Who the hell advised Trum to bomb Syria?

Quantum Quack said:
but the POTUS needs congressional support for budgeting for an extended campaign yes?
Click to expand...
Yes, for extended campaigns he needs congressional approval. He doesn't need a declaration of war. But he does need congressional approval for extended offensive military operations. The POTUS controls the military, but Congress controls the funding.
 
Quantum Quack said:
but the POTUS needs congressional support for budgeting for an extended campaign yes?
Click to expand...
Technically, he needs approval for any military action that doesn't constitute an immediate threat. So, yeah it's illegal, but nothing is going to happen.
 
joepistole said:
Trump's party controls both houses of Congress. That said, Trump wasn't able to get his healthcare plan through even the House, and it appears they are having trouble getting their tax plans through Congress. By historical standards, Trump shouldn't have any trouble getting his agenda through Congress.
Click to expand...

Trump's party does not include the freedom caucus.(32 votes)
He would have to get some democrat hawks to come on board.
How many will support him?
 
spidergoat said:
Technically, he needs approval for any military action that doesn't constitute an immediate threat. So, yeah it's illegal, but nothing is going to happen.
Click to expand...
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action
 
sculptor said:
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action
Click to expand...
"in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces" (wikipedia)

None of which occurred.
 
sculptor said:
Trump's party does not include the freedom caucus.(32 votes)
He would have to get some democrat hawks to come on board.
How many will support him?
Click to expand...
Yet it does. Trump's party is the Republican Party. The Freedom Caucus is a faction of the Republican Party. Republicans have a "yuge" numerical advantage in the House. Historically, Republicans should be able to get whatever they wanted through the House.

The problem Republicans face is their party is fractured. That's why Trump couldn't get his healthcare package through the House. He may not be able to get his tax cut plans through either for the same reason.

Trump's the "Great Negotiator" or so he says. So if that is true, he should be able to negotiate a deal with his party. If Trump can't get his own party on board, then he will need to do some deals with Democrats. As much as that is irksome to Republicans, that's where Republicans find themselves. Now whether Democrats will be amenable to any deals remains an open question. Given how Republicans have treated Democrats of late, I see little reason why Democrats would or should cooperate with Republicans on anything.
 
joepistole said:
Yet it does. Trump's party is the Republican Party. The Freedom Caucus is a faction of the Republican Party. Republicans have a "yuge" numerical advantage in the House. Historically, Republicans should be able to get whatever they wanted through the House.

The problem Republicans face is their party is fractured. That's why Trump couldn't get his healthcare package through the House. He may not be able to get his tax cut plans through either for the same reason.
Click to expand...
If Trump actually offered something of real value he would be successful I reckon. He hasn't and can't. Obama care is standing today because the alternative(s) offered was not adequate. I guess what I am saying is that even if the party is fractured it still comes done to good solid ideas ...and Trump has yet to provide any real value...
 
sculptor said:
However, some of that gain was part of a 33% decline in the value of the us dollar.
Click to expand...
It's at least partly the other way around - the oil price hike, established in dollars as the petrodollar fixes, was part of how the dollar was measured as declining. That's one of the potential penalties of the petrodollar.
sculptor said:
Trump's party does not include the freedom caucus.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. Just as the Obama's included the Blue Dogs - actually, quite a bit more than that: the Blue Dogs were happy to align themselves with the Reps, actually in partisan opposition, on many issues. The Freedom Caucus is more loyal.
 
Last edited:
The issue of chemical weapons use and sponsorship seems to be getting more intriguing by the hour.
  • Evidence of Russian prior knowledge Chem. attack in Syria.
  • Evidence that suggests Russians attempted to cover up.
  • Evidence that discredits the rebel Chem. stockpile hypothesis.
Propaganda? Perhaps.
High voltage... for sure...
Looks like Syria is being used as a chem. weapons proving ground.
 
joepistole said:
Yes, for extended campaigns he needs congressional approval. He doesn't need a declaration of war. But he does need congressional approval for extended offensive military operations.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have not known that the POTUS can start wars without asking the Congress or so. That all he has to do for this is to name this "not an extended campaign", as if he would be able to predict this. As usual, there are no extended campaigns, at least in the propaganda (as Afghanistan, as Iraq were in no way extended in the war propaganda of that time, but not yet finished).
 
Schmelzer said:
Sorry, I have not known that the POTUS can start wars without asking the Congress or so. That all he has to do for this is to name this "not an extended campaign", as if he would be able to predict this. As usual, there are no extended campaigns, at least in the propaganda (as Afghanistan, as Iraq were in no way extended in the war propaganda of that time, but not yet finished).
Click to expand...
Now that you understand that., can you understand why Trumps election has been so contentious and frightening globally and not just in the USA? ( Given his campaign rhetoric)
 
Quantum Quack said:
The issue of chemical weapons use and sponsorship seems to be getting more intriguing by the hour.
  • Evidence of Russian prior knowledge Chem. attack in Syria.
  • Evidence that suggests Russians attempted to cover up.
  • Evidence that discredits the rebel Chem. stockpile hypothesis.
Propaganda? Perhaps.
High voltage... for sure...
Looks like Syria is being used as a chem. weapons proving ground.
Click to expand...

On the other hand:
It has been both Russia and Syria who have asked for an independent UN investigation of the latest "gas attack",
while the US and allies have been dragging their feet on this one while the evidence is degraded or destroyed.
Both Russia and Syria have gone so far as to guarantee the safety of an independent investigative body.

They do not seem to be behaving as though they have anything to hide.

......................................
Unless and until we have an independent analysis much like the one in Ghouta in 2013(which exonerated the Syrian government)...........everyone is free to believe any damned lie that fits their comfort zone.

..............................
I'll see our Iraq WMDs, and the Ghouta false flags and raise you a gulf of tonkin incident.
 
sculptor said:
It has been both Russia and Syria who have asked for an independent UN investigation of the latest "gas attack",
Click to expand...
The world asked for an investigation into the Malaysian air craft shoot down (Ukraine) too and look what happened to that...I suppose the USA shot it down and wanted to make it look like those damn Ruskies did it?
After Putin deals properly with the shoot down, then he might be able to be taken seriously...
Besides the truth doesn't matter as much as perceptions does.

If Assad and Putin want to give the USA the impression that they are using chemical weapons or alternatively set a scenario that allows them to be accused of such then that's the way it works.

The situation in Syria can be resolved with just one sentence spoken by Assad. "I resign and call the country to UN monitored elections ASAP"

it would be that simple....

Putin btw has even stated that he has intelligence that other locations may be used to further frame the Assad by the rebels..( thus setting the stage for more BS) Well look at that!
Putin wants a free reign to use chem's as much as he wants to.

Also do you know how they manufacture Sarin? How it is stored? What it's shelf life is etc?
and why ISIL hasn't used it in any quantity yet? ( I am sure they would use it if they had it)
 
Last edited:
bomba-etkisi.gif
 
Why hasn't Daesh used Sarin? Certainly they have no moral problems with it's use, so why haven't they used it?
 
From what I understand it would be impossible for the Rebels to have stored Sarin on the ground as it normally has to be made up from combining at least two ingredients just prior to delivery. It is extremely volatile and incredibly lethal. The chemical attack in Syria doesn't seem like Sarin to me. Possibly a hybrid developed by the Russians. Knowing that ISIL hasn't got it why would you think the rebels in Syria have it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top