DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus US Launches Airstikes Against Syria

I'm honestly trying to remember - did Clinton get Congressional approval when he bombed Sudan and Afghanistan?

POTUS doesn't require it for limited actions.

I disagree

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

To declare war is to commit an act of war

Definition of Declare War:o state formally one's intention to carry on hostilities against another power,”

Definition of Act of War - An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances.

I'd say launching Missles into a foreign country destroying property and killing people would be seen as a declaration of war and is most certainly an act of war.

When Japan attack us at Pearl Harbor, was that not them declaring War on us and an act of War?

they destroyed property and killed our people just like we did with these missles, its no different.

The definition of "Declare War" literally means ANY act of War MUST be approve by Congress 1st and shooting missles most certainly is an act of war,.

I don't want just one guy deciding if we go to war and attacking whoever the hell he wants...that's like living under a newly elected dictator every few years....

Simply put Congress needs to put their foot down and if need be pass new Legislation preventing the President from firing even one bullet at anyone outside this country(unless in cases of self defense or to repel an attack) without permission from Congress.

these things needs to be discussed, even if they are discussed behind closed doors, Congress needs to be the final autority to say yes or now, no one person should have the right to start potential hostilities with other countries...its irresponsible. No one wants to follow the Constitution anymore....

Im pretty sure it was approved yes.

It's not declaring war to engage in a police action or military kerfluffle of less than 30 days (pretty sure that is an actual thing, somewhere).

There is a TON of precedent for President's to use limited force without Congressional approval - or, at the very least, Congress is notified as it is happening.

As for stopping the President from using even one bullet, there is the War Powers Resolution.... good luck with that, lol

I can't find anything either way. Can you?

The only thing I can find on it says Clinton notified congress the next day after the sudan strike. Nothing about getting permission. If I read the War Powers thing right the Pres. DOES NOT NEED anyone's consent unless he's declaring war which he is not. I don't see what the big deal is.

Turkish jets bomb US-backed forces in Iraq, Syria, US officials say


More than 30 U.S.-backed Syrian and Iraqi Kurdish fighters were killed in a series of airstrikes carried out by Turkish jets last night, two American defense officials confirmed to Fox News.

Both officials said there were no U.S. troops among the fighters who were hit.

“This is very serious,” said one outraged U.S. official.

U.S. and Russian troops in the areas of the attacks were warned about an hour before 24 Turkish jets and two Turkish drones bombed locations in northern Iraq and northeast Syria. Senior Russian officials contacted U.S. counterparts to try to get Turkey to back off the strikes, but those pleas were ignored by the Turks, officials said.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/25/...icials-say.html

"Ain't kool bein' no jive Turkey so close to Thanksgivin'"

Something odd and interesting to report...

Wild boars overrun Islamic State position, kill 3 militants

Three Islamic State militants setting up an ambush in a bitterly contested area of northern Iraq were killed by a herd of stampeding boars, local leaders say.

Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a chief of the local Ubaid tribe and supervisor of anti-ISIS forces, told The Times of London the militants were hiding on the edge of a field about 50 miles southwest of Kirkuk when the boars overwhelmed them Sunday. Five other militants were injured, al-Assi said. He said the group was poised to attack a band of local tribesmen who had fled to nearby mountains since militants seized the town of Hawija three years ago.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/wild-boars-overrun-islamic-state-position-kill-3-militants.html

We had a soldier die from a wild boar attack in Oklahoma.

Those things are no joke.

I found it very ironic being that pork is forbidden in Islam yet To die at their hands (hooves), well that is almost Biblical.

https://www.axios.com/what-happens-after-raqqa-the-u-s-collision-course-2441272783.html

The U.S. is on a "collision course" with Iran and Russia in a key territory of Syria once the battle to root ISIS out of its de-facto capital, Raqqa, is complete, per Anne Barnard of the NY Times.

What we're watching: The competition to control Syrian territory post-ISIS. The province in question, Deir al-Zour, boasts oil reserves and could serve as a land bridge to connect Iran to Syria, and eventually neighboring Lebanon, Hezbollah's base. Russia just announced it will treat U.S. planes west of the Euphrates as targets, signaling it's ready to stand with the regime against the U.S. after weeks of encouraging both to avoid clashing.

See Axios' Lazaro Gamio's map of the conflict over time here.
Why it matters: Uprooting ISIS amid the civil war could lead to a power vacuum, and if the U.S. goes on the offensive it risks a full on confrontation with Iran — and maybe Russia and the Syrian regime — and potentially risks sparking tensions with Iraq, Qatar, and Yemen.

The eastern region is already heating up:

In the last few weeks the U.S. has had four direct confrontations with pro-Assad forces in eastern Syria.
In all three instances decisions were made by commanders in the field, indicating a lack of overarching strategic direction from D.C., per Ilan Goldenberg: "We might end up in a war with Iran with no decision taken by Trump/Mattis/Tillerson/McMaster." Foreign Policy and Just Security describe the White House and the Pentagon as fighting over strategy, leading to a current deadlock.
Iran and the U.S. are both bolstering forces in the area. Last Wednesday the U.S. announced it is sending a mobile missile launcher to eastern Syria, and Iran launched an attack against ISIS in Deir al-Zour over the weekend, the first time it has fired missiles into another country in three decades.
The U.S. shot down a Syrian fighter jet this weekend, the first time since the start of the civil war the U.S. has engaged in air-to-air combat with Syrian forces (although in a different province).
Boiling this down: These actions show an increasing willingness from both pro-regime and regime forces to engage in hostile acts despite U.S. warnings to stay away, and the administration's willingness to deliberately bomb pro-regime forces, breaking from usual behavior in the region.
The Pentagon told Axios "the Coalition is not seeking to claim land or conquer territory...does not seek to fight the Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces...but is well prepared to defend itself from hostile threats."

Screw the Bull, get the Horn.

We are not gonna sit by while you bomb and strafe our folks.