Mr. Trump takes a swim in the swamp. Can he get out? Does he want to get out?

Starman

New Member
http://non-intervention.com/3184/mr...swamp-can-he-get-out-does-he-want-to-get-out/

The U.S.-led attack on Syria was reckless, unnecessary, and self-defeating, but most of all it is clear testimony to the fact that the republic and its Constitution are nearly dead. Simply put, President Trump acted in the same matter as his four immediate predecessors; that is, as an elected dictator defying the Constitution and knowing that the supine Congress will do nothing to recover its sole and non-delegable constitutional prerogative to authorize the United States to go to war.

After eight years of war in Syria, not one genuine U.S. national interest – economic, military, or any other – has been damaged even slightly. The only American lives or limbs lost there were aid workers and journalists who knowingly put themselves in harm’s way, and several U.S. troops who were sent to Syria unconstitutionally and died there uselessly and wastefully. In other words, whether 35 of 3,500 Syrians were killed by gas at Douma, that attack — like all others in Syria over the since 2011 — was irrelevant to genuine U.S. national security concerns, not matter how severely they offend the sensibilities of some Americans.

Indeed, genuine U.S. national interests have benefited from the Syrian war. Russian President Putin threw his geopolitical dice and lost. As a result, he has been steadily spending his military’s lives, equipment, and monetary resources on a secondary Islamist threat to Russia, while the priority Islamist threat to Russia and its Commonwealth of Independent States is emanating from Afghanistan.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
[The president] acted in the same matter as his four immediate predecessors; that is, as an elected dictator defying the Constitution and knowing that the supine Congress will do nothing to recover its sole and non-delegable constitutional prerogative to authorize the United States to go to war.

The problem is, Congress gave the president the authority to do this long, long ago. He is not defying law - he's acting within the authority Congress abdicated to whomever is the sitting president at the time.

Another way to say that is the problem is Congress.

The most accurate way to say that is the problem is we, the people, who do not hold our congressional representatives responsible for their actions.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
The problem is, Congress gave the president the authority to do this long, long ago. He is not defying law - he's acting within the authority Congress abdicated to whomever is the sitting president at the time.

Another way to say that is the problem is Congress.

The most accurate way to say that is the problem is we, the people, who do not hold our congressional representatives responsible for their actions.

Of course, it's never ever Trump's fault. But in this case it's really not. Trump was acting within the confines of the War Powers Act. A law that was passed, by the Congress, in the early 70's over a presidential veto. As far as holding "our congressional representatives responsible", well most of the responsible parties involved with passing the War Powers Act are no longer with us.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Of course, it's never ever Trump's fault.

Don't know where you get this idea...He's been responsible for a lot of wrong stuff.

But in this case it's really not. Trump was acting within the confines of the War Powers Act. A law that was passed, by the Congress, in the early 70's over a presidential veto.

I know it's really not. that's why I posted it that way.

As far as holding "our congressional representatives responsible", well most of the responsible parties involved with passing the War Powers Act are no longer with us.

As far as I can tell, this authority has been at issue since at least the early 1990's. And, yet, no Congress since then has taken it up and fixed it. It may come as a shock to you, based on you thinking that the responsible parties involved are no longer with us, but each and every Congress is responsible to fix bad laws. It's clear this is not a thing they want to "fix", implying they don't find it broken. And, we don't "fix" who represents us, implying we don't find it a problem either.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
I liked this paragraph of the article best......

“Well, wait a minute. Trump leads a nation that has killed more than 60-plus millions of its own children; abolished majority rule in favor of rule by a motley, violent, and badly educated mix of racial, sexually deviant, and fascist minority groups; and has made the rule of law and the Bill of Rights quaint things of the past. Might not these depravities merit attack and destruction by some other nation or nations under the banner of morality and saving innocent Americans? Turn-about, after all, is fair play.”
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Ok, then - I have a question.

Does the United States, the UK and France - actually the UN itself - have any kind of moral or legal obligation to stop the use of chemical weapons as per the Chemical Weapons Convention (or any other binding agreement not to use them) ?

If it does - doesn't this seem like the correct action to take? As in, enlist members of the UN to take action, rather than do what they normally do - condemn the action but otherwise do nothing?
If it does not - why does the UN even have these kinds of agreements?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Ok, then - I have a question.

Does the United States, the UK and France - actually the UN itself - have any kind of moral or legal obligation to stop the use of chemical weapons as per the Chemical Weapons Convention (or any other binding agreement not to use them) ?


Not that I have ever heard of in 52 years ... other than treaty's not to use them in war

Honestly if you round up everyone in a village, put them against a wall and shoot them, are they any less dead the flying a plane over and dropping Sarin Gas

In Rwanda they hacked people to death [cheaper than using bullets]


how terrifying is it ...

rounded up .. lined up ... standing around hearing the shots, waiting your turn ..... shot in groups
rounded up .. lined up ... standing around hearing the screams, waiting your turn .... hacked to death one by one

A Plane Buzzes overhead and you are suddenly choking to death


:shrug:
 

Starman

New Member
Ok, then - I have a question.

Does the United States, the UK and France - actually the UN itself - have any kind of moral or legal obligation to stop the use of chemical weapons as per the Chemical Weapons Convention (or any other binding agreement not to use them) ?

If it does - doesn't this seem like the correct action to take? As in, enlist members of the UN to take action, rather than do what they normally do - condemn the action but otherwise do nothing?
If it does not - why does the UN even have these kinds of agreements?

You get to the crux of the central issue here.

As I understand it, these responses are not out of legal obligation, but rather a moral (a/k/a "humanitarian") one. And therein lies the problem. Anything can be called "humanitarian" and therefore not be questioned. Remember when Russian invaded/occupied Crimea in 2014? He was chided, of course, but his response was that the action was "humanitarian" -- he wanted to protect Russian-speaking minority groups. It doesn't matter that anyone knows that was bullchit, but invoking "humanitarian" is subjective and therefore easily perverted.

The entire basis of the U.N. was supposed to be to avert unilateral actions by nations, thus the mushier "humanitarian" stuff.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The entire basis of the U.N. was supposed to be to avert unilateral actions by nations, thus the mushier "humanitarian" stuff.

Well what's the point of international treaties like this if they have absolutely no teeth for non-compliance?

I *get* that if you're not a signatory to a treaty, you're really not under any obligation to keep it.
But what's the point in having it at all if you can sign it - break it - and the response is - oh well?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Remember when Russian invaded/occupied Crimea in 2014? He was chided, of course, but his response was that the action was "humanitarian" -- he wanted to protect Russian-speaking minority groups.

In reality - he's not too far off. In the intervening years, Crimea is almost entirely Russian. I don't know the history and I'm not up on post-Soviet agreements, but I do know from people living in the Baltic states that Russia does have a long history of encouraging Russians to move in until they form a sizable population whereupon they can move to re-join Russia. This has also happened in parts of Georgia.

So yeah - bullchit. You don't solve a humanitarian crisis by invading and keeping territory.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Ok, then - I have a question.

Does the United States, the UK and France - actually the UN itself - have any kind of moral or legal obligation to stop the use of chemical weapons as per the Chemical Weapons Convention (or any other binding agreement not to use them) ?

If it does - doesn't this seem like the correct action to take? As in, enlist members of the UN to take action, rather than do what they normally do - condemn the action but otherwise do nothing?
If it does not - why does the UN even have these kinds of agreements?

In my humble opinion, until we have a world government that is superior (in position) to our national government, then the answer is that the UN nor the nations involved have a legal obligation. They can't, because there is no authority higher than the US government in our form of government.

Moral obligations are not authorized by our form of government. Specifically denied, as a matter of fact, by the tenth amendment.

The purpose of the UN, as far as I can tell, is to give organizations a place to talk instead of shoot, and provide a faux moral cover for taking actions. As they have no military, and no authority above our government, they provide no real purpose except to talk and study and complain.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I think he did the right thing and am not surprised to see Starman criticizing him.
That's what Starman does.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
In my humble opinion, until we have a world government that is superior (in position) to our national government, then the answer is that the UN nor the nations involved have a legal obligation. They can't, because there is no authority higher than the US government in our form of government.

I thought one of the objections people had with the UN and other entities like them is, our Constitution tells us that treaties we enter into are regarded as "the supreme law of the land".
And as such, we should not enter into them or entertain them lightly.
 

Starman

New Member
I think he did the right thing and am not surprised to see Starman criticizing him.

Based on what, exactly? What about this is "right"?

tot.jpg

:lmao:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I thought one of the objections people had with the UN and other entities like them is, our Constitution tells us that treaties we enter into are regarded as "the supreme law of the land".
And as such, we should not enter into them or entertain them lightly.

Article VI, second paragraph "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Yes, a ratified treaty is as strong as a federal law. That's one of the many reasons the 17th amendment needs repealed - the states should have a voice in treaties like the Founders intended, not Representatives which is effectively what Senators became.

That said, I do not believe our UN "treaty" makes us subordinate to UN "rule".
 
Top