. My guess is, it wouldn’t pass and you only have a relative handful of people who care about this. I think rerouting traffic around Africa was a fine way to deal with this. Egypt would lose Suez Canal revenue which is a massive contributor to their economy and large percentage of government revenue and the pressure would be on them to figure it out. I do too but I doubt that more than House progressives and a few Libertarian-leaning Republicans really push for Biden or future Presidents to go to Congress first before launching offensive strikes on other countries. In contrast to what happened last night, the use of military force to intercept and shoot down Houthi missiles and drones is legitimately "defensive" and doesn't need Congressional approval. We can continue to defend against these attacks but military force alone is unlikely to resolve the issue. Lastly, there are reports that less than 24 hours since last night's strikes, the Houthis are threatening ships in the Red Sea again. So as expected, the attempt at airstrikes for "deterrence" failed. My concern is, what comes next when its clear (it should be clear now) that airstrikes on Yemen alone aren't enough to stop these attacks?
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 12, 2024 15:02:33 GMT -5
Yeah I did and it was still a 🤷♂️ The Founding Fathers were called “terrorists” too. It’s merely a slur against groups when you dislike their cause. All war is political violence. And for the record, it’s not being alleged by the White House that the Houthis killed any civilians in these attacks. They’re merely delaying shipping containers and increasing the cost of global shipping. Well, then lets not hear your complaints about the Biden administration's handling of inflation and especially the cost of gas going up, in the near future. Sorry it is one of the drawbacks of having a global economy that is so interdependent for even cheap 'I'm with him' t-shirts.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jan 12, 2024 15:08:21 GMT -5
I agree that these strikes are going to do little to resolve the issue in the Red Sea, but 'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.
What part of Article 1 specifically precludes the President from ordering these strikes?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 15:29:12 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers were called “terrorists” too. It’s merely a slur against groups when you dislike their cause. All war is political violence. And for the record, it’s not being alleged by the White House that the Houthis killed any civilians in these attacks. They’re merely delaying shipping containers and increasing the cost of global shipping. Well, then lets not hear your complaints about the Biden administration's handling of inflation and especially the cost of gas going up, in the near future. Sorry it is one of the drawbacks of having a global economy that is so interdependent for even cheap 'I'm with him' t-shirts. I have never blamed Biden for inflation or the cost of gasoline. He doesn’t have the power to control the economy but he does have the power to control the direction of foreign policies or order the use of military force.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 15:36:07 GMT -5
I agree that these strikes are going to do little to resolve the issue in the Red Sea, but 'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. What part of Article 1 specifically precludes the President from ordering these strikes? Per former Congressman Justin Amash: ” "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.
The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans”.The Biden administration argues that last night’s strikes were “defensive” not “offensive”. Not everyone in Congress agrees. When our Navy intercepts Houthi missiles and drones or shoots at their small boats when they threaten ships passing through the Red Sea, those operations are undeniably “defensive” in nature. However, it seems like a stretch to argue that invading Yemen’s air space and striking targets around Yemen are “defensive”. And that appears to be the issue…
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 12, 2024 15:43:21 GMT -5
Well, then lets not hear your complaints about the Biden administration's handling of inflation and especially the cost of gas going up, in the near future. Sorry it is one of the drawbacks of having a global economy that is so interdependent for even cheap 'I'm with him' t-shirts. I have never blamed Biden for inflation or the cost of gasoline. He doesn’t have the power to control the economy but he does have the power to control the direction of foreign policies or order the use of military force. Thanks for clarifying you position. It's nice getting a clear answer here once in the while. 👍
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jan 12, 2024 16:01:50 GMT -5
I agree that these strikes are going to do little to resolve the issue in the Red Sea, but 'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. What part of Article 1 specifically precludes the President from ordering these strikes? Per former Congressman Justin Amash: ” "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.
The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans”.The Biden administration argues that last night’s strikes were “defensive” not “offensive”. Not everyone in Congress agrees. When our Navy intercepts Houthi missiles and drones or shoots at their small boats when they threaten ships passing through the Red Sea, those operations are undeniably “defensive” in nature. However, it seems like a stretch to argue that invading Yemen’s air space and striking targets around Yemen are “defensive”. And that appears to be the issue… You may want to ask former Congressman Amash where he studied the Constitution. The Constitution does provide Congress with the exclusive power to declare war - but war has not been declared, nor has Congress been asked to declare war, so that particular authority is meaningless in this circumstance. OTOH, Article II, Section 2 specifically identifies the President as Commander in Chief, with no stated limits on that authority. And indeed, this was a presumptive defensive action, as the Houthi rebels were attacking vessels ostensibly under the protection of the US Navy, in international waters and one has every expectation that the Houthis could change the parameter at a keyboard. So I'll give you another shot; what part of Article 1 precludes the President from taking unilateral action? And remember, I don't think this will change much, particularly if we keep announcing ahead of time that we are going to attack.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 12, 2024 16:08:53 GMT -5
I agree that these strikes are going to do little to resolve the issue in the Red Sea, but 'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. What part of Article 1 specifically precludes the President from ordering these strikes? Per former Congressman Justin Amash: ” "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.
The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans”.The Biden administration argues that last night’s strikes were “defensive” not “offensive”. Not everyone in Congress agrees.When our Navy intercepts Houthi missiles and drones or shoots at their small boats when they threaten ships passing through the Red Sea, those operations are undeniably “defensive” in nature. However, it seems like a stretch to argue that invading Yemen’s air space and striking targets around Yemen are “defensive”. And that appears to be the issue… And who doesn't agree. Can you list a few? Both sides please. Now your second paragraph needs some evaluation. So, based on what you said. That it is not 'right' for the US to attack possible launch points etc. that the Houthi have, from which they could launch another attack, which in turn would force the US/etc to go on the defensive again. And we go into wash rinse repeat mode. Really? If you remove (after provocation and that is important) the Houthi capability to attack again. You think that .... that is wrong? After unprovoked attacks? I dunno, that sort of sounds like the kid that beats , or attempts to beat the crap out of another kid ..... and the beater is excused from being 'reprimanded' by the 'another kids' Dad, because the beater hides behind his Mom's skirt. For clarity: Mom's skirt = Yemen’s air space and striking targets around Yemen Thoughts? Oh and just so you know where I am coming from; Yemen/Houthi's attacked US and UK military ships, besides the others they have been harassing. They should thank Allah, that they didn't bring the full might of the US/UK arsenal down on them. Which frankly they deserve. IMO. Don't like getting bombed and missiled. Stay on your side of the line and STFU.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 12, 2024 16:12:07 GMT -5
Ish, we’ll have to agree to disagree that last nights airstrikes in Yemen were “self-defense”.
Neither the US, nor our property were attacked. It’s not our constitutional responsibility to protect the Red Sea for other countries. That’s a geopolitical strategic choice, not an obligation.
Specific targets in Yemen were chosen for offensive operations. But Biden is framing it as “defensive” because of the way the article is written and the requirement that Congress approve non-defensive military operations.
But this isn’t the first time a President has bombed a country without Congressional authorization and it likely won’t be the last.
More concerning to me is the escalatory ladder given that the airstrikes are unlikely to succeed in deterring the Houthis.
|
|