It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Lab4Us
Like those 2000 US soldiers on the ground in Syria? Pretty sure they are part of the USA and deserve some “protecting” and don’t deserve to be Assads next chemical experiment. Should they be there? Irrelevant to the tone of this thread that insists bad actors should be allowed to employ weapons forbidden by world treaties.
I applaud POTUS’ actions in this case. World sees what happens when a country uses illegal weapons on their own soil/people. They all should be able to do the math and predict the exponential destruction to their country if they try it on US soil. ANY country that tries it on US soil.
originally posted by: Plotus
Will you accept chemical warfare or not ? That is what it boils down to. President Trump will not.
originally posted by: namehere
maybe i'm not getting my words out correctly but what i mean is that the president can direct military engagements and the only thing that limits the president is the war powers act but the president can ignore the war powers act citing article 2 of the constitution.
any requests for military action sent to congress are for appearances only, they are never formal requests.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: carewemust
Is Trump "President of the World", like Obama, or POTUS?
POTUS job is to keep USA safe at the drop of a dime, when that what is needed to keep US safe.
The use of chemical weapons as munitions of war are banned and their use constitutes the right to respond, or do you want it to become the "Norm"?
Anything to hate on Trump. UN had meetings, allies met, actions were agreed upon but hey let's blame Trump for Putin lying about taking all of Assad's chemical weapons away and then letting him use them on civilians.
However, the president MUST obtain congressional approval for such action, per our constitution
Well, now that I'm behind 100%.
Power to direct the military is not synonymous with the power to declare war.
originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
The fact that the Dem's aren't all over this is a major red flag as this could be grounds to draw up impeachment plans and that could push Trump to make mistakes. I'm not saying that I am for that especially, but that is what I would expect the Dem's to be doing 10,000%. We have to ask why they aren't. That is the biggest question I can see we are facing because it will point to many hidden things.
There is a difference between military action in response to military action and the declaration of war.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This isn't Executive Privilege. It's compliance with a treaty signed in, if memory serves, 1963 with the UN.
According to the UN Charter, member nations are to act to uphold UN resolutions. Membership in the UN was approved and ratified by Congress. The UN has passed several resolutions condemning chemical weapons use by Syria and authorizing military intervention to uphold.
If someone doesn't like the airstrikes, I understand that. But they are 'legal' according to our UN membership. Don't be mad at Trump; be mad at the UN Security Council who passed the resolutions and the idiots who placed the US military under control of the UN Security Council. Don't cry for impeachment or censure... cry for withdrawal from the only organization in the world more corrupt than the US government.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
And I never said that we declared war on Syria, but there is nothing that allows presidential offensive military action without congressional approval unless it is in response to an attack directly on the US, our military abroad, or our territories, and even that is rather limited on how he must do it.