US Held Back From ISIS... by Congress???

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
I found this article in NPR that says that Obama was actually trying to do things the right way and made a request to Congress to take troops over to defeat ISIS over a 3 year time frame. Polls taken show that approximately 80% of the population want this to happen... but Congress is holding back on its decision. For once, Obama is doing what we want and yet our Congress is stopping it from happening... wtf is going on? If the people want it, do it. The people rarely ever come this close to agreement on any issue so if they are hitting at 80% Congress should have nothing to decide. It should be done.

Why Congress Doesn't Really Worry About What Most Americans Think
 

missbishi

MEMBER
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
404
Reaction score
118
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
It's frustrating when everyone an see the answer to a problem as clear as day yet bureaucracy and red tape prevents anything from happening. The whole world really needs to get a wiggle on about deciding what to do about ISIS, how many more people need to have their heads chopped off before we take some real action?
 

User911

BANNED
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
51
Reaction score
9
Country
USA
Location
USA
I found this article in NPR that says that Obama was actually trying to do things the right way and made a request to Congress to take troops over to defeat ISIS over a 3 year time frame. Polls taken show that approximately 80% of the population want this to happen... but Congress is holding back on its decision. For once, Obama is doing what we want and yet our Congress is stopping it from happening... wtf is going on? If the people want it, do it. The people rarely ever come this close to agreement on any issue so if they are hitting at 80% Congress should have nothing to decide. It should be done.

Why Congress Doesn't Really Worry About What Most Americans Think
Sorry, that's not what really is going on. Part of the proposal made by Barack is that ground troops are NOT going over to fight ISIS for three years, even in an emergency. This is really dangerous. That means that not much would be done under the current administration to destroy ISIS and it would tie the hands of the next president for their first year in office, even in an emergency. A really bizarre proposal. I still have mixed feelings about ground troops. I get frustrated because there ARE other things we could do right now, like arming the Kurds, sending help to Jordan and Egypt to help them in their fight against ISIS, but the president is refusing to do these things. So what does this mean? It means ISIS and their ilk are going to keep growing, the middle east is going further into chaos and by the time the next president rolls around, we will probably be forced to send ground troops in because there will be no other choice.

It's almost like Barack is leaving the entire chaotic mess for the next president so the Dem party can then once again accuse the Reps of being war mongers, blah, blah, blah. If he had done EVERYTHING he could possibly do NOW to try to get a handle of the problem, then perhaps the next president wouldn't need to send over troops. Bottom line, Barack is playing politics instead of doing his job.
 

003

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
206
Reaction score
11
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
The idea really thrilled me and excited me as well. But it disappointed me to have known that the congress is holding it back. Why? Well, I think because it'd be a great achievement for the Obama administration and if it succeeded, Obama will just become more powerful and influencial worldwide. But don't they see it. It wouldn't be just Obama, but Amercia itself will reaffirm itself as the hero of the world.
 

Redheart

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
319
Country
USA
Location
USA
I agree that Obama was trying to do the right thing. But remember Obama declared that he doesn't need the Senate's approval to fight ISIS.

Obama: I Do Not Need Congressional Approval To Go To War With ISIS | JONATHAN TURLEY
"President Obama is again asserting his right to act unilaterally and without congressional approval in going to war. In what has become a mantra for this Administration, Obama reportedly told members of Congress that he does not need congressional approval to unleash a comprehensive military campaign against the Islamic State."
Since he's been fighting ISIS without the Senate's approval is it an excuse he sought [for his failure] when he realized he's spent a lot our tax money for nothing? Now he can blame congress for his failure. Good scheming, that.
 

DeltaForce103

THINK TANK
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
62
Country
India
Location
India
It's ironic considering that the US authorized military action in Iraq when a significant portion of the population opposed it and Syria when a clear majority was against it. I believe the real intention goes beyond political squabbles and that it is to maintain the status quo.

Daesh, a terrorist group that is the direct consequence of western intervention in the region, does not pose enough of a threat to US interests in the region, regardless of the threats they've made, to warrant military action. In fact, the US may go so far as to dissociate itself from efforts by countries in the region to finish off Daesh, as we're currently seeing with Egypt.
 

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
Sorry, that's not what really is going on. Part of the proposal made by Barack is that ground troops are NOT going over to fight ISIS for three years, even in an emergency. This is really dangerous. That means that not much would be done under the current administration to destroy ISIS and it would tie the hands of the next president for their first year in office, even in an emergency. A really bizarre proposal. I still have mixed feelings about ground troops. I get frustrated because there ARE other things we could do right now, like arming the Kurds, sending help to Jordan and Egypt to help them in their fight against ISIS, but the president is refusing to do these things. So what does this mean? It means ISIS and their ilk are going to keep growing, the middle east is going further into chaos and by the time the next president rolls around, we will probably be forced to send ground troops in because there will be no other choice.

It's almost like Barack is leaving the entire chaotic mess for the next president so the Dem party can then once again accuse the Reps of being war mongers, blah, blah, blah. If he had done EVERYTHING he could possibly do NOW to try to get a handle of the problem, then perhaps the next president wouldn't need to send over troops. Bottom line, Barack is playing politics instead of doing his job.
Actually I believe the report for several reasons.

1. They are not the only news station reporting that information.
2. This is not the first time that congress has done this (both Bushes, Regan, Clinton) this is the norm for them.
3. Congress does not have to have approval from the President to deploy troops in war, but the President is SUPPOSE to have the approval of Congress.

I have no love for the Obama admin and I am sure they are at fault in this somewhere, in this instance... it is not them that is holding us from action. I also know from several reports that the UN has been holding the US back on several issues (such as the Ukraine conflict). I am not sure why they are holding the US back, but the US was told by the UN to stand down. I am still researching into this trying to figure out what all the UN is pushing the US from and why. The UN has never been too forth coming on information.
 

Rainshield7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
3
Country
USA
Location
USA
I found this article in NPR that says that Obama was actually trying to do things the right way and made a request to Congress to take troops over to defeat ISIS over a 3 year time frame. Polls taken show that approximately 80% of the population want this to happen... but Congress is holding back on its decision. For once, Obama is doing what we want and yet our Congress is stopping it from happening... wtf is going on? If the people want it, do it. The people rarely ever come this close to agreement on any issue so if they are hitting at 80% Congress should have nothing to decide. It should be done.

Why Congress Doesn't Really Worry About What Most Americans Think
Well Congress could care less anyway how we feel since they care more about giving themselves a raise. They would not hesitate in taking troops over to get rid of ISIS. I would not be surprised if Congress is funding some of those ISIS crooks just have this war go on and on while they pocket the money.
 

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
Now that I can agree with. A lot of people like to believe that it is all Obama's fault or this Presidents fault or that Presidents fault... nope, guys, give credit where credit is due. What is it they call a group of Baboons again???? Oh yeah, Congress.
 

Rainshield7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
3
Country
USA
Location
USA
Now that I can agree with. A lot of people like to believe that it is all Obama's fault or this Presidents fault or that Presidents fault... nope, guys, give credit where credit is due. What is it they call a group of Baboons again???? Oh yeah, Congress.
LOL those guys in that office do look like baboons. They flop around and leave banana peels all over.
 

westmixxin

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Country
USA
Location
USA
I think it's time for US citizens an the US in general to stay out of foreign politics for about the next 20 years were not really going to influence anything another regime is just going to pop up right after this one disappears.
 

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
Here's the major issue though, many US citizens have been bashing on Obama for years because he took executive action and moved without Congresses approval. The whole premisses of them wanting to impeach him, the shut down of the government, and the conflict between him and Congress is his constant use of his executive action power. Now that he is waiting for Congresses consent, everyone is bashing on him for waiting... so what does he do, take action without Congress or to wait for Congress? People need to make up their minds.

The U.S. Constitution said:
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Please point where it says that the President can use our military at his own disposal without Congress approval? It says that when at war the President is the Commander and Chief of the military. Which means he can direct them when at war, not deploy them into one.

I read the 2001 and 2002 war resolutions. There is one issue.... both have to do with only Iraq. ISIS is not Iraq. They are all over the Middle East. Therefore the basis that they have in that article is wrong. If the war resolutions said Middle East or just terrorist in general, then yes... the President has the authority already given by Congress to wage war and send our troops over there. However, it does not. It says specifically and only Iraq.
 

Rainshield7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
3
Country
USA
Location
USA
Here's the major issue though, many US citizens have been bashing on Obama for years because he took executive action and moved without Congresses approval. The whole premisses of them wanting to impeach him, the shut down of the government, and the conflict between him and Congress is his constant use of his executive action power. Now that he is waiting for Congresses consent, everyone is bashing on him for waiting... so what does he do, take action without Congress or to wait for Congress? People need to make up their minds.



Please point where it says that the President can use our military at his own disposal without Congress approval? It says that when at war the President is the Commander and Chief of the military. Which means he can direct them when at war, not deploy them into one.

I read the 2001 and 2002 war resolutions. There is one issue.... both have to do with only Iraq. ISIS is not Iraq. They are all over the Middle East. Therefore the basis that they have in that article is wrong. If the war resolutions said Middle East or just terrorist in general, then yes... the President has the authority already given by Congress to wage war and send our troops over there. However, it does not. It says specifically and only Iraq.
It does not say that the president has to be at the mercy of Congress to take military action. The president is the commander and chief of the military which is in the Constitution. So no I do not see where it says that the president needs Congress approval.
 

Coltodor

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
36
Reaction score
2
Country
USA
Location
USA
Congress is remember the last major military engagement in the area. Politicians are more cautious now in the post-Bush days. It probably going to take a ISIS terror attack in the US to get the military over there.
 

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
It does not say that the president has to be at the mercy of Congress to take military action. The president is the commander and chief of the military which is in the Constitution. So no I do not see where it says that the president needs Congress approval.
Actually, it is a combination of Article 1 and Article 2. Article 1 gives Congress the power to:

US Constitution said:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
and Article 2 gives the President the power to direct the ARMY and NAVY (does not mention the Marines or National Guard and there is no Amendment on it. Anyone else catch that? or are they referring to the Marines in the "state militia" part? Because last I checked the Marines were federal not state and the US Constitution denies states the ability to hold their own military.... very confused about that one.):

US Constitution said:
when called into the actual Service of the United States
which basically means, when Congress/the People call or in DEFENSE of the Nation.

If the President deploys troops into a foreign country without that counties request then he is declaring war on that country because it is considered an invasion, which is the power of Congress not the President. If the President deploys troops after a direct attack on us (either nationally or on US territories/bases/embassies ... etc ...) then it is considered in Defense of the nation and therefore does not need Congressional approval.
 
Last edited:
Top