He also can’t. Proclamations of war are made by the legislature. (Congress). If the President sends troops in a supposed emergency they can go without legislative consent for 90 days and must be recalled at that time without the legislature’s approval. It’s stupid, because 90 days into a conflict we have troops on the ground and an immediate evacuation only hurts us economically and global appearance some worry about. Not to mention the troops lost/injured, casualties left with those attacked and Congress not agreeing to keep them there is an admission that it was wrong, so not paying restitution would hurt international relations as well.
To me it comes to, if he orders troops on the ground, an immediate Congressional impeachment would be needed, and the Senate to remove him, or they will vote in favor of staying in the fight to “save face” and not care how many innocent lives die or are thrown into poverty, starve, are raped, wrongly imprisoned, tortured, and the damages it will cause to the mental health of a whole new generation of our soilders and people of other counties around the world.
The funding comes from Congress… So either they approve it or are forced to approve it which they would have to recognize they no longer exist as an entity if the executive branch can write their checks for them.
So to save face, they would have to approve or impeach. Or completely give up the guise that it is a Republic. Their votes are public record. So the executive branch could make them up, post them and threaten them not to say anything… but I doubt many of them would go through with that and not vote to impeach unless they are truly pro dictatorship. Some of them think they are pro dictatorship, but when you gather hundreds of people spending their lives/career trying to work their way up in power and someone says they are going to dissolve their positions/power and their chances of rising or having any say plummet… they would be powerless if they chose to follow… Greed and self preservation would make them not want it.
Americans have only ever pretended to care about non-combatants when it’s convenient. President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’ so he could pretend his drone strikes were killing fewer civilians.
It was under Bush to justify imprisoning civilians. Bush was all for direct war actions.
Obama massively increased bombings and drone bombings to pull out combat troops and would do stuff like double tap weddings. To lower the number of civilian deaths, Obama declared any male over the age of 14 to be, by definition, an enemy combatant.
The person you responded to was correct, though a bit imprecise with their words.
In the history of the world, it has only been a very short window during the late 20th/ early 21 st century that civilians were not considered fair game in war, although they get slaughtered anyway. Even with civilians being off limits, as recently as WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, civilians have been targets either by design, by atrocity, or by proximity.
If there’s a war, don’t think you’re getting off the hook just because you’re a civilian. During war, the old adage “If your not with us, you’re against us” becomes weaponized.
i mean true honest war does not have rules like that. the reason “rules of war” exist is so corporations can keep a labor pool and capital operating with minimal effect to profit. (“Ain’t no war but class war.”)
true honest realistic “war” is carpet bombs, famine, death, and capitulation.
stop expecting “war” to involve rules, you’ll only be surprised in the end.
Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?
It comes and goes, usually whenever it’s useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don’t want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it’s worth fighting, but sometimes it isn’t.
You can’t just slaughter civilians willy nilly. Well, you can, obviously, as shown by what’s going on in the world, but international laws say you shouldn’t.
Iran could legally intern any Americans, but civilians wouldn’t still be POW’s. And should technically have rights and whatnot.
International laws have said you shouldn’t since they were written, and not a single engagement has followed those laws. I disregard their existence as much as the people who enact war.
To disregard their existence is to pretend they don’t matter at all, which is incredibly naive.
There’s no perfect compliance, no, but if they weren’t respected at all and had no effect, the situations would be different.
For instance yeah, Russia has apparently brought out WWI style choking agents and used them. But there’s no widespread use at least, and no mustard gas. Which would be more effective for Russia to do. But they don’t, as they want to keep plausible deniability so that Europe doesn’t gain an actual reason to mount an offensive.
So yeah, while you are right in that psychotic asshats don’t care about them, they are affected by them nonetheless.
Basically ROE says that medics shouldn’t be shot, but my brother trained as a medic and one of the first things they’ve we’re unofficially taught was to hide their crosses on the battlefield, as Russians would literally aim at medics. (Finnish army.)
According to the British (during the Malayan Emergency) and Americans (during Operation Ranch Hand), indiscriminately starving enemy civilians by spraying Agent Orange everywhere was legal.
In more recent history, we of course have Captain Drone Strike’s reign of terror against wedding parties and aid workers in Afghanistan.
The only thing that’s changed since the Geneva conventions of 1949 is that when civilians are targeted, the rest of the world says “tut tut, that’s a war crime” before it proceeds not to do anything about it.*
* Unless you’re from Africa or the Balkans, apparently.
I mean, yeah, that’s what a declaration of war usually entails.
Trump doesn’t even have the class to declare.
He also can’t. Proclamations of war are made by the legislature. (Congress). If the President sends troops in a supposed emergency they can go without legislative consent for 90 days and must be recalled at that time without the legislature’s approval. It’s stupid, because 90 days into a conflict we have troops on the ground and an immediate evacuation only hurts us economically and global appearance some worry about. Not to mention the troops lost/injured, casualties left with those attacked and Congress not agreeing to keep them there is an admission that it was wrong, so not paying restitution would hurt international relations as well.
To me it comes to, if he orders troops on the ground, an immediate Congressional impeachment would be needed, and the Senate to remove him, or they will vote in favor of staying in the fight to “save face” and not care how many innocent lives die or are thrown into poverty, starve, are raped, wrongly imprisoned, tortured, and the damages it will cause to the mental health of a whole new generation of our soilders and people of other counties around the world.
You’re speaking like you have a functional government.
The funding comes from Congress… So either they approve it or are forced to approve it which they would have to recognize they no longer exist as an entity if the executive branch can write their checks for them.
So to save face, they would have to approve or impeach. Or completely give up the guise that it is a Republic. Their votes are public record. So the executive branch could make them up, post them and threaten them not to say anything… but I doubt many of them would go through with that and not vote to impeach unless they are truly pro dictatorship. Some of them think they are pro dictatorship, but when you gather hundreds of people spending their lives/career trying to work their way up in power and someone says they are going to dissolve their positions/power and their chances of rising or having any say plummet… they would be powerless if they chose to follow… Greed and self preservation would make them not want it.
There you go again.
It used to be that non-combatants weren’t considered legitimate targets. Ain’t progress fun?
Americans have only ever pretended to care about non-combatants when it’s convenient. President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’ so he could pretend his drone strikes were killing fewer civilians.
Yeah that was George W Bush.
But sure, same thing right? 🙄
It was under Bush to justify imprisoning civilians. Bush was all for direct war actions.
Obama massively increased bombings and drone bombings to pull out combat troops and would do stuff like double tap weddings. To lower the number of civilian deaths, Obama declared any male over the age of 14 to be, by definition, an enemy combatant.
The person you responded to was correct, though a bit imprecise with their words.
There’s no grey area here, this is just false.
He absolutely redefined to justify killing children. Bush didn’t do that. It was used, under Bush, to justify torture and jailing of adults.
Obama re-invented it for his purposes. The purpose being to kill children without consequence.
In my mind, that definitional change is significant enough that he owns a lot of that blame.
Fucking goddammit, he redefined the word to justify killing children. Why do you defend that?
EDIT: Removed indirect articles for easier readability, content is the same.
Why would you post such an obvious and easily verifiably false statement.
In the history of the world, it has only been a very short window during the late 20th/ early 21 st century that civilians were not considered fair game in war, although they get slaughtered anyway. Even with civilians being off limits, as recently as WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, civilians have been targets either by design, by atrocity, or by proximity.
If there’s a war, don’t think you’re getting off the hook just because you’re a civilian. During war, the old adage “If your not with us, you’re against us” becomes weaponized.
i mean true honest war does not have rules like that. the reason “rules of war” exist is so corporations can keep a labor pool and capital operating with minimal effect to profit. (“Ain’t no war but class war.”)
true honest realistic “war” is carpet bombs, famine, death, and capitulation.
stop expecting “war” to involve rules, you’ll only be surprised in the end.
Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?
It comes and goes, usually whenever it’s useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don’t want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it’s worth fighting, but sometimes it isn’t.
“War is terrible”
Wow, such a great take. You should be in charge. Any more deep insights?
Lol. You’re following me around now to insult me? And you called me a neckbeard…
Mmm, not really.
You can’t just slaughter civilians willy nilly. Well, you can, obviously, as shown by what’s going on in the world, but international laws say you shouldn’t.
Iran could legally intern any Americans, but civilians wouldn’t still be POW’s. And should technically have rights and whatnot.
International laws have said you shouldn’t since they were written, and not a single engagement has followed those laws. I disregard their existence as much as the people who enact war.
To disregard their existence is to pretend they don’t matter at all, which is incredibly naive.
There’s no perfect compliance, no, but if they weren’t respected at all and had no effect, the situations would be different.
For instance yeah, Russia has apparently brought out WWI style choking agents and used them. But there’s no widespread use at least, and no mustard gas. Which would be more effective for Russia to do. But they don’t, as they want to keep plausible deniability so that Europe doesn’t gain an actual reason to mount an offensive.
So yeah, while you are right in that psychotic asshats don’t care about them, they are affected by them nonetheless.
Basically ROE says that medics shouldn’t be shot, but my brother trained as a medic and one of the first things they’ve we’re unofficially taught was to hide their crosses on the battlefield, as Russians would literally aim at medics. (Finnish army.)
Not the citizens part
As if the US have ever given a fuck who they blew up…
Never said they did, but that doesn’t suddenly make it right now does it.
Since when?
Since 1949
According to the British (during the Malayan Emergency) and Americans (during Operation Ranch Hand), indiscriminately starving enemy civilians by spraying Agent Orange everywhere was legal.
In more recent history, we of course have Captain Drone Strike’s reign of terror against wedding parties and aid workers in Afghanistan.
The only thing that’s changed since the Geneva conventions of 1949 is that when civilians are targeted, the rest of the world says “tut tut, that’s a war crime” before it proceeds not to do anything about it.*
* Unless you’re from Africa or the Balkans, apparently.
What does that have to do with civilians being legitimate targets in war?
It depends on your definition of “legitimate”, I suppose.
My point is that the targeting of civilians is still and always has been common in war. It may now be de jure illegal but it is de facto not policed.
The word legitimate has a pretty specific definition it’s not really something that can be reasonably debated.