Posted on 09/20/2019 5:01:01 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
Wrong. The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the President that power.
It's basic commonsense that President has to have the power to act to an immediate threat.
This is not an immediate threat. Not even close.
But, you're the guy that thinks the Iranians should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
It’s not up to me or my country what other countries “should be allowed to do”.
That’s a formula for perpetual war, and our people are sick of it.
Iran is a direct threat to Israel and to Saudi Arabia. If Iran has to be neutralized those countries have the means to do so.
That is precisely Valerie Jarrett said. And, that sure as hell is not what I voted for.
It's beyond ridiculous to let a country like Iran, which would use nukes without provocation, to have such power.
Literally, your position is no different than the far left. And, just like with "compassionate conservatism", that mentality would destroy the Republican party if Iran killed thousands of Americans because of it.
Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think the United States should -- or should not -- take military action against Iran?
Republicans/leaners: 60% yes. Democrats/leaners: 68% no.
If they kill Americans, we have an obligation to retaliate.
Did you favor Obama's deal with Iran or was too tough on Iran to you?
President is commander in chief.
Iran will use the nuclear weapons and give other countries the weapons to use.
Trump needs to stop Iran and jail the obamas and clintons and the other crooks or our way of life is over.
“they kill Americans, we have an obligation to retaliate”
Correct.
And if they don’t?
“President is commander in chief“
And who raises the Army and provides for the Navy?
Why did Congress find it necessary to direct FDR to use the Army and the Navy to wage war against Japan?
“Which every President has used since 1973.”
Which every president has ignored since 1973 since the war powers act does not stop the president from dispatching troops into combat. It only makes it required for a 48 hour warning and they will not stay for more than the allotted time. It’s a loophole. Vietnam, Kosovo, Korea...and many more locations have had our boots on the ground and/or birds in the air dropping without congressional approval. So there is nothing in the Constitution to stop a president from sending troops into combat. Only how long they can stay.
And over the past 30 years that has been ignored also. They even have been awarding medals for service. For Iraq, they created the Iraq Service Medal during the Bush administration. They also awarded purple hearts to injured soldiers during non-war declared scenarios along with other decorations. So these campaigns not under war conditions have been turned into war conditions by executive order as far back as 1984. So the thinking is that if it is shot at you, it is a war.
rwood
We don't have to wait for the Iranians to use nuclear weapons if they obtain them because those running Iran are crazy enough to use them without provocation.
Thank you.
Problem is if they (the real bad guys) kinda, sorta help facilitate Americans getting killed, they can count on people with this mindset to believe in this "obligation to retaliate".
It gives a lot of license to do a lot of bad things that make a small amount of people very rich and does untold damage.
Our problems are right here in the lower 48. As it stands we are turning into a Brazil/South Africa hybrid with a lot of capabilities a Brazil should never have.
Sorry, it's the truth.
The president is destroying Iran with out firing a shot
Iran can’t retaliate effectively
Iran is losing.....big time
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.