Giving Trump Carte Blanche for War

I want them to challenge the constitutionality of any executive activity that may infringe on their constitutionally vested powers and responsibilities.

 

They are exercising those constitutionally vested powers and responsibilities.

 

bullcrap, as always Dixon. I have yet to find one of your posts that was much different.

 

String together a few words and make an argument if you can.

 

This post basically should end anything else on this topic.

 

These were European wars and of course many Americans with European backwards had left because of these centuries old conflicts. Are Europeans now trying to claim these world was were the fault of the Americans??

 

This journalist from Sputnik Radio may not be the most reliable source for information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou

 

Not the Europeans. But I am saying that, yes. It is not something that is even regarded as controversial by academics and others who have insight into the history of that period. It was firstly British policy to remain the great power by sowing discord and wars in Europe. Great Britain was tiny in comparison to say, Germany or France, in population terms and natural resources too, so there only way to maintain the Empire was by cunning.

As the UK gradually took over from the Brits, they also agitated for both these wars in order to keep Germany and Russia apart. Or more accurately, to put Russia at Germany's throat and Germany at Russia's throat, much in the same way that the US under Reagan and the UK under Thatcher, supplied weapons to both sides in the 1980's Iraq-Iran war - getting them to fight each other.

Quite apart from the more recently released pre WWII Polish diplomatic cables files that clearly show that President Roosevelt was agitating for the Europeans to start a war with Germany, there are various addresses by George Friedman, the founder and former CEO of Stratfor (regarded as the private CIA), that has set out this European strategy of divide and conquer.

 

Like so many Americans you get blinded by the Russian meme and the envelope that contains the letter rather than the contents of the letter itself. But if you want him to be a Russian sympathiser/troll because he is employed by Sputnik, that's your choice. I'm done arguing with the wilfully blind on this forum (although I will correct the factual record as and when necessary).

So, for the record:

John Kiriakou, the author of that article is American and a former CIA officer and an investigator for Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the first US official-cum-whistleblower who broke the US waterboarding story.

Goodbye.

 

Don't expect the people you conquer to respect you.

 

It seems conspiracy theories have recently been substituted for historical evidence in Europe. But one thing is certain. No matter which trouble spot there might be in the world, it's the fault of the Americans.

Left wing propaganda is proving just as effective in Europe as it is in America.

 

That's right. And has been said, "No good deed goes unpunished", and Europe might be the best example of that.

 

Following this enjoyable and insightful post, CNN recently published a telling graphic of Saudi attacks on the backward nation of Yemen using US weapons made by a variety of US war corporations:

 

And he was wrong to agitate war against Hitler back when the Nazi war machine was still tiny ?

 

Yea, that's terrible, all Russians weapons come with a special safety that prevents too many dead, called "RT". damn Americans....

 

And who lost them all? Or made such a pig's ear of them they all ended up worse than they were before??

 

But you're missing the essential point, as usual. Probably because you are not really aware of the reality.

The best enemy is the one you create.

The US financed Hitler and his war machine allowing him to become a military dictator, in the years leading up to WWII (see HERE & HERE). The plan, along with we Brits was to manipulate Hitler to go to war against the Soviet Union (following the British grand strategy of dividing Europe and keeping the Germans and the Russian apart, as they knew both together were an unbeatable coalition.

It's always profitable to provide arms to others for war...

 

One can guess that by the European will to set things strait with Hitler rather than boycott him, even the Jewish settlement at the time dealt on migrating Jews from Germany, a country as big as Germany cannot be ignored, it was wrong but everyone traded and "assisted" in the rise of the Nazis, I wouldn't think wall-street would act differently, now for some that's as good as voting for Hitler but that's just demagogy , simple example - do you approve of Assad as the Syrian leader ? assuming you'd be liable for his actions for years to come as you judge the US.

 

Your post is a deeply disturbing summary of many existing ills of our nation and our society right now. My first impulse is to recoil in horror, but you've made some valid points that reflect a great deal of truth. The current situation is the worst in government I've seen in my lifetime. I guess I'd simply like to add that change is the only constant in life, and we are collectively able to make that change more positive if we act individually to support governmental workers & candidates for office who reflect and support the positive change we're after. The only generation of Americans to fail as citizens were those of the 1850s, because their inability to act led to the Civil War. Today we see much of the same behaviors from our leaders. I sincerely hope it doesn't have the same results.

 

Given my post that your above responded too - that set out the Anglo-American plan to start WWII in order to separate Germany and Russia and out them at each other's throats so as to avoid them becoming a European hegemony, I'm unsure what it is you're trying to say here? And I've read it three times already. Can you be more precise?

Are you trying to change the emphasis of the discussion?

 

The Constitution does give the Congress the power to declare war, but it does not say how they must declare war. It doesn't say they must issue a "Declaration of War". The Constitution leaves the manner of "declaring war" entirely up to the Congress. So if Congress wants to "declare war" they may pass an AUMF, or they can call it a "Declaration of War", or they could just call it "Kick ISIS's Butt." It is strictly up to them to decide what to call it. So an AUMF is, effectively, a declaration of war by another name.

We are already engaging Al Qaeda and its off-shoots in all of those countries mentioned. This is being done under the authority of an AUMF that was passed right after the 9/11 attacks. That AUMF is now somewhat dated because it was intended to authorize force against those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. This new proposed congressional authorization updates the old authorization. This is not a bad thing because it formally authorizes the president to take actions against AQ and its off-shoots in the places where we already are taking action that could not be foreseen back in 2001. If Congress were to pass this authorization, they would actually be fulfilling their constitutional duty.

My guess is that they will not bring it to a vote, and it will just die. Congress has been satisfied to just let Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump pursue AQ and its off-shoots all over the world as they see fit under the authority of the 2001 AUMF, even though that AUMF is now getting old, and the present day jihadists are no longer the ones who planned the 9/11 attacks. For example, ISIS is an off-shoot of AQ, and so the 2001 AUMF is being used to authorize our bombing of ISIS in Syria, even though present day ISIS leaders had nothing to do with 9/11. And so even though the 2001 AUMF is flawed when applied to the present day situation, Congress is satisfied that it is "close enough", and they will simply not object to our continued pursuit of AQ, wherever that pursuit takes us.

It is worthwhile to point out that Congress may simply revoke that AUMF by a vote any time it wants to. Should they do that, the president would have to cease those operations or face possible impeachment.

The article asserts that this bill would allow the president to lock up any U.S. citizen who objected to U.S. military policy. And yet, it doesn't quote any language directly from the bill to back that assertion up.

Seth

 

No, you mentioned Roosevelt which came to power at 1933, that's about when Hitler came to power too, so he was already up against Nazi Germany from the start, now what would you have him do differently ?

 

Can't be bothered with you.

 

One has to be responsible to begin with and clearly you and others like you in "protest" mode think once you blamed others for your troubles you get to wear white and be free of responsibility, "how the US conjured Hitler" is just in line with your posture, if only the radicals in Germany would have been treated differently than the Nazi agenda would have been one of love and tolerance.
Hitler and his Nazi party got nothing to do with the events that followed, its just America's $.

One question, who controls your Gov ?