US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

[Larry]

29 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Does congress need to approve military action in the event of an attack on an ally?  Like if Trump wanted to puts on the ground right now, does their need to be a vote to authorize it?  Can it be challenged by congress?

 

As I understand it.  (Not a lawyer.  May bear no relation to reality.)  

 

1)  Congress, long ago, passed the War Powers Act, which basically gives the President the authority to do anything he wants with the military, for some period of time (I think 90 days), and ask Congress for permission later.  (I don't remember if Congress is then required to authorize it, or if they have the opportunity to reject it.  IOW, if Congress is deadlocked, I don't know if it ends, or keeps going.)  

 

2)  Every President since it was passed has verbally claimed that that clause is unconsitutional, because it attempts to limit the unlimited power granted by the words "Commander in Chief", and that the President actually has unlimited power to do whatever they want.  

 

3)  This matter has never been challenged, because every time a President has sent in our troops, Congress has chickened out and authorized whatever the President was doing.  (Voting to cut off funding to our troops while they're in the process of deploying for battle is a bad look, politically.)  

 

4)  And historically, our Presidents have used our military without Congressional approval (before or after) throughout our history.  I think it was George Washington who sent the Marines to deliver a message to the Barbarry Pirates "on the shores of Tripoli".  At least technically, the invasion of a foreign country.  

[visionary]

37 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

That's what I'm trying to clarify.  Government voted to declare war on terrorist groups and terrorist groups are in several different countries. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

 

But isnt that different then declaring war on a actual government?  I'm not trying to defend action either way, I'm trying to make sure he can actually declare war on Iran without congress and what congress can do if he tries.  

Trump bombed Syrian government infrastructure a couple of times without any authorization  (Obama could have done something similar or more, but chose to go to Congress, likely hoping to be talked out of it).  I'm assuming there will be no declaration of war except maybe in a twitter rant. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by visionary

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, visionary said:

Trump bombed Syrian government infrastructure a couple of times without any authorization  (Obama could have done something similar or more, but chose to go to Congress, likely hoping to be talked out of it).  I'm assuming there will be no declaration of war except maybe in a twitter rant. 

 

That's not the same as ground troops, though, I was thinking that, too.  Trump might do a strike on Iran, but full on invasion in his own?  I hope that would get challenged.

@Larry that's what concerns me, Trump tries to yeehaw this ****, House tries to stop them and McConnell calls them socialist.  The fact Saudi Arabia is playing the adult here saying "slow down let's mak sure first" is very telling, it's like they want to go to war with Iran unless they have to, **** jus got real for them

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

@tshile you were right, not what you know, what you can prove

[PleaseBlitz]

20 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Does congress need to approve military action in the event of an attack on an ally?  Like if Trump wanted to puts on the ground right now, does their need to be a vote to authorize it?  Can it be challenged by congress?

 

20 hours ago, tshile said:

Didn’t bush basically show us no, you don’t need congress?

 

20 hours ago, visionary said:

 

Haven't we been bombing and putting troops in various places for years now without it?  

 

The Executive Branch has very broad powers to conduct foreign policy, including war.  Only Congress can declare war, but countries don't necessarily need to declare war in order to wage war.  Congress hasn't declared war since WWII.  

Edited September 17, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[visionary]

um.....

[mammajamma]

We literally JUST went through one of the biggest deceptions/lies ever to go to war. And now we're trusting a president who is known to have the most documented & verified public lies in history, and a country that just killed a US journalist and was responsible for funding 9/11 terrorists...

 

if our dumbasses fall for this bs again, this country is done

[Larry]

29 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

 

The Executive Branch has very broad powers to conduct foreign policy, including war.  Only Congress can declare war, but countries don't necessarily need to declare war in order to wage war.  Congress hasn't declared war since WWII.  

 

Congress declared war in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure Korea. 

 

They did not use the words "Declaration of war". 

 

Because one of the rules of the UN is that, to be a member, a nation must swear it will not make war. As I understand it, since the UN was formed, there has not been a "war" (the use of the word) anywhere in the world. 

 

Like many things with the UN, what they have succeeded in doing is ending the use of a word. 

 

But claiming that there has not been a war (because they did not use that exact word), (and then running from there to trying to claim that, when the framers wrote the words "congress shall have the power . . . to declare war", what they really meant was "the President will have unlimited authority over starting wars, but Congress will have authority over whether that word gets used"), is about as honest as claiming that Obama never released his birth certificate, because the document doesn't have those exact words at the top. 

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Congress declared war in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure Korea. 

 

They did not use the words "Declaration of war". 

 

Because one of the rules of the UN is that, to be a member, a nation must swear it will not make war. As I understand it, since the UN was formed, there has not been a "war" (the use of the word) anywhere in the world. 

 

Like many things with the UN, what they have succeeded in doing is ending the use of a word. 

 

But claiming that there has not been a war (because they did not use that exact word), (and then running from there to trying to claim that, when the framers wrote the words "congress shall have the power . . . to declare war", what they really meant was "the President will have unlimited authority over starting wars, but Congress will have authority over whether that word gets used"), is about as honest as claiming that Obama never released his birth certificate, because the document doesn't have those exact words at the top. 

 

That's what I'm saying.  You don't need to declare war in order to wage war.  The President can wage war, regardless of Congress' power to declare one.  

Edited September 17, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[Larry]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

That's what I'm saying.  You don't need to declare war in order to wage war.

 

You might want to re-read my first sentence.  

 

2 hours ago, Larry said:

Congress declared war in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure Korea.

 

Now, if I'm mis-reading your posts, and your point is "the President has the ability (but not the authortiy) to conduct a war without the constitutional power which was specifically and intentionally granted to congress", then I'm with you.  But that's not the point I'm reading in your posts.  I'm reading "The President has the authority to do whatever he wants, and the only power congress was granted is to use the word."  

 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

You might want to re-read my first sentence.  

 

 

Your first sentence:  "Congress declared war in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure Korea. "

 

They did not.  

 

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm

 

Quote

The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has declared war on 11 occasions, including its first declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II. Since that time it has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight.

 

I honestly don't even know what semantic point you are trying to make here.  

[Larry]

49 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I honestly don't even know what semantic point you are trying to make here. 

 

An ironic comment from someone who's point is that the authorizations which Congress has passed for every war our country has been in since WW2 don't count, because they did not contain the exact words "declaration of war".  

 

In any case, I'll stick to making my point.  

 

Yes, the Constitution grants Congress the power to decide when the US goes to war.  (Congress, with the War Powers Act, delegated some of that power to the President, for temporary use in emergencies.)  

 

There is no constitutional power whatsoever for the President to start a war.  It's not there.  Never has been, and has not been added.  It's specifically delegated to congress.  

 

And no, the power given to congress  is not the power to decide whether we call it a war.  It's to decide whether our nation goes to war.  

 

Because of the reality of UN membership, since joining the UN, Congress has chosen to call these authorizations "Authorizations for use of Military Force".  The item which Congress passes is no longer called "Declaration of War".  But that's what it is.  

 

This notion?  That "well, the President has the authority to fight a war and congress has no say in the matter at all, all they get to do is decide whether to print up a certificate for the wall"?  It's a myth, created by various POTUSs to attempt to grant themselves a power they haven't been given.  

 

- - - - 

 

Now, that, above, is a discussion of the President's authority.  The powers granted by the constitution.  

 

Politically?  Practically?  We've got lots of history that says that yeah, POTUS certainly does have the power to go start shooting people, and then dare Congress to either retroactively justify it, or try to order our troops who are being shot at not to shoot back.  Yeah, if any President (even Trump) decides to put us in a situation where we're in a war before congress can do anything about it?  History says he'll get forgiven.  

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

Let them fight.

[Larry]

Does "measured response" mean "limited to 140 characters"?

[FanboyOf91]

😭

[mcsluggo]

On 9/16/2019 at 10:56 AM, Destino said:

They might be counting on the US refusing to fight, which Beto is happily signaling would be the case if he were elected President, and the UN stepping in and limiting any real damage that any other nations might do to them. 

 

or they might be recognizing that it will be difficult for the USA to assemble a coalition of support for action against them, because the USA has **** all over its allies and unilaterally ripped up the agreement that previously had been keeping the Iranians in check?

 

or the Iranians might be behaving in exactly the same way that Israel behaves in the region, bombing targets in other countries when it feels like it.. is that the rule for what is acceptable? or is it not?

 

or they might be bat**** crazy, like they have been since 1978?

Edited September 18, 2019 by mcsluggo

[visionary]

 

Interesting move if they’re really so confident that Iran did such a blatant attack (as they’ve been telling us) that could in many ways be seen as an act of war.  But we have no idea what details or truth there is behind this new statement either.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by visionary

[Larry]

 

10 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

"They should stick to gassing civilian refugees.  We're cool with that.  But don't mess with the oil." 

 

[Koala]

On 9/16/2019 at 10:56 AM, Destino said:

They might be counting on the US refusing to fight, which Beto is happily signaling would be the case if he were elected President, and the UN stepping in and limiting any real damage that any other nations might do to them. 

Who's Beto? Cant think of anybody who has a snowballs chance in hall of being president named Beto.  

 

I think your statement is more likely true assuming Trump stays president.  Papa Putin ain't letting him go to war with Iran.  And Trump doesnt really want any war on Iran.  He showed his hand when he backed down to Iran by calling back those strikes in June.

 

Basically Iran did this because they can.  The Saudis are a bunch of cowards, they'll never fight a war against an enemy that can fight back, and so 8f they cant hire someone to fight Iran for them, the just have to sit there and take it.  Iran realizing this, and are now openly taunting the Saudis.

[NoCalMike]

I don't think Trump wants to go to war.  Deep inside, Trump knows he is a fraud, and he likely doesn't want the very real consequences and collateral damage of war on his shoulders.  The question is whether the neo-cons will mount enough of a con job on him to goad him into it anyway. He really needs to be gone in 2020.  He also sees that the Iraq War continues to be the #1 topic of Bush Jr's legacy.  (Juuuust above destroying the economy).  Trump is all about self image.  If we get into this war and it goes south quick, the public turns on it (don't even think they are in support of it to begin with), that will be his legacy, regardless of how his side of the aisle will try to paint a glorious picture of all his other nonsense. 

 

This is one case where his narcissistic tendencies may actually work in this country's favor. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by NoCalMike

[Destino]

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

or they might be recognizing that it will be difficult for the USA to assemble a coalition of support for action against them, because the USA has **** all over its allies and unilaterally ripped up the agreement that previously had been keeping the Iranians in check?

 

or the Iranians might be behaving in exactly the same way that Israel behaves in the region, bombing targets in other countries when it feels like it.. is that the rule for what is acceptable? or is it not?

 

or they might be bat**** crazy, like they have been since 1978?

 

I think this is more likely an "and" situation. 

[@DCGoldPants]

35 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I don't think Trump wants to go to war.  Deep inside, Trump knows he is a fraud, and he likely doesn't want the very real consequences and collateral damage of war on his shoulders. 

 

Completely disagree. This guy is #1. Mentally unstable. #2. Incapable of seeing himself the blame for anything that goes wrong... Ever. It is 100% not his fault or a fake news lie.

 

The things he'll say or do should never surprise people again.