American Soldiers refuse orders to attack Syria!

Obama can order them into battle and it still be constitutional. The argument on whether or not the US pres can order military actions constitutionally is very complicated. You mean to tell me these soldiers have settled the constitutional debate, and therefore have the right to refuse? I argue that most don't even know what military action is constitutional, and what is not.

 

Nah, what is twisted is the view that the US should not be intervening in the Middle East. That view forgets history. What was the US supposed to do right after WWII? Well, we won, let's pack up our (*)(*)(*)(*) and go back home, this Middle East region will be fine without us. That's not how it works. Our commanders, as well as the Soviets, realized that any future major conflict will send armies right back to the Middle East. The oil is required to sustain the military machines. And it will be fought over again; one cannot ignore the strategic value of it. The US was correct in keeping an influence in that region. Have US politicians made all of the correct decisions in who they supported and who they did not? No, of course not. But who the hell would have?

 

Which you guys were supporting, just like when I witnessed the dead women children and babies and old men from Saddam's gassing, you gave no rebuke and continued giving him weapons. You only started bringing that one up when you wanted to go to war with him. Mattered not a bit when you were supporting him in those actions.

I have heard the deaths in Iraq from the US led invasion at 1,000,000. You also used white prosperous and depleted Uranium which is still killing people and causing masses of deformed and sick children. Should we be bombing you or is there one law for you and another for everyone else?

You claimed you made Iraq more secure. What rubbish. You went into Iraq on the lie of WMD's and lies about Saddam's ties with Al Qaeda regardless of the reality your intelligence had told you the one thing which would give rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq was an attack from you.....

now those people are in Syria.....

Your experiments in the ME has caused Havoc. As some people have been saying we have quietly been involved in WW3 for some years. At last your bluff is being called.

 

Well you may be an oil whore but this American is not. End of discussion.

 

Approximately 625,000 people died during our Civil War, not 1 million, and of that number about 213,000 were KIA.

 

He can not declare war per the constitution! The constitution is almost meaningless anyway.

 

LOL - Yeah, you kinda have to receive orders before you can refuse them.

Today's RCP House Whip poll has Democrats voting 2 to 1 against and Republicans 14 to 1 against.

I guess we're back to watching the goon squads from Syria, Iran, the Hizb and AQ kill each other...
.

 

I have been in the region enough to know that 1M people killed by the US is completely false. I'm not sure of the white phosphorus and uranium incidents, I can only say, from the perspective that I had, that there is no way the US killed 1M. The fact that the white phosphorus and uranium allegations are usually made by the same people that give me false numbers of casualties, leads me to lean toward that didn't happen either. I wasn't around during the Iraq gas attacks. But a brief perusing of UN records shows that the US did rebuke Saddam for this use, multiple times, in multiple resolutions. So again, more lies.

 

Oh, so you are one of those people that just blindly expect that fuel to end up in your gas tank?

 

Thanks. I had confused 1 million casualties with deaths. 1 million includes those wounded too.

 

You are 100% correct, he cannot declare war. But do you mind telling me (and all the judges, lawmakers, govt officials, my fellow Con Law students in my current class) what the word "declare" means, and what it meant to the framers? Because there definitely isn't a consensus.

 

U.S. dependence on Saudi oil is very exadgerated. It has decreased in decades. Support for all Saudi policies (domestic + foreign) has not decreased. The 12% can be easily be found elsewhere in Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada , Angola or within America itself.

China imports more oil from Saudi Arabia, but they are not held hostage by Saudi oil sheikhs like America is! China still gives the finger to the Saudis regarding Syria and Iran. US on other hand bends over backwards for Saudis.

 

It is very vague and we must actually study the writings of the founding fathers to gather the intent. The Pres has been given authority to act on immediate threats but not to declare war. So it becomes policing actions and such. It is just a work around weakening the old rag.

 

The Lancet a medical journal is what is usually attributed to the 1,000,000 and that was some time ago.

As far as WP and depleted uranium, nah I don't understand why you should be in any doubt. It is well known. You are the first person I have heard denying it. The Al Jazeera article talks about the on going health problems in Iraq.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/03/2013315171951838638.html

Really. I was. I went to my neighbour who worked for one of our Political Parties. She said. 'Oh nothing will happen. No one cares' and both the US and the UK kept on supplying Iraq with weapons. Actions speak louder than words.

I appreciate that it is hard for you if you have gone there and been fighting there and you are given all sorts of propaganda to make you believe in what you are doing but the US has made a powder keg of the ME.

 

I'm not worried about the US, we will be fine. I'm worried about the world, and it will not. In 2010, Sri Lanka was importing 100% of its oil from Iran. There are many more nations that import almost ALL of their oil from the ME. And without oil, food doesn't get delivered to grocery stores. You all think this green energy thing is really about the environment? Lol, no, our leaders foresee exactly what I do, not in regard to the weather, but in regard to the fact that the world has placed its eggs in 1 basket in regard to oil. Mass starvation without it...

 

You're welcome. The total number of casualties was close to your 1 million figure (approx. 1.1 million).

You're right - the largest percentage of oil we consume is produced here in America, and we import a larger percentage of oil from Canada and Mexico (and less from Saudi Arabia) than your pie chart indicates.

Indeed, the Saudi lobby in DC is far more powerful and influential than it should be. Their oil wealth has enabled them to hire the best lobbyists that money can buy, and their opposition to the likes of Iran has helped their cause, as well.

 

I have studied them, and it is clear to me that what the framers meant by "declare" in regard to the Congress, was simply declaring a legal status between Americans and foreign citizens, or a state of commercial warfare---says John Woo (and I agree) in Readings in American Politics, Analyses and Perspectives by Ken Kollman. Woo makes a lot of good points on this:

1. The power for Congress to declare war (art.1, sec. is listed simultaneously with the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water. This indicates the framers intended for this power to relate to the legal status between citizens of different countries (as in the piracy that was occurring then).

2. Woo also refers to the dictionary definitions of "declare" in the 1700's, which define "declare" as: to make known, or public, or shew. Declare did not mean initiate, or commence.

3. The framers use the term "war" in several other passages of the constitution. They use "levy" and "engage" in war. This indicates that the framers saw different situations of war. If they meant anything other than declare, they would have used these terms in the art.1 sec.8 clause.

Imo, you cannot place all military decisions up for a vote in Congress. You cannot make war decisions by vote, because of the very nature of how war is conducted, it must have 1 person at the top, making decisions. Nothing else works (at least of you want to be successful at war) in all of history of warfare.

Congress has the power of the purse to influence military actions, but the POTUS, as the CIC, makes decisions as to whether or not to authorize military action. We aren't declaring war here. We aren't declaring all Syrian citizens as enemies of US citizens.

 

The propaganda was offered by US media, academia, and politicians. I did witness that with my own eyes, and they demonized Bush while we were in the war. Instead of supporting US troops in the field, many Americans were suckered into believing that the Iraq War was a mistake. No WMD's, that's their argument, as if its that simple. I know what those casualty counters in the corners of TV screens against the backdrop of a US flag meant. It's about people gaining power, by demonizing someone else who is in power, and I, as a soldier in those wars, recognize propaganda when I see it, even in my own country. They turned my fellow Americans against the war from the very outset. Tell me as a soldier, how was I supposed to feel when Senators like Harry Reid, and many other leaders of my nation, were openly calling the war a mistake. I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't have received healthy debate and criticism from these other leaders and his own team, but to do it publicly? Nah, that was propaganda, and I can recognize an age old tactic to gain political power. The actions of the US media, politicians seeking power, and academia, greatly contributed to our struggle in Iraq. Just as they did in Vietnam. Just as they are now. The US has yet to figure out how to interface our media and war, and we are going to lose every one of them until we do.

 

This is why the president was granted the 90 day period. These recent wars are not anything more than political moves and I believe Madison was clear about the power to declare war.

 

I think soldiers who are opposed to a war should have an option to quit, what do you guys think about that? If they had to pay contract damages instead of specific performance?

 

Yes and no. We can not set a precedent of just letting people leave who do not want to go to war.

Leadership does need to pay attention to the mental status of the military but in the end a precedent can not be set!

- - - Updated - - -

Yes and no. We can not set a precedent of just letting people leave who do not want to go to war.

Leadership does need to pay attention to the mental status of the military but in the end a precedent can not be set!

 

So you can see it in writing and know we have strayed far! The constitution is ignored.

And read the blue. Your argument is a little ineffective when the writing style is observed. I mean Bankruptcy and naturalization have as much less in common than what you claim declaration and Letters of Marque which is for privateers. All to do with war!

Anything else?

Yeah I had a law class where I had to write a brief to the scotus. I studied a little constitutional law.

 

You would t be able to just walk away really. You would owe the military based on damages that could include training costs and are probably very expensive. Would be based on the loss the military expected from the full service.

 

And because the US has no debtors prison how could enforce this? I get what you are saying and I agree in principle; I just think it is a bad precedent.

 

If you are as concerned about keeping Syria a secular state...and I am as well....you should be spending your time with other Syrians planning to keep Syria secular after Assad is removed BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AboveAlpha