Trump strikes. How are you feeling?

I met a Kurdish man through a facebook group over five years ago.

He considered President Bush to be a hero to his people... .due to
President Bush actually bringing Saddam to justice.

 

Tough one for me but I get your point. Still I voted the most negative available. I'm kinda with Ann Coulter. Trump did not get elected to enact tax cuts. But he got 'em. He did get elected to build a wall and keep us out of other people's wars. No wall. DACA. And now, dropping bombs on Syria when so obviously, Isis did this gas attack to keep the US in, attacking Assad for which the US has no interest. I do not know how he can get away with this: no Congressional Declaration of war, no clear and present danger to the US, and he's dropping bombs. Maybe that isn't considered a hostile act anymore? These bombs aren't just smart. They're down right friendly.

 

That changes nothing about what I posted. Regardless:

Article I Section 8 Paragraphs 1 (in part) and 11

The Congress shall have power ...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

None of the above applies to the illegal hegemonic war (crimes) conducted in Iraq or the recent illegal hegemonic war (crimes) in Syria and all the other past war crimes since WWII committed by the US terrorist organization otherwise known as the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the US government.

 

In Canada, Benedict Arnold is still considered a hero.

 

millions of Iraqis say their country was in better shape under Saddam:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/it-was-better-to-live-in-iraq-under-saddam-9532742.html


Sadly, this truth angers many Republicans.

 

No so much by me.............

Do we Canadians owe America an apology for 1750 - 1783?

 

Glad to know you feel that way.

I have posted on Canadian site where anti-USA types have let me know of their homage to Arnold.

 

I find it harder and harder to disagree with your viewpoint -- especially regarding the Supreme Court.

When Chief "Justice" Roberts decided to re-write Obamacare and change it, BY HIMSELF, from a "mandate" to a "tax", he destroyed forever the concept that it is the Congress, and the Congress ALONE, that creates and passes laws. Congress had, indeed, passed Obamacare -- but because it was so obviously unconstitutional on its face, somebody 'convinced' Roberts to change it to a 'tax'. That, too, was unconstitutional!

The War Powers Act of 1973 was cobbled together by Democrats to keep the country from plunging thoughtlessly, and disastrously, into any more ill-considered adventures like VIETNAM. As written, it's clear that Democrats wanted to limit the ability of any one man to plunge the whole country into war, and that's not an altogether bad idea.

But, whether we particularly 'like' it or not, the War Powers Act is LAW until such time as it may be thrown out, one way or another. I still maintain that neither Trump nor Obama complied with the actual intent and wording of the War Powers Act. Obama slimed his way out of compliance when he almost single-handedly overthrew the legitimate government of Libya, claiming he had to do it because of the NATO 'treaty', which, is technically correct. What was Trump's excuse? In both cases the conniving manipulation of FRANCE is what caused all the trouble, and that trouble may haunt us for a long time to come....

. "Don't leave Syria, Monsieur....! After all, you want to be a hero, don't you...?"

 

Since Marbury v Madison (1803), anytime SCOTUS interprets the Constitution they are in fact creating law and amending the Constitution. They were never granted constitutional authority to do that. Roberts had no business converting Obama's intent into a tax when it was clear it wasn't. Judges have no authority to change the facts of a case, that's a clear case of activism and grounds for impeachment.

It was actually the founders that deliberately wanted Congress to have the power to declare war for that very reason.

It's not law, it's color of law just as the fake predatory monetary system is. All "laws" that are unconstitutional are null and void from inception. Unfortunately the criminals in charge treat color of law as law and the majority of gullible Americans just go along with the program.

 

It shows how mucked up were the Iraqis it looks like to me. I am not angered since I know so much about this event.

 

Naturally. So what? Really, it is how it should be.

 

It is a major change from what you said. Bush sought from Congress and received permission to wage war against Saddam. If your point was Bush did get his power to wage war vis a vis from Congress, you are correct.

 

It makes a lot of sense to say ISIS did this than Assad did it. I do not mourn his lost facilities however. Good for Syria in fact.

 

No exspectations, no bad feelings about the individual, but the system I feel frustrated.
I don't like a single one of any of them some I dislike more than others but not nor have been a fan since JFK.
I hope their is justice in the afterlife since I can see very little in this life an all warmongers pay for all the sufferign they have caused for greed.

 

by telling an infinitude of treasonous LIES

 

something you all know:


Caught in a lie, US & allies bomb Syria the night before international inspectors arrive

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424186-us-allies-syria-lie/


Syria, finding the claims to be lies and the sources tainted, requested that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) immediately come to Syria to investigate the claims. Accordingly, the OPCW agreed to send a team—the visas for which Syria granted immediately—which arrived in Damascus on April 14.

President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to confirm his ‘evidence,’ chose the very night before this investigative team would arrive in Syria to inspect the allegations, to bomb Syria. The timing of the attacks is more than just a little timely. And the bombings were illegal.






But you knew that all along. Only a traitor to the USA would deny it.

 

Voted not happy with trump and even less happy with the strike on syria, based upon questionable intel and no investigation prior to the strikes.

I say this as a non trump voter. And yet as I have voiced prior, I agreed with a few of his stances that he campaigned on, and issues that his voter liked and voted for. Just as any pro worker, FDR kinda of ex democrat would have agreed with.

By all rights, trump should be losing support from his voters, given his flip flopping on campaign promises. His voters must have believed that they had a promise keeper with trump, given he was not a politician, and not beholden to big donors who buy policy by their financing of campaigns.

Yet I think many of them are just holding out, and willing to give him 4 years before agreeing he is just another liar, as all presidents turn out to be once they get into office, and get controlled. And who wants to be wrong about a guy who they voted for?

But unless something changes, like his flip flopping, and he starts trying, at least fighting to keep promises, and if I had cast my vote for him, there is no way in hell I would vote for a man who lied to his voters and expected them not to notice. So I would not vote for him again, based upon the present, and what has transpired since he took office.

I voted for obama the first time, instead of 3rd party, but refused to vote for him the second. Why? He was a liar and conned the People as all of these jack wagons do. I actually thought trump would try like hell to keep his promises, being an outsider, but I was wrong. If anyone would have tried, it would be an outsider, a populist and grassroots kinda guy. And that is why I thought that perhaps he would.

Yet presidents come and go but economic and foreign policy continues on, and those who challenge it will get DC on your arse, throwing as much chaos and suffering on you as they can muster. And they can muster one helluva lot of it. We have seen this work out since trump took office. And groups like VIPS predicted it!! For unlike you average partisan, these men, given their long experience in intel, actually understand what reality is in DC, while partisans are conveniently clueless.

 

Sorry but you failed to show that anything I said changes because of the Bush administration scam. The Constitution stands on its own merit despite Congress, Bush and you. Only an Amendment can change the Constitution. The War Powers Act is no such thing and unconstitutional at that, it's yet another US government scam.

That's irrelevant to Article I Section 8. Congress did NOT declare war as constitutionally required. The Bush administration was NOT authorized to wage war absent an official declaration of war by Congress. "Permission" by vote is NOT an official declaration of war and unconstitutional. No branch of government has the authority to grant any other branch permission to seize a power not specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment prohibits it.

That's YOUR point, it has nothing to do with the fact that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional in many ways and a war crime.

 

I do not engage in pointless games for long. All I will end on is that the Congress gave Bush the green light and they get to declare war, as they did.

 

The problem with the above is either you're lying or misinformed, not to mention playing pointless games. While I never argued that the first part of your claim is untrue and did claim your red herring changes nothing about what I posted, the last part (highlighted) is false, Congress hasn't officially declared war since the US entry into WWII.

To refresh, this was my original post:

 

Don't worry, if America gets hit, there will be hardly anyone left to bury the dead. No pine boxes necessary.

 

When Bill Clinton was president I told a liberal friend I was happier with Clinton dropping his pants than dropping bombs. I suppose I still feel the same way. However, I would like to know how the people in Syria feel about the bombing. If Syrians support the bombing, I'd back them.