PDA

View Full Version : Even a "One-Off" Is An Act of War



Pages : [1] 2

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 01:22 PM
I keep hearing "conservatives" claim that what Trump did in Syria was not actually an act of war because it was a "one-off". This "one-off" entailed the US Navy launching dozens of missiles into Syrian territory in an offensive strike against one of their military installations. That this might have been a one time thing does not change what, in principle, is a blatant act of war. It doesn't matter if you attack a country once or a hundred times, war is war, and to try to characterize this as anything else is Orwellian in the extreme. What I've seen are "conservatives", yet again, abandoning their ostensible commitment to tradition and rule of law because their guy is the one responsible or because they're allowing their emotions to govern their policy.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 01:28 PM
Sanctions are also acts of war.

Hal Jordan
04-09-2017, 01:29 PM
In the past, sink one of our ships and war was on. Why are we trying to create a different standard for Syria? It was an act of war, plain and simple.

Coming to you from the depths of inner space.

Private Pickle
04-09-2017, 02:32 PM
I keep hearing "conservatives" claim that what Trump did in Syria was not actually an act of war because it was a "one-off". This "one-off" entailed the US Navy launching dozens of missiles into Syrian territory in an offensive strike against one of their military installations. That this might have been a one time thing does not change what, in principle, is a blatant act of war. It doesn't matter if you attack a country once or a hundred times, war is war, and to try to characterize this as anything else is Orwellian in the extreme. What I've seen are "conservatives", yet again, abandoning their ostensible commitment to tradition and rule of law because their guy is the one responsible or because they're allowing their emotions to govern their policy.
Using chemical weapons is against international law and as such is an act of war against the international community.

In addition how many other acts of war could be counted against Syria? Arming and logistical aid to terrorist groups thst attack our allies comes to mind.

Green Arrow
04-09-2017, 02:41 PM
Using chemical weapons is against international law and as such is an act of war against the international community.
All the more reason to adopt a realist posture post-haste.

Green Arrow
04-09-2017, 02:42 PM
Not to mention we already know this isn't a "one-off" anyway, the Trump admin is trying to put together a coalition to initiate regime change in Syria as we speak.

Private Pickle
04-09-2017, 02:50 PM
All the more reason to adopt a realist posture post-haste.
What exactly would a "realist posture" look like? Allowing Syria to gas their citizens despite international laws?

Private Pickle
04-09-2017, 02:51 PM
Not to mention we already know this isn't a "one-off" anyway, the Trump admin is trying to put together a coalition to initiate regime change in Syria as we speak.
We've attacked Syria before?

decedent
04-09-2017, 02:56 PM
Does one nation have the right to incapacitate, or even decapitate, another nation's government because they attacked their own people? I'm on the fence on this one.


From the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Green Arrow
04-09-2017, 02:56 PM
We've attacked Syria before?
Not the Syrian government directly as I recall.

What exactly would a "realist posture" look like? Allowing Syria to gas their citizens despite international laws?

Not necessarily, there are plenty of ways to get them to stop without bombing Syrian government sites and torching off international conflicts. But let's first set to proving that the Syrian government actually did this intentionally first, that's yet to happen.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 03:50 PM
Using chemical weapons is against international law and as such is an act of war against the international community. Assuming that Syria is a signatory to that treaty, should not the international community authorize the use of force?


In addition how many other acts of war could be counted against Syria? Arming and logistical aid to terrorist groups thst attack our allies comes to mind.
Such as protecting Christians and other religious minorities from the rebels?

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 03:53 PM
Does one nation have the right to incapacitate, or even decapitate, another nation's government because they attacked their own people? I'm on the fence on this one.


From the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.





There are internal armed conflicts and international armed conflicts. Different rule books apply to each.

Hal Jordan
04-09-2017, 03:55 PM
In addition how many other acts of war could be counted against Syria? Arming and logistical aid to terrorist groups thst attack our allies comes to mind.

Using that standard, how many acts of war could be counted against us?

Coming to you from the depths of inner space.

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 04:19 PM
Using chemical weapons is against international law and as such is an act of war against the international community.

International law does not override national sovereignty. The internal affairs of Syria are theirs and theirs alone. The USA is not the world's police force and international law is only meant to govern INTERNATIONAL relations. The use of chemical weaponry in a purely domestic context does not have any international component, therefore it is neither the purview nor prerogative of international bodies to intervene.

In ANY case, the question of international law and chemical weaponry has no relevance to whether or not Trump engaged in an act of war against a sovereign nation. He did. And under our domestic laws, i.e., the constitution, only the congress has the power to declare war. Only by taking a Wilsonian view of law and international relations can one even remotely justify such an action.


In addition how many other acts of war could be counted against Syria? Arming and logistical aid to terrorist groups thst attack our allies comes to mind.

An attack on an "ally" is not an attack on America. And this alleged chemical attack has nothing to do with that. If Trump wants to attack Syria because it supposedly helps attack our allies, then let him make that case to Americans and their representatives.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 04:27 PM
I mentioned somewhere that there were international law rules for internal armed conflicts and international armed conflicts.

There are procedures for rebels and or the international community to get an internal armed conflict where other nations stay out, turned into an international armed conflict where outsiders can intervene.

The old term was belligerency with regards to a rebel force and international recognition. The Americans colonies went through this process in the Revolutionary War. As did the Confederates in our Civil War- except they were not deemed serious enough for belligerency status. But foreign officers were with rebel units to observe and report back home.

International law does not override national sovereignty. The internal affairs of Syria are theirs and theirs alone. The USA is not the world's police force and international law is only meant to govern INTERNATIONAL relations. The use of chemical weaponry in a purely domestic context does not have any international component, therefore it is neither the purview or prerogative of international bodies to intervene.

In ANY case, the question of international law and chemical weaponry has no relevance to whether or not Trump engaged in an act of war against a sovereign nation. He did. And under our domestic laws, i.e., the constitution, only the congress has the power to declare war. Only by taking a Wilsonian view of law and international relations can one even remotely justify such an action.



An attack on an "ally" is not an attack on America. And this alleged chemical attack has nothing to do with that. If Trump wants to attack Syria because it supposedly helps attack our allies, then let him make that case to Americans and their representatives.

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 04:27 PM
What exactly would a "realist posture" look like? Allowing Syria to gas their citizens despite international laws?
Realism is the traditional foreign policy framework that governed international relations before Wilsonian globalism. The founding fathers practiced a subset of realism known as armed neutrality or non-interventionism. The basic concept at the heart of realism is national sovereignty. In other words, the internal affairs of a sovereign nation are its own. International laws, such as they are, are only meant to govern INTERNATIONAL relations, that is, disputes involving more than one nation. The attack in Syria has no proximate connection to international relations. It is purely an internal matter.

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 04:28 PM
We've attacked Syria before?
The US government has been waging an illegal proxy war against Syria for years.

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 04:29 PM
Does one nation have the right to incapacitate, or even decapitate, another nation's government because they attacked their own people? I'm on the fence on this one.

The USA would never tolerate another country violating its sovereignty for humanitarian reasons, so why shouldn't other countries have the same right?

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 04:31 PM
The USA would never tolerate another country violating its sovereignty for humanitarian reasons, so why shouldn't other countries have the same right?

What would we do if the Congo wanted to send troops to Chicago to clean up the mess in the bad parts of the city?

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 04:31 PM
Assuming that Syria is a signatory to that treaty, should not the international community authorize the use of force?

That's a good point. If this is really about "international law", then the "international community" should be the ones enforcing it, not the US government in a unilateral strike.

Putin made a good point (heresy!) in an interview the other day when he said the US should bring its evidence to the UN and make its case there. If their case is strong and is supported by the evidence, there is no reason why they shouldn't take Putin up on the offer.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 04:33 PM
That's a good point. If this is really about "international law", then the "international community" should be the ones enforcing it, not the US government in a unilateral strike.

Putin made a good point (heresy!) in an interview the other day when he said the US should bring its evidence to the UN and make its case there. If their case is strong and is supported by the evidence, there is no reason why they shouldn't take Putin up on the offer.

Russia has thrown international law in our faces often. Kosovo was the first big one. We really broke the international order with that one. (The principle involved the setting of national borders after WWII.)

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 04:34 PM
What would we do if the Congo wanted to send troops to Chicago to clean up the mess in the bad parts of the city?
Or if Switzerland sent a contingent of special operations commandos into America in order to liberate our mass prison population and stir up a domestic insurrection.

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 04:37 PM
Russia has thrown international law in our faces often.

It's only reasonable seeing as how the US government likes to throw it in their faces along with anyone else who doesn't slavishly conform to their whims.


Kosovo was the first big one. We really broke the international order with that one. (The principle involved the setting of national borders after WWII.)
The traditional international order was broken by WWI. The "league of nations" was the first experiment in globalism. We are living in the age of Wilsonian internationalism.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 04:55 PM
It's only reasonable seeing as how the US government likes to throw it in their faces along with anyone else who doesn't slavishly conform to their whims.


The traditional international order was broken by WWI. The "league of nations" was the first experiment in globalism. We are living in the age of Wilsonian internationalism.
Yes. I was specifically referring to setting national boundaries so local malcontents wouldn't start another global war.

We allowed Kosovo to break away from its parent nation. That violated international law.

decedent
04-09-2017, 05:28 PM
The USA would never tolerate another country violating its sovereignty for humanitarian reasons, so why shouldn't other countries have the same right?

And if the US government started killing many random citizens?


There's a limit to what is morally permissible. I respect national sovereignty, but I also respect compassionate intervention -- which is why I'm on the fence on the Syria issue.

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 05:32 PM
Sanctions are also acts of war.
That depends. Not buying something is not a war act. Blowing up people and property belong to another country ALWAYS is.

Trump's illegal, unconstitutional war marks the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 05:32 PM
And if the US government started killing many random citizens?


There's a limit to what is morally permissible. I respect national sovereignty, but I also respect compassionate intervention -- which is why I'm on the fence on this issue.

Compassionate intervention is the liberal war hawk school of foreign policy. I am not sure that I believe their claims to be about humanitarian assistance. Too many places are ignored. Like Darfur and now South Sudan.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 05:34 PM
What exactly would a "realist posture" look like? Allowing Syria to gas their citizens despite international laws?
There is no proof that they did that. In fact it is far more likely that they hit an ISIS weapons cache that contained chemical weapons. It makes no sense to gas innocent civilians.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 05:35 PM
That depends. Not buying something is not a war act. Blowing up people and property belong to another country ALWAYS is.

Trump's illegal, unconstitutional war marks the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.


I doubt it.

I suspect his numbers will go up domestically and internationally.

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 05:44 PM
Using chemical weapons is against international law and as such is an act of war against the international community.

In addition how many other acts of war could be counted against Syria? Arming and logistical aid to terrorist groups thst attack our allies comes to mind.
It is not our problem.

Trump broke the Constitution. Impeach him.

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 05:45 PM
I doubt it.

I suspect his numbers will go up domestically and internationally.
Americans always cheer at the beginning of a long, unprofitable war.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 05:46 PM
Americans always cheer at the beginning of a long, unprofitable war.
true

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 05:46 PM
What exactly would a "realist posture" look like? Allowing Syria to gas their citizens despite international laws?
This is not our problem to solve.

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 05:48 PM
Assuming that Syria is a signatory to that treaty, should not the international community authorize the use of force?
Fuck the international community. No one else did anything. Trump did. Trump is not a king. Nor is he the World Policeman. He violated the Constitution or he is a mass murderer. Or both.

Ethereal
04-09-2017, 05:52 PM
And if the US government started killing many random citizens?

The US government killed many thousands of Americans when the south tried to secede and they imprisoned over a hundred-thousand Japanese-Americans based on nothing more than racism. They are presently imprisoning millions of non-violent drug offenders while state and local law enforcement agencies are killing dozens of Americans under dubious circumstances, to say nothing of their ubiquitous domestic spying programs. Simply put, the US government kills LOTS of people and ruins the lives of many more. For them to present themselves as the defenders of humanitarianism is frankly laughable.


There's a limit to what is morally permissible. I respect national sovereignty, but I also respect compassionate intervention -- which is why I'm on the fence on the Syria issue.

Those are contradictory principles to hold. You cannot "respect national sovereignty" if you're willing to violate it for "compassionate" reasons. But as I keep saying, conventional weaponry has caused FAR MORE death and destruction in Syria than chemical weaponry. WHY is it so important to stop chemical attacks but not conventional ones? And what about all the non-combatants that the rebels have killed? Or are we just going to keep pretending like Assad's forces are the only ones who kill and injure civilians?

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 06:00 PM
And if the US government started killing many random citizens?


There's a limit to what is morally permissible. I respect national sovereignty, but I also respect compassionate intervention -- which is why I'm on the fence on the Syria issue.
The families of the nine murdered citizens might no accept your version of compassion.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 06:14 PM
In the past, sink one of our ships and war was on. Why are we trying to create a different standard for Syria? It was an act of war, plain and simple.

Coming to you from the depths of inner space.

Do you think Syria would use this as a reason to declare war on the United States? If the did, would it matter? Would we respond?

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 06:21 PM
My response was to a specific point.


Fuck the international community. No one else did anything. Trump did. Trump is not a king. Nor is he the World Policeman. He violated the Constitution or he is a mass murderer. Or both.

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 06:26 PM
My response was to a specific point.
Given that King Trump murdered Syrian citizens I fail to see the relevance.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 06:27 PM
Do you think Syria would use this as a reason to declare war on the United States? If the did, would it matter? Would we respond?

If they did, their biggest ally would also have to respond. I don't think anyone wants that.

Green Arrow
04-09-2017, 06:29 PM
Do you think Syria would use this as a reason to declare war on the United States? If the did, would it matter? Would we respond?

Nothing happens in a vacuum and Assad has powerful friends.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 06:37 PM
If they did, their biggest ally would also have to respond. I don't think anyone wants that.


Syria's biggest ally doesn't want that because if the entered that war, we'd destroy their society.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 06:37 PM
Nothing happens in a vacuum and Assad has powerful friends.

No......

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 06:41 PM
Syria's biggest ally doesn't want that because if the entered that war, we'd destroy their society.

It could be far worse than just the destruction of Syria, but yes, Syria would be thoroughly destroyed. I doubt very much that it would stop there.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 06:41 PM
Given that King Trump murdered Syrian citizens I fail to see the relevance.
I answered a specific question.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 07:32 PM
Syria's biggest ally doesn't want that because if the entered that war, we'd destroy their society.


It could be far worse than just the destruction of Syria, but yes, Syria would be thoroughly destroyed. I doubt very much that it would stop there.

we would destroy the society of Syria's biggest ally if they joined in and waged war against the US.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 07:34 PM
I'm amazed at how quickly MisterVeritis turns from Trump's biggest cheerleader to his biggest detractor.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 07:35 PM
I answered a specific question.


People who can't answer a question, don't understand the concept.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 07:43 PM
we would destroy the society of Syria's biggest ally if they joined in and waged war against the US.

How big the price Tahu? It would be very expensive - WW III in fact. Do you like Pyrrhic victories?

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 07:50 PM
Is it all smoke and mirrors to escalate a war with Assad?

H. R. McMaster Manipulating Intelligence Reports to Trump, Wants 150,000 Ground Soldiers in Syria (https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99)


McMaster is genuine war hero. But he is a big neocon and believer in regime change via armor brigade charge.


Current National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond “H. R.” McMaster is manipulating intelligence reports given to President Donald Trump, Cernovich Media can now report. McMaster is plotting how to sell a massive ground war in Syria to President Trump with the help of disgraced former CIA director andconvicted criminal David Petraeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal), who mishandled classified information by sharing documents with his mistress.

As NSA, McMaster’s job is to synthesize intellience reports from all other agencies. President Trump is being given an inaccurate picture of the situation in Syria, as McMaster is seeking to involve the U.S. in a full scale war in Syria.
The McMaster-Petraeus plan calls for 150,000 American ground troops in Syria.

Many special operations veterans including General Joseph Votel have raised serious concerns about McMaster’s plans for Syria.

Sources also suggest that McMaster is sharing classified information with Petraeus, whose security clearance was revoked.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 08:21 PM
How big the price Tahu? It would be very expensive - WW III in fact. Do you like Pyrrhic victories?

If someone brings a war to us, we need to finish it on our terms.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 08:24 PM
If someone brings a war to us, we need to finish it on our terms.

Who is bringing the war to whom?

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 08:27 PM
Who is bringing the war to whom?


we were discussing the hypothetical scenario of Syria declaring war upon the United States with Russia as their number one ally. Got it?

If that happend we would end Russian society as they know it.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 08:27 PM
I would watch the ASGs - this could be a deception ploy while carriers swarm close to North Korea- the actual real threat to America.

Newpublius
04-09-2017, 08:33 PM
I keep hearing "conservatives" claim that what Trump did in Syria was not actually an act of war because it was a "one-off". This "one-off" entailed the US Navy launching dozens of missiles into Syrian territory in an offensive strike against one of their military installations. That this might have been a one time thing does not change what, in principle, is a blatant act of war. It doesn't matter if you attack a country once or a hundred times, war is war, and to try to characterize this as anything else is Orwellian in the extreme. What I've seen are "conservatives", yet again, abandoning their ostensible commitment to tradition and rule of law because their guy is the one responsible or because they're allowing their emotions to govern their policy.

The problem with the analysis is that the true debate isn't a semantic one. The attack, use of military force, or warlike act is an act which must be rooted in CONGRESS' Art I, Sec 8 power to make war and currently the doctrine employed by way of the WPA dors this. WPA is Congress' War Power being utilized. Essentially Congress tells the President if he wants to utilkze military force, he can do so unilaterally as long as he tells Congress within a limited window beyond which he will need further authority.

The question isn't? Is the use of force in Syria sufficient? There's no de minimus threshold here.

The question is whether the WPA violates the nondelegation principle. No case on that specifically but there are cases which pass on the question.

Take for instance the El Shifa case where Clinton thought the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan was a threat to national security. Citing the War Powers Act, Clinton sends notification to Congress that he feels its a threat and he'd be sending a cruise missile down the chimney.

He did and apparently that was wrong because it turned out they were just making aspirin.

And the El Shifa people brought suit and lost. Non-judiciable poliitcal question. The court could very well have said, "sorry, government, but Clinton didn't possess statutory authority"

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 08:45 PM
The problem with the analysis is that the true debate isn't a semantic one. The attack, use of military force, or warlike act is an act which must be rooted in CONGRESS' Art I, Sec 8 power to make war and currently the doctrine employed by way of the WPA dors this. WPA is Congress' War Power being utilized. Essentially Congress tells the President if he wants to utilkze military force, he can do so unilaterally as long as he tells Congress within a limited window beyond which he will need further authority.

The question isn't? Is the use of force in Syria sufficient? There's no de minimus threshold here.

The question is whether the WPA violates the nondelegation principle. No case on that.
This is a crock of shit. The Congress cannot abrogate its responsibilities. The President does not have the Constitutional authority to take the nation to war. He did. He is a criminal.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 08:50 PM
This is a crock of shit. The Congress cannot abrogate its responsibilities. The President does not have the Constitutional authority to take the nation to war. He did. He is a criminal.
Congress has abrogated its responsibilities so far as its war power, since WWII.

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 08:51 PM
Congress has abrogated its responsibilities so far as its war power, since WWII.
The Constitution does not allow it.

But I see few voices raised in alarm. We do love our kings. Until we don't.

Newpublius
04-09-2017, 08:51 PM
This is a crock of $#@!. The Congress cannot abrogate its responsibilities. The President does not have the Constitutional authority to take the nation to war. He did. He is a criminal.

He has statutory authority and that statute was made pursuant to constitutional authority. Numerous cases exist where courts clearly could have ruled the arrangement unconstitutional and did not do so. And here's the thing, even in thr absence of those cases, statutes are presumptively constitutional.

Right now the War Powers Act exists, most people think its constitutional. A minority think it infringes on the power of the Executive Branch.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 08:54 PM
we were discussing the hypothetical scenario of Syria declaring war upon the United States with Russia as their number one ally. Got it?

If that happend we would end Russian society as they know it.
They may also end American society. Each side has so many nukes that all society would likely be extinguished and the planet rendered barely capable of supporting life. As I said, Pyrrhic victory. The temptation to use nuclear devices would be too great. The 'important people' on the planet would be saved, squirrelled away in mountain or underground refuges and everyone else would likely die. I believe that Trump asked several times before the election, "if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?".

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 08:55 PM
He has statutory authority and that statute was made pursuant to constitutional authority. Numerous cases exist where courts clearly could have ruled the arrangement unconstitutional and did not do so. And here's the thing, even in thr absence of those cases, statutes are presumptively constitutional.

Right now the War Powers Act exists, most people think its constitutional. A minority think it infringes on the power of the Executive Branch.
No.

The President may not commit the nation to war. He did. Trump is a criminal. He must be impeached. He murdered people and he destroyed property. He did the same thing the Japanese did when they started their war against the US in the Pacific. Trump conducted a sneak attack against a nation we were not at war with. And you are his apologist.

Green Arrow
04-09-2017, 08:56 PM
we were discussing the hypothetical scenario of Syria declaring war upon the United States with Russia as their number one ally. Got it?

If that happend we would end Russian society as they know it.

We attacked Syria first, unprovoked.

Newpublius
04-09-2017, 09:00 PM
No.

The President may not commit the nation to war. He did. Trump is a criminal. He must be impeached.

Wrong, the unconstitutional action isn't Trump's, you can't blame Trump for usurping a power unconstitutionally delegated to him.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 09:02 PM
The Constitution does not allow it.

But I see few voices raised in alarm. We do love our kings. Until we don't.
Congress seems to be the problem here.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 09:03 PM
No.

The President may not commit the nation to war. He did. Trump is a criminal. He must be impeached. He murdered people and he destroyed property. He did the same thing the Japanese did when they started their war against the US in the Pacific. Trump conducted a sneak attack against a nation we were not at war with. And you are his apologist.
Trump did not commit the nation to war.

Syria can do nothing to us.

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 09:06 PM
Wrong, the unconstitutional action isn't Trump's, you can't blame Trump for usurping a power unconstitutionally delegated to him.
Trump is the criminal who murdered Syrian citizens in a sneak attack. One cannot delegate the authority to commit the nation to war.

Why are you Trump's apologist? Is he our king now. Can we dissolve the congress as unnecessary?

MisterVeritis
04-09-2017, 09:08 PM
Trump did not commit the nation to war.
Syria can do nothing to us.
This is a lie.

Syria has people inside the US. Syria operates with Hezbollah. We are at war whether you think so or not.

Is it okay to murder another nation's citizens if we think they won't be able to respond? Can we steal things from them as well?

Newpublius
04-09-2017, 09:11 PM
Trump is the criminal who murdered Syrian citizens in a sneak attack. One cannot delegate the authority to commit the nation to war.

Why are you Trump's apologist? Is he our king now. Can we dissolve the congress as unnecessary?

The War Powers Act is a decades long reality.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 09:14 PM
This is a lie.

Syria has people inside the US. Syria operates with Hezbollah. We are at war whether you think so or not.

Is it okay to murder another nation's citizens if we think they won't be able to respond? Can we steal things from them as well?

We are an armed citizenry. We are good to go.

Additionally, crazed Syrians in the US causing havoc will be militarily insignificant.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 09:22 PM
They may also end American society....

Nope

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 09:23 PM
Trump is the criminal who murdered Syrian citizens in a sneak attack. One cannot delegate the authority to commit the nation to war.

Why are you Trump's apologist? Is he our king now. Can we dissolve the congress as unnecessary?
You're killing me dude. This is hilarious.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 09:25 PM
We attacked Syria first, unprovoked.. That's immaterial to the scenario being discussed.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 09:29 PM
This is a lie.

Syria has people inside the US. Syria operates with Hezbollah. We are at war whether you think so or not.

Is it okay to murder another nation's citizens if we think they won't be able to respond? Can we steal things from them as well?
Did you honestly think that Trump really understood anything about the traditional powers of POTUS? As a Republican, he has never been anything other than an opportunistic RINO. His background is not political and I doubt that he ever even read the Constitution, let alone had an opinion about it. He is learning politics on the job, making him open to manipulation by all manner of agendas.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 09:34 PM
Nope

Because you don't think that their nukes can reach America? Why do you think that there was a cold war?

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 09:43 PM
Because you don't think that their nukes can reach America? Why do you think that there was a cold war?


During the height of the Cold War, a Soviet first strike would have destroyed a significant portion of our military. Our response would have destroyed their society. It would be worse for the Russians today.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 09:48 PM
During the height of the Cold War, a Soviet first strike would have destroyed a significant portion of our military. Our response would have destroyed their society. It would be worse for the Russians today.

It would have destroyed more than that. The fall-out would have poisoned most if not all of America. That's why there was a cold war, because of mutually assured destruction. It seems like people are forgetting about that.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 10:07 PM
You can believe anything you want. I was a military leader through much of the Cold War era. I studied and trained on the conduct of modern warfare.

I knew the capability, doctrine and tendencies of our potential enemies. I knew what our capabilities were and I knew our doctrine on how to employ those capabilities.

Peter1469
04-09-2017, 10:19 PM
You can believe anything you want. I was a military leader through much of the Cold War era. I studied and trained on the conduct of modern warfare.

It is interesting.

There is a narrative that civilians follow which is CNN ready and fun to follow. But it is the smoke and mirrors. In the current ME war we have the CIA and Neocons that demand an end to Assad - so watch for propaganda that supports it.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 10:26 PM
Did you honestly think that Trump really understood anything about the traditional powers of POTUS?....

He might not, but many of the people advising him do.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 10:28 PM
It is interesting.

There is a narrative that civilians follow which is CNN ready and fun to follow. But it is the smoke and mirrors. In the current ME war we have the CIA and Neocons that demand an end to Assad - so watch for propaganda that supports it.


Education combined with training, practical application and real word experience can be a real eye opener. You don't aquire that from watching CNN or Discovery Chanel documentaries.

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 10:37 PM
He might not, but many of the people advising him do.
I'm sure they do, but they also know that most people don't so....

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 10:43 PM
I'm sure they do, but they also know that most people don't so....
So............what?

Dr. Who
04-09-2017, 11:00 PM
So............what?
I would think that's obvious. They would encourage him to do things that are politically expedient even if they are not particularly Constitutionally permissible. The fact that he is utterly ignorant on the subject leaves him holding the bag. I never thought that I would feel sorry for Trump, but his ignorance will be his undoing.

donttread
04-10-2017, 07:05 AM
I keep hearing "conservatives" claim that what Trump did in Syria was not actually an act of war because it was a "one-off". This "one-off" entailed the US Navy launching dozens of missiles into Syrian territory in an offensive strike against one of their military installations. That this might have been a one time thing does not change what, in principle, is a blatant act of war. It doesn't matter if you attack a country once or a hundred times, war is war, and to try to characterize this as anything else is Orwellian in the extreme. What I've seen are "conservatives", yet again, abandoning their ostensible commitment to tradition and rule of law because their guy is the one responsible or because they're allowing their emotions to govern their policy.


C'mon "E" you know that if simply blowing things up, and killing people was an act of war by definition it would cost us millions to just print the list of countries we were at war with. We have to be able to hide our actions behind words or the sheep might wake up and say "Hey, Washington what the fuck are you doing?"

patrickt
04-10-2017, 07:20 AM
Sanctions are also acts of war.

As are no-fly zones and naval blockades. But, I am happy to see the leftists so consistant. We heard them screaming when President Clinton bombed the aspirin factory in Libya and President Obama took orders from France and bombed Libya.

Robo
04-10-2017, 08:44 AM
The Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to declare war.” It says nothing about Congress having a power to proxy their duty to a President to use military power as he, she sees fit. Such congressional resolutions are unconstitutional because there’s no authority in the Constitution for the Congress to submit such resolutions. The Congress is to do their duty and authority to be the sole arbiter as to when and where and why the nation goes to war.


If The Constitution gives the power to declare all wars to the Congress, how can Congress pass a War Powers Act with out first amending the Constitution? The War Powers acts are unconstitutional because a War Powers Act in effect is changing the Constitution and that can only be done by an amendment to the Constitution.


If America is to be involved in military actions anywhere in the world the Congress must pass an official Declaration of war, or pass and have ratified a constitutional amendment to change the Constitution with a War Powers Act or congressional resolutions that proxy the war declaration powers of the Congress to a President.


The truth shall set ye free!

birddog
04-10-2017, 09:14 AM
An Act of war is not the same as "War."

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 09:18 AM
I would think that's obvious. They would encourage him to do things that are politically expedient even if they are not particularly Constitutionally permissible. The fact that he is utterly ignorant on the subject leaves him holding the bag. I never thought that I would feel sorry for Trump, but his ignorance will be his undoing.


I think that's a stretch. He's not nearly as ignorant as you seem to think.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:21 AM
Assuming that Syria is a signatory to that treaty, should not the international community authorize the use of force?

/shrug Why? It would be us either way.



Such as protecting Christians and other religious minorities from the rebels?

By gassing them? Right...

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 09:21 AM
As are no-fly zones and naval blockades. But, I am happy to see the leftists so consistant. We heard them screaming when President Clinton bombed the aspirin factory in Libya and President Obama took orders from France and bombed Libya.

Remember how angry the liberals were when Clinton took us to war with a nation which did absolutely nothing to us or posed no threat to US national security in any way? They were outraged..... Right?

Scrounger
04-10-2017, 09:22 AM
An Act of war is not the same as "War."

I would submit that is merely semantics. And Act of War inevitably leads to war. Such an act has the effect of declaring war since a foreign nation can (and does) act whenever they are attacked.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 09:25 AM
An Act of war is not the same as "War."
An act of intercourse is not the same as "Intercourse".

What is the "fucking" difference?

Chris
04-10-2017, 09:28 AM
I can understand and agree with any non-interventionist policy that includes self-defense. Say some nation takes US citizens hostage, then there may be good reason for the President to act without Congressional approval. But a President should not be able to act aggressively against other nations without Congressional approval.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:40 AM
Using that standard, how many acts of war could be counted against us?

Coming to you from the depths of inner space.

Probably quite a few...

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:49 AM
International law does not override national sovereignty. The internal affairs of Syria are theirs and theirs alone. The USA is not the world's police force and international law is only meant to govern INTERNATIONAL relations. The use of chemical weaponry in a purely domestic context does not have any international component, therefore it is neither the purview nor prerogative of international bodies to intervene.

In ANY case, the question of international law and chemical weaponry has no relevance to whether or not Trump engaged in an act of war against a sovereign nation. He did. And under our domestic laws, i.e., the constitution, only the congress has the power to declare war. Only by taking a Wilsonian view of law and international relations can one even remotely justify such an action.



An attack on an "ally" is not an attack on America. And this alleged chemical attack has nothing to do with that. If Trump wants to attack Syria because it supposedly helps attack our allies, then let him make that case to Americans and their representatives.
We disagree.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:50 AM
Realism is the traditional foreign policy framework that governed international relations before Wilsonian globalism. The founding fathers practiced a subset of realism known as armed neutrality or non-interventionism. The basic concept at the heart of realism is national sovereignty. In other words, the internal affairs of a sovereign nation are its own. International laws, such as they are, are only meant to govern INTERNATIONAL relations, that is, disputes involving more than one nation. The attack in Syria has no proximate connection to international relations. It is purely an internal matter.

The use of chemical weapons has a direct affect on INTERNATIONAL relations.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:51 AM
The US government has been waging an illegal proxy war against Syria for years.
So we haven't attacked them....

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 09:52 AM
The use of chemical weapons has a direct affect on INTERNATIONAL relations.
In what way?

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:53 AM
There is no proof that they did that. In fact it is far more likely that they hit an ISIS weapons cache that contained chemical weapons. It makes no sense to gas innocent civilians.
It makes sense to Assad. I've linked articles to why. And there is plenty of proof that they did that... The gas was delivered by a fixed wing aircraft... There is also no proof that ISIS had a weapons cache of chemical weapons...namely Sarin...

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:54 AM
It is not our problem.

Trump broke the Constitution. Impeach him.

OK

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 09:54 AM
It makes sense to Assad. I've linked articles to why. And there is plenty of proof that they did that... The gas was delivered by a fixed wing aircraft... There is also no proof that ISIS had a weapons cache of chemical weapons...namely Sarin...
Even if Assad used chemical weapons to kill a few of his citizens what business is it of ours?

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:54 AM
In what way?
It's against international law and causes mass destabilization.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 09:55 AM
Even if Assad used chemical weapons to kill a few of his citizens what business is it of ours?

It's everyone's business.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 09:56 AM
It's against international law and causes mass destabilization.
Therefore what? It is not our responsibility. We have no national interests in Syria. Trump took this nation to war on a whim. I want to see him held accountable. Instead many foolish people praise him.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 09:58 AM
It's everyone's business.
We have a president, not a world cop.

It is not our business to right every wrong.

If Trump wants to be King of the World let him first resign as our President.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 10:06 AM
Therefore what? It is not our responsibility. We have no national interests in Syria. Trump took this nation to war on a whim. I want to see him held accountable. Instead many foolish people praise him.

Destabilization has a direct impact on the United States thus it is in the realm of our national interests.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 10:07 AM
We have a president, not a world cop.

It is not our business to right every wrong.

If Trump wants to be King of the World let him first resign as our President.

Well at least you admit it was a wrong...

texan
04-10-2017, 10:16 AM
I keep hearing "conservatives" claim that what Trump did in Syria was not actually an act of war because it was a "one-off". This "one-off" entailed the US Navy launching dozens of missiles into Syrian territory in an offensive strike against one of their military installations. That this might have been a one time thing does not change what, in principle, is a blatant act of war. It doesn't matter if you attack a country once or a hundred times, war is war, and to try to characterize this as anything else is Orwellian in the extreme. What I've seen are "conservatives", yet again, abandoning their ostensible commitment to tradition and rule of law because their guy is the one responsible or because they're allowing their emotions to govern their policy.


You would all be wrong!

1. If it were illegal then impeach him. Oh why not? Not illegal.

2. I posted this for you already in another thread. The president can act with the agreement from the Def Secretary on "Nuclear Launch" and "other strategic strikes." If the Def Secretary disagrees he can fire him and appoint another. It doesn't day whether under these circumstances the new one would have to be vetted and approved by the senate.

Get off your make believe horses. If you don't like it then have congress change the law/process. But for God sake stop the bologna.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 10:17 AM
Destabilization has a direct impact on the United States thus it is in the realm of our national interests.
In what way? Be specific.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 10:18 AM
In what way? Be specific.
destabilization
dēˌstābələˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: destabilization; noun: destabilisation


the process of upsetting the stability of a region or system, especially of government.
"economic and political destabilization was crippling the country"

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 10:21 AM
You would all be wrong!
1. If it were illegal then impeach him. Oh why not? Not illegal.
The President does not have the Constitutional authority to start wars on a whim. The Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war. Why the Congress? Because the Legislative branch is closest to the people. The Congress represents the people, and, at the beginning, represented the States.

Now we behave as if the President is a king, ruling by Divine right.


2. I posted this for you already in another thread. The president can act with the agreement from the Def Secretary on "Nuclear Launch" and "other strategic strikes." If the Def Secretary disagrees he can fire him and appoint another. It doesn't day whether under these circumstances the new one would have to be vetted and approved by the senate.
What? You don't know much about this, do you?

Get off your make believe horses. If you don't like it then have congress change the law/process. But for God sake stop the bologna.
We used to have a Constitution that mattered. I see that it does not matter to you.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 10:22 AM
destabilization
dēˌstābələˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: destabilization; noun: destabilisation

the process of upsetting the stability of a region or system, especially of government.
"economic and political destabilization was crippling the country"

You made the destabilization argument. How does Syrian destabilization affect the citizens of the United States? Once again, be specific if you can.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 10:24 AM
Well at least you admit it was a wrong...
I never claimed otherwise. It is not our wrong to fix.

We did not elect a King of the World.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 10:41 AM
I never claimed otherwise. It is not our wrong to fix.

We did not elect a King of the World.

You're right, we elected a president and not a King. So far he's taken actions that most every other president has done at one time or another. He hasn't yet acted as if he consideres himsel a King.

While I oppose military actions conducted against a foreign nation unless a clear threat to our national security can be demonstrated, one needs to admit that a POTUS is not acting unlawfully by ordering a strike like the one just executed.

Cletus
04-10-2017, 10:45 AM
I can understand and agree with any non-interventionist policy that includes self-defense. Say some nation takes US citizens hostage, then there may be good reason for the President to act without Congressional approval.

I agree, but the same prohibition that people are reading into the Constitution prohibiting the kind of action Trump took in Syria would prohibit that.

The question boils down to "What constitutes going to war?" Was the rescue attempt in Iran (Operation Eagle Claw) taking us to war? Were our meals on wheels missions in places like Somalia and Haiti going to war? When Clinton started his air campaign in Kosovo, even though the House passed a resolution against it, were we at war? Are we waging war every time we invade another country's airspace with a reconnaissance aircraft or send a covert military team in to an eyes on assessment of a developing situation? Were we waging war against Pakistan when we went in after bin Laden or Panama when we took down Noriega or Grenada when we removed Americans from the country and shot up some Cubans? Did we go to war when Blackjack Pershing chased Pancho Villa back into Mexico? For all practical purposes, we invaded Mexico for 9 months.

If I took a few minutes, I could probably find over a hundred such incidents over the last two hundred years that could be considered acts of war against a sovereign nation. Yet, they did not lead to conditions that any rational person would consider "being at war". Congress even signed off on some of those, approving limited military action that did not place us at a war footing.

For almost two decades, I specialized in what the military called "Low Intensity Conflict". What I learned from that is that it doesn't matter how many bullets are flying around or how many bombs go off, it isn't a war until Congress says it is a war.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 10:56 AM
Destabilization has a direct impact on the United States thus it is in the realm of our national interests.

So your plan is to destabilize the region even more by overthrowing Assad.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:02 AM
[/LIST]
You made the destabilization argument. How does Syrian destabilization affect the citizens of the United States? Once again, be specific if you can.

We have troops there now don't we?

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:05 AM
So your plan is to destabilize the region even more by overthrowing Assad.

Where did you get that from? We are talking the retaliatory strike on Syria... Go start a thread on Assad and I'll weigh in but you might be surprised to learn that I don't think we should overthrow him...

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 11:09 AM
It is obvious that Assad gives Syria more stability than every other realistic option. That doesn't mean that he is a good guy or one we should support we would an ally. It just means that we should avoid interfering there and persuing a policy of regime change.

A democratic style of government in the American image is not a viable option in several middle eastern nations. This is something many people need to come to terms with.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 11:10 AM
Where did you get that from? We are talking the retaliatory strike on Syria... Go start a thread on Assad and I'll weigh in but you might be surprised to learn that I don't think we should overthrow him...

Really? So he bombs his own people with Sarin. You launch these strikes. He keeps bombing his civilians with Sarin. What do you do next?

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:18 AM
Really? So he bombs his own people with Sarin. You launch these strikes. He keeps bombing his civilians with Sarin. What do you do next?

Proportional retaliation.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 11:19 AM
Proportional retaliation.

Specifically, you would respond with?

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 11:20 AM
We have troops there now don't we?
We have troops aiding the fight against ISIS not against Assad.

You are blissfully unaware, aren't you?

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:22 AM
Specifically, you would respond with?
I think this last strike is an example of a good proportional response.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:23 AM
We have troops aiding the fight against ISIS not against Assad.

You are blissfully unaware, aren't you?

No need for the insults.

But the fact remains...we have troops in Syria because it is destabilized...

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 11:24 AM
I agree, but the same prohibition that people are reading into the Constitution prohibiting the kind of action Trump took in Syria would prohibit that.

The question boils down to "What constitutes going to war?" Was the rescue attempt in Iran (Operation Eagle Claw) taking us to war? Were our meals on wheels missions in places like Somalia and Haiti going to war? When Clinton started his air campaign in Kosovo, even though the House passed a resolution against it, were we at war? Are we waging war every time we invade another country's airspace with a reconnaissance aircraft or send a covert military team in to an eyes on assessment of a developing situation? Were we waging war against Pakistan when we went in after bin Laden or Panama when we took down Noriega or Grenada when we removed Americans from the country and shot up some Cubans? Did we go to war when Blackjack Pershing chased Pancho Villa back into Mexico? For all practical purposes, we invaded Mexico for 9 months.

If I took a few minutes, I could probably find over a hundred such incidents over the last two hundred years that could be considered acts of war against a sovereign nation. Yet, they did not lead to conditions that any rational person would consider "being at war". Congress even signed off on some of those, approving limited military action that did not place us at a war footing.

For almost two decades, I specialized in what the military called "Low Intensity Conflict". What I learned from that is that it doesn't matter how many bullets are flying around or how many bombs go off, it isn't a war until Congress says it is a war.
So there you have it. The Constitution can be rewritten. Article 1, "The Congress can do whatever it wants." Article 2, "The pressident can do whatever he wants." Article 3, "The courts can do whatever they want."

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 11:25 AM
I think this last strike is an example of a good proportional response.
So that's it? You keep bombing Syria until they cooperate? What if they never cooperate?

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 11:27 AM
No need for the insults.

But the fact remains...we have troops in Syria because it is destabilized...
We are not fighting Syria. You didn't know. Now you do.

Trump started a war with Syria on a whim. And with very few exceptions, all of you agree with Trump. Today. But this war will widen and deepen. You shall have Trump's war.

Cletus
04-10-2017, 11:28 AM
So there you have it. The Constitution can be rewritten. Article 1, "The Congress can do whatever it wants." Article 2, "The pressident can do whatever he wants." Article 3, "The courts can do whatever they want."

I didn't say anything of the sort.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Constitution does not define what constitutes a state of war and since it is up to Congress to declare war, it is also up to them to define it. It is a war if Congress says it's a war, not if you say it is a war.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:30 AM
So that's it? You keep bombing Syria until they cooperate? What if they never cooperate?

Something tells me the international community will not allow Syria to continue gassing their people...but for our part? We've got plenty of bombs...

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 11:30 AM
I didn't say anything of the sort.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Constitution does not define what constitutes a state of war and since it is up to Congress to declare war, it is also up to them to define it. It is a war if Congress says it's a war, not if you say it is a war.
Actually, you did.

Do you believe the comparable sneak attack by the Japanese on the naval base Pearl Harbor was an act of war? If killing another nation's citizens and destroying another nation's property is not an act of war then why were we even a bit upset over the Japanese limited strike against Pearl Harbor? It was just diplomacy.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 11:32 AM
Something tells me the international community will not allow Syria to continue gassing their people...but for our part? We've got plenty of bombs...
There is that "international community" fig leaf.

Your relish the tyranny. What happens when the other country involved in Trump's Syrian war of choice decides to take the fight to us, here in the US?

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:33 AM
We are not fighting Syria. You didn't know. Now you do.

Very assumptive of you... I said we have troops there now because the region is destabilized and I'm sure you know we've been fighting a proxy war against Syria there for several years now...

But regardless, I didn't say we were fighting Syria...


Trump started a war with Syria on a whim. And with very few exceptions, all of you agree with Trump. Today. But this war will widen and deepen. You shall have Trump's war.

Retaliation to chemical weapons attacks is not a "whim".

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:34 AM
There is that "international community" fig leaf.

Your relish the tyranny. What happens when the other country involved in Trump's Syrian war of choice decides to take the fight to us, here in the US?

So be it. We should always be on the side of what is right regardless of the potential of a fight...

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 11:37 AM
Very assumptive of you... I said we have troops there now because the region is destabilized and I'm sure you know we've been fighting a proxy war against Syria there for several years now...
But regardless, I didn't say we were fighting Syria...
We are now. Trump started his splendid little war of choice on a whim. Now Trump's war is our war.

Retaliation to chemical weapons attacks is not a "whim".
Sure it was. There was nothing time urgent. People have been murdered in Syria and the rest of the middle east for decades. It is not our problem. But Trump went to war anyway.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 11:38 AM
So be it. We should always be on the side of what is right regardless of the potential of a fight...
No. We should stay out of affairs that are none of our business. We are not the world's policemen. You and Trump have no right to commit the American nation to war on a whim.

Cletus
04-10-2017, 11:42 AM
Actually, you did.

Not even close.


Do you believe the comparable sneak attack by the Japanese on the naval base Pearl Harbor was an act of war?


Congress defined it as an act of war, so it was an act of war.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:43 AM
We are now. Trump started his splendid little war of choice on a whim. Now Trump's war is our war.

We've had troops and the CIA in there for quite sometime... Trump is building them up but they were there previously...


Sure it was. There was nothing time urgent. People have been murdered in Syria and the rest of the middle east for decades. It is not our problem. But Trump went to war anyway.

OK

pjohns
04-10-2017, 11:45 AM
The Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to declare war.” It says nothing about Congress having a power to proxy their duty to a President to use military power as he, she sees fit. Such congressional resolutions are unconstitutional because there’s no authority in the Constitution for the Congress to submit such resolutions. The Congress is to do their duty and authority to be the sole arbiter as to when and where and why the nation goes to war.


If The Constitution gives the power to declare all wars to the Congress, how can Congress pass a War Powers Act with out first amending the Constitution? The War Powers acts are unconstitutional because a War Powers Act in effect is changing the Constitution and that can only be done by an amendment to the Constitution.

(1) It is not quite true to declare that amending "can only be done by an amendment to the Constitution." (To date, that is the only way that it has been done--there are 27 amendments to the Constitution, including the first 10, known as "the Bill of Rights"--but the Constitution could also be amended through a second Constitutional Convention.)

(2) It may well be that the US strike on Syria was what some people describe as a "one-off"--in other words, not a sustained military effort. (If further action is taken, it would be best, I believe, to receive Congress' approval.)

NapRover
04-10-2017, 11:47 AM
We see babies being gassed, we shoot some missiles at the perpetrators to discourage them. We don't declare war on them, we just deter them.
And it is certainly our business.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 11:49 AM
No. We should stay out of affairs that are none of our business. We are not the world's policemen. You and Trump have no right to commit the American nation to war on a whim.

We disagree that the use of WMDs is none of our business and now are going in circles.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 12:32 PM
Something tells me the international community will not allow Syria to continue gassing their people...but for our part? We've got plenty of bombs...

So to teach Assad a lesson for bombing his own people, you'll keep bombing his people.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 12:56 PM
So to teach Assad a lesson for bombing his own people, you'll keep bombing his people.
Assad's military =/= his people.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 01:21 PM
Not even close.
Congress defined it as an act of war, so it was an act of war.
Well, you shall have your splendid little not-war.

Your position is intellectually weak and flaccid.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 01:23 PM
(1) It is not quite true to declare that amending "can only be done by an amendment to the Constitution." (To date, that is the only way that it has been done--there are 27 amendments to the Constitution, including the first 10, known as "the Bill of Rights"--but the Constitution could also be amended through a second Constitutional Convention.)

(2) It may well be that the US strike on Syria was what some people describe as a "one-off"--in other words, not a sustained military effort. (If further action is taken, it would be best, I believe, to receive Congress' approval.)
There are no constitutional provisions for a constitutional convention. To have one would be to declare a successful coup took place.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 01:28 PM
(2) It may well be that the US strike on Syria was what some people describe as a "one-off"--in other words, not a sustained military effort. (If further action is taken, it would be best, I believe, to receive Congress' approval.)
If presidents may start wars on a whim why would they need Congressional approval to continue them (on a whim)?

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 01:30 PM
We see babies being gassed, we shoot some missiles at the perpetrators to discourage them. We don't declare war on them, we just deter them.
And it is certainly our business.
There is no possible way that what happens in Syria is our business.

If this is acceptable should the president draw up a worldwide list of things that offend him and you? Then he (and you) can prioritize the list for meddling until we sate your do-goodism.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 01:32 PM
We see babies being gassed, we shoot some missiles at the perpetrators to discourage them. We don't declare war on them, we just deter them.
And it is certainly our business.
Assad murders some of his citizens. On a whim, we murder some other of his citizens to show our moral superiority.

Peter1469
04-10-2017, 01:36 PM
A Country of Vast Designs by Robert Merry is an excellent look at the Constitutional issues surrounding Congress's authority to declare war and the president's role as the commander-in-chief. Of course, this was back when Congress took its war powers seriously.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 02:04 PM
We see babies being gassed, we shoot some missiles at the perpetrators to discourage them. We don't declare war on them, we just deter them.
And it is certainly our business.


I understand the stance that stability in the Middle East is in the best interests of everyone, but how is a civil war our business?

If Syria initiated a chemical attack outside its own borders, you would have a stronger argument.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 02:05 PM
A Country of Vast Designs by Robert Merry is an excellent look at the Constitutional issues surrounding Congress's authority to declare war and the president's role as the commander-in-chief. Of course, this was back when Congress took its war powers seriously.


When was that? In the 1940's?

Common
04-10-2017, 02:06 PM
We need to get out of the middle east and let them sort it out for themselves and we can deal with the big winner.

We wont do that because wall street makes too much cash off of oil

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 02:19 PM
Assad's military =/= his people.

Yes, because innocent people never get caught up in these things...

Peter1469
04-10-2017, 02:21 PM
/shrug Why? It would be us either way.




By gassing them? Right...The US can't enforce an international obligation without specific authority to do so. Technically.

Peter1469
04-10-2017, 02:22 PM
The use of chemical weapons has a direct affect on INTERNATIONAL relations.

Why?

patrickt
04-10-2017, 02:26 PM
Remember how angry the liberals were when Clinton took us to war with a nation which did absolutely nothing to us or posed no threat to US national security in any way? They were outraged..... Right?

But, just going by memory, he did get congressional approval, if you're talking about the Balkans.

Peter1469
04-10-2017, 02:36 PM
It's against international law and causes mass destabilization.

Conventional attacks kill far more.

Peter1469
04-10-2017, 02:37 PM
Destabilization has a direct impact on the United States thus it is in the realm of our national interests.

Opposing Assad, the legal sovereign of Syria destabilizes the region too.

Peter1469
04-10-2017, 02:40 PM
When was that? In the 1940's?

The Mexican American War. 1845ish

Peter1469
04-10-2017, 02:51 PM
But, just going by memory, he did get congressional approval, if you're talking about the Balkans.

No. Clinton never went to Congress. He said he was not legally obligated to do so.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 02:53 PM
The use of chemical weapons has a direct affect on INTERNATIONAL relations.
Not when their use occurs exclusively within a domestic context. In order to find a connection to international relations, you have to look for indirect effects.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 02:55 PM
So we haven't attacked them....
Of course "we" have. A proxy war is still a war. If another country was fomenting an insurrection in America, there is no doubt that you and every other American would consider that an act of aggression.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 02:59 PM
It makes sense to Assad.

It makes sense for him to get attacked by the west? Interesting theory.


I've linked articles to why. And there is plenty of proof that they did that... The gas was delivered by a fixed wing aircraft... There is also no proof that ISIS had a weapons cache of chemical weapons...namely Sarin...
There is zero proof Assad's force are responsible. All we have are accounts from biased rebels and the unsubstantiated claims of government officials. If there really is proof, then let them bring that proof before an international body where an independent investigation can examine it and arrive at a conclusion. If the evidence is as strong as you say it is, and this really is an international incident, then there is no reason not to bring the evidence to the UN and to let the international community render a decision.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:06 PM
It's against international law...

So is attacking a country without authorization from the UN Security Council.


...and causes mass destabilization.

What does that even mean?

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:08 PM
Destabilization has a direct impact on the United States thus it is in the realm of our national interests.
"Destabilization" is just another word with no real meaning. And even if it did have some kind of objective parameters, you could not demonstrate that the use of chemical weaponry had a causal relationship to it.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:11 PM
1. If it were illegal then impeach him. Oh why not? Not illegal.

Another possibility is that the ruling class doesn't care about the law.


2. I posted this for you already in another thread. The president can act with the agreement from the Def Secretary on "Nuclear Launch" and "other strategic strikes." If the Def Secretary disagrees he can fire him and appoint another. It doesn't day whether under these circumstances the new one would have to be vetted and approved by the senate.

I can't seem to find that clause in the constitution.


Get off your make believe horses. If you don't like it then have congress change the law/process. But for God sake stop the bologna.

Why would we need to change the law when the law is already clear? Only the congress has the authority to declare war. The founding fathers were clear about that.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 03:15 PM
The Mexican American War. 1845ish

lol.....

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 03:18 PM
We need to get out of the middle east and let them sort it out for themselves and we can deal with the big winner.

We wont do that because wall street makes too much cash off of oil

Its not a matter of Wall Street making cash off of oil, it's the fact that oil is the one commodity needed everywhere in the world and there's a lot of it there and they don't have the crazy eco-warriors preventing them from extracing it from the ground.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:18 PM
We disagree that the use of WMDs is none of our business and now are going in circles.

Again, "weapons of mass destruction" is meaningless political jargon. Conventional weaponry has been causing "mass destruction" in Syria for years. If you want to get really technical about things, you could even qualify a conventional bomb as a "chemical" weapon since the explosive process is nothing more than a chemical reaction. There is simply no logical basis for treating "chemical" weaponry as a special class of weapons.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:19 PM
Assad's military =/= his people.
Really? So does that mean the US military are not the people?

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 03:22 PM
So is attacking a country without authorization from the UN Security Council


You're doing alright until you try to insert the UN Security Council.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 03:24 PM
Again, "weapons of mass destruction" is meaningless political jargon.

It's not meaningless political jargon, but the politicos have exploited the meaning.

Robo
04-10-2017, 03:29 PM
An Act of war is not the same as "War."

Sure looks like war to me and the dictionary. The difference according to you is?

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:29 PM
You're doing alright until you try to insert the UN Security Council.
Because...?

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:30 PM
It's not meaningless political jargon, but the politicos have exploited the meaning.
It has no objective or quantitative meaning and is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.

Robo
04-10-2017, 03:31 PM
An act of intercourse is not the same as "Intercourse".

What is the "$#@!ing" difference?

Ha, Ha, Ha, Spot on!

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 03:33 PM
You're doing alright until you try to insert the UN Security Council.

What he said was correct.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:33 PM
An Act of war is not the same as "War."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 03:34 PM
Because...?

Because they are a symbolic organization. They have no power over a Soverign nation.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 03:36 PM
It has no objective or quantitative meaning and is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.


No.

The meaning has been exploited by those with a political motive to do so.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:37 PM
I agree, but the same prohibition that people are reading into the Constitution prohibiting the kind of action Trump took in Syria would prohibit that.

The question boils down to "What constitutes going to war?" Was the rescue attempt in Iran (Operation Eagle Claw) taking us to war? Were our meals on wheels missions in places like Somalia and Haiti going to war? When Clinton started his air campaign in Kosovo, even though the House passed a resolution against it, were we at war? Are we waging war every time we invade another country's airspace with a reconnaissance aircraft or send a covert military team in to an eyes on assessment of a developing situation? Were we waging war against Pakistan when we went in after bin Laden or Panama when we took down Noriega or Grenada when we removed Americans from the country and shot up some Cubans? Did we go to war when Blackjack Pershing chased Pancho Villa back into Mexico? For all practical purposes, we invaded Mexico for 9 months.

If I took a few minutes, I could probably find over a hundred such incidents over the last two hundred years that could be considered acts of war against a sovereign nation. Yet, they did not lead to conditions that any rational person would consider "being at war". Congress even signed off on some of those, approving limited military action that did not place us at a war footing.

For almost two decades, I specialized in what the military called "Low Intensity Conflict". What I learned from that is that it doesn't matter how many bullets are flying around or how many bombs go off, it isn't a war until Congress says it is a war.
The traditional meaning of "war" according to Jefferson was an offensive action taken against a sovereign nation. Defensive actions required no congressional approval, nor should they. It wouldn't make any sense for a military asset to get congressional authorization to defend itself from an attack. Trump's actions CLEARLY meet the definition of offensive actions and are therefore war under the traditional understanding of the word. The idea that the president of the US can attack another country without ANY input from the American people via their representatives is an affront to republican government.

Robo
04-10-2017, 03:42 PM
I agree, but the same prohibition that people are reading into the Constitution prohibiting the kind of action Trump took in Syria would prohibit that.

The question boils down to "What constitutes going to war?" Was the rescue attempt in Iran (Operation Eagle Claw) taking us to war? Were our meals on wheels missions in places like Somalia and Haiti going to war? When Clinton started his air campaign in Kosovo, even though the House passed a resolution against it, were we at war? Are we waging war every time we invade another country's airspace with a reconnaissance aircraft or send a covert military team in to an eyes on assessment of a developing situation? Were we waging war against Pakistan when we went in after bin Laden or Panama when we took down Noriega or Grenada when we removed Americans from the country and shot up some Cubans? Did we go to war when Blackjack Pershing chased Pancho Villa back into Mexico? For all practical purposes, we invaded Mexico for 9 months.

If I took a few minutes, I could probably find over a hundred such incidents over the last two hundred years that could be considered acts of war against a sovereign nation. Yet, they did not lead to conditions that any rational person would consider "being at war". Congress even signed off on some of those, approving limited military action that did not place us at a war footing.

For almost two decades, I specialized in what the military called "Low Intensity Conflict". What I learned from that is that it doesn't matter how many bullets are flying around or how many bombs go off, it isn't a war until Congress says it is a war.

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the Congress to declare WHAT war is? Any 8 year old can look it up in any dictionary.

Here ya go.

WAR

noun
(http://www.dictionary.com/slideshows/2017-march-new-words?param=flyout)
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.


3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.





4. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:42 PM
I didn't say anything of the sort.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Constitution does not define what constitutes a state of war and since it is up to Congress to declare war, it is also up to them to define it. It is a war if Congress says it's a war, not if you say it is a war.
Yea, just like "well regulated" militia really means the power to restrict firearms as long the supreme court says so.

But the role of THE PEOPLE in interpreting the constitution cannot be overlooked. The plain meaning of words cannot be supplanted by legal gimmickry and political chicanery. So while two people can have an honest debate over what, exactly, constitutes "war", they would be mistaken to characterize an attack on a sovereign nation as anything but war.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:47 PM
Not even close.




Congress defined it as an act of war, so it was an act of war.
Congress does not have the authority to dictate the meaning of words to the people or to redefine plain English. We know what a war is and what it is not, just as we know what a militia is and what it is not. Attacking a sovereign nation is war according to the plain meaning of that word.

DGUtley
04-10-2017, 03:47 PM
Notice - Robo's War And The Constitution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/81649?p=1990337#post1990337) thread was merged into this one. Thank you.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 03:48 PM
We disagree that the use of WMDs is none of our business and now are going in circles.
You have failed to make a case for why Assad's murder of a few of his citizens creates a claim against Americans. I believe it is because you cannot.

NapRover
04-10-2017, 03:48 PM
We need to get out of the middle east and let them sort it out for themselves and we can deal with the big winner.

We wont do that because wall street makes too much cash off of oil

They can't settle it themselves, everyone takes their turn trying to settle it for them. Looks like Russia is next in line. Do we want that?

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:48 PM
We see babies being gassed, we shoot some missiles at the perpetrators to discourage them. We don't declare war on them, we just deter them.
And it is certainly our business.
Attacking a sovereign nation is war. If it is not war, then nothing would qualify as a war.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 03:50 PM
No need for the insults.

But the fact remains...we have troops in Syria because it is destabilized...
This is untrue. We have troops assisting the fight against ISIS. Do you understand? If ISIS left tomorrow so would we.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 03:50 PM
Of course it was an act of war. And enough with the chemical weapons nonsense. The West and countries around the world, really, commit horrific acts of violence and murder everyday, this fetish over chemical weapon deaths is bizzare and illogical. There isn't even anything concretely implicating Syria anyway.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:50 PM
Because they are a symbolic organization. They have no power over a Soverign nation.
Tell that to Private Pickle. He's the one who keeps bringing up international law.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 03:51 PM
Using chemical weapons is against international law and as such is an act of war against the international community.

In addition how many other acts of war could be counted against Syria? Arming and logistical aid to terrorist groups thst attack our allies comes to mind.
National sovereignty is greater than international law.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 03:51 PM
Very assumptive of you... I said we have troops there now because the region is destabilized and I'm sure you know we've been fighting a proxy war against Syria there for several years now...
Another fig leaf? We are not fighting against Syria. We are fighting to defeat ISIS.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 03:53 PM
Assad's military =/= his people.
This is a dumb statement.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:54 PM
They can't settle it themselves, everyone takes their turn trying to settle it for them. Looks like Russia is next in line. Do we want that?
Actually, the conflict has been coming to a resolution in the past year or so. The rebels have been losing engagements and territory almost continuously. Before this chemical incident, Trump and other western leaders were basically admitting that we would have to live with Assad because they knew he was going to win sooner or later. That is why is makes NO SENSE for Assad or his forces to use chemical weapons. They were winning handily without them.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 03:54 PM
We need to get out of the middle east and let them sort it out for themselves and we can deal with the big winner.

We wont do that because wall street makes too much cash off of oil
Syria has nothing to do with oil.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 03:57 PM
Realistically, the West is trying to fabricate war with Syria and possibly Russia by any means. That's the real criminal activity going on here. It's a shame that Trump has bent his knee to the military industrial complex and globalism.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 03:58 PM
Realistically, the West is trying to fabricate war with Syria and possibly Russia by any means. That's the real criminal activity going on here. It's a shame that Trump has bent his knee to the military industrial complex and globalism.

It's just like I said a while back. Trump is clearly out of his depth and has no idea what he's really up against. It was only a matter of time before the neocons broke him.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 03:58 PM
I'm amazed at how quickly MisterVeritis turns from Trump's biggest cheerleader to his biggest detractor.

To his credit, and I certainly don't always see eye to eye with him, he's being consistent and principaled. That's a good thing.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 04:01 PM
It's just like I said a while back. Trump is clearly out of his depth and has no idea what he's really up against. It was only a matter of time before the neocons broke him.

While he'll wind up being a useless hawk on some level, to be sure, he'll still probably be way more reserved than Clinton would have been. That's the only slight positive in this shit show. We the people have no power. We're basically slaves.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 04:05 PM
You're killing me dude. This is hilarious.

What, specifically, is incorrect about what he's saying?

The Xl
04-10-2017, 04:06 PM
An Act of war is not the same as "War."

You're kidding, right? Please, tell me you're joking....

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 04:10 PM
Trump is the criminal who murdered Syrian citizens in a sneak attack. One cannot delegate the authority to commit the nation to war.

Why are you Trump's apologist? Is he our king now? Can we dissolve the congress as unnecessary?

You're killing me dude. This is hilarious.
I see no reason to respond to your goofy provocations. Dude.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 04:12 PM
What, specifically, is incorrect about what he's saying?

You don't understand.

He was The most zealous Trump supporter I had seen during the campaign. Trump could do no wrong.

But, what is incorrect about what he's saying? Claiming Trump is acting as king is a bit hyperbolic.

How times have changed.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 04:12 PM
It's against international law and causes mass destabilization.

You have a weak to substantively nonexistent excuse for everything justifying intervention and war. You're beyond reaching and you know it.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 04:14 PM
You don't understand.

He was The most zealous Trump supporter I had seen during the campaign. Trump could do no wrong.

How times have changed.

I'm well aware. Trump campaigned hard on this and completely 180ed. He's being consistent and not a total hack by calling him out. What exactly is wrong with that? Should he cling to him until kingdom come no matter what like the hard left did with Obama? What he's doing is intellectually fair and consistent .

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 04:18 PM
I'm well aware. Trump campaigned hard on this and completely 180ed. He's being consistent and not a total hack by calling him out. What exactly is wrong with that? Should he cling to him until kingdom come no matter what like the hard left did with Obama? What he's doing is intellectually fair and consistent .

Claiming Trump is acting as if he thinks he's a King is not a rational stance. You know that.

The Xl
04-10-2017, 04:20 PM
Claiming Trump is acting as if he thinks he's a King is not a rational stance. You know that.

Elaborate. Ordering a military attack without the consent of Congress and the people is something a king historically would do. Tell me why that's wrong.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 04:32 PM
Elaborate. Ordering a military attack without the consent of Congress and the people is something a king historically would do. Tell me why that's wrong.


Seriously, do you honestly believe that Trump considers himself a king? Has Trump done something here that no other president preceding him has done?

were president's Carter, Reagan, Bush41 and Clinton acting as a king as well?

Dr. Who
04-10-2017, 04:40 PM
We need to get out of the middle east and let them sort it out for themselves and we can deal with the big winner.

We wont do that because wall street makes too much cash off of oil
Don't forget the MIC making money off of all sides. Without a constant state of warfare somewhere on the planet, they would go broke.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 04:40 PM
George Carlin provides some invaluable insight into US foreign policy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMwXR-1oajE

Dr. Who
04-10-2017, 05:26 PM
It makes sense to Assad. I've linked articles to why. And there is plenty of proof that they did that... The gas was delivered by a fixed wing aircraft... There is also no proof that ISIS had a weapons cache of chemical weapons...namely Sarin...
According to this story complete with interviews with witnesses, a plane dropped a bomb on a one-storey building (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html), producing an "explosion like a yellow mushroom cloud that stung her eyes". Sarin does not produce a colored gas, chlorine does, but people exhibited both the signs of inhaling chorline gas as well as symptoms of sarin. That would suggest that the building that was bombed may have contained both agents. Chlorine gas dissipates quickly, Sarin does not, which would explain why rescue workers succumbed to the lingering sarin.

If the intent was to gas the immediate population, why drop a bomb on a building? Why not in the middle of the road?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148621/

decedent
04-10-2017, 05:44 PM
The roster for WWIII

http://i.imgur.com/6J1G2Ai.jpg


With Jordan thrown in for the Dream Team.


http://i.imgur.com/6mycvpY.jpg

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 05:50 PM
Whose sarin? (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin)

Seymour M. Hersh

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

[...]

Already by late May, the senior intelligence consultant told me, the CIA had briefed the Obama administration on al-Nusra and its work with sarin, and had sent alarming reports that another Sunni fundamentalist group active in Syria, al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), also understood the science of producing sarin. At the time, al-Nusra was operating in areas close to Damascus, including Eastern Ghouta. An intelligence document issued in mid-summer dealt extensively with Ziyaad Tariq Ahmed, a chemical weapons expert formerly of the Iraqi military, who was said to have moved into Syria and to be operating in Eastern Ghouta. The consultant told me that Tariq had been identified ‘as an al-Nusra guy with a track record of making mustard gas in Iraq and someone who is implicated in making and using sarin’. He is regarded as a high-profile target by the American military.

[...]

It's well known that AQ and its affiliates in Syria have access to sarin and other chemical weaponry. To ignore the possibility that they were storing chemical weaponry and it was hit in airstrike is reckless and irrational.

pjohns
04-10-2017, 06:12 PM
There are no constitutional provisions for a constitutional convention. To have one would be to declare a successful coup took place.

Here is a bit about the subject, from Wikipedia:

"Since the initial 1787–88 debate over ratification of the Constitution there have been sporadic calls for the convening of a second convention to modify and correct perceived short comings in the Federal system it established. Article V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) of the Constitution provides two methods for amending the nation’s frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" (a two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum) exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".

And the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_Sta tes

pjohns
04-10-2017, 06:14 PM
If presidents may start wars on a whim why would they need Congressional approval to continue them (on a whim)?
To refer to it as a "war" is to beg the question.

There is a major difference, I believe, between a "one-off" strike and a war.

The Founders, in writing the Constitution, surely never contemplated the former.

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:18 PM
I understand the stance that stability in the Middle East is in the best interests of everyone, but how is a civil war our business?

If Syria initiated a chemical attack outside its own borders, you would have a stronger argument.
We can't let people gas babies. And we can't let Russia take over the middle east. They want to set up a new USSR there.

Private Pickle
04-10-2017, 06:29 PM
According to this story complete with interviews with witnesses, a plane dropped a bomb on a one-storey building (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html), producing an "explosion like a yellow mushroom cloud that stung her eyes". Sarin does not produce a colored gas, chlorine does, but people exhibited both the signs of inhaling chorline gas as well as symptoms of sarin. That would suggest that the building that was bombed may have contained both agents. Chlorine gas dissipates quickly, Sarin does not, which would explain why rescue workers succumbed to the lingering sarin.

If the intent was to gas the immediate population, why drop a bomb on a building? Why not in the middle of the road?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148621/
ISIS doesn't have planes.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 06:29 PM
We can't let people gas babies. And we can't let Russia take over the middle east. They want to set up a new USSR there.

Do you guys ever stop to consider how laughably ridiculous claims like these sound?

decedent
04-10-2017, 06:29 PM
We can't let people gas babies. And we can't let Russia take over the middle east. They want to set up a new USSR there.

Russia is gaining ground in Eastern Europe as western nations are distracted by the problems inside their own borders.


Nationalists are destroying the West.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 06:29 PM
ISIS doesn't have planes.

Nobody claimed they did.

Ethereal
04-10-2017, 06:35 PM
ISIS doesn't have planes.

The plane could have dropped a conventional bomb on a chemical weapons cache.

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:39 PM
Do you guys ever stop to consider how laughably ridiculous claims like these sound?
Nope.

Dr. Who
04-10-2017, 06:40 PM
ISIS doesn't have planes.

Of course not. I'm not saying the Syrians didn't drop a bomb. I'm saying they dropped one one a weapons cache that contained chemicals - not even necessarily chemical weapons, but the ingredients for them and perhaps a quantity of sarin. They mixed together in the explosion.

Mister D
04-10-2017, 06:40 PM
Russia is gaining ground in Eastern Europe as western nations are distracted by the problems inside their own borders.


Nationalists are destroying the West.

Does anyone know what this means? lol

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 06:43 PM
Nope.

Clearly. Russia gains nothing from establishing a Middle Eastern empire, and they certainly wouldn't be defending the sovereignty of those nations if they just wanted to take them over.

decedent
04-10-2017, 06:43 PM
Does anyone know what this means? lol

It means your allies are winning and the US is losing.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 06:44 PM
It means your allies are winning and the US is losing.

The US was losing long before teh ebil nationalists started the second coming of Nazi Germany and apparently the USSR.

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:44 PM
Russia is gaining ground in Eastern Europe as western nations are distracted by the problems inside their own borders.


Nationalists are destroying the West.
They're cozying up to Iran. They're back in Afghanistan allying with the Taliban. They're in bed with Assad and who knows where else. They're certainly no friends of Israel. What should we do, let them have at it?

Mister D
04-10-2017, 06:46 PM
The US was losing long before teh ebil nationalists started the second coming of Nazi Germany and apparently the USSR.

The difference between McCarthyism, the Red Scare and today's hysterics is that McCarthyism was a lot more rational. This is just plain silly.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 06:47 PM
They're cozying up to Iran. They're back in Afghanistan allying with the Taliban. They're in bed with Assad and who knows where else. They're certainly no friends of Israel. What should we do, let them have at it?
Yes, so long as their interests do not conflict with ours. Unlike the nutjobs running the US government, the Russians have a sane, realist foreign policy.

Mister D
04-10-2017, 06:48 PM
They're cozying up to Iran. They're back in Afghanistan allying with the Taliban. They're in bed with Assad and who knows where else. They're certainly no friends of Israel. What should we do, let them have at it?
Seriously, what should we do?

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:49 PM
Clearly. Russia gains nothing from establishing a Middle Eastern empire, and they certainly wouldn't be defending the sovereignty of those nations if they just wanted to take them over.
Nothing but a good chunk of the world's oil. Maybe they want to stir things up so oil goes higher. Middle Eastern countries don't have NATO guarding them, they're ripe for Russia to come in and partner. Maybe they'll promise to help get Israel for them.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 06:51 PM
Nothing but a good chunk of the world's oil. Maybe they want to stir things up so oil goes higher. Middle Eastern countries don't have NATO guarding them, they're ripe for Russia to come in and partner. Maybe they'll promise to help get Israel for them.

That's our own damn fault for going out of our way to constantly poke the bear in the eye.

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:51 PM
Yes, so long as their interests do not conflict with ours. Unlike the nutjobs running the US government, the Russians have a sane, realist foreign policy.
Isolationism is bad policy. It gets no votes.

Green Arrow
04-10-2017, 06:52 PM
Isolationism is bad policy. It gets no votes.

I agree. Who here is promoting isolationism?

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 06:52 PM
Here is a bit about the subject, from Wikipedia:

"Since the initial 1787–88 debate over ratification of the Constitution there have been sporadic calls for the convening of a second convention to modify and correct perceived short comings in the Federal system it established. Article V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) of the Constitution provides two methods for amending the nation’s frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" (a two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum) exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".

And the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_Sta tes
Your link agrees with me. An Article V convention is not a Constitutional convention. It is a convention for proposing amendments. The Congress plays a minor role in the Article V convention. The state legislatures draft a law, signed by the governor to petition the Congress for a convention of states under Article V of the Constitution. Given today's numbers when 34 states have petitioned the Congress the Congress shall set the date, time and place for the convention. The Congress plays no role in the Convention of States.

decedent
04-10-2017, 06:53 PM
They're cozying up to Iran. They're back in Afghanistan allying with the Taliban. They're in bed with Assad and who knows where else. They're certainly no friends of Israel. What should we do, let them have at it?
Moscow is suspiciously quite about N. Korea's recent advancements in nuclear and missile technology, which is odd considering the disaster potential. I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Un and Putin are tight.


Where we've seen the fastest growth in Russian influence is in America. Trumplings are embracing Putin with open arms, and defending him fiercely. A few decades ago, the Right staunchly opposed all things "commie."

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:53 PM
Seriously, what should we do?

Just what we're doing. Fight terrorism. Back our allies, keep Russia out, get secure energy independence.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 06:54 PM
You don't understand.
He was The most zealous Trump supporter I had seen during the campaign. Trump could do no wrong.

This is a lie.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 06:56 PM
To refer to it as a "war" is to beg the question.

There is a major difference, I believe, between a "one-off" strike and a war.

The Founders, in writing the Constitution, surely never contemplated the former.
The only difference is in your imagination. When one nation takes up arms against another a state of war exists between them.

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:56 PM
Moscow is suspiciously quite about N. Korea's recent advancements in nuclear and missile technology, which is odd considering the disaster potential. I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Un and Putin are tight.


Where we've seen the fastest growth in Russian influence is in America. Trumplings are embracing Putin with open arms, and defending him fiercely. A few decades ago, the Right staunchly opposed all things "commie."
I voted for Trump and am glad I did. I'm more anti-commie now than ever.
I agree, Putin and N Korea might be tight. It would serve Russia well to see us get back in the ring with NK/China

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 06:56 PM
We can't let people gas babies. And we can't let Russia take over the middle east. They want to set up a new USSR there.
Who the hell are you? Why do you believe you have a great claim on American treasure and American lives?

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 06:57 PM
ISIS doesn't have planes.
Does ISIS have buildings?

NapRover
04-10-2017, 06:58 PM
That's our own damn fault for going out of our way to constantly poke the bear in the eye.
We need to be the bear.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 06:59 PM
They're cozying up to Iran. They're back in Afghanistan allying with the Taliban. They're in bed with Assad and who knows where else. They're certainly no friends of Israel. What should we do, let them have at it?
If you want to make the case for a war with Russia then tell your representative you demand a war with Russia. Then go enlist.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 07:00 PM
Nothing but a good chunk of the world's oil. Maybe they want to stir things up so oil goes higher. Middle Eastern countries don't have NATO guarding them, they're ripe for Russia to come in and partner. Maybe they'll promise to help get Israel for them.
How much oil do you believe Syria controls?

NapRover
04-10-2017, 07:00 PM
Who the hell are you? Why do you believe you have a great claim on American treasure and American lives?
I'm just a voter who sees things a certain way. Obviously many more have similar to mine, or you wouldn't be bellyaching so loud.

NapRover
04-10-2017, 07:01 PM
How much oil do you believe Syria controls?

No clue. Irrelevant. Oil goes up when trouble starts.

MisterVeritis
04-10-2017, 07:02 PM
I'm just a voter who sees things a certain way. Obviously many more have similar to mine, or you wouldn't be bellyaching so loud.
It is true that fools love the beginning of the war.