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.
I support international law to the same degree as Putin. Which is to say..when it's convenient.
The US constitutions states that only the congress can declare war.
During the Cold War, we started allowing the president more authority that he was ever meant to have, meaning the president can essentially declare war. See Syria as an example; Trump authorized 50+ missiles to be fired at Syria based on Assad's treatment of his people. Read that as "based on something Assad did that has nothing to do with us."
Now, Trump can kind of get away with this since Syria isn't going to retaliate against us directly. How could he? Even when not in a civil war, Syria couldn't afford a war with the United States. So, Trump gets a pass in bombing a foreign state for essentially no reason. But had he done that to China? I mean, use your brain. Even if not open warfare, Americans would die at the hands of China.
So the question remains; should Trump have been allowed to do this based on US law? I'd argue that answer is no. If we still respected the constitution, Trump would have been impeached for that. It should be viewed as an overreach of executive power for the president to authorize a military strike or occupation that is not done purely in the name of retaliation or defense of an imminent attack (to which evidence would need to be provided by the Executive office to congress in order to justify the attack; failure to do so should result in impeachment. Period).
So the question remains; should Trump have been allowed to do this based on US law? I'd argue that answer is no. If we still respected the constitution, Trump would have been impeached for that. It should be viewed as an overreach of executive power for the president to authorize a military strike or occupation that is not done purely in the name of retaliation or defense of an imminent attack (to which evidence would need to be provided by the Executive office to congress in order to justify the attack; failure to do so should result in impeachment. Period).
You conveniently ignored that it was Obama who got us involved there in the first place.
Given what you have stated, then Obama should have been impeached. Now that we are mired down there, Trump is doing what's needed to end it.
You conveniently ignored that it was Obama who got us involved there in the first place.
Given what you have stated, then Obama should have been impeached. Now that we are mired down there, Trump is doing what's needed to end it.
Unless he's grounding overflights and extracting any ground troops then he's not doing what is needed to end it. To use an analogy just because there's a change in gang leadership during a bank heist doesn't mean that there's nothing illegal happening if the new leader chooses to continue the heist. Should the previous admin have been censured? Absolutely I've said that from the get go. Does that absolve the current situation from the current administration? Absolutely not, they may have inherited the situation but it's theirs to deal with.
We're not mired in Syria, extraction is very easy, there just needs to be the will to do so.
Unless he's grounding overflights and extracting any ground troops then he's not doing what is needed to end it. To use an analogy just because there's a change in gang leadership during a bank heist doesn't mean that there's nothing illegal happening if the new leader chooses to continue the heist. Should the previous admin have been censured? Absolutely I've said that from the get go. Does that absolve the current situation from the current administration? Absolutely not, they may have inherited the situation but it's theirs to deal with.
We're not mired in Syria, extraction is very easy, there just needs to be the will to do so.
We don't know that. We've been there for years. Pulling out completely and immediately out at this point may do much more harm to our interests now and may put lives in danger. i.e. Trump has not committed an impeachable offense.
It was Obama who make the illegal decision to get us involved in Syria, if it was indeed illegal. It's not clear to me that a President, who inherits an illegal war, is legally liable for the decisions of his predecessor.
The party I was responding to, made this bad jump to conclusions. And simply because of the double standard being played.
We don't know that. We've been there for years. Pulling out completely and immediately out at this point may do much more harm to our interests now and may put lives in danger.
It was Obama who make the illegal decision to get us involved in Syria, if it was indeed illegal. It's not clear to me that a President, who inherits an illegal war, is legally liable for the decisions of his predecessor.
The party I was responding to, made this bad jump to conclusions. And simply because of the double standard being played.
Clearly Trump could bring the troops home if he was concerned about the legality of the conflict, and of course he is liable since he has chose to continue it. Curiously he has not only chosen not only to continue it, but continue it following the same exact approach laid out by the Obama admin. No change in strategy.
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.
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.
