10 Rockets hit US Air Base in Iraq

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

@James Regan & @remake it - This all depends on how you want to define the words 'Declare War.' 

How so when the Constitution spells it out at

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To (continued to)

11: To declare War 

The President certainly has other powers which are supposed to be subject to or moderated by Congressional oversight but while the USA considers itself indomitable they will not be questioned until well after the event.

[Papillon + 485]

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

There's also ample ambiguity and precedent to get around this by structuring military actions as distinct and not part of a longer campaign.

So in essence sir, it sounds as if with all these ancient laws one can 'get around' them anyway, with 'room to maneuver', as long as you word it as 'initiating hostilities', and not 'declaring war'. Also, even the ninety day part can be 'got around' anyway, making the laws rather pointless? Am I reading this correctly?

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon

[Otis11 + 551]

 

17 hours ago, remake it said:

How so when the Constitution spells it out at

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To (continued to)

11: To declare War 

The President certainly has other powers which are supposed to be subject to or moderated by Congressional oversight but while the USA considers itself indomitable they will not be questioned until well after the event.

It's just like I explained - depends how you define the words in current terms. You are correct in that only Congress can officially 'Declare War', however currently we have a bunch of news media and politicians saying that Trump 'Declared War' and took 'Illegal Military Action as an Act of War' saying he violated the constitution and needed Congressional approval/Congressional declaration of war when that's obviously untrue.

Trump clearly has the authority to do what he did by US Law in the War Powers Act. If you define his actions as declaring war, well then the war powers act gives him that authority for 90 days. If you maintain he can't declare war, then by the war powers act, his actions must not be a declaration of war.

You can argue either way, but sadly (for the people trying to attack Trump anyway), you can't argue both.

16 hours ago, Papillon said:

So in essence sir, it sounds as if with all these ancient laws one can 'get around' them anyway, with 'room to maneuver', as long as you word it as 'initiating hostilities', and not 'declaring war'. Also, even the ninety day part can be 'got around' anyway, making the laws rather pointless? Am I reading this correctly?

I wouldn't go so far as to say pointless - if we were really trying to wage a war it would likely take drastically more than 90 days and require an act of congress. A President could stretch this as a few different military actions over the course of a year or so without much trouble, but an actual war is pretty hard to structure that way. This was written purposefully vague and can be enforced as written if congress wants - but the enforcement mechanism is Impeachment, which would require bi-partisan support given the current House/Senate makeup. (Which, if he was actually violating laws, I believe moderates on both sides would help push that through. The reason it's so political right now is because it's not founded on wrongdoing - the current impeachment push is founded on politics.)

And it was written this way so that the President could take clear and decisive military action to remove threats without having to reveal those actions beforehand nor have a protracted debate with politicians. If you're actually going to a full war, they reasoned, you have time to have these discussions at depth (plus you have the 60 days to debate, and 30 days to withdraw if you decide not to declare war).

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/9/2020 at 5:38 PM, James Regan said:

Cuba was shut down primarily as it was being used to supply Heroin to the USA and Mafia gambling was ruining the Cuban culture once Castro threw them out they moved to Montreal then Kennedy was assasinated after BOP. Cuba was given to the Russians because the USA was treating it like the devils playground.

 

Cuba was far better off when it was America's playground but the communists told them how fair it would be . Puerto Rico is a paradise by comparison, I have been there. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by ronwagn
error

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Papillon said:

So in essence sir, it sounds as if with all these ancient laws one can 'get around' them anyway, with 'room to maneuver', as long as you word it as 'initiating hostilities', and not 'declaring war'. Also, even the ninety day part can be 'got around' anyway, making the laws rather pointless? Am I reading this correctly?

an·cient

/ˈān(t)SHənt/

adjective

• 1.belonging to the very distant past and no longer in existence:"the ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean"

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/9/2020 at 7:41 PM, Ward Smith said:

Walmart isn't going to stop their purchase orders on a dime, they've got to keep the stores open. You think this is a sprint, while what Tom and I and others have been saying is it's a marathon

 

Phase Two depends on reelection of President Trump. Prior to him not one President dealt firmly on trade issues. 

[Papillon + 485]

15 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

If you're actually going to a full war, they reasoned, you have time to have these discussions at depth (plus you have the 60 days to debate, and 30 days to withdraw if you decide not to declare war).

I see sir, many thanks for the explanation. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Phase Two depends on reelection of President Trump. Prior to him not one President dealt firmly on trade issues. 

You would probably still be a colony if it weren't for the tea parties; trade and taxation issues is what set you guys off in the first place.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

31 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

 

Trump clearly has the authority to do what he did by US Law in the War Powers Act. If you define his actions as declaring war, well then the war powers act gives him that authority for 90 days. If you maintain he can't declare war, then by the war powers act, his actions must not be a declaration of war.

You can argue either way, but sadly (for the people trying to attack Trump anyway), you can't argue both.

He can do defensive measures outside of a formal war declaration if the threat is "immediate."  Much of the debate on the legality of the hit was whether the potential threat was immediate enough, or if there was enough time for other measures to be used. 

If there was time to do other things it was an illegal assassination outside of wartime.  Which of course is a technicality and the POTUS can get away with that.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Possibly the Northeast would be similar to Canada and the rest would be Spanish or French. I like the way it turned out although I am mainly Spanish, French, and Apache. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

He can do defensive measures outside of a formal war declaration if the threat is "immediate."  Much of the debate on the legality of the hit was whether the potential threat was immediate enough, or if there was enough time for other measures to be used. 

If there was time to do other things it was an illegal assassination outside of wartime.

So then, most of the Presidents since FDR have been guilty of the same offense. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

We talk about the Vietnam War and the Korean War, but in reality no war was ever declared against anyone. I'm not bothering to look it up, but we've been in Afghanistan for about 20 years now and I'm not convinced we ever declared war on them either. 

So put that in your pipe and smoke it

[Papillon + 485]

So there appears no point in having any of the rules we are discussing does there sir? Thankyou for the clarity that you will do whatever you wish and try to justify it at a later date anyway. And seeming to boast about it no less. Boasting while admitting failure in Afghanistan. The logic as always is wonderful.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

We talk about the Vietnam War and the Korean War, but in reality no war was ever declared against anyone. I'm not bothering to look it up, but we've been in Afghanistan for about 20 years now and I'm not convinced we ever declared war on them either. 

So put that in your pipe and smoke it

Yes, yes, the "War on Terror."  Vague enough that you can do anything, in any country, using that as an excuse.

Heck, the US uses it against its own people as justification for illegal surveillance.  Shhh... the NSA is listening....

Edited January 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Yes, @Jan van Eck I know you love the Bush clan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Surveillance_Program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–2007)

Edited January 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Yes, @Jan van Eck I know you love the Bush clan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Surveillance_Program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–2007)#History

How about the Clinton clan, who implemented Carnivore to illegally snoop on the entire internet? 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Trump clearly has the authority to do what he did by US Law in the War Powers Act.

Power and authority are two different things as the President has been exercising his power while Congress is questioning his authority while it is possible you are confusing what the War Powers Resolution relates to.

[Papillon + 485]

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

How about the Clinton clan

An instant comparison to a Democrat rather than admit any fault ?

How rare.

It's worrying me a little that users prove my points every few minutes. Worrying yet hilarious. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Yes, @Jan van Eck I know you love the Bush clan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Surveillance_Program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–2007)#History

There are lots of things about Washington that you do not know, and even if you were told, you would elect not to believe any of it.  I do not propose to start down that road with you.  I will say, however, that the spying programs flowed from the fertile mind of Dick Cheney.  Those were not George's programs. 

I has known George for decades.  I like him and support him socially.  I never stated that I supported the Administration policies.  You seem to be unable to make the distinction.  Please stop trying to bait me. 

[remake it + 288]

59 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Cuba was far better off when it was America's playground but the communists told them how fair it would be . Puerto Rico is a paradise by comparison, I have been there. 

The US has placed sanctions on Cuba since Fidel tossed them out in 1959 and the beaches of Cuba are a favorite destination for Canadians as most resorts are off limits to Americans due to Trump's actions of further restricting Cuba's ability to generate income from tourism. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

How about the Clinton clan, who implemented Carnivore to illegally snoop on the entire internet? 

It all sucks.  Privacy is long, long, gone; between the NSA, ISPs, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon... they know everything. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

  I like him and support him socially.  I never stated that I supported the Administration policies.  You seem to be unable to make the distinction.  Please stop trying to bait me. 

I don't want trouble with you. I respect your knowledge of history and law.

Science and politics we may have other ideas but that's fine. 🍺  🍺

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

 ... they know everything. 

And we make up the rest .

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Papillon said:

So there appears no point in having any of the rules we are discussing does there sir? Thankyou for the clarity that you will do whatever you wish and try to justify it at a later date anyway. And seeming to boast about it no less. Boasting while admitting failure in Afghanistan. The logic as always is wonderful.

It has become clear than your main motive for posting is to criticize America and to defend dictatorships. 

[remake it + 288]

7 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It has become clear than your main motive for posting is to criticize America and to defend dictatorships. 

An interesting observation given that Trump acts like a dictator and ignores the very Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.