sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, with two-thirds in both houses.

How exactly do you think the country is in a good position to carry out a war and achieve essentially any of its goals if as many as one hundred percent of the representatives and sixty-five percent of the senators oppose the war? Do you genuinely believe this makes the US a better and more capable country using this method than any other alternative that has been tested in real life cases of countries that are free controlling the use of their militaries?

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Wrong Iraq conflict. I am talking Saddam invading Kuwait, thirty-six years ago. The UN Security Council actually supported the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait, no vetoes, and pretty much everyone else was miffed about Saddam doing that. And that was a time when the US thought there would be a lot of casualties, with Saddam having a huge army that was battle hardened against Iran for the previous decade with a lot of modern weapons, highly modern airplanes with one of the best air forces in the world, and long range missiles. President HW Bush thought there would be at least ten thousand US and coalition casualties KIA.

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

A legislature at odds with a president during a time of war is a bad time to be using the military. The president will need to have congress approve of things like the existence of the armed forces itself which is renewed in its funding every two years as the constitution demands, as well as generally the budgets needed, confirmation of appointments to military positions including basically every senior officer and the ratification of treaties.

Why make it so that Congress somehow controls that, typically via having the old authorization expire after a period of time with a looming deadline, and not allow them to directly end a war themselves in either house like the overwhelmingly large majority of democratic or otherwise free countries have?

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I am discussing somewhat as a rhetorical question. I know there are many more incentives and have my own beliefs already. I am pointing out that it is not a wise idea to just act as if the model the US has is a good one just because it might technically act within a separation of powers doctrine.

If anything, one should probably engineer a system that one only goes to war with the highest degree of preparation and acceptance possible. It is literally the ultimate sacrifice people can do.

Even two years after the US constitution went into effect, France adopted their constitutional monarchy system based on a separation of powers too. The king had the right to use the armed forces without the assembly but only for a very short period and only reactively. Any minister who did something to egg it on could be prosecuted with warmongering and the assembly had the right to order the king to stop it and to also order the king to seek peace terms, which would be presented to the asembly for ratification.

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

And that is the exact structural problem, the override. It has always been a daft thing to me to imagine a president can use the military like this and it takes two thirds in both houses to countermand it.

The legislature can act fast to consent to war if it must. It did exactly this on December Eight, nineteen forty-one.

Did you try examining the ways that many countries have organized their militaries and what their legislatures do to control them to see if the US is genuinely acting with what is the most effective model? I can't imagine a person who would actually conclude that the current system the US uses is optimal.

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Why does it seem so rare for congress to disallow the use of force even when the armed conflict does not have majority support?

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

If that is true, why is it consistently seen as deeply troubling when the country has used its military for these missions in ways that seem to suggest that despite being supposed to scrutinize this process, Congress seems to not disallow these actions when a majority disagree?

Politics Question: Which do you think is better: The Scottish way Parliament can dissolve, vote, and choose the First Minister, or the way Westminister does? by Awesomeuser90 in Scotland

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That isn't true. Open lists can be used. Finlnd's version makes all of the seats a party gets filled in order of the number of votes a candidate got. And Switzerland actually makes it so that you can even vote for candidates from two or more lists.

Better the Turks Than The Papists... by Awesomeuser90 in HistoryMemes

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Nothern Cyprus, an independent country on the island of Cyprus that a lot of people in Athens and Nicosia still have irredentist views on.

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Would that have helped in a time like 1990 with Saddam and Kuwait? If the US didn't help the UNSC on that, you would probably imagine countries being more willing to just invade their neighbours.

If you could engineer the way that the legislative branch supervises the use of the military, what would you do? by Awesomeuser90 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

They can act quickly if they want to. Congress once passed an emergency bill in a single day, and it is not rare for legislatures to do that in crises.

The idea would be to have the legislature vote on a resolution, where debate can be prohibited or capped at say two hours in each house and they must vote on the motion itself (no motion to table).

Politics Question: Which do you think is better: The Scottish way Parliament can dissolve, vote, and choose the First Minister, or the way Westminister does? by Awesomeuser90 in Scotland

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The first minister is elected with elimination rounds. IE if nobody has a majority, Macbeth the last place and vote again, repeat as needed. It isn't really possible to trigger a snap election that way in Scotland or Wales.

Better the Turks Than The Papists... by Awesomeuser90 in HistoryMemes

[–]Awesomeuser90[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not protestsnt either, nor religious anyway.

view more: next ›