Who has the power to attack Syria?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by waloshin, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. waloshin, Aug 31, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2013

    waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #1
    Is it really Obama or his advisors or congress? Can Obama really launch a strike by himself?

    What will happen if congress denies Obama?
     
  2. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2
    See the War Powers Act. the POTUS has 60 days, with a further 30 days for a withdrawal period, to seek congressional approval for any military engagement.

    So the POTUS has 90 days to get congressional approval after engaging in combat.

    BL.
     
  3. filmbuff macrumors 6502a

    filmbuff

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    #3
    The catch 22 is that after 60 days it would be almost impossible for congress not to approve the action. Can you imaging the mess if we invaded a country for 60 days and then just left? After sacrificing lives and destabilizing a country? Impossible. So basically the president has unchecked power to go to war.
     
  4. sviato macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
    #4
    But they're only doing "limited punitive damages" so they won't be in Syria for too long right :D
     
  5. wrkactjob macrumors 65816

    wrkactjob

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #5
    Does Obama need Congressional permission?...I thought he was only asking them as a form of 'good manners'?....he can just order a military strike whenever he wants.
     
  6. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #6
    I'm pretty sure he's just asking Congress for either an out - if Congress votes down the attack - or a delay at the very least. They're searching for more proof to make the attack acceptable in the court of public opinion.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    He can do a short campaign for 60 days without congress approving it, but I think he wants to ask congress so he can shift some of the blame when he can't do strikes that will actually stop chemical weapons from being used again.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    The U.N.

    The United States should get out of policing the world and throw its support to the U.N.

    Sometimes we wouldn't get our way.

    We'd have to just get used to that.
     
  9. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #9
    When I read this title, I thought you meant like... military might.

    Then my mind instantly answered "obviously the French".

    I have no idea why... :confused:
     
  10. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #10
    The president can Damn near do whatever he wants with military might.

    He's the Commander and chief after all. What officer going to say no for the sake of Congress?

    The legislative has powers to keep that President in check, but rarely has the balls to do so.
     
  11. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #11
    Then he'll have an excuse for not intervening when Syria crossed his chemical weapon red line.

    If they do pass it, he can strike with much less political risk since he has the go-ahead from Congress.
     
  12. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #12
    While I absolutely agree with this, it would never come to anything then, because of political alliances. Just look at how Putin is acting up at the moment, even though the U.N. has more or less accepted the attack as being of chemical nature.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    The U.S. striking Assad does little to nothing to improve anything at all, its only going to make it much worse in my view. Let those in the region deal with it with our backing or assistance and hit him hard in the pocket book. We dont want islamic extremists running Syria nor do we really want Assad but lets not kid ourself. Teaching his military a lesson isnt going to help much of anything and only has the potential to make things much much worse. The risks here far outweigh any gains to be made. The International community needs to stand up on this one and if they wont why should we?
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Then that would be what we and the world would have to live with. Given enough events where humanitarian aid was stifled by politics, perhaps they'd reform how decisions were made. I could see where the veto power of the Security Council members could be removed or overturned by a sufficient majority of general council members.
     
  15. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
  16. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #16
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Batman has a Bat Hazmat Suit ready for these kind of situations.
     
  17. lannister80, Sep 3, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2013

    lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #17
    I would not put ANYTHING past the GOP-controlled House. They'd be more than happy to do just what you describe if it would embarrass Obama or otherwise screw with the Democrats.
     
  18. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #18
    I agree with this, at least with the type of strikes they are planning. A few missiles going into Syria will do nothing to get rid of the chemical weapons stockpiles that Assad has, at most it may help the rebels enough that Islamic militants will be able to get ahold of the weapons and use them for a terror attack outside of Syria. If we wanted to act, the time to do so was when Assad first started killing civilians a couple years ago, the west failed Syria then so now Al-Qauida and other Islamist groups have stepped in to fill the need for outside support, at this point if Assad goes then we will have an even worse government going in to replace him. The only strikes we should be considering right now are sending in special forces, destroying the remaining chemical weapons, and then getting out and letting the Syrians work things out on their own.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    There is no evidence that Assad has used any of his chemical weapons.
     
  20. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #21
    I disagree. We shouldn't fight the UN's wars.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Any one of half a dozen vain, gullible and easily-manipulated politicians.
     
  22. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #23
    Well, *somebody* did, and it's a hell of a lot more likely that it was the guys when (a) the chem weapons in the first place, and (b) the ability to launch them on rockets at multiple areas at the same time.

    I am not at all pro-bombing or whatever, but it's absolutely clear that Sarin was used. Photos of victims with obvious nerve agent symptoms (tiny pupils, etc), plus the UN team's results from hair and blood tests from first responders.
     
  23. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #24
    Consider yourself corrected - Batman is always ready for anything..... INCLUDING a hazardous environment in Syria made so by the regime of Assad as an attack on its citizens.

    Here's my view - like it or not, the US is the most powerful nation in the world and with that power comes a certain amount of responsibility.

    My view on war is get in or get out - all this half-ass "we're just gonna bomb em but that's it" nonsense only serves to escalate things to the point where we half-heatedly send in enough troops to cause a mess but not enough to get the job done.

    If the President wants to go to war, he should draft and present a list of reasons/goals. Then Congress should vote on whether those goals are in the best interests of the US and the International community. Then, with the full might of our military, we end them.

    Plain and simple. The idea that we do these strategic attacks in order to "avoid WW3" is ludicrous - what we end up doing is more damage to our own reputation and cause ongoing turmoil that ultimately never gets resolved.

    On Syria specifically, I'd just as soon say stay out of it because I know what our idea of an "attack" is - nowadays, its all politically driven nonsense.
     
  24. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #25

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
     

Share This Page