• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Obama become Veep?

Cordelier said:
Although I'm a firm supporter of the UN, I wouldn't be comfortable with giving it veto power over US foreign and military policy... so, as far as UN authorization goes, it was a handy way for President Truman to avoid having to obtain Congressional authorization for intervening in Korea, but I don't think it adds all that much to the legitimacy question...
Click to expand...

You don't need UN authority per se but it certainly lends a huge degree of legitimacy. The USA doesn't want to be seen in the same vein as the old USSR.
The USA is a Republic after all - the rule of law.
UN sanction legalized armed conflict.
The UK sought it in 1982 before the Falklands Conflict turned hot
The USA sought it in 1990 before the 1st Gulf War turned hot


..."winnable" wars are only clear in hindsight, are they not? I'm sure World War II looked pretty "unwinnable" to Britain in the summer of 1940....were they wrong to not throw in the towel?
Click to expand...

WWII from Britain's perspective was a war of survival.

The US military thought Vietnam was winnable...just as the USSR thought that suppressing opposition to their puppet state in Afghanistan wouldn't be much of a problem.
The British army has 300 years experience of colonial policing.
Could the British army have won in Vietnam ? No. That's an advantage the British had in Malaya - they were fighting over lad that they owned, not some foreign field.
(note, not that it helped the French in Indochina or Algeria)

Before Vietnam, the USA had no experience of COIN ops...unless of course you count the early stages of the Revolutionary War.


...President Johnson didn't commit US ground forces to the fighting until the NVA started sending units down the Ho Chi Minh Trail in 1965. If the conflict had remained ARVN vs. VC - as had been up to that point - then there would have been no US ground forces deployed...
Click to expand...

This is the escalation argument. The US kept increasing its commitment to Vietnam and was matched by the North Vietnamese every escaltion...but what if the USA had gone in, in 1962 with the same force it had at its peak in 1968 ?

I really don't think this would have made a difference long term.

The US painted itself into a corner...the only way to win was to occupy ALL of Vietnam and hope a popular indigenous government could be formed.

Personally I maintain that the USA's best weapon was the $ bill

Kennedy should have invited Ho Chi Minh to Camp David and offered to build hospitals, dams, airports, US factories to earn hard currency. Yes Ho Chi Minh would have been a communist but he'd have been OUR communist. And as Vietnam prospered so communism would have been diluted.
 
Rich2018 said:
You don't need UN authority per se but it certainly lends a huge degree of legitimacy. The USA doesn't want to be seen in the same vein as the old USSR.
The USA is a Republic after all - the rule of law.
UN sanction legalized armed conflict.
The UK sought it in 1982 before the Falklands Conflict turned hot
The USA sought it in 1990 before the 1st Gulf War turned hot
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, neither North nor South Vietnam were UN members at the time, and so the UN ducked the question. That may have been due to the feckless leadership of U Thant -maybe if Dag Hammarskjold had still been alive, things might have been different on that front.

Rich2018 said:
WWII from Britain's perspective was a war of survival.

The US military thought Vietnam was winnable...just as the USSR thought that suppressing opposition to their puppet state in Afghanistan wouldn't be much of a problem.
The British army has 300 years experience of colonial policing.
Could the British army have won in Vietnam ? No. That's an advantage the British had in Malaya - they were fighting over lad that they owned, not some foreign field.
(note, not that it helped the French in Indochina or Algeria)

Before Vietnam, the USA had no experience of COIN ops...unless of course you count the early stages of the Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...

Britain had options in 1940. Hitler's main target was the Soviet Union, not England. A more accommodating PM than Winston Churchill might have taken advantage of that fact and struck a cowardly peace with Hitler that threw the Russians under the bus. The possibility of such a deal was the reason why Rudolf Hess made his desperate flight to England.

As for the rest... are you suggesting that a colonial power has a claim to a greater legitimacy in fighting rebels than a nation that selflessly helps to defend an ally?


Rich2018 said:
This is the escalation argument. The US kept increasing its commitment to Vietnam and was matched by the North Vietnamese every escaltion...but what if the USA had gone in, in 1962 with the same force it had at its peak in 1968 ?

I really don't think this would have made a difference long term.

The US painted itself into a corner...the only way to win was to occupy ALL of Vietnam and hope a popular indigenous government could be formed.

Personally I maintain that the USA's best weapon was the $ bill

Kennedy should have invited Ho Chi Minh to Camp David and offered to build hospitals, dams, airports, US factories to earn hard currency. Yes Ho Chi Minh would have been a communist but he'd have been OUR communist. And as Vietnam prospered so communism would have been diluted.
Click to expand...

You mean like LBJ did in his Johns Hopkins Speech (test pattern ends at 00:49) on April 7, 1965?

The North Vietnamese weren't interested in our dollars or our investments. Their only interest was in conquering the South. If they had changed course and taken Johnson up on his offer, it's very possible they'd be a lot better off today.
 
Would his ego allow him to be the #2 guy? I doubt his megalomania would allow him.
 
Aristaeus said:
I'd be hugely surprised if he actually wanted to, but constitutionally, could he? I've heard arguments that he couldn't due to having already served 2 terms as President, but H.W Bush served 1 term as veep, 1 term as President, and ran for a 2nd term as President. I don't see how that was any different if he had won in '92. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Constitution only speaks to time as President.
 
Bullseye said:
Would his ego allow him to be the #2 guy? I doubt his megalomania would allow him.
Click to expand...

I don't think Obama was any more of a megalomaniac than anyone else who ever ran for President. Truth be told, he probably measured lower on the scale than most. Certainly a lot less than his successor.

Aside from that, I agree with you... even if he could become Vice President, I seriously doubt that he'd accept the office.
 
Cordelier said:
Be that as it may, neither North nor South Vietnam were UN members at the time, and so the UN ducked the question....
Click to expand...

It wasn't a case of ducking the question, there were permanent members of the UN Security Council who had vested interests in the outcome of the war.

Secondly, whilst the USA had always opposed European colonialism, it did an about turn politically in Vietnam to the point where it was the colonial power. Accordingly it had little support around the world whereas the support of South Korea a decade earlier had widespread support.


...Britain had options in 1940. Hitler's main target was the Soviet Union, not England. A more accommodating PM than Winston Churchill might have taken advantage of that fact and struck a cowardly peace with Hitler that threw the Russians under the bus. The possibility of such a deal was the reason why Rudolf Hess made his desperate flight to England...
Click to expand...

That is called surrender and yes it was, of course, an option.

Churchill did the right thing and saved the world in May 1940.

Hess flew to Britain in a desperate mission indeed - he was losing favor with Hitler and was desperate to get back into favor.


...are you suggesting that a colonial power has a claim to a greater legitimacy in fighting rebels than a nation that selflessly helps to defend an ally?
Click to expand...

No, just that colonial powers are better at it.

Britain fought colonial wars in every one of it's colonies save one (I don't believe there was ever a revolt in Nigeria). Britain won them all (except one).


...The North Vietnamese weren't interested in our dollars or our investments. Their only interest was in conquering the South...
Click to expand...

You call it conquering, they call it unifying.

Yes it was their prime goal - so accept it. Help the North win. Don't support the French.

By the time Johnson was in office it was too late - the time was when Eisenhower was in office. Here's another one too. The USA should've supported Castro in Cuba too.
 
Cordelier said:
I don't think Obama was any more of a megalomaniac than anyone else who ever ran for President. Truth be told, he probably measured lower on the scale than most. Certainly a lot less than his successor.

Aside from that, I agree with you... even if he could become Vice President, I seriously doubt that he'd accept the office.
Click to expand...

I think you're right there. Not unless whoever was running for president offered him a major role in government. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the Constitution prevents a VP from also serving in any other office such as Secretary of State.
 
Cordelier said:
I don't think Obama was any more of a megalomaniac than anyone else who ever ran for President. Truth be told, he probably measured lower on the scale than most. Certainly a lot less than his successor.
Click to expand...
Probably not. Obama's use of first person pronouns ( I, me, mine) was legendary. And I don't recall marking his election by proclaiming "let history show this was the day the planet began cooling and the oceans started receding", nor do I recall Trump supporters referring to him as "the one we've been waiting for". Don't get me wrong, Trump has an enormous ego as well.
 
Rich2018 said:
It wasn't a case of ducking the question, there were permanent members of the UN Security Council who had vested interests in the outcome of the war.

Secondly, whilst the USA had always opposed European colonialism, it did an about turn politically in Vietnam to the point where it was the colonial power. Accordingly it had little support around the world whereas the support of South Korea a decade earlier had widespread support.
Click to expand...

I agree that getting a Chapter VII resolution through the Security Council would have been impractical with France and the USSR having veto power, but I still maintain that the UN itself could have done more to broker a peace agreement at an earlier stage with more active leadership.

As for the US being a de facto colonial power in South Vietnam, that's just ludicrous. Diem marched to his own tune.

Rich2018 said:
That is called surrender and yes it was, of course, an option.

Churchill did the right thing and saved the world in May 1940.

Hess flew to Britain in a desperate mission indeed - he was losing favor with Hitler and was desperate to get back into favor.
Click to expand...

So you don't find the timing of Hess' flight - a week before Operation Rheinübung - to be a bit too coincidental?


Rich2018 said:
No, just that colonial powers are better at it.

Britain fought colonial wars in every one of it's colonies save one (I don't believe there was ever a revolt in Nigeria). Britain won them all (except one).
Click to expand...

Don't forget about Ireland.


Rich2018 said:
You call it conquering, they call it unifying.

Yes it was their prime goal - so accept it. Help the North win. Don't support the French.

By the time Johnson was in office it was too late - the time was when Eisenhower was in office. Here's another one too. The USA should've supported Castro in Cuba too.
Click to expand...

Southeast Asia wasn't the prime concern when Truman started supporting the French... I think he was far more concerned about the possibility of France itself having a Communist Government at that point.

Move the goalposts much? I thought you said it was something Kennedy should have done in '62?

As for Cuba, are you suggesting Eisenhower should have turned a blind eye to the nationalization of American assets and the human rights abuses? What about Castro's support for fostering other revolutions in the region?
 
Bullseye said:
Probably not. Obama's use of first person pronouns ( I, me, mine) was legendary. And I don't recall marking his election by proclaiming "let history show this was the day the planet began cooling and the oceans started receding", nor do I recall Trump supporters referring to him as "the one we've been waiting for". Don't get me wrong, Trump has an enormous ego as well.
Click to expand...

Obama was a crappy President... Trump is even worse.

Personally, I prefer people who under-promise and over-deliver, but they don't typically become President.
 
Cordelier said:
Obama was a crappy President... Trump is even worse.

Personally, I prefer people who under-promise and over-deliver, but they don't typically become President.
Click to expand...
I'll measure Trump when his term is complete. And judge on his accomplishments not his personality or behavior.
 
Rich2018 said:
I think you're right there. Not unless whoever was running for president offered him a major role in government. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the Constitution prevents a VP from also serving in any other office such as Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids it... but if I were a Senator, I wouldn't vote to confirm a sitting VP to a cabinet post simply because it'd run against the separation of powers, as the Vice President has a clear legislative role.
 
Obama could not become VP because if he was and if anything happened to the current President and he had to be President that would exceed the 8 years he already did as President which is the maximum.
 
He can't, for reasons many have mentioned already. But he could go to SCOTUS, and I could actually see that happening, as soon as 2020 if there are Dem waves in both 2018 and 2020.
 
Aristaeus said:
I'd be hugely surprised if he actually wanted to, but constitutionally, could he? I've heard arguments that he couldn't due to having already served 2 terms as President, but H.W Bush served 1 term as veep, 1 term as President, and ran for a 2nd term as President. I don't see how that was any different if he had won in '92. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

He could become Secretary General of something: UN or the Communist Party, whatever. Not VP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DebateChallenge said:
Obama could not become VP because if he was and if anything happened to the current President and he had to be President that would exceed the 8 years he already did as President which is the maximum.
Click to expand...

That's only a limit for being elected President... there's nothing in the 22nd Amendment which precludes him being appointed Vice President in accordance with the 25th Amendment and then succeeding to the Presidency. He just couldn't run for re-election (as either President or VP) if that remote possibility occurred.
 
Cordelier said:
That's only a limit for being elected President... there's nothing in the 22nd Amendment which precludes him being appointed Vice President in accordance with the 25th Amendment and then succeeding to the Presidency. He just couldn't run for re-election (as either President or VP) if that remote possibility occurred.
Click to expand...

Please read the 12th Amendment which addresses your point about the 25th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cordelier said:
I agree that getting a Chapter VII resolution through the Security Council would have been impractical with France and the USSR having veto power, but I still maintain that the UN itself could have done more to broker a peace agreement at an earlier stage with more active leadership.

As for the US being a de facto colonial power in South Vietnam, that's just ludicrous. Diem marched to his own tune...
Click to expand...

In Vietnam, they don't talk about the "Vietnam War" they talk about the "French War" and the "American War". The Vietnamese saw the US as just another colonial power looking to occupy them. Many in South Vietnam may have seen US occupation as better than rule from Communist Hanoi, but then again the government of South Vietnam was pretty unpleasant.

I still think the US needed to take the lead and get Ho Chi Minh on their side back in the 50's.

It's difficult to see what the UN could have actually done - as with the Falklands Conflict in 1982, there was no solution that satisfied all parties.


...so you don't find the timing of Hess' flight - a week before Operation Rheinübung - to be a bit too coincidental?
Click to expand...


Not at all - Operation Rhine was a small scale affair and Hitler didn't even know about Hess' mission. Hess gambled everything on being able to pull of a miraculous peace in the West and avoid the nightmare of a two front war.
Hitler was so blinded by defeating the USSR he just couldn't wait to attack it and to hell with the consequences.

By May 1941, Britain no longer faced the threat of invasion and to be honest, Operation Sea Lion turned out to be just a bluff anyway.


...don't forget about Ireland...
Click to expand...

The 1916 Easter rising - Britain won that one too.

The British government had actually long since decided to let Ireland have home rule - WWI just delayed it. The Carson's Unionists clouded the waters ... so till this day, Britain still owns a piece of Ireland it really doesn't want.


...Southeast Asia wasn't the prime concern when Truman started supporting the French... I think he was far more concerned about the possibility of France itself having a Communist Government at that point....
Click to expand...

So supporting France in Vietnam, held off the prospect of a Communist takeover in Paris ?

I'm not sure about that at all.

...move the goalposts much? I thought you said it was something Kennedy should have done in '62?
Click to expand...

It would have been better to support Ho Chi Minh before the collapse of French rule.
But for Kennedy, he had no opportunity until 1961. It still wasn't too late.

...are you suggesting Eisenhower should have turned a blind eye to the nationalization of American assets and the human rights abuses? What about Castro's support for fostering other revolutions in the region?
Click to expand...

Well Castro might not have seized US assets had he enjoyed US support.
As for human rights abuses - what about Batista's regime ? (not to mention US support for various military dictatorships in South America like Argentina).

The USA backed a couple of losers in the post war period.
 
Cordelier said:
There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids it... but if I were a Senator, I wouldn't vote to confirm a sitting VP to a cabinet post simply because it'd run against the separation of powers, as the Vice President has a clear legislative role.
Click to expand...


The VP is the speaker of the senate - and that's not a role a former president would want.

The VP is the president in waiting...or likes to think he is.
 
Cordelier said:
That's only a limit for being elected President... there's nothing in the 22nd Amendment which precludes him being appointed Vice President in accordance with the 25th Amendment and then succeeding to the Presidency. He just couldn't run for re-election (as either President or VP) if that remote possibility occurred.
Click to expand...



I dunno. 12A states,

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Granted the amendment describes the electoral process, but the sentence stands alone and does not mention elected or appointed. Clearly, Obama is constitutionally ineligible to the presidency. If he was appointed/confirmed as VP, much less succeeding to the presidency, I suspect it would be challenged on that basis.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Please read the 12th Amendment which addresses your point about the 25th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
CHuDWah said:
I dunno. 12A states,



Granted the amendment describes the electoral process, but the sentence stands alone and does not mention elected or appointed. Clearly, Obama is constitutionally ineligible to the presidency. If he was appointed/confirmed as VP, much less succeeding to the presidency, I suspect it would be challenged on that basis.
Click to expand...

The usage of the word "But" at the beginning of the last sentence of the 12th Amendment seems to indicate that eligibility prohibition only applies to the election of the Vice President. If it was an intention of the 25th Amendment to bar a former two-term President from being appointed to fill a Vice Presidential vacancy, then it should have included a similar provision.
 
Rich2018 said:
In Vietnam, they don't talk about the "Vietnam War" they talk about the "French War" and the "American War". The Vietnamese saw the US as just another colonial power looking to occupy them. Many in South Vietnam may have seen US occupation as better than rule from Communist Hanoi, but then again the government of South Vietnam was pretty unpleasant.

I still think the US needed to take the lead and get Ho Chi Minh on their side back in the 50's.

It's difficult to see what the UN could have actually done - as with the Falklands Conflict in 1982, there was no solution that satisfied all parties.
Click to expand...

A more active and involved UN General Secretary could have been a stable conduit though which the two sides could have begun to negotiate a cease-fire. We wouldn't have had all of these back-channel attempts of varying legitimacy to negotiate a peace... instead, they would have all been done on a consistent basis through which a momentum toward a viable settlement could have been found.


Rich2018 said:
Not at all - Operation Rhine was a small scale affair and Hitler didn't even know about Hess' mission. Hess gambled everything on being able to pull of a miraculous peace in the West and avoid the nightmare of a two front war.
Hitler was so blinded by defeating the USSR he just couldn't wait to attack it and to hell with the consequences.

By May 1941, Britain no longer faced the threat of invasion and to be honest, Operation Sea Lion turned out to be just a bluff anyway.
Click to expand...

If the Bismarck had proven capable of severing Britain's sea lanes - which the Germans fully expected her to be able to accomplish - then I suspect Hess' overtures might have been more warmly welcomed in some quarters of the British establishment.


Rich2018 said:
The 1916 Easter rising - Britain won that one too.

The British government had actually long since decided to let Ireland have home rule - WWI just delayed it. The Carson's Unionists clouded the waters ... so till this day, Britain still owns a piece of Ireland it really doesn't want.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the Irish War of Independence.


Rich2018 said:
So supporting France in Vietnam, held off the prospect of a Communist takeover in Paris ?

I'm not sure about that at all.
Click to expand...

The Communists were the largest political party in France after the 1945 legislative election. They had an extensive political network of former Resistance fighters that carried a lot of weight with French voters. What's more, the right was divided between the anti-De Gaulleists (who were discredited by their collaboration with the Vichy regime) and the pro-De Gaulleists who were discredited by their association with De Gaulle. If the US had undercut the French right by essentially adopting the foreign policies of the French Communist Party, who is to say where it might have led?


Rich2018 said:
It would have been better to support Ho Chi Minh before the collapse of French rule.
But for Kennedy, he had no opportunity until 1961. It still wasn't too late.
Click to expand...

The unstable nature of Fourth Republic French politics didn't make that a realistic possibility.

Rich2018 said:
Well Castro might not have seized US assets had he enjoyed US support.
As for human rights abuses - what about Batista's regime ? (not to mention US support for various military dictatorships in South America like Argentina).

The USA backed a couple of losers in the post war period.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have worked - Castro was like Ayatollah Khomenei - he got too much mileage from blaming all of his problems on "The Great Satan".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom