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.

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


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.   

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?

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

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.
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.   

b o does airstrikes and he just drawing a red line in the sand.   



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

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.

  I liked that too....