|
|
04-13-2018, 11:48 PM
|
#16
|
gelding
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,883
|
Did they give Tom a TV show?
Oh sorry, it's just Alex Jones reacting to the Syria bombing..
|
|
|
04-13-2018, 11:53 PM
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
Not the first time a president has used military action in the face of deepening political/personal crises at home.
|
Can't take credit for it as I saw it elsewhere but "Operation Divert Stormy"
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 01:38 AM
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 14,397
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Can't take credit for it as I saw it elsewhere but "Operation Divert Stormy"
|
Do you really think voters care about an old whore looking for money, overrated for sure.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 01:44 AM
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 14,397
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
This is a giant FU to Russia.
Wait for the response...
|
Good old VLAD knows he has to think about it, this guy has bigger balls than Bush.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 01:46 AM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,701
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast4522
Do you really think voters care about an old whore looking for money, overrated for sure.
|
Of course they care, they voted for the old Whore looking for money.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 03:40 AM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,207
|
I wish we could just leave Syria alone. I have no idea if we're even helping the good or bad guys.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 05:41 AM
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,526
|
How much, and for how long?
It's one thing making a statement against Assad.
This cannot, however, go on indefinitely without congressional approval.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 05:52 AM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,526
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
What do you call NATO without the US in it?
The Iron Curtain.
|
Interesting that it was stressed from the outset
that this was a joint operation involving our allies
from the UK and France, wasn't it?
Are we actually supposed to believe that the US has no
regard for the image it portrays to the rest of the world?
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 07:39 AM
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by horses4courses
It's one thing making a statement against Assad.
This cannot, however, go on indefinitely without congressional approval.
|
Why not? The War Powers act is toothless, and a president has the power to protect the national interests written into the Constitution. Allowing rogue states to use chemical weapons is against our long term national interests. Unless and until the USA wants to go to actual war versus teaching lessons, Congress has no purpose except as advisors. No consent required. Now, I don't necessarily believe a president should have carte blanche power, as seen in the Vietnam debacle, but your idea that Congressional approval is required in every or most instances is a quaint suggestion at best.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 08:02 AM
|
#25
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
He really didn't have a choice. He had to do it. He made a total ass out of himself in the lead-up to it and the overall backlash will be worse because of it.
BUT
He does get high marks for consistency on this issue unlike the previous administration.
|
The majority of America would disagree with you.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 08:06 AM
|
#26
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,972
|
wonder how many syrians are very grateful the usa bombed assaud?
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 08:08 AM
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,005
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
your idea that Congressional approval is required in every or most instances is a quaint suggestion at best.
|
So the Constitution is just a set of "quaint suggestions" in your world? The President is Commander in Chief of the military, no more and no less. Nothing in the document about his power to initiate war.
This is not a partisan issue, by the way.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 08:21 AM
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocala Mike
So the Constitution is just a set of "quaint suggestions" in your world? The President is Commander in Chief of the military, no more and no less. Nothing in the document about his power to initiate war.
This is not a partisan issue, by the way.
|
Here ya go. Bold by me:
https://aclj.org/national-security/w...ional-approval
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military at all times, whether or not there is a formal declaration of war, from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President’s constitutional powers are quite broad in the context of limited military action. Additionally, courts have long upheld the President’s right to be the sole voice of the nation, in charge of conducting our foreign policy. In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is structured by appropriation and provision, while the President commands all military forces.
In short, here are the President’s powers as Commander in Chief:
He can order U.S. forces into military action if, in his judgment, the safety or strategic interests of the United States are threatened. Period.
He must inform Congress of these actions within 48 hours of the event.
The troops cannot be committed for more than 60 days, without Congressional approval. He may use an additional 30 days to re-deploy the troops.
Until a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is passed by Congress, our last three presidents have all used the AUMF passed after 9/11/2001 as broad permission to fight all terror groups and acts of terror, anywhere in the world. This is the justification for the thousands of troops presently deployed to Iraq and Syria, and for other Special Operations missions in places like Somalia and Yemen.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 08:25 AM
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhorseplayer
The majority of America would disagree with you.
|
The majority of Americans are sheep and know next to nothing about realpolitik.
Those tweets do nothing but increase the likelihood of a stronger Russian response somewhere along the periphery. They were completely unneeded and proved the President truly doesn't understand the game.
It's becoming increasingly clear Mattis, who does, was the driving force behind this respomse.
Last edited by elysiantraveller; 04-14-2018 at 08:26 AM.
|
|
|
04-14-2018, 08:48 AM
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by horses4courses
Interesting that it was stressed from the outset
that this was a joint operation involving our allies
from the UK and France, wasn't it?
Are we actually supposed to believe that the US has no
regard for the image it portrays to the rest of the world?
|
This is all image... anyone who doesn't get that doesn't understand geo-politics.
Syria is nothing more than a proxy war. Nothing more, nothing less. It's also a proxy war that we are losing. We know we are losing it. We don't care. Losing is fine since Syria holds nearly zero strategic significance to us.
Syria does hold significance to Iran and Russia though which is why we are happy to coordinate with rebels and maintain a presence there. It hampers and undermines the efforts of our rivals forcing them to invest significantly more resources than they would like to.
As far as the lead up to the strike though Trump behaved highly irrationally. The tweets were completely unnecessary as the United States had already set the precedent that use of chemical weapons would trigger an armed American response. All the tweets did was put Russia on blast that it can't defend its interests or allies. Any strike conducted would have demonstrated that without damaging their image as much as a twitter bash. It was a stupid move because now it will require them to respond in some larger way to maintain its own prestige and credibility.
Finally to the strike. This was essentially a NATO effort to send a message to Russia and it's proxies. Militarily nothing of any real significance was destroyed or likely even degraded. It was merely a show of force that the United States and it's NATO allies can strike at will into the heart of a state of the art Russian Air Defense system and there really isn't a damn thing they can do about it. To that effect it served it's purpose.
We got to swing our big stick.
Good write up on the issue here... https://www.commentarymagazine.com/f...-stakes-syria/
Last edited by elysiantraveller; 04-14-2018 at 08:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|