It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Administration Is Contradicting Itself On Regime Change In Syria

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears




does consult mean get approval for?

No.
But it does mean that Congress must be informed, at the least. Congress must be in the loop.




posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinySickTears




does consult mean get approval for?

No.
But it does mean that Congress must be informed, at the least. Congress must be in the loop.


everything i read just says he did not get their approval. ive read nothing about if they were looped in.

im not any closer to knowing if this was an illegal strike.

thanks for everyones help



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


Interesting point.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears


It wasn't illegal, from my understanding. Nothing about Congress being 'in the loop
' in the Constitution.

As Commander-in-chief, he has the right to order military action and every recent President has used that authority.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




Nothing about Congress being 'in the loop ' in the Constitution.

There are lots of things not in the Constitution. They are called laws.
Like this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I wish I could take credit for that, but it was the Fox talking heads the one that pointed to the wording differences.

I guess Haley is trying to get UN into the bandwagon of taking Assad using military force.

As for the president we know that previous president as an example Bush, took action in the middle east before congress approved going into a war conflict.

That is because the executive branch does have limited powers, after all.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


As for the president we know that previous president as an example Bush, took action in the middle east before congress approved going into a war conflict.

You mean this?
usiraq.procon.org...

USC 50 does not require Congressional approval, it requires consultation.

edit on 4/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks for the time line, I remember as my husband was ready to be re deployed from Okinawa to the middle east I kept complaining and pointing why the Marines needed to be there first, when congress didn't approved the war yet, he said that the president had the power to deploy Marines anytime.

I believe that it was a change on War Powers Act during the Obama administration.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Fair enough, plenty of grey area for both points of view.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


This 'apparent' change in Trump's view is perplexing. If it is has changed.

The only thing that comes to mind is Assad using chemical weapons in his own country. That 'could' tip the scales to believing Assad has to go.

The big barrier to that is the power play to replace him. We went through that when we 'removed' Saddam. The results leave a bit to be desired.

In any event, Assad has had to wrist slapped and is unlikely to repeat it, if it was him. I'd still bet having him in power is better than the alternative. As least so far.


edit on 9-4-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Following a long list by the previous administration , huh ?



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
www.huffingtonpost.com...


The Trump administration appears divided on whether the U.S. is pursuing a policy of regime change in Syria, days after the first direct American military attack against the Syrian government.



Thursday’s strike “was related solely to the most recent horrific use of chemical weapons,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.



“Other than that, there is no change to our military posture.”


i feel like the secretary of state is in the know.
is this to be believed?


But United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley said there can be no peace in Syria with Assad in power. “There’s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime,” she told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. “Regime change is something that we think is going to happen because all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria



Though Haley stopped short of indicating the U.S. would take military action to overthrow the Syrian dictator, her comments reflect a sharp change from the administration’s previous position.


interesting. haley says there is no option while assad is the head

im going to have to follow this.
would a UN ambassador be in the know about this though? wonder how much of it is just opinion.




Could have just been a ploy from the start...you know...keep your friends close and enemies closer type of thing.

Make Assad think you don't want to take him out while planning how to take him out....



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The United Deep State of America( USA) has one goal concerning Syria. To render it a failed state like they did to Iraq and Libya.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Trump did not introduce Armed Forces into Syria.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships
I guess a nuke would be ok, since it doesn't involve boots on ground?

It says "into hostilities."

5 dozen cruise missiles isn't hostile? Blowing up airplanes isn't hostile? Just a friendly suggestion?
edit on 4/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships
I guess a nuke would be ok, since it doesn't involve boots on ground?

It says "into hostilities."


It says introduce "Armed Forces"

The strike falls under the NDAA, which was reupped again
under Obama, greatly expanding The Patriot Act.

www.forbes.com...




5 dozen cruise missiles isn't hostile? Blowing up airplanes isn't hostile? Just a friendly suggestion?


Are you aware that under Obama without Congress
added lethal aid to Syria?

June 2013 lethal aid was sent in, via CIA and Rebels.


On 13 June 2013, U.S. government officials said the administration, after days of high-level meetings, had approved providing lethal arms to the Supreme Military Council (SMC).[98] The SMC is a rebel command structure that includes representatives from most major rebel groups, and excludes the Islamic extremist elements.[99] The decision was made shortly after the administration concluded that the Assad government had used chemical weapons on opposition forces, thus crossing the "red line" declared by Obama earlier in 2012.[100] The arms to be provided included small arms and ammunition, and possibly anti-tank weapons.[101] However, they were not to include anti-aircraft weapons, something repeatedly requested by the armed opposition.[101] Further such weapons would be supplied by the US "on our own timeline".[102]

In mid-June 2013, the U.S. government said it would now arm rebels in Syria; besides, the U.S- was considering a no-fly zone in Syria′s southern border with Jordan, which would allow a safe place to equip and train rebels.[103]
en.wikipedia.org...


How many people died since then?



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

It says introduce "Armed Forces"
Oh. Sorry, I thought the US Navy was a branch of the Armed Forces. Silly me. www.military.com...
Launching missiles is not an act of hostility?




Are you aware that under Obama without Congress added lethal aid to Syria?
Yes, yes I am aware of that. Did US forces engage in combat against Syria?
edit on 4/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Oh. Sorry, I thought the US Navy was a branch of the Armed Forces. Silly me. www.military.com...
Launching missiles is not an act of hostility?



Was the Navy in Syria?

Ignore the NDAA?

Obama is the one who greatly expanded the NDAA.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Was the Navy in Syria?
No. But their missiles sure did hit a Syrian base.

The law says "introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities". United States Armed Forces (the Navy) engaged in a hostile action (launching a bunch of missiles) against a foreign nation (Syria).

That seems like a hostility to me. Seems that Congress should have been consulted. Silly me. But I'm not an attorney.



Ignore the NDAA?
What does it say about attacking foreign nations? The president can just go ahead and do it?

edit on 4/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

Was the Navy in Syria?
No. But their missiles sure did hit a Syrian base.



Again, that falls under the NDAA.
And again, Obama greatly expanded the NDAA powers.
Heck, right before he left, Congress bent to him and McCain
and authorized ManPADS for the rebels.
www.washingtontimes.com...

Trump broke no laws, that is ridiculous.

Obama in his assault on the so-called ISIS group in eastern Syria in 2014
bombed Syria with 47 Tomahawk missiles.

Obama used 12,000 bombs in Syria in 2016 alone.

www.thenation.com...
edit on 9-4-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join