Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Biden Presidency

It would be great if all members chipped in that 2 percent that was agreed upon. But the burden tends to fall on a few rather than all.

Yes it would, but they don’t, so you either accept that or leave.

You also have to remember some of those countries are there as a strategic defence and act as a buffer between the main threat of Russia, primarily Iceland and latterly former soviet bloc countries.
 
It would be great if all members chipped in that 2 percent that was agreed upon. But the burden tends to fall on a few rather than all.
You just upset the cheapskates, they count on those dead Septics to protect them
 
Yes it would, but they don’t, so you either accept that or leave.

You also have to remember some of those countries are there as a strategic defence and act as a buffer between the main threat of Russia, primarily Iceland and latterly former soviet bloc countries.
Or just mirror the same level of commitment. Is the UK willing to make up for the Germans lack of desire to fund their armed forces to the required level? If you sign a paper saying you agree to the terms and don't intend to follow through then you can't expect everybody else to honor the agreement with no questions asked.
 
Or just mirror the same level of commitment. Is the UK willing to make up for the Germans lack of desire to fund their armed forces to the required level? If you sign a paper saying you agree to the terms and don't intend to follow through then you can't expect everybody else to honor the agreement with no questions asked.

Probably not the best example for the Germans to upscale their armed forces. You know what happened last time and the time before that.
 
New US presidents don’t rise to power, their predecessors just fall.. in several cases because it took the yanks 5 years to realise they’d been sold a pig in a poke. I don’t think we’ll accurately be able to place Trump for maybe another 2 terms.
 

Ayatollah

Old-Salt
That's already been covered. Do you need some references other than Wikipedia?

PS - my post #1,652 in this thread, for which @Bravo_Bravo has somewhat satirically given me an 'Old'.
Actually, I was responding to another poster who brought up the subject of Impeachment. I have read so much anti-Trump posts I felt it needed to be said again, and no doubt it will be mentioned again in the future.
 
Actually I saw a video last week about people in the UK being asked in which country would you find say Calcutta, the rest of the video went as expected. Still I guess it wouldn't make for good video if the folks they asked got the answers correct.
Well they would have problems looking it up on a map of India as it has been called Kolkata since 2001.
 
Well they would have problems looking it up on a map of India as it has been called Kolkata since 2001.

Fair enough...I was just using it as an example, but saying that every day is a school day.
 
I wonder if Biden will make America great again :-D
Not as simple as that, though. Under the US Constitution the consequence of impeachment is not simply dismissal from office as you say, but also disqualification from holding office in future.

There’s no precedent either way for continuing impeachment proceedings against a President after they leave office, but there IS precedent for such proceedings against other officials and judges.

One argument is that impeached officials should not be in a position to evade the disqualification consequences by simply resigning office before commenced proceedings are completed.

IF it passes or is likely to be carried by the Senate (which seems highly doubtful at present) it could go to the SC - where “conservative majority” doesn’t necessarily mean “Republican majority”.

But not a great deal of precedent. As far as this old lawyer can research the only official in the US impeached and tried after leaving office was William Belknap, who was Secretary of War for President Grant. In 1876 he was impeached by the House after he had resigned as Secretary. The articles of impeachment were based on corruption in prosecution of the Great Sioux War. Belknap was acquitted as they could not get a 2/3rd majority of the senate to agree that there was jurisdiction when an individual had left office prior to trial.

I have a hunch that there will be a problem getting a 2/3rd vote against Trump as some will consider the matter moot.

footnote: Grant replaced Belknap with Alphonso Taft as Secretary of War and later appointed Taft Attorney General. Taft was the father of later President William H Taft who after presidency became a justice of the US Supreme Court.
 
But not a great deal of precedent. As far as this old lawyer can research the only official in the US impeached and tried after leaving office was William Belknap, who was Secretary of War for President Grant. In 1876 he was impeached by the House after he had resigned as Secretary. The articles of impeachment were based on corruption in prosecution of the Great Sioux War. Belknap was acquitted as they could not get a 2/3rd majority of the senate to agree that there was jurisdiction when an individual had left office prior to trial.

I have a hunch that there will be a problem getting a 2/3rd vote against Trump as some will consider the matter moot.

footnote: Grant replaced Belknap with Alphonso Taft as Secretary of War and later appointed Taft Attorney General. Taft was the father of later President William H Taft who after presidency became a justice of the US Supreme Court.

2/3 vote is needed to evict a sitting President.

They only need a simple majority to bar him from holding future office. I would be surprised if they don't get it.
 
AIUI POTUS can send troops to fight, but the actual technical declaration of war can only be done by Congress?

@DavidBOC @Goldbricker

Correct.
War was never declared for Korea or Vietnam

Under international law a state of war exists when one party declares.War on another for purposes of laws such as the Geneva conventions
 
Yes it would, but they don’t, so you either accept that or leave.

You also have to remember some of those countries are there as a strategic defence and act as a buffer between the main threat of Russia, primarily Iceland and latterly former soviet bloc countries.
The alliance is barely a military one anymore and Trump again, had every right to demand the 2%. He treated the alliance as an underperforming arm of his business and wanted to fix it and stamped on the toes of people, unused to having democratic pressure applied to them and especially in public.

As for Russia, its now a strategic threat again. Because we've basically expanded so far eastwards and into their backyard, without any real thought and it never ceases to amaze me, the intellectual brains desire to broadcast virtue, seems to matter more than rational thought.

If we had applied rational thought, then NATO should have been reorganised and it made mandatory the 2%, before expansion.
 
Sorry. Is Biden more or less likely to start a war than Trump?
Far more likely in my opinion..... Trump at least, was rational about the accumulation of his God (money) and wars are costly affairs, without any return., for the resources and lives expended.

Biden is a species of politician who goes with the flow in DC and he is against war when it suits him, but if the virtue warriors and media lapdogs deploy the usual 'Something must be done', then I expect Biden will cough up the troops, or he will be replaced.
 
But not a great deal of precedent. As far as this old lawyer can research the only official in the US impeached and tried after leaving office was William Belknap, who was Secretary of War for President Grant. In 1876 he was impeached by the House after he had resigned as Secretary. The articles of impeachment were based on corruption in prosecution of the Great Sioux War. Belknap was acquitted as they could not get a 2/3rd majority of the senate to agree that there was jurisdiction when an individual had left office prior to trial.

I have a hunch that there will be a problem getting a 2/3rd vote against Trump as some will consider the matter moot.

footnote: Grant replaced Belknap with Alphonso Taft as Secretary of War and later appointed Taft Attorney General. Taft was the father of later President William H Taft who after presidency became a justice of the US Supreme Court.
Yes. My post #1,652 was in response to a claim that impeachment proceedings couldn't possibly continue against a retired President, and I was putting a case that it wasn't necessarily as simple as that. I also said that the prospect of passage of impeachment by the Senate seemed to me "highly doubtful" at present.

It was of course the Belknap 1876 case I was mainly thinking of. [I have read that judges have been impeached after resignation but as to what level of judge I would need to check.] Your account of Belknap differs however in one significant respect from what I had seen.

You say that Belknap was acquitted as they could not get a 2/3rd majority on jurisdiction. If so , I agree that would be a very persuasive precedent against jurisdiction in the present case. I had read however that the Senate actually agreed on jurisdiction (which arguably might only need a simple majority??), and when it proceeded to a vote on the merits there was a majority vote against Belknap on each count but each failed to reach the necessary 2/3rd majority. Example of source:
U.S. Senate: War Secretary's Impeachment Trial
 
Last edited:
Correct.
War was never declared for Korea or Vietnam

Under international law a state of war exists when one party declares.War on another for purposes of laws such as the Geneva conventions
The last country the United States declared war against was Italy in 1941.

And as we all know the US military has not been engaged in any war since then.
 
Correct.
War was never declared for Korea or Vietnam

Under international law a state of war exists when one party declares.War on another for purposes of laws such as the Geneva conventions
For the avoidance of any misunderstanding by others, I'm sure you agree that a declaration of war isn't essential for the Conventions etc to apply?
 
Last edited:
Top