US, UK approves strikes on Syria

[JDHURF]

[John Galt]

every time a president does this we have this conversation

expect for when we don't

President Bush used drone strikes 57 times
President Obama used drone strikes 563 times

i won't be surprised if trump increases this by 10x again

but each one of those things is an act of war, is it not?
and we keep talking about "trade war", isn't that a war, too?

frankly the strike itself is rather silly to argue about. we have GROUND FORCES in syria. remember, US troops killed 300 russian "mercs" a few months ago without one causality for the US? that was because there were ground troops. and we have had them since Obama, who had a congress that specifically forbade him from doing this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-con ... iew=closed

in short all presidents just don't give a shit. this is not unique to trump. this is also because the congress has ceeded its authority here anyway. its been a bipartisan effort for the last 50 years to increase the executive power at expense of the legislative

[exploited]

I think it is pretty clear that the President requires authorization, although frankly, this really is a competition between de facto and de jure. At the end of the day, the Commander in Chief can pick up the phone and order a strike, and his order will be followed, irrespective of whether or not Congress has authorized the strike. And even if Congress throws a fuss, the next day, the President can do the same thing.

The problem is: what recourse does Congress have? If it were an actual invasion, they could demand a withdrawal. They could initiate impeachment proceedings. They could cut off funding. But what else is there? If these are the only avenues available to rectify the situation, the situation will never be rectified, and Presidents will continue to act like Kings in this regard.

[John Galt]

[exploited]

I don't think there is a structural solution to this.

The entire concept of checks and balances is predicated on the assumption that different spheres of power will actually try to protect that power. If that assumption is false, the whole thing fails.

If Congress wanted to stop these things from happening, they absolutely could. They could cut off funding or redirect it elsewhere. They could pass a law ordering cessation of hostilities. They could impeach the President.

But because they won't or can't, no system can be designed where they can function as a check. As you and others have pointed out, Congress has been ceding authority for decades. The fact that AUMF is used to justify basically everything happening now, almost two decades after 9/11, says it all.

So, if Congress can't be relied on to jealously guard its powers, then you have to start considering putting absolute limits on the Presidents power. But that too requires Congressional action.

[spacemonkey]

In todays PC world even in civil conflicts people must be killed in the correct way. Not with chemical weapons, but blown to bits with high explosives. Freak'n Neanderthals, lol.

[JDHURF]

[spacemonkey]

War = money.
Money = power.
Common sense = pretty much gone.

[Kane]

[Kane]