The U.S. military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria, NBC News reported.
Earlier Thursday, Reuters reported that a British diplomat had said the United Nations Security Council would not vote on Thursday on a draft resolution to condemn a deadly gas attack on Tuesday in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, but will continue negotiations.
Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned that day of "negative consequences" if the U.S. carried out military strikes on Syria over the attack.
"We have to think about negative consequences, negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic enterprise," Safronkov told reporters when asked about possible U.S. strikes, adding that such consequences could be seen in Iraq and Libya.
Western countries have blamed President Bashar al-Assad's armed forces for Tuesday's attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in a rebel-held area of northern Syria hit by government air strikes. Syria's government has denied responsibility.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/us-military-has-launched-more-50-than-missiles-aimed-at-syria-nbc-news.html
Well. I think most of have our answer as to how Trump would respond to conflict. He went full out "Trump" ... didn't hesitate, didn't fully investigate AND Didn't Consult Congress! I'm still shaking my head. I don't know what to say right now.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 06, 2017, 06:55:29 PM
Well. I think most of have our answer as to how Trump would respond to conflict. He went full out "Trump" ... didn't hesitate, didn't fully investigate AND Didn't Consult Congress! I'm still shaking my head. I don't know what to say right now.
He doesn't have to consult congress, initially.
Quote
The United States blasted a Syrian air base with a barrage of cruise missiles Thursday night in fiery retaliation for this week's gruesome chemical weapons attack against civilians. President Donald Trump cast the U.S. assault as vital to deter future use of poison gas and called on other nations to join in seeking "to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria."
It was the first direct American assault on the Syrian government and Trump's most dramatic military order since becoming president just over two months ago. Announcing the assault from his Florida resort, Trump said there was no doubt Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the chemical attack, which he said employed banned gases and killed dozens
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-us-syria-airstrikes-20170406-story.html
This was more than a message to Assad, this was a wake up call for all the little dictators around the world to "Get your shit in order" you might be next, don't test US' resolve. Hear that Little Kim?
As Mrclose pointed out, it's been 8 long years for the terrorist appeaser to leave a mark on the world which turned out to be a shitstain on the US and an increasingly violent world...........
Good or bad, there's a new Marshal in town and things are going to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytEkcDtaQA
North Korea vows 'most ruthless blow' on United States after Donald Trump pledges to build up defences against Pyongyang
APRIL 7, 20179:58AM
US launches airstrike on Syria
1:17
SYRIA: Syrian Military Says 6 Killed in US Strikes on Regime Airbase April 07
2:32
SYRIA: US Fires 59 Missiles at Syrian Airbase April 07
1:33
EU MIGRANTS: Rescue Crews Pull 1,350 Migrants to Safety Off Libyan Coast April 05
0:16
AUSTRALIA: 'Bashar Al Assad Commited a Shocking War Crime': PM Turnbull April 07
13:39
Trump orders military strikes on Assad airbase
1:32
'We have a big problem' in North Korea: Trump
NORTH Korea is ready to deliver the "most ruthless blow" if provoked by the United States, its ambassador to Moscow said overnight, after US President Donald Trump pledged to keep building up defences against Pyongyang. (see graphic:
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-vows-most-ruthless-blow-on-united-states-after-donald-trump-pledges-to-build-up-defences-against-pyongyang/news-story/26da808f8df88eed8c617bdd347d886b
"Our army has already said that if there will be even the smallest provocation from the United States during exercises, we are ready to deliver the most ruthless blow," Interfax news agency quoted ambassador Kim Hyong-Jun as saying.
"We have the readiness and ability to counter any challenge from the US," he was quoted as saying.
Mr Trump on Wednesday pledged to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that the US would "continue to strengthen its ability to deter and defend itself and its allies with the full range of its military capabilities," a day after Pyongyang fired a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
I think it would be wise to stay out of the Syrian mess. Nothing we do there will make things better.
Quote from: ldub23 on April 07, 2017, 04:09:57 AM
I think it would be wise to stay out of the Syrian mess. Nothing we do there will make things better.
I see it as Trump drawing a RED line his way.
Unlike the last 8 years...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertarianhawk.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fobama-red-line-cartoon3.jpg&hash=91a3411b701238091c42ebc60169426a9631f4f2)
Wakey-wakey!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgggdrftgbkbfbfxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Ftrgsgdrkxrdffrtbsd%2F1%2F1595431%2F10163839%2Ffeel_the_red_dot200x283-vi.jpg&hash=02c5e38f105aa1a21372eec61273d8389af149a3)
Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 01:42:33 AM
This was more than a message to Assad, this was a wake up call for all the little dictators around the world to "Get your shit in order" you might be next, don't test US' resolve. Hear that Little Kim?
As Mrclose pointed out, it's been 8 long years for the terrorist appeaser to leave a mark on the world which turned out to be a shitstain on the US and an increasingly violent world...........
Good or bad, there's a new Marshal in town and things are going to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytEkcDtaQA
North Korea vows 'most ruthless blow' on United States after Donald Trump pledges to build up defences against Pyongyang
APRIL 7, 20179:58AM
US launches airstrike on Syria
1:17
SYRIA: Syrian Military Says 6 Killed in US Strikes on Regime Airbase April 07
2:32
SYRIA: US Fires 59 Missiles at Syrian Airbase April 07
1:33
EU MIGRANTS: Rescue Crews Pull 1,350 Migrants to Safety Off Libyan Coast April 05
0:16
AUSTRALIA: 'Bashar Al Assad Commited a Shocking War Crime': PM Turnbull April 07
13:39
Trump orders military strikes on Assad airbase
1:32
'We have a big problem' in North Korea: Trump
NORTH Korea is ready to deliver the "most ruthless blow" if provoked by the United States, its ambassador to Moscow said overnight, after US President Donald Trump pledged to keep building up defences against Pyongyang. (see graphic:
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-vows-most-ruthless-blow-on-united-states-after-donald-trump-pledges-to-build-up-defences-against-pyongyang/news-story/26da808f8df88eed8c617bdd347d886b
"Our army has already said that if there will be even the smallest provocation from the United States during exercises, we are ready to deliver the most ruthless blow," Interfax news agency quoted ambassador Kim Hyong-Jun as saying.
"We have the readiness and ability to counter any challenge from the US," he was quoted as saying.
Mr Trump on Wednesday pledged to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that the US would "continue to strengthen its ability to deter and defend itself and its allies with the full range of its military capabilities," a day after Pyongyang fired a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
This was a clear message, not only to Syria, but to the world. Trump could take out all the airfields and Assad and Putin know it. No talking, just action. I am impressed with this move.
So much for U.N. ambassador Susan Rice and President Obama telling the truth about chemical weapons in Syria. Also vise visa when President Bush stated that Iraq sent it's chemicals to Syria.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/susan_rice_lied_about_syrian_chemical_weapons.html
Quote from: walkstall on April 07, 2017, 04:19:43 AM
I see it as Trump drawing a RED line his way.
Unlike the last 8 years...
No shit! Obama used to send pallets of money. Trump sends Tomahawk missiles!
Quote from: walkstall on April 07, 2017, 04:19:43 AM
I see it as Trump drawing a RED line his way.
Unlike the last 8 years...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertarianhawk.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fobama-red-line-cartoon3.jpg&hash=91a3411b701238091c42ebc60169426a9631f4f2)
I just dont see any outcome to the Syrian mess that will be better than what we have now.
When was the last time we went into the Middle East to bring about a regime change and good things came of it...?
We werent attacked. American's werent harmed.
Stay out of it!
Yes. Trump sent a message that he's willing to take action - maybe too willing.
No idea why he wouldn't consult congress. It appears he had the authority to call for the limited response, but still would have thought he would have used the event to build relation with some in congress. But I would bet he thought about it - figured that the Dims would try to block him. Then he'd be stuck having to override congress. If half or more of congress said, "no go", could Trump still pull the trigger? I'm guessing that's what he was thinking about.
I've been offline - was driving 18 hours yesterday hearing about SCOTUS, Rice, Nunes, and the China visit (they just got off the plane and are walking down the ramp ... thanks for telling me that ... yawn). I heard about these from every angle imaginable - like the chinese water torture. Yes - I was bored and the news wasn't helping. Then the missile launch was announced! I was in shock.
As I drove, I thought about some of the tidbits from all the different broadcasts concerning China, Russia, NK, and Syria. But here's what I wanted to add to this post. It's an unproven conspiracy theory, but I think it holds water.
North Korea and China are both communist countries and Trump is meeting with China now. Is it a coincidence that NK launched their test missiles a few days ago? Or did China and NK decide that NK should show a little aggression so that China could tell the US they would talk to NK in exchange for something ... a bargaining chit.
Tillerson is going to Russia next week. Is it a coincidence that Syria launched a chemical strike this week? Russia could have asked Syria to do it so that Russia can exchange their "control of Syria" as an economic bargaining chit with the US next week. They would not have suspected Trump's reaction based on his previous stance that the US should stay out because there's nothing in it for us. If that was the Russian plan, it backfired. And, if so, I would have liked to seen Putin's face when the WH called him to say that the missiles were being delivered.
None of this is supported by evidence, but the timing is very suspicious. Given Trump's America First agenda, these nations (especially China) will be looking for something to give them leverage.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 07, 2017, 04:56:10 AM
This was a clear message, not only to Syria, but to the world. Trump could take out all the airfields and Assad and Putin know it. No talking, just action. I am impressed with this move.
That was exactly the point, not one person saw it coming, not one person will speak against it, or look like they were siding with a murderous dictator willing to gas his own people.
Trump spoke on behalf of those who couldn't.
Like I said, there's a new marshal in town and the world knows it. Your move NK...
Oh ... and I just saw this ... Fox online news that says that the MSM is backing Trump's decision to a measured response against Syria.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/media-backing-trump-on-bombing-syria-but-difficult-questions-remain.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/media-backing-trump-on-bombing-syria-but-difficult-questions-remain.html)
So he must have made the wrong decision.
I was listening to NPR on yesterday too. There were several sample interviews with snowflakes about what should be done about the Chem Weapons drop in Syria. The response was odd. There were two I heard (of maybe four) where they said they would respect Trump if he took action as protection for the Syrians. It was a very one-dimensional view of the situation since there are so many other implications, e.g., destabilizing the area and Russia relations, but I was still surprised that any snowflake would admit any favor of POTUS / Trump in any circumstance. I'm sure they will change their tune once the MSM turns the Syrian response back against Trump and broadcasts the new talking points to the snowflakes.
That's what disturbs me most about the snowflakes. They don't think independently nor critically. I'm find if someone thinks different than I do ... but not if they just trust someone else to give them their opinions. And so many fall into that (Pubs w/ Fox, Libs w/ MSM) because it's easier than thinking for themselves. I find myself starting to spit back talking points occasionally; good to check yourself. Maybe turn off all the media outlets for a week when you're hearing their voices in your head. Especially after driving for 18 hours and listening to them. Uhhh. Make them stop talking in my head! :rolleyes: Just kidding ... inside joke with Solar about the schitz posts.
Quote from: topside on April 07, 2017, 08:11:37 AM
Oh ... and I just saw this ... Fox online news that says that the MSM is backing Trump's decision to a measured response against Syria.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/media-backing-trump-on-bombing-syria-but-difficult-questions-remain.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/media-backing-trump-on-bombing-syria-but-difficult-questions-remain.html)
So he must have made the wrong decision.
I was listening to NPR on yesterday too. There were several sample interviews with snowflakes about what should be done about the Chem Weapons drop in Syria. The response was odd. There were two I heard (of maybe four) where they said they would respect Trump if he took action as protection for the Syrians. It was a very one-dimensional view of the situation since there are so many other implications, e.g., destabilizing the area and Russia relations, but I was still surprised that any snowflake would admit any favor of POTUS / Trump in any circumstance. I'm sure they will change their tune once the MSM turns the Syrian response back against Trump and broadcasts the new talking points to the snowflakes.
That's what disturbs me most about the snowflakes. They don't think independently nor critically. I'm find if someone thinks different than I do ... but not if they just trust someone else to give them their opinions. And so many fall into that (Pubs w/ Fox, Libs w/ MSM) because it's easier than thinking for themselves. I find myself starting to spit back talking points occasionally; good to check yourself. Maybe turn off all the media outlets for a week when you're hearing their voices in your head. Especially after driving for 18 hours and listening to them. Uhhh. Make them stop talking in my head! :rolleyes: Just kidding ... inside joke with Solar about the schitz posts.
The LSM is at a loss for the moment because Trump did the exact opposite of what their master did, Trump spoke with missiles, while Hussein spoke with hollow threats of imaginary lines in the sand.
This was a complete contrast to his predecessor. This drives the progs nuts because to attack it makes you a sympathizer of a murderous dictator.
They're waiting for their marching orders from the NY Times, just watch...
I'm guessing Trumps LIMITED response was purely tactical and perhaps time motivated. From what I've been hearing in the MEDIA US Missiles struck the base from which the Chem weapons were launched and perhaps stored. That and took out some ground defenses and communications which might mean a follow up strike (??????).
Could be that the SYrians were preparing more chem attacks or could be they were getting ready to move their Chem weapons.
Now here is the political angle.....If this is true, the base that was struck housed Chemweapons, how could ANYONE be against destroying Chem weapons possibly being readied to use again against more civilian targets.....Even SNOWFLAKES would have to quandry over that one.
Second, Putin is in pickle because the Russians don;t like Chem weapons being used on Civilians anymore than we do.
It will be hard, politically, for Putin to stickup for Assad using such weapons.
Third, it makes a very bold statement, it's not Obamao's wimpy lines in the sand that mean nothing, this is a direct strike
in the middle of the night with likely a prefunctory phone call to the Russians to tell them to move their shit out of there or get it melted cause ordinance is on the way. VERY POWERFUL MESSAGE.
Last it would give Trump a sort of bargaining chip. This is our demand, convince Assad to destroy his weapons under UN observers supervision..MAJOR VICTORY...then maybe we can sit down and discuss sanctions. If not maybe we'll send a few bunker busters to where they are stored and blow them up ourselves.
No I don;t want to get involved in Syria anymore not our business but the fact is were already ARE involved, so lets try to make the most out of it and score a small win. Truth be told these Chem weapons should have been taken out a long time ago. When we knew Saddam moved them into Syria.
Meanwhile Cruz, Lee and Paul have made it known that further military action in Syria better involve consulting Congress.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 07, 2017, 09:43:24 AM
Meanwhile Cruz, Lee and Paul have made it known that further military action in Syria better involve consulting Congress.
As much as I like Cruz and the FC, there is no Constitution requirement for Trump to consult Congress when deploying or using military assets. War Powers Act not withstanding, this issue was resolved way back at the beginnings of the Civil War, when Lincoln ordered the Navy to start blockading ports belonging to the Southern states. The bottom line is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military with no mention of any type of oversight. The Court decision also acknowledged that declaration of war is a political act, and is reserved to Congress, while USE of military forces is, by definition, a military act, and is reserved to the executive branch.
Considering the fact that Congress has not had the cojones to actually declare war since WWII, despite the large number of major and/or significant conflicts we have been involved with since then, consulting congress on use of military force is little more than formality, anyway.
Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 10:05:57 AM
As much as I like Cruz and the FC, there is no Constitution requirement for Trump to consult Congress when deploying or using military assets. War Powers Act not withstanding, this issue was resolved way back at the beginnings of the Civil War, when Lincoln ordered the Navy to start blockading ports belonging to the Southern states. The bottom line is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military with no mention of any type of oversight. The Court decision also acknowledged that declaration of war is a political act, and is reserved to Congress, while USE of military forces is, by definition, a military act, and is reserved to the executive branch.
Considering the fact that Congress has not had the cojones to actually declare war since WWII, despite the large number of major and/or significant conflicts we have been involved with since then, consulting congress on use of military force is little more than formality, anyway.
Here's what he actually said.
Ted Cruz agreed this morning that Trump had the authority to attack Syria last night, or as he put it, to respond to an exigent circumstance with military force. But if there are any more military actions needed, then Trump needs to make the case to Congress to get the authority for war:
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-trump-had-authority-to-attack-syria-but-needs-to-talk-to-congress-for-more/
Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 11:35:23 AM
Here's what he actually said.
Ted Cruz agreed this morning that Trump had the authority to attack Syria last night, or as he put it, to respond to an exigent circumstance with military force. But if there are any more military actions needed, then Trump needs to make the case to Congress to get the authority for war:
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-trump-had-authority-to-attack-syria-but-needs-to-talk-to-congress-for-more/
Look at it this way the UN should have done something long before this. But like always their all blow and no go.
Quote from: walkstall on April 07, 2017, 11:42:17 AM
Look at it this way the UN should have done something long before this. But like always their all blow and no go.
They didn't have a problem with it.
Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
They didn't have a problem with it.
What and piss off their own people?
Quote from: walkstall on April 07, 2017, 11:42:17 AM
Look at it this way the UN should have done something long before this. But like always their all blow and no go.
The UN is the stereotypical equivalent of the toothless old hag who spends her time sitting on her front porch with cheap binoculars watching and bitching about her neighbors.
Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 11:35:23 AM
Here's what he actually said.
Ted Cruz agreed this morning that Trump had the authority to attack Syria last night, or as he put it, to respond to an exigent circumstance with military force. But if there are any more military actions needed, then Trump needs to make the case to Congress to get the authority for war:
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-trump-had-authority-to-attack-syria-but-needs-to-talk-to-congress-for-more/
And, again, though I am a great admirer of Cruz, he is simply not technically correct.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Judiciary-Power-and-Practice-War-and-the-courts.html
The Korean and Vietnam Wars were conducted in their entirety without congressional approval - despite complaints and suits based on the fact there was no declaration of war - because POTUS, as CinC, is recognized to have Constitutional authority to use the military as he sees fit to assure the security of the nation. Again, the declaration of war is a political action given entirely to Congress, but deployment and use of military assets is entirely executive.
Now, IMO, Trump SHOULD talk to Congress if he is pondering further actions against Syria (or, more specifically, Assad). However, he technically does not "need" to do seek congressional approval for military action.
Also, IMO, the Constitution needs an amendment which specifically limits presidential authority in use of military action to emergency responses to direct attacks or imminent threat of direct attacks, while all other types of military actions be only allowed under the authority of Congress to declare war.
Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 01:16:27 PM
And, again, though I am a great admirer of Cruz, he is simply not technically correct.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Judiciary-Power-and-Practice-War-and-the-courts.html
The Korean and Vietnam Wars were conducted in their entirety without congressional approval - despite complaints and suits based on the fact there was no declaration of war - because POTUS, as CinC, is recognized to have Constitutional authority to use the military as he sees fit to assure the security of the nation. Again, the declaration of war is a political action given entirely to Congress, but deployment and use of military assets is entirely executive.
Now, IMO, Trump SHOULD talk to Congress if he is pondering further actions against Syria (or, more specifically, Assad). However, he technically does not "need" to do seek congressional approval for military action.
Also, IMO, the Constitution needs an amendment which specifically limits presidential authority in use of military action to emergency responses to direct attacks or imminent threat of direct attacks, while all other types of military actions be only allowed under the authority of Congress to declare war.
Precedent does not make law, though it destroys our Republic style of government by not enforcing the rule of law, it still doesn't make it law.
Problem is, Congress is nothing but a bunch of spineless wimps that do as their handlers decide and nothing more. If they had a spine, they would define war and force the POTUS to follow the letter of the law, but they don't and we both know why.
There's a reason people like McCain remain in office, he's a Warhawk, he serves those with interests in military development and procurement.
Nikki Haley has denounced Iran and Russia in the affair, and both she and Rex Tillerson are essentially reading the same script by accusing Russia of failing to take the gas out of Syria as the Russians were REQUIRED to do. Both said the attacks were due to Russian incompetence or direct participation with Syria in the attacks.
What made the UN sit on its hands was that this month the U.S. sits as president of the UN Security Council and Haley openly said we would use that advantage by FORCING all debate to be out in public, where Bolivia tried and failed to defend Syria off the record.
Joining the U.S. in assailing Russia was the U.K. representative, who used language even more blistering than Haley.
We live in interesting times.
I agree with Cruz. Trump would be wise to put Congress on record in support.
Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 01:28:27 PM
Precedent does not make law, though it destroys our Republic style of government by not enforcing the rule of law, it still doesn't make it law.
Problem is, Congress is nothing but a bunch of spineless wimps that do as their handlers decide and nothing more. If they had a spine, they would define war and force the POTUS to follow the letter of the law, but they don't and we both know why.
There's a reason people like McCain remain in office, he's a Warhawk, he serves those with interests in military development and procurement.
The Constitution clearly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Nothing precedent abut that. It also states that Congress shall have the authority to declare war. Nothing "precedent" about that, either. Nor is there any "precedent" about the defined FACT that declaring war is a political action, while making war is a military action. Two distinct types of action which were delegated to two different branches of government. IF they meant the two actions to be co-dependent, I am certain they would have stated so.
Of note, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to "authorize" military action. NOT ONE WORD. They can declare war as one of their powers AND NOTHING ELSE. Therefore, assuming that Congress needs to be involved with the decision to use military force is nothing less than declaring a power because people think it SHOULD be there, not because it IS there.
From the start, even those who were involved in writing the Constitution, who later went on to become presidents used military action where it was deemed necessary WITHOUT declaration of war. The War of 1812 was our first actual declared war, yet our military had sen action dozens of times in dozens of different conflicts. In fact, we have had exactly 5 DECLARED wars in our history. Compare that to the number of times we have been in armed conflict of one type or another. There is a huge difference between "precedent" and the reality of defending the country as necessary without making a huge production of making every military action a declared war.
With the way the Korean War and Vietnam were mismanaged as Cold War political statements does prove, IMO, that there SHOULD be more checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government when it comes to conducting war and/or military actions on foreign soils. However, that verbiage is NOT in the Constitution at this time.
Quote from: mrclose on April 07, 2017, 06:05:08 PM
Can you imagine what it would be like for the president to get permission from Congress before acting if action was required immediately? :popcorn:
Cruz stated that Trump did act within his authority. He was simply stating that Trump now needs to consult Congress for further action.
The one thing I like about this is Trump ordered the strike and made a public statement while meeting with the president of China. Pretty baddass.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 07, 2017, 07:26:56 PM
The one thing I like about this is Trump ordered the strike and made a public statement while meeting with the president of China. Pretty baddass.
Multitasking president? :thumbsup:
Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 08:29:06 PM
Multitasking president? :thumbsup:
So he can play golf and work at the same time. Unlike b o. :lol:
Please tell me Hussein was on vacation in Syria...
Quote from: taxed on April 07, 2017, 11:09:05 PM
Please tell me Hussein was on vacation in Syria...
Oh, bosh and nonsense. You'd settle for Camp X-ray at Gitmo and you damn well know it! :lol:
Quote from: quiller on April 07, 2017, 11:11:49 PM
Oh, bosh and nonsense. You'd settle for Camp X-ray at Gitmo and you damn well know it! :lol:
As long as they take away his prayer rug...
Quote from: taxed on April 07, 2017, 11:21:48 PM
As long as they take away his prayer rug...
Well, if nothing else this entire episode has shown us one thing.
Buy Ratheon stock. They make Tomahawk missiles.
Donald Trump owns stock in Ratheon, maker of the Tomahawk missile which has led to a jump in stock prices after the Syrian attack.
This source wants Trump impeached. It offers multiple links, all to leftists. (Go figure.)
https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/tomahawk-missiles-were-wrong-choice-for-syria-attack-but-donald-trump-owns-stock-in-the-company/2224/
Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 06:42:37 PM
The Constitution clearly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Nothing precedent abut that. It also states that Congress shall have the authority to declare war. Nothing "precedent" about that, either.
Where did I suggest otherwise?
QuoteNor is there any "precedent" about the defined FACT that declaring war is a political action, while making war is a military action.
War, in almost all cases is failed politics.
QuoteTwo distinct types of action which were delegated to two different branches of government. IF they meant the two actions to be co-dependent, I am certain they would have stated so.
Of note, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to "authorize" military action. NOT ONE WORD. They can declare war as one of their powers AND NOTHING ELSE. Therefore, assuming that Congress needs to be involved with the decision to use military force is nothing less than declaring a power because people think it SHOULD be there, not because it IS there.
Did you miss the part about Congress controlling the money to support war?
The President is afforded the power of military action, but beyond protecting American interests, he needs explicit approval of Congress where funding is concerned. Congress making a Declaration of war essentially relieves Congress control of the purse to the President.
See why the distinct demarcation between powers?
Though the last 3 plus decades blurred those lines via CR's.
Quote
From the start, even those who were involved in writing the Constitution, who later went on to become presidents used military action where it was deemed necessary WITHOUT declaration of war. The War of 1812 was our first actual declared war, yet our military had sen action dozens of times in dozens of different conflicts. In fact, we have had exactly 5 DECLARED wars in our history. Compare that to the number of times we have been in armed conflict of one type or another. There is a huge difference between "precedent" and the reality of defending the country as necessary without making a huge production of making every military action a declared war.
As I stated, precedent is not law and Congress shirked their duties in enforcing the rule of law. Libya being the most recent.
QuoteWith the way the Korean War and Vietnam were mismanaged as Cold War political statements does prove, IMO, that there SHOULD be more checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government when it comes to conducting war and/or military actions on foreign soils. However, that verbiage is NOT in the Constitution at this time.
Because Congress doesn't want such a responsibility placed on their shoulders.
Anyway, I can't see any other reason beyond a bunch of spineless bastards. Or, one other possibility could be, declaring war places all control in the President's hands.
But I kind of doubt that one, because Congress has proven to be nothing more than a tool of special interest.
This is definitely a question for Cruz. Care to broach the question to him and see if he responds?
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
Where did I suggest otherwise?
War, in almost all cases is failed politics.
Did you miss the part about Congress controlling the money to support war?
The President is afforded the power of military action, but beyond protecting American interests, he needs explicit approval of Congress where funding is concerned. Congress making a Declaration of war essentially relieves Congress control of the purse to the President.
See why the distinct demarcation between powers?
Though the last 3 plus decades blurred those lines via CR's.
As I stated, precedent is not law and Congress shirked their duties in enforcing the rule of law. Libya being the most recent.
Because Congress doesn't want such a responsibility placed on their shoulders.
Anyway, I can't see any other reason beyond a bunch of spineless bastards. Or, one other possibility could be, declaring war places all control in the President's hands.
But I kind of doubt that one, because Congress has proven to be nothing more than a tool of special interest.
This is definitely a question for Cruz. Care to broach the question to him and see if he responds?
The president has the responsibility to protect our country and our citizens, including military action. As you stated, congress has abdicated their responsibility concerning war - on purpose.
How about this example: Congress is on a two week recess. Trump desires to blast Assad's ass. So what does he do? Tell Assad I am going to blast your ass in a couples of weeks when congress gets back. Absurd isn't it?
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
Where did I suggest otherwise?
War, in almost all cases is failed politics.
Did you miss the part about Congress controlling the money to support war?
The President is afforded the power of military action, but beyond protecting American interests, he needs explicit approval of Congress where funding is concerned. Congress making a Declaration of war essentially relieves Congress control of the purse to the President.
See why the distinct demarcation between powers?
Though the last 3 plus decades blurred those lines via CR's.
As I stated, precedent is not law and Congress shirked their duties in enforcing the rule of law. Libya being the most recent.
Because Congress doesn't want such a responsibility placed on their shoulders.
Anyway, I can't see any other reason beyond a bunch of spineless bastards. Or, one other possibility could be, declaring war places all control in the President's hands.
But I kind of doubt that one, because Congress has proven to be nothing more than a tool of special interest.
This is definitely a question for Cruz. Care to broach the question to him and see if he responds?
WHAT PRECEDENT? The FACT that it was argued way back at the beginning of the Civil War the difference between declaring war and using military action against a perceived threat. That is not precedent, it is reading the Constitution AS WRITTEN and applying it. The LAW is that the president is the Commander in Chief of our military forces. The LAW is that Congress has the authority to declare war. The LAW is that those are two separate authorities - one does NOT control the other.
The REALITY is that use of military force to protect national security does not always fall under the heading of war. Therefore Congress has no authority over the president nor the military under those circumstances where military action takes place outside of war.
The military is already funded. As you well know, it is mandated in the Constitution that every two years congress has to write a bill declaring the amount of military spending that will take place over the following two years. For instance, the missiles used against that Syrian airfield were already purchased and paid for, or they would not have been in the holds of the destroyers that launched them.
But, again, nowhere in that mandate requiring funding of a standing military be a bi-annual event gives congress authority to tell the president how, or IF military force may be used. Congress could certainly refuse to fund the military, as that is their authority. But they can NOT refuse to fund any one particular action of the military as ordered by the president. That is not what the Constitution says, or in any way implies. Congress can approve X number of dollars for the support of a standing federal military force, and NOTHING MORE, because nothing more was written into the Constitution. Once those dollars are approved, it falls to the executive branch how they are spent, and how the assets purchased with those dollars are used.
If you can show me otherwise in the Constitution, I would be more than willing to learn. But what I have read, all I have seen is the fact that Article I, Sec. 8 states Congress has the authority to declare war (para 11) and the authority to raise and support armies with the added caveat that funding must be approved every two years (para 12) and provide and maintain a navy (para 13). I also see Article II, Sec 2, Para 1 that the president is granted the authority as commander in chief of the military, including the state militias should they be called to national service. Nothing in there I can find which gives congress any type of authority over the President with respect to if or where military forces may be deployed, or under what circumstances. That is the LAW.
Maybe it needs to be changed, as I personally believe that is way too much authority for one person considering ours is the single most powerful military force in the history of mankind. But my beliefs do not change the way the law is currently written.
Quote from: zewazir on April 08, 2017, 12:32:30 PM
WHAT PRECEDENT? The FACT that it was argued way back at the beginning of the Civil War the difference between declaring war and using military action against a perceived threat. That is not precedent, it is reading the Constitution AS WRITTEN and applying it. The LAW is that the president is the Commander in Chief of our military forces. The LAW is that Congress has the authority to declare war. The LAW is that those are two separate authorities - one does NOT control the other.
Oh Jeez, don't drag this into a Civil war thread, it'll never end. So I won't even comment because that wound will never heal.
QuoteThe REALITY is that use of military force to protect national security does not always fall under the heading of war. Therefore Congress has no authority over the president nor the military under those circumstances where military action takes place outside of war.
Again, I didn't say otherwise.
QuoteThe military is already funded. As you well know, it is mandated in the Constitution that every two years congress has to write a bill declaring the amount of military spending that will take place over the following two years. For instance, the missiles used against that Syrian airfield were already purchased and paid for, or they would not have been in the holds of the destroyers that launched them.
Why are you assuming I was against the strike?
QuoteBut, again, nowhere in that mandate requiring funding of a standing military be a bi-annual event gives congress authority to tell the president how, or IF military force may be used. Congress could certainly refuse to fund the military, as that is their authority. But they can NOT refuse to fund any one particular action of the military as ordered by the president. That is not what the Constitution says, or in any way implies. Congress can approve X number of dollars for the support of a standing federal military force, and NOTHING MORE, because nothing more was written into the Constitution. Once those dollars are approved, it falls to the executive branch how they are spent, and how the assets purchased with those dollars are used.
Funding or not, POTUS was charged as CnC for a reason, though that does not give him full reign in striking all out war, as listed in article of Impeachment, so you see, POTUS does not have the power of continued military action.
This is why Cruz rightly suggested Trump meet with Congress if he plans further action because Congress most assuredly does have say in the matter as per the Constitution.
QuoteIf you can show me otherwise in the Constitution, I would be more than willing to learn. But what I have read, all I have seen is the fact that Article I, Sec. 8 states Congress has the authority to declare war (para 11) and the authority to raise and support armies with the added caveat that funding must be approved every two years (para 12) and provide and maintain a navy (para 13). I also see Article II, Sec 2, Para 1 that the president is granted the authority as commander in chief of the military, including the state militias should they be called to national service. Nothing in there I can find which gives congress any type of authority over the President with respect to if or where military forces may be deployed, or under what circumstances. That is the LAW.
As stated above, Congress has the power to Impeach, meaning the POTUS is not afforded dictatorial powers.
QuoteMaybe it needs to be changed, as I personally believe that is way too much authority for one person considering ours is the single most powerful military force in the history of mankind. But my beliefs do not change the way the law is currently written.
If Congress exercises its power as guaranteed in the Constitution, then there is no need for further instruction.
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Oh Jeez, don't drag this into a Civil war thread, it'll never end. So I won't even comment because that wound will never heal.
The Civil War reference was to point out the first time there was a significant challenge questioning the president's authority as CinC, and the response to that challenge. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the Civil War.
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Again, I didn't say otherwise.
Yet you still imply authorities granted congress with respect to the use of military force.
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Why are you assuming I was against the strike?
Good grief. I didn't say, imply or otherwise hint you are against the strike. The POINT is the military is already funded. The idea that congress can use purse strings to deny the president authority to use military force in any specific instance is mistaken.
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Funding or not, POTUS was charged as CnC for a reason, though that does not give him full reign in striking all out war, as listed in article of Impeachment, so you see, POTUS does not have the power of continued military action.
Impeachment? Seriously? Quote the part of the Constitution that says congress can impeach a president if they disagree with the way he deploys the military. According to my recollection, the president may be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, admittedly, gross misuse of the military against foreign countries, or especially domestically which is expressly forbidden by law, could properly be defined as a high crime. Then again, what line has to be crossed when it comes to the difference between defending national security, and misuse? I would submit Trump could order a dozen more missile strikes without asking permission from congress, and would not even come close to crossing that line. OTOH, sending in ground troops with the specific end goal of removing Assad from power and instituting a replacement form of government is, IMO, a full-on act of war against a foreign government, and damned well should be declared as so being.
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
This is why Cruz rightly suggested Trump meet with Congress if he plans further action because Congress most assuredly does have say in the matter as per the Constitution.
Show me where. Quote that part of the Constitution which says so. And no, it is not the power to declare war, as not all military actions involve being in a state of war. So, I still say it depends on exactly what type(s) of additional actions Trump has in mind as to whether the president needs to consult with Congress. But one additional point: the ONLY thing he has to consult with Congress about is asking them to declare war, as that is the ONLY authority granted congress with respect to the use of military force. Congress passing a resolution "granting authority" to use military force is not in the Constitution, anywhere. They either declare war, or they do not.
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
As stated above, Congress has the power to Impeach, meaning the POTUS is not afforded dictatorial powers. If Congress exercises its power as guaranteed in the Constitution, then there is no need for further instruction.
And, again, show me the verbiage in the Constitution which grants the authority you describe, giving congress authority over presidential use of military force. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. They'd have to define the use of military force by the Commander in Chief of the military to be a high crime, because congress does not agree with what the president did. That would be a total usurpation of power.
Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 01:42:33 AM
....
NORTH Korea is ready to deliver the "most ruthless blow" if provoked by the United States, its ambassador to Moscow said overnight, after US President Donald Trump pledged to keep building up defences against Pyongyang. (see graphic:
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-vows-most-ruthless-blow-on-united-states-after-donald-trump-pledges-to-build-up-defences-against-pyongyang/news-story/26da808f8df88eed8c617bdd347d886b
"Our army has already said that if there will be even the smallest provocation from the United States during exercises, we are ready to deliver the most ruthless blow," Interfax news agency quoted ambassador Kim Hyong-Jun as saying.
"We have the readiness and ability to counter any challenge from the US," he was quoted as saying.
As Nick Danger (Firesign Theature) said, "I wonder where Ruth is?" ...what a joke.
I really believe North Korea will detonate a nuke. I just think it will be accidental and in North Korea.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 08, 2017, 06:05:15 PM
I really believe North Korea will detonate a nuke. I just think it will be accidental and in North Korea.
Somewhere with in 25 to 50 miles of the Launchpad.
Any one see how slick the timing was? All 59 missiles struck at the same time. one report said it was over in 90 seconds! What kind of planning went into the missile paths to time the strike in that way? Can you imagine 59 1000 lb bombs detonated in such a short time frame? Must have been one hell of a fireworks show!
That little show was even a message to Russia prior to the up coming meeting with SOS! The Fat little crazy guy in North Korea must not be feeling real secure right now either!
Quote from: walkstall on April 08, 2017, 06:36:08 PM
Somewhere with in 25 to 50 miles of the Launchpad.
:lol: :lol:
Exactly and state media will describe it as a massive success that has scared America into submission.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 08, 2017, 08:07:21 PM
:lol: :lol:
Exactly and state media will describe it as a massive success that has scared America into submission.
Along with the Russians so I am told. :popcorn:
Quote from: zewazir on April 08, 2017, 02:18:30 PM
The Civil War reference was to point out the first time there was a significant challenge questioning the president's authority as CinC, and the response to that challenge. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the Civil War.
Yet you still imply authorities granted congress with respect to the use of military force.
Good grief. I didn't say, imply or otherwise hint you are against the strike. The POINT is the military is already funded. The idea that congress can use purse strings to deny the president authority to use military force in any specific instance is mistaken.
Case in point, where has anyone made such a statement, especially me? Unfortunately, you either read things that aren't implied or create arguments that don't exist anywhere in reality except only in your own mind.
QuoteImpeachment? Seriously? Quote the part of the Constitution that says congress can impeach a president if they disagree with the way he deploys the military. According to my recollection, the president may be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, admittedly, gross misuse of the military against foreign countries, or especially domestically which is expressly forbidden by law, could properly be defined as a high crime. Then again, what line has to be crossed when it comes to the difference between defending national security, and misuse? I would submit Trump could order a dozen more missile strikes without asking permission from congress, and would not even come close to crossing that line. OTOH, sending in ground troops with the specific end goal of removing Assad from power and instituting a replacement form of government is, IMO, a full-on act of war against a foreign government, and damned well should be declared as so being.
Are you arguing with me, or trying to convince me that I was right? :biggrin:
QuoteShow me where. Quote that part of the Constitution which says so. And no, it is not the power to declare war, as not all military actions involve being in a state of war. So, I still say it depends on exactly what type(s) of additional actions Trump has in mind as to whether the president needs to consult with Congress. But one additional point: the ONLY thing he has to consult with Congress about is asking them to declare war, as that is the ONLY authority granted congress with respect to the use of military force. Congress passing a resolution "granting authority" to use military force is not in the Constitution, anywhere. They either declare war, or they do not.
And, again, show me the verbiage in the Constitution which grants the authority you describe, giving congress authority over presidential use of military force. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. They'd have to define the use of military force by the Commander in Chief of the military to be a high crime, because congress does not agree with what the president did. That would be a total usurpation of power.
Let me be blunt, your need for argumentation is a bit ridiculous. I merely stated that Cruz suggestion that Trump confers with Congress was a good idea, yet you want my statement to have been a demand that Trump consult Congress.
Your inability to put words in my mouth exposes something here and it's not very appealing, so I suggest you drop this failed line of debate and find a valid argument and quit coming off as a troll.
Quote from: redbeard on April 08, 2017, 07:32:16 PM
Any one see how slick the timing was? All 59 missiles struck at the same time. one report said it was over in 90 seconds! What kind of planning went into the missile paths to time the strike in that way? Can you imagine 59 1000 lb bombs detonated in such a short time frame? Must have been one hell of a fireworks show!
That little show was even a message to Russia prior to the up coming meeting with SOS! The Fat little crazy guy in North Korea must not be feeling real secure right now either!
The Fat, little crazy put on a suit and some glasses to look all grown up ... then said that we don't scare him. Hence the emphasis on the "crazy" part.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/09/north-korea-vows-to-bolster-its-defenses-says-syria-airstrikes-prove-its-nukes-justified.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/09/north-korea-vows-to-bolster-its-defenses-says-syria-airstrikes-prove-its-nukes-justified.html)
He cares nothing for the NK country or the people in it. How in the world can he be in / stay in power? Hope China puts a leash on their dog.
Quote from: redbeard on April 08, 2017, 07:32:16 PM
Any one see how slick the timing was? All 59 missiles struck at the same time. one report said it was over in 90 seconds! What kind of planning went into the missile paths to time the strike in that way? Can you imagine 59 1000 lb bombs detonated in such a short time frame? Must have been one hell of a fireworks show!
That little show was even a message to Russia prior to the up coming meeting with SOS! The Fat little crazy guy in North Korea must not be feeling real secure right now either!
It was reported that many circled until all missiles were within the strike zone. For $1M a piece we should expect pretty sophisticated stuff. I can't imagine what that looked like on the ground.
The leftist loon fest on the left is starting.
This jerkoff congressman from California is claiming the strike was unconstitutional.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/04/07/democratic-congressman-rips-trump-unconstitutional-strike-syria.html
Quote from: Solar on April 09, 2017, 04:25:41 AM
Let me be blunt, your need for argumentation is a bit ridiculous. I merely stated that Cruz suggestion that Trump confers with Congress was a good idea, yet you want my statement to have been a demand that Trump consult Congress.
So, tell me exactly how one is supposed to read this:
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
Did you miss the part about Congress controlling the money to support war?
The President is afforded the power of military action, but beyond protecting American interests, he needs explicit approval of Congress where funding is concerned. Congress making a Declaration of war essentially relieves Congress control of the purse to the President.
Sure looks to me like you making the claim congress is supposed to control the pruse strings on military actions not involving the declaration of war.
Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
Your inability to put words in my mouth exposes something here and it's not very appealing, so I suggest you drop this failed line of debate and find a valid argument and quit coming off as a troll.
Want to call me a troll? Fine. That seems to be your habit whenever anyone has the actual temerity to disagree with you. So take your fucking site and stuff it where the sun don't shine, asshole. I have watched you run off a large number of posters since joining - most of whom deserved it, but several who really did not - except they disagreed with you. Don't bother banning me - I won't be back.
Quote from: zewazir on April 09, 2017, 08:36:20 AM
So, tell me exactly how one is supposed to read this:
Sure looks to me like you making the claim congress is supposed to control the pruse strings on military actions not involving the declaration of war.
Really? Then quote me specifically, where I made such a claim and end this.
QuoteWant to call me a troll? Fine.
You love making leaps, don't you? I said, and I quote:
"drop this failed line of debate and find a valid argument and quit coming off as a troll."
But if you'd rather play victim, that's your prerogative.
QuoteThat seems to be your habit whenever anyone has the actual temerity to disagree with you. So take your fucking site and stuff it where the sun don't shine, asshole. I have watched you run off a large number of posters since joining - most of whom deserved it, but several who really did not - except they disagreed with you. Don't bother banning me - I won't be back.
So there it is, your ego got in the way, you can't stand being called out for bad behavior over your failure to debate so you resort to name calling. So we disagreed, big freakin deal, at least I haven't put words in your mouth by claiming you inferred something, you had not, and I think that's what you're most pissed about, I didn't play by your rules of baiting.
Your running away seems to be SOP when you can't have your way, be it losing a debate or how this forum functions. So be it, but I'd much rather end this debate with you accepting loss like a man and moving on.
Apparently, my agreeing with Cruz didn't sit well with you and Cruz was right, and you were wrong, shock, say it isn't so. :rolleyes:
If you read back through this thread, nowhere will you find what you were inferring, where you claimed I believed Congress had the right to tell Trump how to fight a war?
Look, I've been reading people my entire professional life and I know what works in a business where people working together towards an end goal is concerned.
Some just don't fit, and you may have thought they were great posters, but in the end, the forum is most important and if I ran them off, there was a good reason for it.
Here's the law as folows...
Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
Let's see Trump did a Syria Airstrikes and we are going to war. :rolleyes:
b o does airstrikes and he just drawing a red line in the sand. :lol:
US military Isis air strikes in Iraq: day-by-day breakdown
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/27/us-military-isis-air-strikes-in-iraq-day-by-day-breakdown
Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 08:04:39 AM
That was exactly the point, not one person saw it coming, not one person will speak against it, or look like they were siding with a murderous dictator willing to gas his own people.
Trump spoke on behalf of those who couldn't.
Like I said, there's a new marshal in town and the world knows it. Your move NK...
https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/850939140283785217
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C88kmwDU0AAJ9VL.jpg)
Quote^^^ UPDATE: If you squish a marshmallow bunny wabbit, it still turns into North Koreas Kim Jong-Un, look see...
Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 06:42:37 PM
The Constitution clearly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Nothing precedent abut that. It also states that Congress shall have the authority to declare war. Nothing "precedent" about that, either. Nor is there any "precedent" about the defined FACT that declaring war is a political action, while making war is a military action. Two distinct types of action which were delegated to two different branches of government. IF they meant the two actions to be co-dependent, I am certain they would have stated so.
Of note, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to "authorize" military action. NOT ONE WORD. They can declare war as one of their powers AND NOTHING ELSE. Therefore, assuming that Congress needs to be involved with the decision to use military force is nothing less than declaring a power because people think it SHOULD be there, not because it IS there.
From the start, even those who were involved in writing the Constitution, who later went on to become presidents used military action where it was deemed necessary WITHOUT declaration of war. The War of 1812 was our first actual declared war, yet our military had sen action dozens of times in dozens of different conflicts. In fact, we have had exactly 5 DECLARED wars in our history. Compare that to the number of times we have been in armed conflict of one type or another. There is a huge difference between "precedent" and the reality of defending the country as necessary without making a huge production of making every military action a declared war.
With the way the Korean War and Vietnam were mismanaged as Cold War political statements does prove, IMO, that there SHOULD be more checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government when it comes to conducting war and/or military actions on foreign soils. However, that verbiage is NOT in the Constitution at this time.
We're at war with Syria?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 07, 2017, 07:26:56 PM
The one thing I like about this is Trump ordered the strike and made a public statement while meeting with the president of China. Pretty baddass.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I liked that too....
Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 08, 2017, 06:05:15 PM
I really believe North Korea will detonate a nuke. I just think it will be accidental and in North Korea.
They have a very impressive and sophisticated command center...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fegtime.ru%2Fimages%2FNK9.jpg&hash=b874e1c5fc910602c65cfb9f2e8ef82077249c9f)
Quote from: zewazir on April 09, 2017, 08:36:20 AM
So, tell me exactly how one is supposed to read this:Sure looks to me like you making the claim congress is supposed to control the pruse strings on military actions not involving the declaration of war.Want to call me a troll? Fine. That seems to be your habit whenever anyone has the actual temerity to disagree with you. So take your fucking site and stuff it where the sun don't shine, asshole. I have watched you run off a large number of posters since joining - most of whom deserved it, but several who really did not - except they disagreed with you. Don't bother banning me - I won't be back.
Geesh... I think you're overreacting a little bit. I hope you come back... I think you're a great poster.
Quote from: taxed on April 10, 2017, 04:01:18 AM
The have a very impressive and sophisticated command center...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fegtime.ru%2Fimages%2FNK9.jpg&hash=b874e1c5fc910602c65cfb9f2e8ef82077249c9f)
There a reason why North Korea is in the dark.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.vWOZQFE5sQH_MrUzOL6UDgEsDh%26amp%3Bw%3D235%26amp%3Bh%3D160%26amp%3Bc%3D7%26amp%3Bqlt%3D90%26amp%3Bo%3D4%26amp%3Bdpr%3D2.500005%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.7&hash=2c77a28726f360f4b00007069cba8032733714d1)
Quote from: walkstall on April 10, 2017, 04:09:01 AM
There a reason why North Korea is in the dark.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.vWOZQFE5sQH_MrUzOL6UDgEsDh%26amp%3Bw%3D235%26amp%3Bh%3D160%26amp%3Bc%3D7%26amp%3Bqlt%3D90%26amp%3Bo%3D4%26amp%3Bdpr%3D2.500005%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.7&hash=2c77a28726f360f4b00007069cba8032733714d1)
Perfect example of solar power. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on April 10, 2017, 04:35:34 AM
Perfect example of solar power. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol:
Thanks, I am now cleaning my monitors.
Quote from: walkstall on April 10, 2017, 04:53:42 AM
:lol:
Thanks, I am now cleaning my monitors.
Hey, it was NK that claimed they landed on the SUN at night and now you know how they came by their evidence, no solar at night. (daytime streetlights?):biggrin:
Quote from: taxed on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 AM
We're at war with Syria?
The point is valid that only Congress has power to declare a formal war, but Democrats amply proved that unnecessary when they killed 57,000 Americans in their undeclared "conflict." (To this day the media forgets that Dems started Vietnam in earnest after JFK and then LBJ got "serious" about playing soldier. (*unprintable* assholes)
Syria? Bad aim. We left the runways.
Quote from: taxed on April 10, 2017, 04:01:18 AM
They have a very impressive and sophisticated command center...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fegtime.ru%2Fimages%2FNK9.jpg&hash=b874e1c5fc910602c65cfb9f2e8ef82077249c9f)
What is that thing? Sort of looks like... German Engineering... a
Spinet Missile Launcher?(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2F00%2Fs%2FMTYwMFg2NTA%3D%2Fz%2FYyEAAOxyakdREVLk%2F%24%28KGrHqZ%2C%21lgFELN%2CmKorBREVLh5Ukw%7E%7E60_58.JPG&hash=27b1c6e5636a8dd35de25471031d5dd2ff978cb1)
That's it... I heard it's so hard to keep them tuned - well... that explains the failed missile tests!