Syria ~ Trump addresses the Nation

[MisterVeritis]

The War Powers Act is duly legislated, and is the LAW OF THE LAND.

Nearly 200 years prior, Pres.Jefferson, WITHOUT EVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE WAR POWERS ACT, ( I think he kinda knew some stuff about the Constitution, too!,) sent a US Marine Squadron to attack the pirates of the Barbary Coast, with no formal declaration of was, as well, the 1st "Barbary War".

Your turn.

Do you think printing it in all caps makes it more impressive?

I agree that Presidents in the past decided to start a war on their own. If a bank is robbed successfully once should we take bank robbery off the lawbooks?

No law can invalidate the Constitution. Begin there.

[The Xl]

That extreme rhetoric gives liberals an excuse to impugn all conservatives.

All types of extremists allow for that, whether we're talking about politics, race, religion, or anything else.

[Grokmaster]

The War Powers Act is duly legislated, and is the LAW OF THE LAND.


Nearly 200 years prior, Pres.Jefferson, WITHOUT EVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE WAR POWERS ACT, ( I think he kinda knew some stuff about the Constitution, too!,) sent a US Marine Squadron to attack the pirates of the Barbary Coast, with no formal declaration of was, as well, the 1st "Barbary War".

Your turn.

[The Xl]

The President may always defend the US. We can use offensive action when an attack is imminent. We do not have to wait to be attacked.

The President has no Constitutional authority to take the nation to a war of choice. Syria is a war of choice.

The President must be impeached.

That we certainly agree on.

[Common Sense]

A de facto state of war already exists between the US and Assads government. If congress opposes this action, they should also have condemned all the covert actions against them by the US over the last few years.

As much as I think Trump is doing this to make him seem tough on Russia, I also think it's a legitimate target and within the powers of the president. I doubt he has a long term plan though.

[MisterVeritis]

(From Dec., 2017)
There are about 2,000 U.S. troops deployed in Syria, the Pentagon said Wednesday — a number that is four times more than any official figure that U.S. officials have previously acknowledged, and yet still lower than at the height of operations in Syria.
Army Col. Rob Manning, a Pentagon spokesman, disclosed the number in a gathering with journalists. He said he was doing so as part of a new effort by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to be transparent about how many troops are deployed in harm’s way.
“That’s where we are now,” Manning said. “If a major shift occurs, then we’ll come back out with a new, official number.”

We have been fighting a close to illegal war. When the target was ISIS the effort was justified by the authorization for the use of force. Attacking Syrians not associated with ISIS is not.

[MisterVeritis]

Until it wasn't.

The WPA IS, and the US launched attacks on foreign soil, with no Congressional declaration of war, as early as the early 19th century...even BEFORE the WPA.

I shake my head. So as long as no one complains violations of the Constitution are perfectly acceptable to you. Do I understand you?

[MisterVeritis]

The US participates in a series of treaties that are supposed to moderate what they have. For example, having chemical weapons but no longer producing them as part of the CWC. Same with most Western countries and many non-Western countries. Syria and North Korea, notably, refused to join the labyrinth of treaties that are meant to keep nations from escalating to unconventional methods of warfare and place emphasis on diplomacy.

No treaty can invalidate the US Constitution.

[The Xl]

Selective outrage. Nevermind the 500,000 people already dead. It's not like they suffered or anything.

The whole "WMD" deaths bad, every other death, A-OK, is irrational and disturbingly bizarre. What's even worse is that their is absolutely no proof Syria did the deed, and it would have been mind numbingly stupid of them to do so.

[Abby08]

First strikes on nations with either growing nuclear capabilities or weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological) are generally justified internationally, particularly when they lack a security infrastructure or otherwise ability to control what they are holding. Syria has no ability to launch a realistic second-strike challenge. Syria is one of like 3 countries who has refused to join or comply with the CWC. It will piss off their allies like Russia, but... that said, without UN authorization, this is questionable internationally. But it never would have been approved with Russia have a veto on the Security Council.

I don't agree with it. It's also completely unsurprising.

How much sense does it make, though, to kill, possibly tens of thousands of people, because THEY killed a couple hundred?.... doesn't that make us, no better than them?

Then, there's the possibility of throwing us into another senseless war.