Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:03 AM
 
13,694 posts, read 9,016,074 times
Reputation: 10417

Advertisements

Very good post by WRnative.


Here is what bothers me: it has always been my understanding, under international law and conventions, that a 'declaration of war' may only be made against a 'sovereign state'.


Now, I realize that some, including Mr. Trump and President Obama, have talked about 'war' against ISIS. I will note that President Obama, although he spoke of 'going to war' against ISIS, appears to have actually asked Congress for an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS, which is technically different from a declaration of war. The last time Congress actually passed an Act declaring that a state of war existed between the United States and another recognized country was, I believe, Japan.


For Congress to pass a resolution that a state of war exists between the USA and ISIS would actually given ISIS the status of a 'sovereign state'. No country, to date, has 'recognized' ISIS as a legitimate sovereign entity. For the USA to formally declare a state of war with ISIS is akin to our recognizing ISIS as a legitimate sovereign state, which would mean that the Geneva Convention, as well as other international law, would come into play.


Abraham Lincoln well understood the difference. He used all sorts of linguistic gymnastics to make clear that the USA was not in a 'state of war' against the southern states, since he did not want to 'recognize' the Confederacy as a sovereign state. One slip-up was when he declared a 'blockade' of southern ports, since it was understood, at that time, that a blockade could only be against sovereign states. Jefferson Davis and his people tried their best to get France, England and other countries to 'recognize' the Confederacy (which hope was utterly dashed with Gettysburg).


I believe that in the 60 minutes interview, Leslie was trying, in vain, to ask Mr. Trump about the 'war' question, but she was unable to stop Mr. Trump from talking. I do wish they would publish the whole interview.


Anyway, should Mr. Trump become President, I would imagine that he will be made to understand that it is one thing to ask Congress for a AUMF against the group of people that call themselves ISIS or ISIL or whatever, but quite another to ask Congress for a 'declaration of war'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,956,603 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina View Post
I saw that on Face The Nation, I think he was trying to say he'd make Turkey do it (somehow) or other NATO partners because they "don't do enough". The best I could figure he was saying he'd threaten to leave NATO if they don't step up? It was hard to tell.

Not that it makes sense. But that was what I gathered.
I saw him on Face the Nation too. Trump was doing a Palin -- throwing out so much word-salad that it wasn't clear which contradictory statement he meant. Leslie Stall tried to find out what "going to war with ISIS" means, but never got a substantive response. He answered with "we'd have great intelligence" -- which means we'd have more CIA ground forces -- but Trump backed away from that.

Trump has no details or plan. He's the platitude presidential candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:20 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
According to the CNN article:

"I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We're going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don't have. We don't have the people over there," he said.

How does he plan to have "unbelievable intelligence" that we don't have now?


Coming from Donny I believe we will have unbelievable intelligence.

Last edited by burdell; 07-18-2016 at 08:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,554,711 times
Reputation: 24780
Talking Trump to declare war on ISIS, but send "very few troops"

The exact same thing Obama has been doing for two years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:24 AM
 
15,047 posts, read 8,877,906 times
Reputation: 9510
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
From the 7/17 CBS "60 Minutes" interview of Trump and Pence:

<<
Lesley Stahl: But we did go to war, if you remember. We went to Iraq.
Donald Trump: He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while.
Lesley Stahl: But she's not?
Donald Trump: No. She's not.>>
And there you have it, Trump has articulated the entire "justification" for the endless Republican pretend "investigations." Rice and Powell and Pence all get a pass for doing exactly the same thing that Clinton did. They are allowed to "make a mistake every once in a while," but Hillary is not.

This interview shows exactly why Trump is so completely unfit for this job. The cult will continue to refuse to see it, but I hope intelligent voters across the country are not as ignorant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:28 AM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,596,541 times
Reputation: 5664
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Very good post by WRnative.


Here is what bothers me: it has always been my understanding, under international law and conventions, that a 'declaration of war' may only be made against a 'sovereign state'.
ISLAMIC. STATE. of IRAQ and SYRIA = ISIS
ISLAMIC. STATE. of IRAQ and The LEVANT = ISIL

Plus, the U.S. can declare war against any entity it pleases, and is not
restricted to "international laws and conventions".

Trump if he gets the war declaration would have no problem drumming
up cooperation with many other states, including Syria itself and Russia.

It is my opinion that ISIS will dissemble or be defeated before Trump
takes office, by the Syrians, Russians and Iranians, or even voluntarily
because if Trump wins, they will know the game is over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:34 AM
 
24,005 posts, read 15,096,054 times
Reputation: 12963
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowball7 View Post
islamic. State. Of iraq and syria = isis
islamic. State. Of iraq and the levant = isil

plus, the u.s. Can declare war against any entity it pleases, and is not
restricted to "international laws and conventions".

Trump if he gets the war declaration would have no problem drumming
up cooperation with many other states, including syria itself and russia.

It is my opinion that isis will dissemble or be defeated before trump
takes office, by the syrians, russians and iranians, or even voluntarily
because if trump wins, they will know the game is over.
hahahahaha
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:47 AM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,450,165 times
Reputation: 7217
Iranian-trained Iraqi Shia militia are in Syria now fighting ISIS. They are very active on the Iraqi front against ISIS.

The Iraqis refuse to arm the Kurds, one of America's best natural allies in the Middle East.

Anything that the U.S. does to defeat ISIS will just make the Shia more powerful, to the consternation of Saudi Arabia. That's why we want ISIS defeated, but want to do it on the cheap and with the loss of the fewest American lives of possible.

Who was the big winner in the George W./Pence/Hillary/Republican Irag War? Iran and the Shia.

The problem is how do you influence the long-term outcome in places like Iraq and Afghanistan without a long-term, expensive military commitment including large numbers of ground troops on the ground. George W. and the Republicans fought the Iraq War on the cheap with disastrous consequences.

Pence and the Republicans have never wanted to pay for such a commitment, and the American people with their hollowed-out economy are sick and tired of playing global policeman.

Hillary and the Democrats apparently have learned this lesson to some degree. Trump, Pence, and most Republicans continue to talk loudly and carry a small stick when it comes to paying for a sustained military effort. Trump compares himself to Teddy Roosevelt, but he's the exact opposite of Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Arizona
6,131 posts, read 7,990,820 times
Reputation: 8272
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
According to the CNN article:

"I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We're going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don't have. We don't have the people over there," he said.

How does he plan to have "unbelievable intelligence" that we don't have now?
Simple. His own intelligence in his very good brain, which is unbelievable, because it doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 08:54 AM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,708,788 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post


Trump: I'd declare war on ISIS, send 'very few' troops - CNNPolitics.com

This guy sounds like a middle schooler pontificating in a social studies class.

Oh, yeah, his favorite primary whipping boy, George W. Bush, no longer is responsible for creating ISIS. It's now Hillary's fault.

George W.'s Iraq War "started ISIS," Trump said in Feb. in South Carolina.

Donald Trump calls Iraq &lsquo;worst decision&rsquo; but won&rsquo;t repeat that Bush &lsquo;lied&rsquo; - POLITICO

Trump apparently doesn't realize that we already have significant forces, even on the ground, already fighting ISIS -- about 500 in Syria and 4,500 in Iraq.

Obama announces extra 250 spec ops troops to Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Obama Increases Cap On US Soldiers In Iraq By 560 | The Daily Caller

Trump is one scary dude, and I can't believe anybody is seriously considering entrusting the Presidency to him.
hello, McFly... Trump will have military advisors! How much military strategy/knowledge do you think Obama, Al Gore, or Hillary has? Hillary has already shown that she does not care about defending us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top