Syria
- Thread starter Guard Dad
- Start date
lotstodo
aka "The Jackal"
This is an illegal act of war against a sovereign Nation without authorization from Congress or a congressionally approved resolution from the UN. It is done without any demonstrable threat against the US, her allies, or her military.
It is ill advised as an intervention into a civil war in which we have no national interest or even a realistic expectation of bringing any lasting peace. It is an escalation of international conflict in a war torn area of the world in which a stable government is the exception, not the rule.
In short this is the stupidest possible reaction at the worst possible time.
It is ill advised as an intervention into a civil war in which we have no national interest or even a realistic expectation of bringing any lasting peace. It is an escalation of international conflict in a war torn area of the world in which a stable government is the exception, not the rule.
In short this is the stupidest possible reaction at the worst possible time.
Normally I would beat my chest and say send the missiles but oddly I feel it's a mistake. Even without getting into the "illegal" act with little verifiable threat, we just have too much other stuff on our plate right now and should be focusing on the truly important issues. Unless, of course, there are things we're not privy to knowing which points to a direct threat. Possible but not probable.
I'm not sure it's that clear. The War Powers Act can be a little gray, and we little people probably don't know what all is going on behind closed doors.
As to it being stupid and a mistake...might be. But it's done, so we'll have to wait and see what the fallout is.
honeybunny
Pursuit Driver
Finally a President with balls...
Preventing the use of chemical weapons is a moral imperative.
Preventing the use of chemical weapons is a moral imperative.
Last edited:
Stonewall
Expert Driver
That's what you do with a bully (Assad-Putin). Kick their ass and let them know I will kick it again if you continue bullying those that cannot defend themselves. Assad is a genocidal dictator along the lines of Hussein, Pol-Pot and Hitler. Maybe not at that level but with the same evil intentions as these despots. Should we mind our own business? You know maybe we should. If you can sleep with other peoples suffering knowing you can help and turning away because it may interfere with your comfortable life it says a lot about your soul. Screw this sovereign nation BS. We are the only country that plays by the rules that is why we get bogged down in these Vietnam type situations. The damn Russians/Syrians/ ISIS/Chinese play by different rules but our politicians are worried about image more than winning. I hope my tax dollars bought one of these Tomahawks instead of buying food stamps for some damn crack head in Detroit.
Sorry I am a little agitated this morning.
Sorry I am a little agitated this morning.
M
Mrs. Foxmeister
Guest
you said that well
It seems that most of the leaders of civilized nations are praising Trump for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...-community-reacts-to-us-bombing-airfield.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...-community-reacts-to-us-bombing-airfield.html
M
Mrs. Foxmeister
Guest
I find it interesting that in 2013 Trumps tweeting the exact opposite response should be done by US. Not just once but 3 times did he reiterate not getting involved with Syria.
I think he did it to distract the attention away from his healthcare policy fail and investigations with Russia.
Just my opinion though.
Those countries have been fighting each other since biblical times. US needs to put the money in homeland defense and stay out of barbaric fighting that is just going to lead to provocation of barbaric societies. This morning while Boss 302 was in conference I was watching the news and looks like Russia now is sending in air supplies and equipment to fight back to Syria.
Let's hope we are not heading into a war with Russia.
prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=1139
interesting take on Syria.
Yeah I saw that, but he was wrong at the time. The president does have certain autborities under War Powers Act.
lotstodo
aka "The Jackal"
The Constitution states only that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." It was widely discussed in the Federalist papers and other sources that the reason for this clause was to maintain civilian supremacy over the military and not to give the President any powers above the Constitutional authorization to Congress to declare war. In practice, the CIC clause has been used to defend the territory and military in actions where it was impractical to notify Congress in advance. REMEMBER...there were no telephones, fax machines, emails, or texts in the late 1700's and Congress spent much of it's time at home, not in the halls of Congress.
This was stretched by Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson until the Congress was forced to exert it's powers under the Constitution by codifying precisely how and when the President and Congress can and will act when committing US forces to HOSTILITIES. Hostilities is capitalized, because the neocon response here is that the War Powers Act only applies to declared war. This is clearly not the case if you bother to actually read the law, or any legal interpretation by a qualified jurist. 1541 (c) is quite clear in laying out the definition and limitations of Presidential powers as CIC.
In short: The President must notify Congress IN ADVANCE and receive approval for entering into hostilities (entering the airspace of a sovereign nation is indeed called out as such) unless Congress has declared war or authorized the conflict by statute, there is an attack upon the US, her territories, or her military. That's it. Period. End quote. Mic drop. No mas. Please note that the use of gas in a civil war abroad is not one of those circumstances. Below are the pertinent portions of the law, the rest is procedural, but please read it at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
In any case, should the president introduce our forces into hostilities without Congressional approval and continuing oversight, Congress may order the withdrawal of our troops from that hostility without Presidential approval at 60 days after the hostilities begin unless of course there is a declaration of war or statute authorizing further engagement. This is in keeping with the Constitutional imperative that only Congress may declare war.
50 U.S. Code § 1541 c
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
50 U.S. Code § 1542
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
50 U.S. Code § 1543
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
There it is. Now tell me where there was an attack on the US, her territories, or her military that necessitated an immediate response, and I'll eat my hat. In his speech, Trump acknowledged that this was in response to the gas attacks by Assad against his own people. Is it horrific? yes. Is it our problem? no, not yet. Should we act militarily without Congressional approval in the form of a statute? Clearly no.
Lets be clear here, attacking a military installation inside a sovereign nation is an act of war under international law and every rational definition of the word. There is a reason why the President should not and can not commit our military to such an act without Congressional approval.
Can we act in coordination with a UN declaration? Only with Congressional approval in the form of a statute like we did in Afghanistan and and Iraq.
This was stretched by Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson until the Congress was forced to exert it's powers under the Constitution by codifying precisely how and when the President and Congress can and will act when committing US forces to HOSTILITIES. Hostilities is capitalized, because the neocon response here is that the War Powers Act only applies to declared war. This is clearly not the case if you bother to actually read the law, or any legal interpretation by a qualified jurist. 1541 (c) is quite clear in laying out the definition and limitations of Presidential powers as CIC.
In short: The President must notify Congress IN ADVANCE and receive approval for entering into hostilities (entering the airspace of a sovereign nation is indeed called out as such) unless Congress has declared war or authorized the conflict by statute, there is an attack upon the US, her territories, or her military. That's it. Period. End quote. Mic drop. No mas. Please note that the use of gas in a civil war abroad is not one of those circumstances. Below are the pertinent portions of the law, the rest is procedural, but please read it at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
In any case, should the president introduce our forces into hostilities without Congressional approval and continuing oversight, Congress may order the withdrawal of our troops from that hostility without Presidential approval at 60 days after the hostilities begin unless of course there is a declaration of war or statute authorizing further engagement. This is in keeping with the Constitutional imperative that only Congress may declare war.
50 U.S. Code § 1541 c
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
50 U.S. Code § 1542
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
50 U.S. Code § 1543
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
There it is. Now tell me where there was an attack on the US, her territories, or her military that necessitated an immediate response, and I'll eat my hat. In his speech, Trump acknowledged that this was in response to the gas attacks by Assad against his own people. Is it horrific? yes. Is it our problem? no, not yet. Should we act militarily without Congressional approval in the form of a statute? Clearly no.
Lets be clear here, attacking a military installation inside a sovereign nation is an act of war under international law and every rational definition of the word. There is a reason why the President should not and can not commit our military to such an act without Congressional approval.
Can we act in coordination with a UN declaration? Only with Congressional approval in the form of a statute like we did in Afghanistan and and Iraq.
LOLFinally a President with balls...
Preventing the use of chemical weapons is a moral imperative.
ShoeDiva
Shoes!!!!
I am so torn as to how I feel regarding Trumps decision.
The atrocities committed in Syria against their own is reprehensible. I can not even imagine the rational that whoever ordered the gas gave for doing so. I know this will not be the first or last time a heinous crime against their own people was or will be committed, but it is just so sickening. Do we step in and do something...that is where I am perplexed, because my heart says yes, stop it, it is the humanitarian thing to do, but my head knows that throwing some missiles at them will not stop them, could cause us to be in war with others, and frankly I do not believe that Trump should have, on his own, made this decision. (Gutsy? Yes. Dumb? Possibly.) There are steps in place to handle things and circumventing them was not okay when Obama was President and is still not okay that Trump is now.
Three of son's UN group classmates are from Syria. One was here last night because they are getting ready to go to New York and the UN this weekend for a week long conference. He is devastated at the acts committed but did not comment about Trumps response. I would have really liked to hear his thoughts on this, but I was not going to ask. :emoji_unamused:
The atrocities committed in Syria against their own is reprehensible. I can not even imagine the rational that whoever ordered the gas gave for doing so. I know this will not be the first or last time a heinous crime against their own people was or will be committed, but it is just so sickening. Do we step in and do something...that is where I am perplexed, because my heart says yes, stop it, it is the humanitarian thing to do, but my head knows that throwing some missiles at them will not stop them, could cause us to be in war with others, and frankly I do not believe that Trump should have, on his own, made this decision. (Gutsy? Yes. Dumb? Possibly.) There are steps in place to handle things and circumventing them was not okay when Obama was President and is still not okay that Trump is now.
Three of son's UN group classmates are from Syria. One was here last night because they are getting ready to go to New York and the UN this weekend for a week long conference. He is devastated at the acts committed but did not comment about Trumps response. I would have really liked to hear his thoughts on this, but I was not going to ask. :emoji_unamused:
Winchester
When you need FIREPOWER!
We had this same discussion a few years ago, maybe more then once. The laws have not changed since then and it was proven back then that the President (regardless of who's in office at the time) has 90 days to ask congress for permission. Bill Clinton did it, both Bush's did it, "O" did it. And you can expect Trump will do it again!
Stonewall
Expert Driver
I understand the theory of law (including constitutionality) and chain of command that people are having issues with. However do any of you think if the decision to strike (very strategically with minimum collateral damage by the way) had to slug its way before congress the information would not have been leaked out through intelligence leaks? Then this POS despot would have either moved the assets or installed human shields in this strategic target. This was a very pin point strike aimed at the destruction of one asset and it was a homerun thanks to intelligence and the US Navy. As for the discussion that our territory or people were not attacked directly that is a very selfish idea. Were we attacked directly by the Nazi's in WW2? Was this war not worth fighting? Should we have said screw you Europe, screw you Great Britain the Nazi's have not attacked us directly? And yes I realize what happened on 12/7/41 but that was an alliance not the Nazi's directly. Should we baby sit the world? Actually I am an isolationist and my knee jerk response is no. However it is apprehensible that we have the military and the technology to help those who do not have the resources or the strength to defend themselves and we would sit by and watch children die. Should we over throw the government? Probably not but that is not where we are at this point. This was a message to the Russians and Assad. I know the left hates it but we are still the major superpower in the world despite the all efforts to bring us down. God Bless America.
Stonewall
Expert Driver
Don't stop me I am on a roll.
lotstodo
aka "The Jackal"
We warned Putin hours in advance. Do you think he didn't warn Syria? How do you think there were so few casualties and so few aircraft destroyed? The gas, if was there in the first place, was long gone by the time those missiles hit.