Jump to content

Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

 I was hoping Trump would resurrect the Legislative Branch as a place where laws are debated and passed and the body that decides when war starts. 

 

6 hours ago, bolverk said:

What in the ever loving fuck led you to think this?

Temporary retardation is the only reasonable explanation. Trump has ALWAYS been an extreme narcissist who is 100% certain he is the smartest person involved in any situation. Which is an unfortunate trait for someone who is almost always the stupidest motherfucker in the room. I say "almost" because presumably there must be  times he meets with Rick Perry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

 

Temporary retardation is the only reasonable explanation. Trump has ALWAYS been an extreme narcissist who is 100% certain he is the smartest person involved in any situation. Which is an unfortunate trait for someone who is almost always the stupidest motherfucker in the room. I say "almost" because presumably there must be  times he meets with Rick Perry.

Why you gotta be so mean to mofo Rick Perry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maninblack won't let the MIC have a little fun and make a few honest bucks without giving them some grief.  You can't make missiles without spending some missiles.  Aside from Charlie Wilson handing out some shoulder-mounted stinger missiles to Afghanistan so they could scatter commie body parts out of the sky, interventionism in the Middle East has never really worked. 

Now we get to see Ann Coulter, who was once the neo-con Princess of Meddling Caucasia , along with the rest of the gullible alt-right, whine and wonder how Donald Trump could so blatantly crawfish on the ideals he never had in the first place.  Shocking, this detachment from the truth.  At least this time you didn't have to watch Brian Williams ejaculate over the awesome power of U.S. ordnance.        

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think that’s kinda the problem. It’s been said multiple times that there’s no one we’d like to see him replaced by. And a democratic election at this point is entirely unrealistic. They’re in the midst of a civil war, and we just have to let them duke it out and see where the chips fall.

I’ve seen comments, probably tongue-in-cheek, that we “just want Assad to massacre civilians in a more civilized way,” but the simple truth is a government is naturally going to have a huge military advantage over a civilian revolt. We won’t get directly (heavily) involved, but intervening to enforce international law re: chemical weapons is a priority for many reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re good with barrel bombs used against civilians. But not chemical weapons. 

And we don’t actualky take out the people who can make chemical weapons, or more importantly, the people making those decisions. Assuming it’s somebody in the Syrian government.  

Trump doesn’t understand that chemical weapons are 100-year old+ technology that are easily fabricated as long as the chemists and the responsible government officials are allowed to roam around. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2018 at 9:15 PM, DanRydell said:

 


The Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. Not that the President does as long as France and England join him.

 

Well yeah they do, but how many presidents have acted militarily without an act of war being declared ?  

 

When Tim Kaine makes the statement he does that Congress demands to decide if we act militarily it just shows he's either an idiot who doesn't know history or is just a typical partisan shrill for his respective party.  I say both apply to him.

I do agree Congress should probably have a voice, but the cats been out of the bag for decades with regard to presidents making surgical military strikes without acts of war being declared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

We’re good with barrel bombs used against civilians. But not chemical weapons. 

And we don’t actualky take out the people who can make chemical weapons, or more importantly, the people making those decisions. Assuming it’s somebody in the Syrian government.  

Trump doesn’t understand that chemical weapons are 100-year old+ technology that are easily fabricated as long as the chemists and the responsible government officials are allowed to roam around. 

Yeah, it's obviously cynical.  Not long ago we were helping Saddam gas Iranians.  

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah they do, but how many presidents have acted militarily without an act of war being declared ?  
 
When Tim Kaine makes the statement he does that Congress demands to decide if we act militarily it just shows he's either an idiot who doesn't know history or is just a typical partisan shrill for his respective party.  I say both apply to him.
I do agree Congress should probably have a voice, but the cats been out of the bag for decades with regard to presidents making surgical military strikes without acts of war being declared.


Two (or twenty) wrongs don’t make a right. Congressional authorization is the difference between a military action and a murder spree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
8 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 


Two (or twenty) wrongs don’t make a right. Congressional authorization is the difference between a military action and a murder spree.

 

 

No, its not sorry pal.  Presidents can and do conduct military excerices without an act of war being declared. Both democrats and republicans have done it. So come back and tell me how pissed you were at Clinton or Obama for their overt non congressional approved ....."murder sprees" was it ?  

Did Bill Clinton receive authorization from Congress before conducting military operations in  Bosnia ?

How about Mr. Obama invading a sovereign nation and carrying out a "murder spree as you call it ?  You have any issues with that ?  Did Congress approve that act ??  How about his little soire' .... errrrrr "murder spree" in Libya ?

I'd love to hear all the stories about how you didn't support Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama in those little exercises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, its not sorry pal.  Presidents can and do conduct military excerices without an act of war being declared. Both democrats and republicans have done it. So come back and tell me how pissed you were at Clinton or Obama for their overt non congressional approved ....."murder sprees" was it ?  
Did Bill Clinton receive authorization from Congress before conducting military operations in  Bosnia ?
How about Mr. Obama invading a sovereign nation and carrying out a "murder spree as you call it ?  You have any issues with that ?  Did Congress approve that act ??  How about his little soire' .... errrrrr "murder spree" in Libya ?
I'd love to hear all the stories about how you didn't support Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama in those little exercises.


Of course I have issues with unlawful military actions by Clinton and Obama. Were I a member of the House, I would have introduced impeachment proceedings against both. Don’t project your partisan hackery onto me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'd love to hear all the stories about how you didn't support Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama in those little exercises.

Not really interesting stories, but I have opposed every single UNSC-unsanctioned US intervention in the Middle East since basically forever. I don't even really like the UNSC-sanctioned ones.

Obama and Clinton were murderous war criminals like the Republicans they were sandwiched by. #NoHomo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DanRydell said:

 


Of course I have issues with unlawful military actions by Clinton and Obama. Were I a member of the House, I would have introduced impeachment proceedings against both. Don’t project your partisan hackery onto me.

 

Oh so you're the one guy who's above partisan hackery...  Man yer like not real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is on record saying congressional authorization is required for this type of action.  His reversal warrants criticism on that basis alone, regardless of prior precedent. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373581528405905408

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373146637184401408

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Trump is on record saying congressional authorization is required for this type of action.  His reversal warrants criticism on that basis alone, regardless of prior precedent. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373581528405905408

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373146637184401408

And I totally agree with that sentiment.  He's as full of shit as the previous sitting presidents when it comes to being told what he can and can't do.   We shouldn't be in most of the military shit we get involved with, but the reality is it's part of why we are the power we are, for good and bad reasons.

Congress should have a say in our military affairs, I believe that just isn't the legal case however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I totally agree with that sentiment.  He's as full of shit as the previous sitting presidents when it comes to being told what he can and can't do.   We shouldn't be in most of the military shit we get involved with, but the reality is it's part of why we are the power we are, for good and bad reasons.
Congress should have a say in our military affairs, I believe that just isn't the legal case however.


What do you believe is the legal case in support of offensive military action without congressional approval?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i enjoyed the bombing and hopes Trump does it every single time gas is used on civilians. I'd also like Israel to get pissed off at something and take out the Assad regime in 2 hours, which they could do easily. 

We will teach the world our peaceful ways....by force!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 


What do you believe is the legal case in support of offensive military action without congressional approval?

 

Article II gives the president authority to conduct acts in the defense of national security  interests without Congressional authority. That has been interpreted to mean he can conduct limited military exercises in defense of national security at his discretion. That's been stated every time this type of action occurs.  It's been, and may be being abused right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article II gives the president authority to conduct acts in the defense of national security  interests without Congressional authority. That has been interpreted to mean he can conduct limited military exercises in defense of national security at his discretion. That's been stated every time this type of action occurs.  It's been, and may be being abused right now.

Justin Amash addressed this in a series of tweets...

Read the War Powers Resolution:

§1541© Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Read (1), (2), and (3) carefully. Is there any suggestion that the president can take *offensive* military action without congressional approval? No. The only situation in which he may dispense with congressional approval is to *defend* against a sudden attack on our country.

Why then do some people say the president always has 60-90 days before needing approval? It probably stems, in most cases, from a misreading of (or failure to read in part or entirety) the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution does provide a 60-90 day timeline, but that’s to account for situations implicating §1541©(3), “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

If there is an attack on our country, we expect the president to respond swiftly. The War Powers Resolution therefore gives him 60-90 days. The Framers of the Constitution agreed that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” without congressional approval.

The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval (nor could it). It instead checks the president when he enters our Armed Forces into hostilities for constitutionally permissible reasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Article II gives the president authority to conduct acts in the defense of national security  interests or when Ivanka sees something on the news about dying or injured children and gets upset, without Congressional authority. That has been interpreted to mean he can conduct limited military exercises in defense of national security, or when Ivanka is upset and asks him to, at his discretion. 

Read the above and we all see that there must be a really fine line between gassing a few hundred Syrian civilians in a civil war, and the NSA hearing discussion of Syria actively planning on attacking the US with chemical weapons in the near-future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maninblack said:


Justin Amash addressed this in a series of tweets...

Read the War Powers Resolution:

§1541© Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Read (1), (2), and (3) carefully. Is there any suggestion that the president can take *offensive* military action without congressional approval? No. The only situation in which he may dispense with congressional approval is to *defend* against a sudden attack on our country.

Why then do some people say the president always has 60-90 days before needing approval? It probably stems, in most cases, from a misreading of (or failure to read in part or entirety) the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution does provide a 60-90 day timeline, but that’s to account for situations implicating §1541©(3), “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

If there is an attack on our country, we expect the president to respond swiftly. The War Powers Resolution therefore gives him 60-90 days. The Framers of the Constitution agreed that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” without congressional approval.

The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval (nor could it). It instead checks the president when he enters our Armed Forces into hostilities for constitutionally permissible reasons.

Thanks, Obviously the power has been abused over the years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article II gives the president authority to conduct acts in the defense of national security  interests without Congressional authority. That has been interpreted to mean he can conduct limited military exercises in defense of national security at his discretion. That's been stated every time this type of action occurs.  It's been, and may be being abused right now.


What provisions of Article II exactly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's newly minted national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo are among those spearheading a push to build a coalition of Arab military forces that could replace US troops in Syria and serve as a stabilizing force in the region once ISIS is defeated, according to sources familiar with internal discussions. 

While convincing nations like Saudi Arabia to join the cause is sure to come at a price, the Trump administration is considering an offer that includes putting a compelling reward on the table, a source close to the White House told CNN.
 
A similar concept was initially floated in 2013 as part of the Obama administration's anti-ISIS strategy, but the idea of establishing an Arab force aligned with US interests recently picked up new momentum after President Donald Trump declared that he wants to withdraw US troops from Syria and have other countries "take care of it."
 
Specifically, the US is pursuing contributions from Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to help counter Iran in Syria by filling the void should the US significantly reduce its footprint in the country.
 
While Trump's decision to launch missile strikes against alleged chemical weapons facilities belonging to the Syrian regime has amplified the debate over the administration's long-term goals, the move has not derailed efforts to convince other nations to take on a larger role going forward. 
A source close to the White House told CNN on Tuesday that despite initial concerns that Trump would withdraw from Syria in the very near term, discussions have shifted toward developing a transition plan and that the administration is continuing its push to enlist the help of several Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt.
 
This source also confirmed that Bolton recently called Egypt's acting intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, to gauge whether his country would be willing to contribute to the effort, a detail previously reported by The Wall Street Journal.
 
 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/trump-us-syria-strategy-arab-force-pompeo-bolton/index.html

Throwing a lot more troops from Sunni-led countries like Saudi Arabia into Syria to counter Iran, what could go wrong?

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2018 at 10:16 AM, Incredulity said:

Kind of like Antifa beating the tolerance into people.

 

On 4/16/2018 at 10:20 AM, David Dennison said:

Antifa doesn't care about tolerance. Nor do they claim to.

sure why not...

I, personally, would hope the president, even Obama, would go through the proper protocol or at least take advice from his armed forces advisors.  It's just been done this way and don't see it changing.  Now, Donald being on record as to being against this kind of behavior just cracks me up.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...