FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Legitimate Use of Force
The Legitimate Use of Force
Jump to: Newest in thread
As you've likely heard, Boris Johnson made comments regarding the use of force in Syria - effectively, that he and the prime minister may support, with force, further US action in Syria should that support be requested. When asked about parliamentary approval, he seemed to indicate that such approval may not be necessary.
This follows Trump's action in Syria a few weeks ago, where he approved direct military involvement in that country without Congressional approval (indeed, without even seeking such approval).
And, to make sure I am addressing this from a bi-partisan standpoint, I will point out that Obama used military drones in regions outside of Afghanistan and Iraq on a regular basis - again, without Congressional approval.
I'm not fluent in UK parliamentary laws, but in the United States, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have the power...to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Article II Section 2 then names the President as the Commander in Chief.
Here is my question - as a citizen of the US, and resident of the UK, I like to think that I am a part of a democracy. A democracy where the legitimate use of force lies with the people. Whether I support or reject various military operations, or whether I support or don't support specific political parties, I like to think that the decision to act either way is in the hands of the people and the representatives thereof. However, in the US (and possibly in the UK, should Johnson's comments be serious), this principle seems to have been called into question. Do you think that, in a democracy, this is a legitimate use of force?
Should we let it become standard practice to remove the decision to go to war, or act forcefully, from the people and their direct representatives and instead place those decisions in the hands of a very small and elite portion of our executive governments?
This is something that has been bothering me for a while - beginning with the very expansive authorization for military action that Bush was given, and continuing through the Obama administration's use of drones, and culminating in Trump's missile strike in Syria. Boris' comments just brought to light, for me at least, the idea that this is becoming a standard practice - that it is OK to openly state that the Prime Minister decides when to seek parliamentary approval and when not to. It doesn't sit easy with me. What do you all think?
And please, think big picture rather than partisan digs...
-Courtney | |||
Wow, I wrote more than I thought I did.... | |||
| |||
| |||
"The government are the representatives of the people and they have always been able to make the decision to take the country to war. How else could it be? Have a debate while the bombs are falling?" Firstly, I am differentiating between locally elected government (Congress and MPs in Parliament) and more federally-minded government (The President, The Prime Minister). Secondly, there is another way - you could have a debate before you drop the bombs. That's how it has traditionally happened in the past (at least in the US). You have a debate and vote in Congress, they either approve or don't approve military force, then the executive branch acts accordingly. Even Bush went through the formalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were more pressing situations than "punishing" Syria for an act that had already occurred. This is a genuine question - do you believe, as a citizen, that your government shouldn't have to gain your approval (through parliament) for use of military force? What if Corbyn were the Prime Minister instead of May? | |||
"The minute you accept nuclear weapons you have to accept sole decisions on firing the fucking things!. Hell theres God knows how many nuclear submarines wandering around that only require authorization by three crew to fire the lot of. I no longer have a fucking clue where the clear and present danger line is to me personally but then you and I are just bods who belong to a state and the danger to the state is different than the danger to me or you!. Which state provides the biggest threat to the USA! Not US citizens! Is the real question. Where's your jobs, money, resources and technology going?. The USA only has one trump card left, its military might, that's why it spends more than the next 8 countries combined,6 of which are officially allies!. I guess the clear and present danger is the natural terminal decline of your state!. It was born, it grew and like any living thing it will cling on to life at any cost" Your point about nuclear weapons is interesting....although it also isn't quite true. When the US did use nuclear weapons in the past, that Congress had actually approved military operations in that armed conflict. It seems to me that "lesser" weapons are used more often without approval. I find it a disturbing trend. | |||
| |||
"The government are the representatives of the people and they have always been able to make the decision to take the country to war. How else could it be? Have a debate while the bombs are falling? Firstly, I am differentiating between locally elected government (Congress and MPs in Parliament) and more federally-minded government (The President, The Prime Minister). Secondly, there is another way - you could have a debate before you drop the bombs. That's how it has traditionally happened in the past (at least in the US). You have a debate and vote in Congress, they either approve or don't approve military force, then the executive branch acts accordingly. Even Bush went through the formalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were more pressing situations than "punishing" Syria for an act that had already occurred. This is a genuine question - do you believe, as a citizen, that your government shouldn't have to gain your approval (through parliament) for use of military force? What if Corbyn were the Prime Minister instead of May?" When a government is elected it has that approval, it wouldn't make any difference who the PM was | |||
"The minute you accept nuclear weapons you have to accept sole decisions on firing the fucking things!. Hell theres God knows how many nuclear submarines wandering around that only require authorization by three crew to fire the lot of. I no longer have a fucking clue where the clear and present danger line is to me personally but then you and I are just bods who belong to a state and the danger to the state is different than the danger to me or you!. Which state provides the biggest threat to the USA! Not US citizens! Is the real question. Where's your jobs, money, resources and technology going?. The USA only has one trump card left, its military might, that's why it spends more than the next 8 countries combined,6 of which are officially allies!. I guess the clear and present danger is the natural terminal decline of your state!. It was born, it grew and like any living thing it will cling on to life at any cost" For a start, lets face it, the world would be better if the slitting of the atom had never been conceived as a way to kill, and instead had been conceived as a way to generate power for the public. But sadly we don't live in that world. I'd say that the biggest threat involving nuclear warheads and military action is from a lack of communication between political leaders. Not to mention political leaders using them as, or promising to invest more money in them as politic sound bites to the public. It doesn't help. If you are citizen of a nuclear nation, congrats, you've been born in country which hold the card which says, "You can take us down, but we'll take you down with us." On a serious note, nuclear warheads are the least of my concern. Not nation, bar maybe North Korea would actually instigate a nuclear war. I'm more concerned about cyber attacks which could be used to steal a nations vital security info, wipe shared intelligence, and used as a cover to distract or manipulate money to aid in sanction avoiding. Still, I'd rather the British government just not follow Trump into Syria, or North Korea if it ever came to it. Unless, there is a serious threat to the nation in which case military action is justified to eliminate the threat. | |||
| |||
"There are only 2 people that can declare war in this country on another nation, the Prime Minister & The Queen. The PM can consult parliament if they wish but they do not have to act upon parliaments decision/view. If the PM went against parliament then they could be subject to a vote of no confidence and if they lost their position of PM their decision could then be reversed. If the Queen declared war then nobody can do anything about it as she is totally above the Law though in reality the Monarch leaves this to the PM of the day." Ah, thank you for the explanation!
I didn't know what the process was over here. I guess my question is more applicable to US citizens, then. Oops! | |||
"There are only 2 people that can declare war in this country on another nation, the Prime Minister & The Queen. The PM can consult parliament if they wish but they do not have to act upon parliaments decision/view. If the PM went against parliament then they could be subject to a vote of no confidence and if they lost their position of PM their decision could then be reversed. If the Queen declared war then nobody can do anything about it as she is totally above the Law though in reality the Monarch leaves this to the PM of the day." Imagine Queeny declaring war on Syira or North Korea. :P On a serious note, I imagine that if May wins this election, and then gets dragged into a war, there is a good chance her own backbenches would vote against her or give her a vote of no confidence. The Tories don't want to risk have a mark for getting into an expensive war on them, like labour does. | |||
"I think if waging any form of war against another nation is a direct response from us being attacked first then that should be the PM's decision alone. If the PM wants to wage war without us being directly attacked first then I think parliament should be involved and the vote should be made and only act upon the result." Given how you've explained the UK system above, I think this is a reasonable outlook for UK military force. | |||
"I think if waging any form of war against another nation is a direct response from us being attacked first then that should be the PM's decision alone. If the PM wants to wage war without us being directly attacked first then I think parliament should be involved and the vote should be made and only act upon the result." Agreed. Obviously if there is a direct, obvious/confirmed threat to us, then the PM, whoever it is should react decisively. If it's a case of assisting an ally in something we are not involved in, or intervening on foreign soil, that should be a parliamentary vote. I'd actually say that in the case of being requested to assist an ally, MP's should have to pitch the question to their constituents and act upon their yes or no. | |||
"I think if waging any form of war against another nation is a direct response from us being attacked first then that should be the PM's decision alone. If the PM wants to wage war without us being directly attacked first then I think parliament should be involved and the vote should be made and only act upon the result." As long as Parliament isn't misled/lied to  | |||
" Imagine Queeny declaring war on Syira or North Korea. :P " It would sound very posh and she'd probably invite them for tea once we've finished | |||
"The minute you accept nuclear weapons you have to accept sole decisions on firing the fucking things!. Hell theres God knows how many nuclear submarines wandering around that only require authorization by three crew to fire the lot of. I no longer have a fucking clue where the clear and present danger line is to me personally but then you and I are just bods who belong to a state and the danger to the state is different than the danger to me or you!. Which state provides the biggest threat to the USA! Not US citizens! Is the real question. Where's your jobs, money, resources and technology going?. The USA only has one trump card left, its military might, that's why it spends more than the next 8 countries combined,6 of which are officially allies!. I guess the clear and present danger is the natural terminal decline of your state!. It was born, it grew and like any living thing it will cling on to life at any cost For a start, lets face it, the world would be better if the slitting of the atom had never been conceived as a way to kill, and instead had been conceived as a way to generate power for the public. But sadly we don't live in that world. I'd say that the biggest threat involving nuclear warheads and military action is from a lack of communication between political leaders. Not to mention political leaders using them as, or promising to invest more money in them as politic sound bites to the public. It doesn't help. If you are citizen of a nuclear nation, congrats, you've been born in country which hold the card which says, "You can take us down, but we'll take you down with us." On a serious note, nuclear warheads are the least of my concern. Not nation, bar maybe North Korea would actually instigate a nuclear war. I'm more concerned about cyber attacks which could be used to steal a nations vital security info, wipe shared intelligence, and used as a cover to distract or manipulate money to aid in sanction avoiding. Still, I'd rather the British government just not follow Trump into Syria, or North Korea if it ever came to it. Unless, there is a serious threat to the nation in which case military action is justified to eliminate the threat." . Actually there's been far far more close calls to nuclear war through accident than intent. As for no country would, well i recall people saying nuclear reactors are so safe and well regulated with multiple backups that they'll NEVER be an accident, in fact experts estimated to be 1 in 500 years, of course we had windscale and they said there'll never be another then we had 3 mile island and then they said there'll definitely be no more.. Then we had Chernobyl but no definitely definitely not again.. Fukushima, this is definitely the last time  .
1 in 500 years!! | |||
"I think if waging any form of war against another nation is a direct response from us being attacked first then that should be the PM's decision alone. If the PM wants to wage war without us being directly attacked first then I think parliament should be involved and the vote should be made and only act upon the result. As long as Parliament isn't misled/lied to "There's always that yes. I'd pitch in one other method of war into the equation... if a NATO member was attacked then that should be an automatic declaration of war for the whole of NATO. | |||
"There are only 2 people that can declare war in this country on another nation, the Prime Minister & The Queen. The PM can consult parliament if they wish but they do not have to act upon parliaments decision/view. If the PM went against parliament then they could be subject to a vote of no confidence and if they lost their position of PM their decision could then be reversed. If the Queen declared war then nobody can do anything about it as she is totally above the Law though in reality the Monarch leaves this to the PM of the day. Ah, thank you for the explanation!
I didn't know what the process was over here. I guess my question is more applicable to US citizens, then. Oops!"I think the US President can authorise military force at short notice but has to gain the Senate's approval with 60 days. | |||
"The minute you accept nuclear weapons you have to accept sole decisions on firing the fucking things!. Hell theres God knows how many nuclear submarines wandering around that only require authorization by three crew to fire the lot of. I no longer have a fucking clue where the clear and present danger line is to me personally but then you and I are just bods who belong to a state and the danger to the state is different than the danger to me or you!. Which state provides the biggest threat to the USA! Not US citizens! Is the real question. Where's your jobs, money, resources and technology going?. The USA only has one trump card left, its military might, that's why it spends more than the next 8 countries combined,6 of which are officially allies!. I guess the clear and present danger is the natural terminal decline of your state!. It was born, it grew and like any living thing it will cling on to life at any cost Your point about nuclear weapons is interesting....although it also isn't quite true. When the US did use nuclear weapons in the past, that Congress had actually approved military operations in that armed conflict. It seems to me that "lesser" weapons are used more often without approval. I find it a disturbing trend." . Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world after the USAF?. Thats right, the united states navy. For a country thats never really been attacked except by the UK and a small incident in Hawaii, it sure does feel the need to defend its citizens to the extreme?. Of course the state is not protecting you its protecting itself!. The Mafia boss has many enemies  | |||
"There are only 2 people that can declare war in this country on another nation, the Prime Minister & The Queen. The PM can consult parliament if they wish but they do not have to act upon parliaments decision/view. If the PM went against parliament then they could be subject to a vote of no confidence and if they lost their position of PM their decision could then be reversed. If the Queen declared war then nobody can do anything about it as she is totally above the Law though in reality the Monarch leaves this to the PM of the day. Ah, thank you for the explanation!
I didn't know what the process was over here. I guess my question is more applicable to US citizens, then. Oops!
I think the US President can authorise military force at short notice but has to gain the Senate's approval with 60 days."I think you're talking about the War Powers Resolution. But that deals with the commitment of the armed forces (so things like drones are ambiguous)....and it requires Congressional approval - not just approval from the Senate. | |||
"The minute you accept nuclear weapons you have to accept sole decisions on firing the fucking things!. Hell theres God knows how many nuclear submarines wandering around that only require authorization by three crew to fire the lot of. I no longer have a fucking clue where the clear and present danger line is to me personally but then you and I are just bods who belong to a state and the danger to the state is different than the danger to me or you!. Which state provides the biggest threat to the USA! Not US citizens! Is the real question. Where's your jobs, money, resources and technology going?. The USA only has one trump card left, its military might, that's why it spends more than the next 8 countries combined,6 of which are officially allies!. I guess the clear and present danger is the natural terminal decline of your state!. It was born, it grew and like any living thing it will cling on to life at any cost Your point about nuclear weapons is interesting....although it also isn't quite true. When the US did use nuclear weapons in the past, that Congress had actually approved military operations in that armed conflict. It seems to me that "lesser" weapons are used more often without approval. I find it a disturbing trend.. Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world after the USAF?. Thats right, the united states navy. For a country thats never really been attacked except by the UK and a small incident in Hawaii, it sure does feel the need to defend its citizens to the extreme?. Of course the state is not protecting you its protecting itself!. The Mafia boss has many enemies "I get what you're saying, but it doesn't really address my point about the legitimate use of force. In fact, because of what you're saying, Americans should be even more skeptical when force is used without Congressional approval. In the federalist papers at the country's founding, people were very skeptical about a standing army - its part of why America puts such historical significance on militias and gun rights. It all goes back to skepticism about a standing federal army. And yet here we are now, not only with a standing army, but the most powerful that the world has ever seen - and we barely blink when it is used without Congressional approval - even when the Congress is the same party of which the President is a part and a vote would likely by approved. I don't get why people aren't more bothered by this trend. | |||
"The minute you accept nuclear weapons you have to accept sole decisions on firing the fucking things!. Hell theres God knows how many nuclear submarines wandering around that only require authorization by three crew to fire the lot of. I no longer have a fucking clue where the clear and present danger line is to me personally but then you and I are just bods who belong to a state and the danger to the state is different than the danger to me or you!. Which state provides the biggest threat to the USA! Not US citizens! Is the real question. Where's your jobs, money, resources and technology going?. The USA only has one trump card left, its military might, that's why it spends more than the next 8 countries combined,6 of which are officially allies!. I guess the clear and present danger is the natural terminal decline of your state!. It was born, it grew and like any living thing it will cling on to life at any cost Your point about nuclear weapons is interesting....although it also isn't quite true. When the US did use nuclear weapons in the past, that Congress had actually approved military operations in that armed conflict. It seems to me that "lesser" weapons are used more often without approval. I find it a disturbing trend.. Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world after the USAF?. Thats right, the united states navy. For a country thats never really been attacked except by the UK and a small incident in Hawaii, it sure does feel the need to defend its citizens to the extreme?. Of course the state is not protecting you its protecting itself!. The Mafia boss has many enemies
I get what you're saying, but it doesn't really address my point about the legitimate use of force. In fact, because of what you're saying, Americans should be even more skeptical when force is used without Congressional approval. In the federalist papers at the country's founding, people were very skeptical about a standing army - its part of why America puts such historical significance on militias and gun rights. It all goes back to skepticism about a standing federal army.
And yet here we are now, not only with a standing army, but the most powerful that the world has ever seen - and we barely blink when it is used without Congressional approval - even when the Congress is the same party of which the President is a part and a vote would likely by approved. I don't get why people aren't more bothered by this trend.". Oh im bovvered  .
Its just that were all parasites to that state, the state feeds you and houses you, it feeds you your money and your wealth and your jobs and your gadgets, your schooling and your healthcare, it feeds you your news reports and your information and your entertainment and your tears.. That umbilical cord is hard to cut away from, every time i see somebody on here wright about whos biased and who isnt i have a secret chuckle | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think if waging any form of war against another nation is a direct response from us being attacked first then that should be the PM's decision alone. If the PM wants to wage war without us being directly attacked first then I think parliament should be involved and the vote should be made and only act upon the result." Pretty much this albeit with a greater level of scrutiny that we saw with the dodgy dossier over Iraq.. | |||
"Following the Yugoslav conflict in the 1990's he British parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded that the NATO bombardment of Serbia was illegal under international law. It nevertheless argued that the war was justified on “humanitarian” grounds. You could fairly argue that Trump's bombing of Syria was similarly illegal and indeed an act of war against Syria... ditto his MOAB bomb on Afghanistan. Whilst I won't lose any sleep for ISIS members who are converted into red mist I would still say both acts were an abuse of power as neither constituted self-defence while a 'humanitarian' defence couldn't stand if the nerve gas accusation remains unproven. And while Blair sought Parliamentary approval for his Iraq invasion he did so on the basis of falsehoods which was similarly an abuse of power for which he still needs to answer. The upshot as I see it is that States can get away with short, sharp small scale attacks while large scale invasions after the Iraq debacle may be a thing of the past!? " Tend to agree with that, wish that some country had acted in a similar fashion when the genocide occured in Rwanda.. Sometimes the politics and the institution's like the UN sit on their hands talking bollocks when what's needed is action to stop murderous butchery by scum.. | |||
"Obviously the US and the UK have different systems. The US has a more formal and defined system of checks and balances than the UK does. Another key part of the US system is the fact that Congress (the legislature) holds the purse strings needed to fund a war. In the UK, as mentioned above the power to declare war rests with the PM. More broadly the legitimate use of force rests with the executive (the cabinet). Both UK and US systems however come from a time when war was generally a state-on-state affair. War these says however is more likely to be a supranational coalition on a non-state actor such as ISIS or Al Qaeda. This can also bring into question what defines war itself. Is war any military action such as a one off missile strike? Does the deployment of military advisors at the request of an allied nation constitute war? Is UK deployment of troops to the Baltic states different from deployment of troops to Iraq in their current form? Or perhaps war is only full scale invasions such as in Iraq or Afghanistan that result in regime change. " I don't like this idea of hiding behind the "new warfare" terminology. In the US at least, the constitution speaks to the defence of the nation - so I don't think it needs to hinge on our definition of "war." I specifically used the term "war" as little as possible in my OP for this very reason. If the US decides to take military action against a sovereign state, or a new target within a sovereign state that already has permission from Congress for military action, then that should have to be approved by congress. | |||
| |||
" Tend to agree with that, wish that some country had acted in a similar fashion when the genocide occured in Rwanda.. " Most probably because Rwanda has nothing the West would want to take and gain, so why bother  | |||
"Another factor to complicate things, with the US system more so that the UK system, is the capability of their intelligence services. A lot of the drone strikes carried out by the US are actually carried out by the CIA. Is it different if the military do it or if an intelligence agency does it? I know you don’t want to get drawn into the “what is war” argument Courtney, but it becomes even more complicated when it comes to cyber attacks as well." I don't think the CIA should be allowed to have supra-military operations. It's yet another inappropriate use of force, in my opinion. I asked Marc, though, and he said that the CIA stopped having their own drone strikes in 2009/10. Currently drone strikes are carried out by the US military, acting either independently or with CIA advisement. As for cyber warfare, I agree that it does complicate matters. Its almost another topic in itself. | |||
"I want to start by saying that this is not a political thread, per se - meaning it isn't partisan. I know that is a difficult concept to grasp in modern times, but let's try.
As you've likely heard, Boris Johnson made comments regarding the use of force in Syria - effectively, that he and the prime minister may support, with force, further US action in Syria should that support be requested. When asked about parliamentary approval, he seemed to indicate that such approval may not be necessary.
This follows Trump's action in Syria a few weeks ago, where he approved direct military involvement in that country without Congressional approval (indeed, without even seeking such approval).
And, to make sure I am addressing this from a bi-partisan standpoint, I will point out that Obama used military drones in regions outside of Afghanistan and Iraq on a regular basis - again, without Congressional approval.
I'm not fluent in UK parliamentary laws, but in the United States, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have the power...to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Article II Section 2 then names the President as the Commander in Chief.
Here is my question - as a citizen of the US, and resident of the UK, I like to think that I am a part of a democracy. A democracy where the legitimate use of force lies with the people. Whether I support or reject various military operations, or whether I support or don't support specific political parties, I like to think that the decision to act either way is in the hands of the people and the representatives thereof. However, in the US (and possibly in the UK, should Johnson's comments be serious), this principle seems to have been called into question. Do you think that, in a democracy, this is a legitimate use of force?
Should we let it become standard practice to remove the decision to go to war, or act forcefully, from the people and their direct representatives and instead place those decisions in the hands of a very small and elite portion of our executive governments?
This is something that has been bothering me for a while - beginning with the very expansive authorization for military action that Bush was given, and continuing through the Obama administration's use of drones, and culminating in Trump's missile strike in Syria. Boris' comments just brought to light, for me at least, the idea that this is becoming a standard practice - that it is OK to openly state that the Prime Minister decides when to seek parliamentary approval and when not to. It doesn't sit easy with me. What do you all think?
And please, think big picture rather than partisan digs...
-Courtney"When Boris said it would be hard for the UK to refuse giving military help to the USA if asked he was (and is) correct. Britain has long claimed a special relationship with the United States in terms of foreign policy, but this has meant giving unquestioning support to American military involvement overseas. In fact since WW2 there is only one PM who found a way to refuse to give military support to the US when asked, that was Harold Wilson in the 60's and following governments were very quick to say there would be no policy change on taking office until the end of the Vietnam war. Barbra Castle (in her autobiography) said that when speaking about this Wilson said 'it is nearly impossible to refuse a request from someone who owns you' referring to the UK debt held by the USA, our reliance on US corporations for jobs and US markets to export our products to. In fact a major part of the reason that Wilson started negotiations (and successive governments continued) to enter the common market was to reduce the influence the USA had over the UK economy. Nothing has really changed, in fact with brexit the US influence over the UK may have increased. Some times, and if we are honest most times, the use of military force has little or nothing to do with legitimacy, but is totally driven by the requirements of survival and self interest. | |||
| |||
"Self interest is not what people think it is? " Agreed, with one amendment. Self interest is not what most people think it is. Luckily most countries have highly professional and dispassionate diplomatic, judicial and military personnel who ensure that populist politicians are unable to cause major harm. Problems arise when politicians remove the professionals and replace them with political appointments. | |||
"Self interest is not what people think it is? Agreed, with one amendment. Self interest is not what most people think it is. Luckily most countries have highly professional and dispassionate diplomatic, judicial and military personnel who ensure that populist politicians are unable to cause major harm. Problems arise when politicians remove the professionals and replace them with political appointments." . Well the states interests are rarely what their ?citizens think are their interests. The reality is, we've ALL got our noses in the states trough, just some are further in than others | |||
"Self interest is not what people think it is? Agreed, with one amendment. Self interest is not what most people think it is. Luckily most countries have highly professional and dispassionate diplomatic, judicial and military personnel who ensure that populist politicians are unable to cause major harm. Problems arise when politicians remove the professionals and replace them with political appointments.. Well the states interests are rarely what their ?citizens think are their interests. The reality is, we've ALL got our noses in the states trough, just some are further in than others" I think that the reality is that the vast majority of people need minders... I think the vast majority of people if given a choice between an option that clearly is not in their interests and damaging to them but gives them an immediate advantage over their neighbours will grab it with both hands and then blame anyone other than themselves when they have to face the consequences of the choice they made. | |||
"There are only 2 people that can declare war in this country on another nation, the Prime Minister & The Queen. The PM can consult parliament if they wish but they do not have to act upon parliaments decision/view. If the PM went against parliament then they could be subject to a vote of no confidence and if they lost their position of PM their decision could then be reversed. If the Queen declared war then nobody can do anything about it as she is totally above the Law though in reality the Monarch leaves this to the PM of the day." Sorry but the Queen has no political decision making powers . Her role is purely symbolic. . She does what parliament tells her. The Queen cannot declare war on anyone without parliament green light. She COULD be the one who Announces to the country/world that we are at war. | |||
"There are only 2 people that can declare war in this country on another nation, the Prime Minister & The Queen. The PM can consult parliament if they wish but they do not have to act upon parliaments decision/view. If the PM went against parliament then they could be subject to a vote of no confidence and if they lost their position of PM their decision could then be reversed. If the Queen declared war then nobody can do anything about it as she is totally above the Law though in reality the Monarch leaves this to the PM of the day. Sorry but the Queen has no political decision making powers . Her role is purely symbolic. . She does what parliament tells her. The Queen cannot declare war on anyone without parliament green light. She COULD be the one who Announces to the country/world that we are at war. " Incorrect. Look it up online, the Queen can also declare war on behalf of other nations too like Canada | |||
| |||
"Apart from islamo-fascism, the greatest threat to the well-being of the people of this island comes from the psychopathic, reckless and uncaring elements within our own government (and their agencies)." How many people are killed each day by "islamo-fascism" and how many are killed by air pollution? | |||
"Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world after the USAF?. Thats right, the united states navy. For a country thats never really been attacked except by the UK and a small incident in Hawaii, it sure does feel the need to defend its citizens to the extreme?. Of course the state is not protecting you its protecting itself!. The Mafia boss has many enemies "Maybe the reason the USA has rarely been attacked is BECAUSE it has that massive military. | |||
"Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world after the USAF?. Thats right, the united states navy. For a country thats never really been attacked except by the UK and a small incident in Hawaii, it sure does feel the need to defend its citizens to the extreme?." The small incident in Hawaii? Would that be the one where Japan declared war on the USA? In 1939 the USA was relatively small militarily. Although it's navy was the second largest in the world, behind ours, it was split into 2 - the pacific fleet and the Atlantic fleet. This meant that the Japanese navy was actually stronger than the US in the pacific. The USA had no independent air force, it being a part of the US Army. In 1939 the US Army, which included her Air Force, was 17th largest in the world- smaller than Portugal's. Japan took their opportunity while they thought the USA were not strong enough to beat them. Not sure there's many countries that would be prepared to attack the USA now. | |||
"Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world after the USAF?. Thats right, the united states navy. For a country thats never really been attacked except by the UK and a small incident in Hawaii, it sure does feel the need to defend its citizens to the extreme?. Of course the state is not protecting you its protecting itself!. The Mafia boss has many enemies
Maybe the reason the USA has rarely been attacked is BECAUSE it has that massive military."I think it's mainly due to geography. | |||
| |||
"Apart from islamo-fascism, the greatest threat to the well-being of the people of this island comes from the psychopathic, reckless and uncaring elements within our own government (and their agencies). How many people are killed each day by "islamo-fascism" and how many are killed by air pollution?" I don't know, what are the facts?... | |||
"Apart from islamo-fascism, the greatest threat to the well-being of the people of this island comes from the psychopathic, reckless and uncaring elements within our own government (and their agencies). How many people are killed each day by "islamo-fascism" and how many are killed by air pollution?" The long-run statistic for humans is that nothing is more likely to end your life prematurely than your own government. | |||
"I don't know, what are the facts?..." Of course you don't know... The fact that I quoted the figure for annual deaths in the UK from pollution in another thread does not matter. Because it is either beyond you to divide 40,000 by 365 and come up with an answer, or more likely and more disturbingly its not a statistic being quoted by Tories and therefore needs to be ignored or denied. | |||
"I don't know, what are the facts?... Of course you don't know... The fact that I quoted the figure for annual deaths in the UK from pollution in another thread does not matter. Because it is either beyond you to divide 40,000 by 365 and come up with an answer, or more likely and more disturbingly its not a statistic being quoted by Tories and therefore needs to be ignored or denied." In fact its a statistic that to Tories took to court to have suppressed, and lost. Again. | |||
"I don't know, what are the facts?... Of course you don't know... The fact that I quoted the figure for annual deaths in the UK from pollution in another thread does not matter. Because it is either beyond you to divide 40,000 by 365 and come up with an answer, or more likely and more disturbingly its not a statistic being quoted by Tories and therefore needs to be ignored or denied. In fact its a statistic that to Tories took to court to have suppressed, and lost. Again." Is this polution something to do with diesel engines which we were encouraged to buy and were subsidised by the Labour party? | |||
"I don't know, what are the facts?... Of course you don't know... The fact that I quoted the figure for annual deaths in the UK from pollution in another thread does not matter. Because it is either beyond you to divide 40,000 by 365 and come up with an answer, or more likely and more disturbingly its not a statistic being quoted by Tories and therefore needs to be ignored or denied." What do you think should be done about them then? | |||
"Apart from islamo-fascism, the greatest threat to the well-being of the people of this island comes from the psychopathic, reckless and uncaring elements within our own government (and their agencies). How many people are killed each day by "islamo-fascism" and how many are killed by air pollution?" So, are you suggesting that control of air pollution is not the responsibility of government? Or are you just being obtuse? | |||
"Apart from islamo-fascism, the greatest threat to the well-being of the people of this island comes from the psychopathic, reckless and uncaring elements within our own government (and their agencies). How many people are killed each day by "islamo-fascism" and how many are killed by air pollution? So, are you suggesting that control of air pollution is not the responsibility of government? Or are you just being obtuse?" I'm suggesting that air polution kills a lot more people than "islamo-fascism", yet you put "islamo-fascism" as the greatest threat. Why do you see the one that kills fewer people as the bigger threat? | |||
"I think if waging any form of war against another nation is a direct response from us being attacked first then that should be the PM's decision alone. If the PM wants to wage war without us being directly attacked first then I think parliament should be involved and the vote should be made and only act upon the result." This is the answer that makes most sense. IF there is a direct attack/threat yo the UK itself...there is clearly no time to convene parliament, have a debate, a vote...pass it through the lords and dignity off etc, Its the decision of the PM. If it is "supporting action" in another country...then my gut feeling is parliament should have the say. | |||
| |||
"Was the USA's invasion of Cuba debated before hand? " Or libya, or Panama? | |||
"Was the USA's invasion of Cuba debated before hand? Or libya, or Panama?" The League of Nations debated the Second Italo-Ethiopian War a lot. That turned out well. | |||
"The government are the representatives of the people and they have always been able to make the decision to take the country to war. How else could it be? Have a debate while the bombs are falling?" The government has never been, and is not the representative of the people. That is parliament. And going by the past wars especially in Iraq and Libya, there is need for parliament to have a say. But again, we are going down a slippery path, that of the role of parliament, with party whips, dodgy dossiers, are decisions made as a result of coercion of whips and false information representative of people?  | |||
"The government are the representatives of the people and they have always been able to make the decision to take the country to war. How else could it be? Have a debate while the bombs are falling? The government has never been, and is not the representative of the people. That is parliament. And going by the past wars especially in Iraq and Libya, there is need for parliament to have a say. But again, we are going down a slippery path, that of the role of parliament, with party whips, dodgy dossiers, are decisions made as a result of coercion of whips and false information representative of people? "Why is Parliament any more representative of the people than the government? For example what representation do the 4 million people who voted UKIP at the last election have in Parliament? | |||
"The government are the representatives of the people and they have always been able to make the decision to take the country to war. How else could it be? Have a debate while the bombs are falling? The government has never been, and is not the representative of the people. That is parliament. And going by the past wars especially in Iraq and Libya, there is need for parliament to have a say. But again, we are going down a slippery path, that of the role of parliament, with party whips, dodgy dossiers, are decisions made as a result of coercion of whips and false information representative of people?
Why is Parliament any more representative of the people than the government? For example what representation do the 4 million people who voted UKIP at the last election have in Parliament?"It is the way the electoral laws of this country are set up... so UKIP may have had those millions of votes, but they were not in one single constituency, but overall, or nationally. Back to the government Vs parliament, governments don't make laws, parliament does because the MPs are representing their constituents, hence the people. But not deviating from the original post, leaders (PMs, Presidents, kings?) need checks and controls. The power to attack another country or engage in war should not rely on just one person. Power that much is easy to abuse. | |||
"The government are the representatives of the people and they have always been able to make the decision to take the country to war. How else could it be? Have a debate while the bombs are falling? The government has never been, and is not the representative of the people. That is parliament. And going by the past wars especially in Iraq and Libya, there is need for parliament to have a say. But again, we are going down a slippery path, that of the role of parliament, with party whips, dodgy dossiers, are decisions made as a result of coercion of whips and false information representative of people?
Why is Parliament any more representative of the people than the government? For example what representation do the 4 million people who voted UKIP at the last election have in Parliament?
It is the way the electoral laws of this country are set up... so UKIP may have had those millions of votes, but they were not in one single constituency, but overall, or nationally. Back to the government Vs parliament, governments don't make laws, parliament does because the MPs are representing their constituents, hence the people. But not deviating from the original post, leaders (PMs, Presidents, kings?) need checks and controls. The power to attack another country or engage in war should not rely on just one person. Power that much is easy to abuse. "True. But for some reason our constitution allows one person to engage in war. And when you say Parliament makes laws, sure, but if the government has a majority then basically they make the laws | |||
"There are only 2 people that can declare war in this country on another nation, the Prime Minister & The Queen. The PM can consult parliament if they wish but they do not have to act upon parliaments decision/view. If the PM went against parliament then they could be subject to a vote of no confidence and if they lost their position of PM their decision could then be reversed. If the Queen declared war then nobody can do anything about it as she is totally above the Law though in reality the Monarch leaves this to the PM of the day." That's awesome - I can just imagine the Queen going a bit daft and declaring war on Canada or something - what on earth would we do - laugh it off as a jolly good joke perhaps? | |||
