Bill prohibits any president from leaving NATO without Senate consent

a reply to: Gothmog

Obama supporters blamed bush. Trump supporters blame Obama. Fact is, both obama and trump lie about the middle east and continue the various agendas hidden from the public.

originally posted by: Frostmore
Also without any US involvement in European wars I don't think we would have this conversation at all. There would be no NATO, Russia or USA. Just the Euroasian-american Reich.

What makes you think that? The United States was drawn into the European theater by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor due to their pact with Germany. On another note, Britain had already prevented a German invasion as the Nazi high command had given up plans to invade the British Isles prior to the United States entering the war. The British had also halted Axis advances elsewhere such in Operation Crusader in Egypt late in 1941 without help from the United States.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scapegrace

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Scapegrace

I think the title is misleading. It should say "Congressional approval" not "Senate approval". The bill came from a Senate committee but grants the House the power to restrain the President's actions. As should be the case under the Constitution.

I think that the submission of this bill perhaps indicates a fear that the President could 'go rogue' and start doing things that the other branches of government don't condone.

Also, what part of Europe is Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait or Iraq? I don't think you can blame NATO for any of the US's recent wars. If anything, the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.

Face it that the US is particularly war mongering and It isn't demarcated upon party lines. Many of the recent conflicts have been under Republican Presidencies, too.

Although I appreciate your anti-war stance, I don't think that allowing the President to usurp the rest of government will actually reduce the number of wars that the US gets into. Leaving NATO will further isolate the US from the rest of the world and the bill will redress a loophole in the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government.

Not that this bill comes from the Republican majority Senate. It looks to me that someone is concerned that the President may have an agenda other than what is best for the country.

I would think further isolating “the US from the rest of the world” would protect the world from our warmongering. Wouldn’t we be less tempted to wage war if we didn’t have more than 50 defense treaties with other nations, or personnel stationed in about 600 foreign bases? You said “the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.” Sounds like another good reason to leave NATO — so we don’t go dragging them into our wars.

The thing is, the opponents of the US are allying in power bloc's against which an isolated US has little defense. North Korea can field a significantly larger soldiery, Russia has nukes to equal if not exceed the US arsenal, China has tech and an economy that approaches and is growing faster than the US. If they get together, a shattered Europe and the Americas aren't going to cut it, in war or simply in economic power.

Not to mention what a united Middle Eastern bloc might add.

Like it or not, the Western nations are either in it together, or they all fall separately.

I don’t understand what you mean by saying the USA would have “little defense” against the nations and blocs you mentioned. Do you literally mean the territory of the USA, or do you mean our forces stationed overseas? Or perhaps you mean all of our overseas interests, including allies, business investments, citizens abroad, etc. I can tell you with complete confidence that no one is going to invade Alaska, Hawaii or the continental United States. That would be as unlikely as the USA invading China or Russia, perhaps even more so since any invader would have to get past the US Navy and reach the far side of the Pacific or Atlantic oceans. Now Guam I can see being invaded, but that’s about it as far as our territories go.

As for the economic power of China, which has few allies of significance, the USA could potentially form a trade bloc that would dwarf it. Picture a bloc consisting of the USA, Japan, the UK, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand and Singapore. It would have about half the world’s consumer market and 40 percent of its GDP. The economies of China and the EU are highly export dependent. They would have to play fairly with such a bloc. Also, the USA is China’s main export market; we buy 19 percent of their exports. But China buys only 5 percent of our exports. See where I’m going with this? They need us, but we can find other nations teeming with desperately poor people to manufacture cheap crap for us; many US firms are already relocating because of Trump’s tariffs. Also, China needs our know-how. Why do you think more than 300,000 of China’s best and brightest attend our universities? Why does China force our companies to divulge their secrets as the price for doing business there? Do you hear much about US students attending Chinese schools or US firms stealing Chinese IP? No? I wonder why.

originally posted by: Frostmore
a reply to: Scapegrace

Thanks for the apology, and sorry for being so aggressive.

True about Americas help during WWII being very beneficial for Norway, but without that sacrifice the world would look very very different today, and I'm not sure it would look very good for America eighter.

Sweden managed very well without NATO, but Norway may or may not have been invaded by Russia. And our oil would then fall in Russian hands.

I think chr0naut above me is quite right too. Without the alliances, Russia and China would consume us all.

Marshal plan

The Marshall Plan, it should be noted, benefited the American economy as well

Aside from helping to put Europe back on its feet, the Marshall Plan led to [...], and at the same time stopped the spread of communism and put the European economy back on its feet.

Finally I don't think the fall of America right now is caused by the weight you pull in NATO. I agree that all members should contribute equally, but the USA was booming at the same time you put so much resources into Europe. It's like we are mutually dependent on each other. Now the US declines, Europe is fragmented again and the main benefactors are China and Russia.

I also apologize; I know I can be very harsh and sarcastic, especially when I feel like America is being unfairly criticized and underappreciated. I’m also painfully aware that America is deeply flawed, has done awful things and has huge problems. I agree that the free world should present a united front against China and Russia. China is a paper tiger. It’s not very powerful militarily — at least not yet — and is utterly dependent on selling its crap to the EU, the USA and all the other First World nations. If we all got together and told China to either change its predatory, thieving ways or find other markets to sell its stuff in, it would have no choice but to compromise. Its big advantages are a dictatorial government that can make decisions without the consent of its people and a patience that’s almost alien to Americans. And the Chinese people are highly intelligent and hard working; superb business people, albeit unscrupulous at times.

originally posted by: Frostmore
Also without any US involvement in European wars I don't think we would have this conversation at all. There would be no NATO, Russia or USA. Just the Euroasian-american Reich.

I think the USA would have been just fine if we hadn’t fought in Europe, or in the Pacific either for that matter. The Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans make fine buffer zones. We could have remained within the Western Hemisphere, shielded by our geography, navy and the U.S. Army Air Forces. And after August 1945, when we had A-bombs, no one could seriously threaten us. We would also not have lost 400,000 young men or had even more young men suffer terrible wounds, both physical and mental.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Scapegrace

Well, trump may know the truth and sven desire to get put but he's been doing what all other presidents have done regarding Afghanistan: Lie to the American Public.

Trump also declared an indefinite stay in iraq and did not help the Palestinian/israel situation. My point is that he is not too different from obama.

People keep claiming trump is some maverick but i don't see anything but more of the same.

Like every politician, he’s far from perfect, but I think his heart is in the right place. I think he really doesn’t want our guys dying in endless wars that don’t have much bearing on our security or freedom. But it’s not easy getting disentangled from the various quagmires we’ve blundered into. I believe we had good intentions in Afghanistan and the Middle East, but is there a realistic chance of changing the cultures of these areas? I doubt it. Lost causes I’m afraid. Time to cut our losses and go home, or relocate our forces where they’re perhaps more needed, like the western Pacific.

originally posted by: Scapegrace

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scapegrace

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Scapegrace

I think the title is misleading. It should say "Congressional approval" not "Senate approval". The bill came from a Senate committee but grants the House the power to restrain the President's actions. As should be the case under the Constitution.

I think that the submission of this bill perhaps indicates a fear that the President could 'go rogue' and start doing things that the other branches of government don't condone.

Also, what part of Europe is Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait or Iraq? I don't think you can blame NATO for any of the US's recent wars. If anything, the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.

Face it that the US is particularly war mongering and It isn't demarcated upon party lines. Many of the recent conflicts have been under Republican Presidencies, too.

Although I appreciate your anti-war stance, I don't think that allowing the President to usurp the rest of government will actually reduce the number of wars that the US gets into. Leaving NATO will further isolate the US from the rest of the world and the bill will redress a loophole in the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government.

Not that this bill comes from the Republican majority Senate. It looks to me that someone is concerned that the President may have an agenda other than what is best for the country.

I would think further isolating “the US from the rest of the world” would protect the world from our warmongering. Wouldn’t we be less tempted to wage war if we didn’t have more than 50 defense treaties with other nations, or personnel stationed in about 600 foreign bases? You said “the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.” Sounds like another good reason to leave NATO — so we don’t go dragging them into our wars.

The thing is, the opponents of the US are allying in power bloc's against which an isolated US has little defense. North Korea can field a significantly larger soldiery, Russia has nukes to equal if not exceed the US arsenal, China has tech and an economy that approaches and is growing faster than the US. If they get together, a shattered Europe and the Americas aren't going to cut it, in war or simply in economic power.

Not to mention what a united Middle Eastern bloc might add.

Like it or not, the Western nations are either in it together, or they all fall separately.

I don’t understand what you mean by saying the USA would have “little defense” against the nations and blocs you mentioned. Do you literally mean the territory of the USA, or do you mean our forces stationed overseas? Or perhaps you mean all of our overseas interests, including allies, business investments, citizens abroad, etc. I can tell you with complete confidence that no one is going to invade Alaska, Hawaii or the continental United States. That would be as unlikely as the USA invading China or Russia, perhaps even more so since any invader would have to get past the US Navy and reach the far side of the Pacific or Atlantic oceans. Now Guam I can see being invaded, but that’s about it as far as our territories go.

As for the economic power of China, which has few allies of significance, the USA could potentially form a trade bloc that would dwarf it. Picture a bloc consisting of the USA, Japan, the UK, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand and Singapore. It would have about half the world’s consumer market and 40 percent of its GDP. The economies of China and the EU are highly export dependent. They would have to play fairly with such a bloc. Also, the USA is China’s main export market; we buy 19 percent of their exports. But China buys only 5 percent of our exports. See where I’m going with this? They need us, but we can find other nations teeming with desperately poor people to manufacture cheap crap for us; many US firms are already relocating because of Trump’s tariffs. Also, China needs our know-how. Why do you think more than 300,000 of China’s best and brightest attend our universities? Why does China force our companies to divulge their secrets as the price for doing business there? Do you hear much about US students attending Chinese schools or US firms stealing Chinese IP? No? I wonder why.

No, you don't hear much about the US stealing Chinese IP.

But ask yourself, how come China had already rolled out 5G 'phones, exchanges, nodes and network, before a single 5G appliance, even on the back end, is available in the US?

And then some in the US are suggesting that China stole the 5G IP from the US? Wot? Get real!

The US has been falling behind technologically in lots of areas, for years. Considering its vast population, and big corporate money, it really under-performs most countries on a per-capita basis. I mean look at Israel, they are churning out the tech, and look at how tiny they are.

And then, if you actually look into the countries that invented the things and did the science at the basis of a lot of what the US has, you'd probably see that the US has appropriated a lot of its tech. It steals IP.

The idea that the US is the world leader in everything is just jingoistic propaganda. It cannot happen. Human intellect is about the same across the globe and the US has a military that try and make secret all sorts of tech that they might possibly use. There are other countries who don't do that.

a reply to: Scapegrace

His actions don't show it imo.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Halted yes, but would Britain be able to keep it in check? While V2 rockets started to pour into London and Norwich? The production capabilities of the USA in the end stages of the war were staggering! Half of the world's war production came from America. I was also refering to a scenario or though presented by the OP that the USA would be perfectly fine without being involved in the 2nd WW at all.

a reply to: Scapegrace
The losses are of course tragic. But I'm not sure it's possible to isolate events like this, and still think you would have the bomb by 1945 and be safe accross the pond. Let me try to explain.

There was a huge brain drain from Europe to the USA, where many top scientists flew, many were European jews hunted by the nazis.

Among one of the many things they contributed to, was calculation the exact amount of uranium needed to make the bomb, critical insights that Heisenberg, Lenard & Co failed to realize before it was too late. Would these critical scientists work for USA if you were not involved at all in the events in Europe? The involvement itself led to the Manhattan project and the a bomb being completed much faster than german scientists were able to in my opinion. In other words, the a-bomb would probably not be done by 1945 without American involvement in Europe and the scientific exodus to USA.

Robert Oppenheimer, one of the notable american scientist studied under Max Born, a german physicist. American-born Feynman also contributed greatly. however many of the top minds where refugees from Europe. Among: Leo Szilard (a Hungarian physicist), Hans Bethe, Klaus Fuchs (a German theoretical physicist), Enrico Fermi (an Italian–American physicist and the creator of the world's first nuclear reactor), George Kistiakowsky (designer of the bombs plutonium core). Otto Frisch (who helped explain the physics of nuclear fission), Rudolf Peierls (who worked with Frisch on the detonation mechanism of the bomb).

Szilard drafted the letter to Roosevelt, which Einstein signed. This letter led to immediate US governmental support for research into atomic research and ultimately, to the formation of the Manhattan Project.

The project itself was greatly enhanced by these people, who gave all they had fearing that the horror they fled from would eventually reach even America.

Laura Fermi wrote that “It was not only gratitude to the country that had offered them asylum or pride in their new citizenship but also the fear of dictators that drove them to work to the limit of their physical and mental endurance.”

Pearl Harbor also had a marked effect on the Manhattan Project. The S-1 Committee, which ran atomic research prior to the creation of the Manhattan Project, formally held its first meeting on December 18, 1941. This meeting initiated an official shift from the research to the development phase of the project. As S-1 official James Conant noted, “The atmosphere was charged with excitement – the country had been at war nine days, an expansion of the S-1 program was now an accomplished matter. Enthusiasm and optimism reigned” (Rhodes 398)

This exodus of brilliant minds had ripple effects that changed the outcome of WW2 and lasted long after the war ended. It also led to a stream of future Nobel Prize winners.

I believe in power balances, therefore an American withdrawal from NATO would in my view annihilate the current world order and cast us all into a very uncertain and risky future. It would also mean we forgot the hard earned lessons from WW2 and the sacrifices would be in vain.

As a little fun fact, even "puny Norway" contributed by sabotaging the german heavy water factories in Rjukan, also slowing down the germans in their pursuit of producing enough plutonium for a bomb.

originally posted by: Frostmore
Halted yes, but would Britain be able to keep it in check?

Yes, they won the air war and Germany could no longer overfly them with impunity. Germany could not defeat Britain even with their newer weapons.

a reply to: chr0naut

US is not falling behind in technology. A lot of the tech are hidden by the military, and they won't release it to the public. A lot of civilian tech China has, the military already has them. The military refuse to let those tech out in the civilian area of freaking US. Majority of the science is done for the military and kept away from the civilian. This all have to do with companies buyout and copyright laws US keeps abusing also. Hint: "Corrupt rich".

Ah, the never ending war on terror aka the oil grab? Did you forget Obama Hillary and rice?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why doesn’t America simply do what the other nations do and not meet the contribution standards? That seems fair let’s all half ass things. a reply to: Scapegrace

Crimea showed nato for what it really is, useless

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Frostmore
Also without any US involvement in European wars I don't think we would have this conversation at all. There would be no NATO, Russia or USA. Just the Euroasian-american Reich.

What makes you think that? The United States was drawn into the European theater by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor due to their pact with Germany. On another note, Britain had already prevented a German invasion as the Nazi high command had given up plans to invade the British Isles prior to the United States entering the war. The British had also halted Axis advances elsewhere such in Operation Crusader in Egypt late in 1941 without help from the United States.

Not exactly true the UK was no longer a threat as far as Hitler was concerned. After Dunkirk In the United Kingdom there were only 80 heavy tanks, and they were obsolete. There were 180 light tanks armed only with machine guns. There were only 100,000 rifles to equip the 470,000 men of the Home Guard. It was so bad they had troops carrying around brooms for rifle drills.

Had Hitler considered the british a threat a german landing could have taken them in a matter of weeks and Churchill knew it. Without the US help the UK was a setting duck.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Scapegrace


Ummm...I’m afraid this is just another usurpation of executive powers by the legislature...

I don’t think this will pass the SCOTUS smell test...as it shouldn’t...

It’s kind of eye opening to see some of these comments in favor of this separation of powers usurpation...

This is a microscope on how this incrementalism by global progressives works...

And the plebes just eat it up like so much manna...


“You have a republic...if you can keep it”...comes to mind...

“Death by a thousand cuts”...also comes to mind...

YouSir

I’m inclined to agree with you.

dbl post

originally posted by: Rob808
Why doesn’t America simply do what the other nations do and not meet the contribution standards? That seems fair let’s all half ass things. a reply to: Scapegrace

Sounds good to me! Our defense budget is a good place to start reducing our $1 trillion annual deficits. If we don’t get the fed budget under control through austerity cuts and abandoning our role as world cop, future generations will see an ever increasing share of the budget go to servicing debt. We should be ashamed of the debt we’re leaving Millennials, Generation Z and their children and grandchildren.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Frostmore
Also without any US involvement in European wars I don't think we would have this conversation at all. There would be no NATO, Russia or USA. Just the Euroasian-american Reich.

What makes you think that? The United States was drawn into the European theater by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor due to their pact with Germany. On another note, Britain had already prevented a German invasion as the Nazi high command had given up plans to invade the British Isles prior to the United States entering the war. The British had also halted Axis advances elsewhere such in Operation Crusader in Egypt late in 1941 without help from the United States.

Not exactly true the UK was no longer a threat as far as Hitler was concerned. After Dunkirk In the United Kingdom there were only 80 heavy tanks, and they were obsolete. There were 180 light tanks armed only with machine guns. There were only 100,000 rifles to equip the 470,000 men of the Home Guard. It was so bad they had troops carrying around brooms for rifle drills.

Had Hitler considered the british a threat a german landing could have taken them in a matter of weeks and Churchill knew it. Without the US help the UK was a setting duck.

Funny thing about the dreaded German army; it had pitiful amphibious capabilities. Amphibious landings are the second most risky form of warfare after airborne assaults. You have to land on a beach or embankment with a body of water or river at your back. If the enemy succeeds in driving you off your narrow beachhead — as almost happened in many of the enormous Allied amphibious landings — your entire force can be wiped out. I wouldn’t assume that the Germans could have successfully invaded the UK without US help. They didn’t have air superiority like the Allies had in all their landings, and the Royal Navy might have had something to say about it. Yes, Britain was terribly vulnerable after Dunkirk, but Germany was totally unprepared for an amphibious assault across the Channel, and FDR quickly sent rifles and other emergency materiel at Churchill’s request. The window of opportunity for Germany was short lived. Its defeat in the Battle of Britain and military ventures elsewhere soon made invasion impossible.

The USA could have easily helped Britain stave off invasion and air raids without waging all out war in Europe. People forget or don’t know how much the UK produced during the war. It was a staggering amount of war materiel, not much less than Germany’s IIRC. I think the main problem for Britain surviving without direct U.S. involvement in combat would be keeping the flow of materiel from the USA going despite the U-boats, E-boats, mines, Condors and surface raiders.

The Brits developed amazing ASW technology during the war, much of it mass produced and sometimes improved in the USA. I won’t go into all the things they developed, such as code breaking, radio direction finding, centimetric radar or sonar, but U-boat losses became unbearable to the Germans. The Brits also developed increasingly effective tactics and techniques for protecting convoys, so that an ever increasing percentage of merchant ships arrived safely with cargoes and made it back to America and other places for additional cargoes.

The USA would have had to sell or give vast quantities of materiel to Britain to keep it fighting all over the Mediterranean, as well as SE Asia, while conducting commando raids on the Continent and directing and aiding partisan and spying operations. Of course, that’s what happened in reality, but my point is that the USA could still have been the arsenal of democracy without doing much, or perhaps any, of the fighting.