- opendoug
- Exchange Chief Meteorologist
Offline 
- Registered: 2/23/2015
- Posts: 114
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
Like most, I have mixed feelings about this.
Somebody had to do something to show the Assad regime and supporters that the use of chemical weapons will cost them dearly. Russia is clearly on Assad's side so they certainly weren't going to hold them accountable. Nobody else in the region is capable of striking a harsh blow without incurring equal or greater retaliation. I guess it falls to us then, like it or not.
Like others in this thread have said, what are the consequences, intended or otherwise? What is the game plan? Were the missile strikes the only action, or will there be more? How do we send a necessary message without forcing Putin's hand and causing American or Russian casualties? I don't have answers to any of those questions, so I'm looking to the Trump administration to provide clarity.
Of course, the first place I looked was Trump's Twitter accounts. So far it's just a few retweets and basic information, no chest thumping. Yet.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Common Sense
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/16/2015
- Posts: 3,256
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
How many times has the U.S. declared war?
Although U.S. troops have gone to war many times since 1776, Congress has only declared war 11 times.
Only three of the declarations did not involve countries associated with World War I or World War II.
Last edited by Common Sense (4/07/2017 8:42 am)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” former vice president Biden said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. "All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”
- •
Thread Starter- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
Common Sense wrote:
How many times has the U.S. declared war?
Although U.S. troops have gone to war many times since 1776, Congress has only declared war 11 times.
Only three of the declarations did not involve countries associated with World War I or World War II.
Perhaps we should get back to declarations of war. Or at least resolutions authorizing force and setting limits.
War is deadly serious, and I think that we need to approach it cautiously.
I recommend that you read Arthur Schlesinger's book. The Imperial Presidency, published in 1974 in the wake of Vietnam. This book details the history of the Presidency of the United States from its conception by the Founding Fathers through the latter half of the 20th century. The author wrote the book out of two concerns: first, that the US Presidency was out of control and second, that the Presidency had exceeded its constitutional limits.
It's quite interesting.
Last edited by Goose (4/07/2017 8:51 am)
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
There is also the War Powers Act to consider.
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
We need to revisit the ease of which a President (from ANY party) can decide to commit to action against any sovereign nation, especially without any declaration of war or implicit authorization unless we are attacked.
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
Nikki Haley seems to be calling for regime change a week after Tillerson said that we accepted Assad.
Now that we've had a few days to get the chest thumping out of our system, can we develop a game plan?
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
So now we are basically back to killing innocents without chemical weapons. That is all that has changed !! 
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
The type of mixed messaging exhibited by the administration increases risk on many levels.
They need a coherent strategy.
Are they committed to helping the Syrian people, or will they simply slap Assad's wrist if he uses something other than conventional weapons to murder civilians?
Last edited by Goose (4/09/2017 10:53 am)
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
Now Tillerson is a hawk.
I'm getting whiplash
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
It's only fair to say that trump's missile strike against Assad is contrary to nearly everything that he has said about Syria.
True?
So, let's put the testosterone aside and ask why, and what is the new plan?
Am I asking for too much?
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.