Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The President & the Executive Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The President & the Executive Branch Discuss Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by Dave1 The timing on this is very suspect.... I consider it a wag the comb over by ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:31 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,519
Thanks: 7,620
Thanked 10,553 Times in 5,960 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
The timing on this is very suspect....

I consider it a wag the comb over by Donald to change the negative narratives towards him and his administration....
Yeah, France and the UK both want to help THE Donald hide from his porn star troubles.

Bottom line here guys, Chemical weapons are banned by the world community. That ban is worthless if no nation is willing to enforce it.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:27 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,168
Thanks: 9,173
Thanked 9,764 Times in 5,960 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
The timing on this is very suspect....

I consider it a wag the comb over by Donald to change the negative narratives towards him and his administration....
You are so right, President Trump didn't respond to previous poison gas attacks by Assad with missile strikes. Oh wait, he did. Trump even convinced the British and French to support this last round of attacks. They must be part of the comb over conspiracy too.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2018, 08:52 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,655
Thanks: 9,557
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,924 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Yeah, France and the UK both want to help THE Donald hide from his porn star troubles.

Bottom line here guys, Chemical weapons are banned by the world community. That ban is worthless if no nation is willing to enforce it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
You are so right, President Trump didn't respond to previous poison gas attacks by Assad with missile strikes. Oh wait, he did. Trump even convinced the British and French to support this last round of attacks. They must be part of the comb over conspiracy too.
"Chemical weapons are banned by the world community. That ban is worthless if no nation..."
OK, the same "world community" has rules for enforcing the chemical weapons bans. Why didn't Trump follow those? since he's just following international rules?
the problem is he broke the rules as well. committed the crime of aggressively attacking a foreign country without "the world communities" consent.
that's not even talking about nationally overstepping his constitutional bounds from article 2 and even ignoring the war powers act provisions.

Also This "trust us we're the gov't" stuff just doesn't fly anymore with some of us. He's got to prove the offense publicly before he start dealing out justice in the form of missiles at another country. If not we're no better than a wild lynch mob that's just inflamed into rash action, and declaring it's justice.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 07:53 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,519
Thanks: 7,620
Thanked 10,553 Times in 5,960 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
"Chemical weapons are banned by the world community. That ban is worthless if no nation..."
OK, the same "world community" has rules for enforcing the chemical weapons bans. Why didn't Trump follow those? since he's just following international rules?
the problem is he broke the rules as well. committed the crime of aggressively attacking a foreign country without "the world communities" consent.
that's not even talking about nationally overstepping his constitutional bounds from article 2 and even ignoring the war powers act provisions.

Also This "trust us we're the gov't" stuff just doesn't fly anymore with some of us. He's got to prove the offense publicly before he start dealing out justice in the form of missiles at another country. If not we're no better than a wild lynch mob that's just inflamed into rash action, and declaring it's justice.
First I off, I have never said or implied, a "Trust us we are the government." you know that and you know better.

We are currently in Syria, with military assets and people, all with the knowledge and consent of the world community. President Trump's predecessor put us there. Every nation has the right to protect it's interests. Our troops need the threat removed from them as well as the civilian populations of Syria.

The former handwringer who talked but never acted is gone. If our Congress has a problem with Trump's actions, they can act on it. So far their consensus is support. The same goes for the World Community.

President Clinton bombed Yugoslavia for years without a declaration of war. In fact our nation has only declared "WAR" 11 times in it's history. And yet our military has seen action most every day of that same history. Congress it too busy spending our wealth and getting re-elected than to approve every action everyday done in the defense of our population.

As the safety of distance and time becomes compressed by advancing technologies, it is more and more a necessity that our "defense" be projected beyond our border "walls." This is not an endorsement of "trusting" our government. It is a requirement of action by our government to retain the trust it must have of our people.

The Constitution gives that power to the President. The War powers act does not deny it. To suggest any act of the military, an entity designed for the purpose of killing and breaking people and property, must have their approval to be "legit" is a ridiculous concept.

BTW; your title is misleading and incorrect. The recent attacks on the Syrian WMD capacities is not an attack on the regime or it's personnel. That would likely require Congressional oversight and approval.

And then you and the anti sovereignty naysayers of the world could tell the USA our actions are "illegal."
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:25 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,168
Thanks: 9,173
Thanked 9,764 Times in 5,960 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by WallyWager View Post
1. So all those times conservatives referred to the previous president as something other than "President Obama", especially with the gazillion derisive nicknames they came up with, that was disrespectful to the office of the presidency as well?

What about the supporters that call him "The Donald"?

2. Trump doesn't respect the office he holds. He's uses it as a part-time gig so he can go golfing and line his properties with money on your dime.

3. He's a total a--hole that mocks, name calls, and ridicules many of the folks that are critical of him and his policies. What respect has he earned, what respect has he given the office?

I respect the office of the presidency enough to know he should not be holding it.
How quickly the selective amnesia sets in. Remember Chimpy, pResident and not my President? No? How about war criminal, Bush lied, kids died. Oh but it wasn't Obama so it doesn't count.

After the collapse of the so-called Russia investigation Resistance zealots are back to petty insults and criminalizing renting a hotel room.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:36 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,655
Thanks: 9,557
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,924 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
First I off, I have never said or implied, a "Trust us we are the government." you know that and you know better.

We are currently in Syria, with military assets and people, all with the knowledge and consent of the world community. President Trump's predecessor put us there. Every nation has the right to protect it's interests. Our troops need the threat removed from them as well as the civilian populations of Syria.

The former handwringer who talked but never acted is gone. If our Congress has a problem with Trump's actions, they can act on it. So far their consensus is support. The same goes for the World Community.

President Clinton bombed Yugoslavia for years without a declaration of war. In fact our nation has only declared "WAR" 11 times in it's history. And yet our military has seen action most every day of that same history. Congress it too busy spending our wealth and getting re-elected than to approve every action everyday done in the defense of our population.

As the safety of distance and time becomes compressed by advancing technologies, it is more and more a necessity that our "defense" be projected beyond our border "walls." This is not an endorsement of "trusting" our government. It is a requirement of action by our government to retain the trust it must have of our people.

The Constitution gives that power to the President. The War powers act does not deny it. To suggest any act of the military, an entity designed for the purpose of killing and breaking people and property, must have their approval to be "legit" is a ridiculous concept.

BTW; your title is misleading and incorrect. The recent attacks on the Syrian WMD capacities is not an attack on the regime or it's personnel. That would likely require Congressional oversight and approval.

And then you and the anti sovereignty naysayers of the world could tell the USA our actions are "illegal."
the world community never approved of the U.S troops in Syria, the Syrian Gov't never approved of U.S. troops in Syria.
the world community never approved that the U.S. use missiles against Assad.
never.

Syria never invited U.S. troops into Syria so if troops are in harms way whose fault is that. put them on planes and bring them home.

The U.S. has yet to prove that Assad used chemical weapons or that any of the sites named were actually "chemical weapons facilities". the only way we believe that is if we "TRUST OUR GOV'Ts word here franc.
thats it. Are there ANY independent reports of what those places were? from the U.N., the red cross, News Orgs, the Russians, the Kurds, the Turks, the Syrians?
Heck even the Saudis or Israel (who would be incline to go along with ANY U.S. strike against Assad BTW)?

And the constitution is Clear. Why do people keep point to the sad fact that congress and the executive branch keep disobeying as if that makes it OK?
And by your extremely over broad reading of it there's NOTHING the President can't do at home or abroad as long as he SAYS it's in national security interest. sorry but that's pure BS. But that has been the same reading the W Bush and Obama have been using when they need it. however It's still dishonest and is simply a thin excuse to run around the globe pissing on anyone we have beef with.

Any honest reading of the of the constitution and even war powers act CLEARLY does not give the president the right to shoot missiles at other countries just becasue he THINKS they MIGHT be a threat one day.

Here's Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a few days before the strikes, talking to General Matis in congress about the War powers act.
Tusli Gabbard to Mattis
"...Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution clarifies the constitutional powers of the President as commander-in-chief.
In article 2, which you referenced, Secretary Mattis, to introduce forces into hostilities only pursuant to
1.) a declaration of war,
2.) specific statutory authorization (by congress) or
3.) a national emergency created by an attack upon the U.S., its territories, possessions or Armed Forces. "
none of those conditions were met Franc.
none.

In the past some have argued that "the congress has the purse strings" so they can stop the president that way, if he fails to comply. That is if the president breaks the law.
But I can figure out why the congress should stop there? It's an Illegal act of the President, an over reach of his powers. A high crime and certainly more than a misdemeanor.

presidents aren't kings with the ability to send troops round the world on a whim. the constitution and founders specifically DID NOT want that power to rest in the executive.
heck they didn't even want a standing army.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 04-17-2018 at 08:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:18 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,519
Thanks: 7,620
Thanked 10,553 Times in 5,960 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
the world community never approved of the U.S troops in Syria, the Syrian Gov't never approved of U.S. troops in Syria.
the world community never approved that the U.S. use missiles against Assad.
never.

Syria never invited U.S. troops into Syria so if troops are in harms way whose fault is that. put them on planes and bring them home.

The U.S. has yet to prove that Assad used chemical weapons or that any of the sites named were actually "chemical weapons facilities". the only way we believe that is if we "TRUST OUR GOV'Ts word here franc.
thats it. Are there ANY independent reports of what those places were? from the U.N., the red cross, News Orgs, the Russians, the Kurds, the Turks, the Syrians?
Heck even the Saudis or Israel (who would be incline to go along with ANY U.S. strike against Assad BTW)?

And the constitution is Clear. Why do people keep point to the sad fact that congress and the executive branch keep disobeying as if that makes it OK?
And by your extremely over broad reading of it there's NOTHING the President can't do at home or abroad as long as he SAYS it's in national security interest. sorry but that's pure BS. But that has been the same reading the W Bush and Obama have been using when they need it. however It's still dishonest and is simply a thin excuse to run around the globe pissing on anyone we have beef with.

Any honest reading of the of the constitution and even war powers act CLEARLY does not give the president the right to shoot missiles at other countries just becasue he THINKS they MIGHT be a threat one day.

Here's Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a few days before the strikes, talking to General Matis in congress about the War powers act.
Tusli Gabbard to Mattis
"...Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution clarifies the constitutional powers of the President as commander-in-chief.
In article 2, which you referenced, Secretary Mattis, to introduce forces into hostilities only pursuant to
1.) a declaration of war,
2.) specific statutory authorization (by congress) or
3.) a national emergency created by an attack upon the U.S., its territories, possessions or Armed Forces. "
none of those conditions were met Franc.
none.

In the past some have argued that "the congress has the purse strings" so they can stop the president that way, if he fails to comply. That is if the president breaks the law.
But I can figure out why the congress should stop there? It's an Illegal act of the President, an over reach of his powers. A high crime and certainly more than a misdemeanor.

presidents aren't kings with the ability to send troops round the world on a whim. the constitution and founders specifically DID NOT want that power to rest in the executive.
heck they didn't even want a standing army.
You keep missing my point.

We do not need to declare war. Because we don't, doesn't make military action illicit. Ill advised maybe but perfectly within our right as a sovereign nation.

I'll stop trying to explain the simple facts with examples. Because in the world of military actions, protection of sovereignty, and wars, the definition of "legal" is an oxymoron.

I'll leave it with this from Ambassador Nikki Haley


“We have to be very conscious of the fact that we cannot allow even the smallest use of chemical weapons. That’s why you saw the president strike this past weekend, that’s why you saw him expel 60 Russian spies after the attack in Salisbury,” Haley said, referring to a March incident where a former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned in public. After that attack, Haley said:
“If a chemical attack could take place there, it could take place anywhere.”
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 04-17-2018 at 11:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:25 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,230
Thanks: 9,733
Thanked 3,728 Times in 2,442 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
a.) Very few republicans ever respected the office during the previous eight years when there was a different president in the oval office.....

b.) Pleeeeaaassee.........
All these new rules for this new president are hilarious coming from Trump voters...

BTW ~ President Tweet gets the respect he gives.....
I simply have no idea what you might mean by "very few" Republicans (yes, with a capital "R") having respected the office when Barack Obama was president. (Some attached to the fringe--"Birthers," for example--disrespected the man, but not the office.)

And I will say it one more time: Even if you believe--fervently--that President Trump deserves zero respect, then you should at least respect the office.

(If you wish to condemn the policy decisions of President Trump, then we can have a reasoned discussion. But you appear to be attaching yourself to a whole different level--one in which reasoned discussion is impossible, and it just becomes a matter of launching rhetorical grenades.

All I can say is this: Please leave me out of any such matters as the latter--as regarding anything whatsoever...)
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:31 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,103
Thanks: 3,439
Thanked 4,361 Times in 3,064 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Could we also be supporting Israel's request to not give Iran a foothold in Syria?
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 01:30 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,519
Thanks: 7,620
Thanked 10,553 Times in 5,960 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Man View Post
Could we also be supporting Israel's request to not give Iran a foothold in Syria?
And we could also be supporting Saudi Arabia request not to let Iran encircle them with friends in Yemen, Iraq and Syria. Economically, and strategically, the Saudis are important allies.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
legit, not, regime, striking, syrian, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0