(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Deteriorata posted:He can, because all sales go through the executive, but it's a really bad precedent that he desperately wants to avoid. "Buy American arms and we'll use it as an excuse to take over your military and dictate how you use them and prosecute your wars," is not a good policy. Lots of current customers would find new sources. Why would Congress cutting a country off have fewer consequences than the executive doing so? The country in question would still be bothered by the US dictating how the arms are used. Current customers would still look for new sources.
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:13 |
|
|
Kchama posted:Because it's a lot harder for Congress to do it and can be explained as "I don't have control over these people, so it isn't the president screwing you over." Plausible deniability basically. Okay, but why would a customer for US weapons care about that? The claim was that current customers would look for new suppliers if buying American arms meant you'd be dictated to about how those arms can be used. The foreign leaders are really going to say, "oh, it's Congress dictating terms, not the president, so I won't worry about it"? I get why the president could shift personal responsibility, but why is the foreign country not going to still take that precedent into account when deciding what suppliers to rely on?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Because when it doesn't ever happen, that plausible deniability builds confidence. That's why it's in their control instead of the president's. If you notice, even though Congress complained about the 'bypassing', it was done using Congress's own rules allowing Biden to do so, and I don't think anyone has done anything more than bitch. Sure, I get that if Congress never cuts anyone off then nobody is worried about being cut off. That makes sense. I was responding to a post that said "Congress cutting them off is a surer route with fewer consequences." That statement reflects a hypothetical where Congress actually cuts someone off. I was asking why, in that case where the cutting-off by Congress actually happens, there would be fewer consequences than if the president actually cut someone off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2024 01:51
|
|