LOL CNN reading off all the 2013 Tweets from Trump against action on Syria.
They just confirmed Trump did not get approval from Congress.
They just confirmed Trump did not get approval from Congress.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Trump to address the nation on Syria tonight (UPDATE: Launching strikes)
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
- Status
1) America has lost every serious war it's gotten into since, what, at least Vietnam?
2) Along with losing wars they've also killed a shitload of civilians, even in "precision" bombing raids.
3) Chlorine gas, unlike sarin, is extremely easy to manufacture and doesn't take specialized equipment or highly trained personnel. So any bombing of chemical gas factories is not actually going to do much to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons.
4) The thing about poison gas is, once it's out in the air, you can't really predict where it's going to go. So if you bomb a gas facility you will be risking killing hundreds of people who did nothing wrong other than living a couple blocks over from the poison gas factory.
5) The United States used cluster bombs against civilians in Yemen and white phosphorus against civilians in Iraq. The United States military is not in a position to be playing world policeman on this issue.
Are you talking about those Trump tweets made without the knowledge of the Pentagon that confused the shit out of them?
Don't forget that Iraq involved the W admin trying to discredit the CIA because the CIA was against invading Iraq.
At least watching the "ARRRGHHHH TRUMP I VOTED FOR YOU WHY" meltdowns on Twitter makes for some nice schadenfreude.
Terrible news, regardless.
Terrible news, regardless.
Possibly nothing, I'm an idiot.
EDIT: Although? https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/syria-aumf-paul-ryan-congress-white-house/index.html
What exactly was it that Pelosi said yesterday about under what conditions last year's AUMF would still be valid?
Tim Kaine knows this is not true. Presidents have the ability to perform limited military actions, both Democrats and Republicans have done this. He is playing politics
You absolutely can.
The President only needs an authorization to continue using forces after 60 days. Even then, it's not likely, as it could be seen as a supporting action for troops already in harms way under the AUMF (fighting ISIS and whatnot).
Do not let Kaine being a dumbshit confuse you.
No need to feel stupid. Your answer is the official one we'll see used.
Oh yeah, I'm not supporting it, but it would not surprise me if this is the justification they use.
Who could have ever seen this coming?
It's almost as if it's like I said and this will delay any chemic strikes at best, while Syrians continue to be slaughtered with other weapons, to be gassed again later. And for that we potentially hit civilians and risk escalation if a strike goes wrong.
The strikes in various terrorist strongholds across Africa and the Middle East are authorized by a post 9/11 piece of legislation that lets the President use special foces, drones, and the like to fight them.
You don't need congress approval to perform military actions.
Trump: "This will be a sustained campaign!"
Mattis: "This is a one time thing."
It bothers me that not more people are bothered by this discrepancy.
Some Republicans feel the same way:
Mattis: "This is a one time thing."
It bothers me that not more people are bothered by this discrepancy.
Some Republicans feel the same way:
Congress intentionally abdicated it's war power role a long time ago. Politically it's much better to support quick strikes, which only the Executive branch can seriously carry out, and then posture politically depending on the outcome of the operation.
Above all, ALWAYS remember that Congress has every tool necessary to check the Executive but never bothers to do so.
Congress can barely decide on even the simplest of problems, I despise Trump but I agree that the office should have power to do this. If it were up to congress, they'd deliberate so long that the people using chemical weapons will have gotten away with it without retribution or justice. The perpetual stalemate in congress is a problem.
And to bring this full circle, today that piece of shit supported by other pieces of shit (trump) pardoned Scooter Libby, who outed a CIA agent as part of the criminal actions undertaken to lie us into the Iraq invasion.
nothing is going to happen
it is pretty much the same thing as 2017
empty airbases
from what chemical weapons?
to, it was the rebels
to Western conspiracy
to you can't attack us for using chemical weapons when you have chemical weapons too
what a week for Russia
it is pretty much the same thing as 2017
empty airbases
from what chemical weapons?
to, it was the rebels
to Western conspiracy
to you can't attack us for using chemical weapons when you have chemical weapons too
what a week for Russia
Congress hasn't given a damn about accountability since World War II when it comes to adventures taken by the President. Had they really wanted to put a leash on the POTUS, they would have already passed a new resolution on the usage of force and pressured the President to justify using military force. Of course, none of them want the accountability and fallout in case a military operation goes to shit. They will talk and bluster about a renegade executive, and score some points against a President of an opposing party. They will still allow the President to do whatever he wants, and we are back to the status quo about executive oversight.
Because as we know, God gave the blessed land of the free the mandate to deliver laser guided justice in this earth
You mean like saying days before hey Syria we will attack you watch out. So all those bad guys have time to evacuate and we spend hundreds of millions hitting empty buildings?
You just can't.
Trump really is a good guy. He wants to help the people of Syria. Nothing to do with Comey. Nothing to do with his attorney. Nothing to do with his own fragile ego. Good guy Trump is only trying to do what is right.
Consider taking a stance of "Sigh... I just can't." the next time there is an election or at the very least the next time there is an opportunity to defend this tangerine shitlord.
User Banned (24 Hours): Downplaying casualties of war, accumulated dismissiveness of others in thread
A lot of irrelevant shit, a lot of conjecture.
America is making precision strikes against military targets. They believe this will impact Assad's mass murdering capabilities
Now i'm not doubting your intelligence. You are after all posting on a videogame forum. But i'm guessing America's is better, i'm also guessing they'll be looking to minimise civilian casualties whatever they do.
At the very least this sends a message to Assad. At best it delays the slaughter of innocent people and diminishes his capabilities. I don't see a downside
Canada is supporting the US.
Good. The world should be banding together against this regime.
Clearly this is a difference of opinion... time will tell which one winds up being true.
My money isn't on Mattis.
Yep. The right decision was made. Use of chemical weapons should not be tolerated.
Cool, so the president can lob missiles and attack nations with "limited strikes", forcing a retaliation and thus dragging us into further conflict, which could lead to war. Sounds nice.
I mean okay? This has always been the case when a president takes his role
Of commander in chief to take limited strikes, that members of both parties have called on the president needing permission
So instead we should put the power to wage conflict on the most broken arm of the US government?
Sustained war efforts should be discussed and voted on there; however, strategic strikes against monsters using chemical weapons against their own people don't need to go through that partisan shitshow.
Not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, Trump is the WORST person to be making these sorts of decisions. The reports that he basically ignored Mattis is really scary. It's disgusting that we're willing to intervene yet refuse to accept refugees.
On the other hand, Assad, with the backing of that shithead Putin and Iran, is just going to keep murdering people with chemical weapons if the rest of the world keeps accepting it. This situation sucks, but I never want to turn on the TV and see dying men, women, and children foaming at the mouth after a gas attack as for long as I live. Fuck Assad and fuck Putin.
Also, the people freaking out about a war with Russia need to calm the the fuck down and THINK. C'mon. Russia isn't going to go to war with most of the western world just to protect Assad. Some people here are really prone to reacting without considering historical context or past precedence. Three western nations attacking a chemical weapons production chain isn't the sort of event that leads to nuclear holocaust.
On the other hand, Assad, with the backing of that shithead Putin and Iran, is just going to keep murdering people with chemical weapons if the rest of the world keeps accepting it. This situation sucks, but I never want to turn on the TV and see dying men, women, and children foaming at the mouth after a gas attack as for long as I live. Fuck Assad and fuck Putin.
Also, the people freaking out about a war with Russia need to calm the the fuck down and THINK. C'mon. Russia isn't going to go to war with most of the western world just to protect Assad. Some people here are really prone to reacting without considering historical context or past precedence. Three western nations attacking a chemical weapons production chain isn't the sort of event that leads to nuclear holocaust.
If that's actually true then you are deliberately choosing ignorance.
- Status