U.S. Attacks Syria - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: U.S. Attacks Syria (/Thread-U-S-Attacks-Syria) Pages:
1
2
|
U.S. Attacks Syria - Bengalzona - 04-14-2018 https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/13/601794830/u-s-launches-attacks-on-syria?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180413 Quote:U.S.-Led Coalition Launches Attacks On Syria Quote:Updated at 10:46 p.m. ET RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Bengalzona - 04-14-2018 "Operation Desert Stormy" RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Yojimbo - 04-16-2018 Unintended consequences, if you’re a warmonger. Predicted by everyone else. https://www.wbez.org/shows/npr/iraqis-protest-usled-airstrikes-against-syria/67cbd3df-9e65-4f41-b608-4653c49c5c90# RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - GMDino - 04-16-2018 (04-14-2018, 02:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: "Operation Desert Stormy" I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it. If Trump was a different person who understood the need for clear statements and diplomacy he would have released a statement that said something along the following after the bombings: "As part of a coalition with our allies in Great Britain and France the US took place in a bombing of strategic locations meant to destroy Assad and Syrian ability to have anymore horrible chemical attacks on their own people. The operation was a complete success within the scope of what we decided must be done and the message that it sent. Thank you to the brave men and women of every country who lead this mission to defend the Syrian people from such heinous actions as these chemical attacks." Instead he tweets "Mission Accomplished". With no follow up other than to double down and say it is a "great military term" that "should be used more often". He's no leader of people, that's for sure. But the mission itself was a good idea that seems to have been executed properly too. Hopefully there are no further repercussions and no need to go further. Also, hopefully, the targets were indeed what we thought they were and it's not another situation where we bomb an empty airstip that is up and running a few days later. War is hell. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - HarleyDog - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it. He could have done a lot better than the tweet that’s for sure. He is rough around the edges with effective communication. It’s almost as if every time he speaks, you know what he meant, but leaves the door wide open for character flogging. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Bengalzona - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it. Maybe it was effective, and maybe it was not. I like that the action was taken by a coalition rather than unilateral. I like that they targeted chemical research and production facilities. But did he send Putin a prior warning again? And is there sufficient evidence at this point that it was the Syrian government? (I'm talking about legally-recognized evidence rather than "We all know you did it!") RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Arturo Bandini - 04-16-2018 That was the right thing to do. Poutine is playing way too much. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - GMDino - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 12:55 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Maybe it was effective, and maybe it was not. I like that the action was taken by a coalition rather than unilateral. I like that they targeted chemical research and production facilities. But did he send Putin a prior warning again? And is there sufficient evidence at this point that it was the Syrian government? (I'm talking about legally-recognized evidence rather than "We all know you did it!") As with a lot of these types of things we probably won't know if it was right or justified or successful until much later after the fact. Edit: The other problem is that this President is so used to hogging the headlines that I can never trust that he does ANYTHING for the "right" reason when he could just as easily be trying to divert attention from another personal/political misstep/scandal/report. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Belsnickel - 04-16-2018 I disagree with it legally. Without an AUMF covering the action and since this is not a matter of national defense for us, this should have gone through Congress. Just like the last one. On a morality front, I have no issues, only on the legality. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - GMDino - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree with it legally. Without an AUMF covering the action and since this is not a matter of national defense for us, this should have gone through Congress. Just like the last one. On a morality front, I have no issues, only on the legality. Which is why in another thread someone us felt Trump's past statements on Obama's involvement bear some weight now. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Bengalzona - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree with it legally. Without an AUMF covering the action and since this is not a matter of national defense for us, this should have gone through Congress. Just like the last one. On a morality front, I have no issues, only on the legality. The fact that the Brits and French were on-board indicates there maybe was some intel that we common folk aren't privy to pointing a finger to Syria. I guess PM Teresa May is hashing that out with her folks now. At least some governments still demand accountability instead of just fattening their personal wallets and creating further class bifurcation. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Belsnickel - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 03:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The fact that the Brits and French were on-board indicates there maybe was some intel that we common folk aren't privy to pointing a finger to Syria. I guess PM Teresa May is hashing that out with her folks now. At least some governments still demand accountability instead of just fattening their personal wallets and creating further class bifurcation. Oh, I have zero doubt that Assad deserved what he got. I just feel like we have gotten to a point of ignoring our own law on this sort of thing. For instance, this is from 50 USC, Section 1541 which is from the War Powers Resolution: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Does what happened with Syria meet those criteria? Based on what we know, the answer is no. If the answer is yes, then that needs to be said. I get the desire to handle the situation in Syria. Assad is a piece of garbage. I just think it should have Congressional approval based upon our current laws. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Luvnit2 - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it. Really? President Trump went on National TV (most stations preempted programming) and explained everything you just said at 9 p.m. Friday night as the strikes began. Then he directed the Pentagon to have a press conference at 10 p.m. You can't tweet a 10 minute speech, but WTH in an age of easy to find info some are just too lazy or does not fit their narrative to bash our president to deliver factual and complete info. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - GMDino - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 03:57 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Really? President Trump went on National TV (most stations preempted programming) and explained everything you just said at 9 p.m. Friday night as the strikes began. Then he directed the Pentagon to have a press conference at 10 p.m. I am talking about his tweet after the bombing.
And the doubling down on "mission accomplished"
However you are correct that you can't tweet a ten minute speech. That is what television is for. Or even a prerecorded video sent via twitter. However in this age of "us vs them" there are a lot of lazy people who attack a message without a) reading what was said and b) realizing that some criticism isn't "a narrative to bash our president". RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Bengalzona - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I have zero doubt that Assad deserved what he got. I just feel like we have gotten to a point of ignoring our own law on this sort of thing. For instance, this is from 50 USC, Section 1541 which is from the War Powers Resolution: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Was there contact with the Congressional committees prior to? If it is a situation where the Exec Branch just unilaterally decided to lob some missiles (outside of nuclear attack, of course), then that could be a big problem. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Belsnickel - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 04:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Was there contact with the Congressional committees prior to? Contact with committees isn't specific statutory authority. We're talking an AUMF. The, what is it, gang of 8, would have been notified, but that is just letting them know. That is still the Executive acting unilaterally. This is the way it has been for a while, now. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Dill - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I have zero doubt that Assad deserved what he got. I just feel like we have gotten to a point of ignoring our own law on this sort of thing. For instance, this is from 50 USC, Section 1541 which is from the War Powers Resolution: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Yes, that is what the WPR says, but every president since Ford has violated these requirements. There are so many ways to maneuver around them with "special" interpretations of statutory authorizations and disagreements as to when exactly the timeline kicks in. The president only has to "consult" or "report" before starting any action. In effect, the President, not Congress, has first rights in deciding when the conditions have been fulfilled. The #1 problem in every case is that Congress does little to nothing whenever it is violated. Congress has the final say in whether a military action is constitutional/legal, and it can order the President to remove troops out of whatever theater with a concurrent resolution (they can also defund specific actions), but the president's party almost always fights/blocks any Congressional control of their president's foreign policy actions. (As you know, since the Cold War Consensus broke down it has been really hard to get both parties and both houses working together. They did for a year or so after 9/11, but the Iraq invasion destroyed bipartisanship again.) Also, there is good reason for not wanting to restrict a president's ability to react quickly. Here I think Trump is on some legal ground if he cites previous presidential actions, and extra-legally he can trust his Congress to prevent any repercussions beyond loud Dem complaints. They could even create authorization after the fact. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Belsnickel - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 06:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, that is what the WPR says, but every president since Ford has violated these requirements. There are so many ways to maneuver around them with "special" interpretations of statutory authorizations and disagreements as to when exactly the timeline kicks in. The president only has to "consult" or "report" before starting any action. In effect, the President, not Congress, has first rights in deciding when the conditions have been fulfilled. I don't disagree with any of this. That is the reality of the situation. I have always had an issue with it. I do think, though, that the "good reason for not wanting to restrict a president's ability to react quickly" is taken care of by point three in the WPR. I would like to see us rein in the way the Executive has used the WPR in recent decades. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Dill - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 04:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Contact with committees isn't specific statutory authority. We're talking an AUMF. The, what is it, gang of 8, would have been notified, but that is just letting them know. That is still the Executive acting unilaterally. This is the way it has been for a while, now. Reagan informed Congressional leaders he was invading Grenada hours after he had signed the invasion order. In Conyers vs Reagan, John Conyers and 10 members of Congress filed a suit against Reagan for ordering the invasion of Granada without duly reporting first. They lost because Congress supposedly has "other remedies." (The case was not ripe.) https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/conyers-v-reagan Bush 41 informed Congressional leaders he was going to invade Panama 7 hours before the invasion began. But Congress does not view "informing" as consulting or properly reporting. So there has been lots of inter-branch fighting about this for decades now. In '93, Clinton reported the first U.S. air actions over Bosnia after the fact. So many grey areas here, as the WPR does not even specify whom in Congress is to be consulted. RE: U.S. Attacks Syria - Bengalzona - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 04:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Contact with committees isn't specific statutory authority. We're talking an AUMF. The, what is it, gang of 8, would have been notified, but that is just letting them know. That is still the Executive acting unilaterally. This is the way it has been for a while, now. No. It's not statutory, but it is good judgment. |