Posted on 03/25/2018 3:07:23 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
*** The US airlifting pallets of weapons to the Kurds is exactly what got this military incursion by Turkey started. ***
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner. The SAA offered the Kurds a deal. The Kurds said no. They chose their fate.
The US needs to get out of Syria. I think the Omnibus Bill includes throwing more money, and illegal actions toward the legitimate government of Syria. Very distressing.
Hate to bring you up on current events, but the Kurds have been some of our best allies in the region. And IMO they piss off the right persons, another plus.
“but the Kurds have been some of our best allies in the region.“
When exactly did Congress declare War on Syria?
I must have missed it.
L
We haven’t attacked Syria. If we had they and more Russians would be dead.
“We haven’t attacked Syria.”
I’d say bombing their airfields and putting US troops on their soil without their consent qualifies.
L
Hardly.
It is in in the American national interest to go after terrorists like ISIS no matter where they go - and we will.
The bombing of the airfield was after the Russians and Syrians tested Trump by using chemical weapons again. They lost and Trump was up for the test.
It is about American security interests.
Providing arms to an ally does not require a declaration of war. We provided support to Britain well before our entry into WWII. Our direct military involvement in Syria is another issue entirely.
“Providing arms to an ally does not require a declaration of war.“
Putting armed troops on the ground without their consent does. Or at least it used to, anyway.
Nice try.
L
I already addressed that. Nice counter-try.
Incorrect.
“We provided support to Britain well before our entry into WWII.”
Under the Congressional authorization of the Lend Lease Act. Has such an act been passed with regard to the Kurds?
L
“The bombing of the airfield was after the Russians and Syrians tested Trump by using chemical weapons again.“
Which Act of Congress specifically authorized that?
“It is about American security interests.”
Then there will be no problem getting Congress to sign off on it as the Constitution requires. You do remember the Constitution, right?
L
“I already addressed that.”
You did, quite incorrectly, but you did indeed address it.
Better luck next time.
L
The Constitution gives the President authority to run foreign policy.
We don’t have 535 Secretaries of State or CICs.
There is no provision in the Constitution requiring a congressional sign off for the President to fulfill his constitutional duties.
“The Constitution gives the President authority to run foreign policy.”
Except for this itty bitty little piece from that very same Constitution:
“Congress shall have the Power to Declare War.”
Somehow I doubt you’ve ever actually read it.
L
Perhaps you should read all of the Articles:
“Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Commander in Chief clause, states that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
The Declaration of War is meant for comprehensive total war scenarios.
It is not enough to read the Constitution, one must comprehend it. Your perspective is not much better than the gun control nuts misinterpreting the “well organized militia” clause.
I did not address it incorrectly. I said it was another issue entirely from sending aid to the Kurds.
Which is why you won't hear any of the resident neo-liberals complaining about the Omnibus...their pet war projects are getting funded.
So why did the Fathers bother specifying that whole Declaration of War thingy? Is it your position that the President can order the military to do whatever he wants to whatever country he wants for as long as he wants?
And where in the Constitution do the words “total war scenario” appear?
Your comprehension of the Constitution seems to have a bunch of emanations from multiple penumbras.
L
Go read the debates regarding “ the Declaration of War”.
The Founders made a distinction between making war and declaring war. Declaring war is not as strong as making war. The Commander in Chief of the army and navy has full power to use the military for making war. Congress is limited to appropriations of money and making “rules and regulation”, of such.
You don’t understand the Constitution. Congress has some limited checks, constitutionally. Thus we have The War Powers Act, etc. However, the congress has also strengthened the Executive Branch with legislation.
The Executive is supreme in using the military to defend the US and protect its interests.
Drill a little deeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.