Assume Iran does not strike U.S. bases or make an aggressive move towards us in the next two weeks. Why shouldn't Congress decide this?
Should Congress debate and decide whether the U.S. should strike Iran?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Congress for me...but they get more cash from the military industrial complex individually...so probably doesn't matter.
This isn't like a quick in and out into Czechoslovakia.
This isn't like a quick in and out into Czechoslovakia.
Normally, I wouldn’t want Trump making the decision on dinner much less war, but there are times when a President needs to act without Congressional approval. I’m not saying I think he should act with a strike in this case, but should have the option if American interests are at stake. Presidents have done this several times. I’m only talking about an air strike, nothing more.
Yes, but I think the War Powers Resolution says that only Congress can commit troops, which could be interpreted as the President being allowed to initiate limited military actions to protect our interests.
Yeah, I get it. I'm trying to view it from the Iranian point of view. If we strike them, Iran would rationally conclude the US is at war with them. This isn't defensive, it's offensive.
I also really don't want the power to instigate a fully armed conflict in the hands of one man.
How is this different than Clinton lobbing cruise missiles at Iraq or the prior bombing of Yemen this spring?
I think it's probably in the realm of retaliatory airstrikes. They've been killing us for decades and we're finally going to do something.
That said, this feels like it's going to be more than an airstrike and I do wish we were actually discussing it in the legislature, seriously, not through the 2 tribe prism.
I don't know that it is--I'd have to review what Congress did or did not do in those situations. One distinguishing characteristic, though, might be based on the size of the opponent and the likelihood they could or would strike back.
In general, I would prefer the U.S. not do things like that without Congressional approval. I'm not an absolutist, though.
There appears to be a raging debate within MAGA on this.
Trump clearly has the Constitutional authority to launch strikes and engage the enemy. Now if it's something that will be long term and last more than a couple months then Congress needs to approve.
Trump’s foreign policy record as a president is the best in the last three decades.
I don’t think anyone could earnestly try and dispute that without turning themselves into a clown.
I’m going to trust his judgement in this case because he’s earned it.
The sacrifices this man makes for us.
This was the right call. Only way to get those facilities is putting troops in those underground bunkers to place ordnance or use the B2 with MOP ordnance. Guess who has the only bombs that can do this? The US doesn’t give 3 things to anyone. MOP bombs, B2 and the f22. Those are game changers.
It's also my understanding that the Congressional resolution that allowed us to operate in both Iraq and Afghanistan still hasn't expired (heard that on NewsMax a few days ago)... I don't know if that's true or not...
The dem leaders are now pissed and trumpeting the resolution they were going to vote on next week that would have stopped this. Congress is like the cops. When hours count, they're only days away.
There’s also precedence. Every president since the 1973 war powers resolution has ignored it. Good luck to the dems arguing that. Their golden boys sure did. Clinton, Obama etc…
I’m going to start ending all my posts with “Thank for your attention to this matter”
More in-depth analysis of the law of these situations:
www.lawfaremedia.org
The Law of Going to War With Iran
Right or wrong, the executive branch likely thinks Trump has the legal authority to do it—at least until Congress or the courts say otherwise.
www.lawfaremedia.org
I think strikes have never needed congress every president has done them war is a different matter like the lies to under bush to start that war got approved. I mean can they try an impeach over this sure they can try but it will go nowhere fast.More in-depth analysis of the law of these situations:
The Law of Going to War With Iran
Right or wrong, the executive branch likely thinks Trump has the legal authority to do it—at least until Congress or the courts say otherwise.
Strike and war are two different things.
Well hell, you miss voting in ONE WC poll and they decide to bomb Iran without your input.
Wipe palestine off the face of the earth while we're at it.
I like it when a lot of people die. 2.2 billion need to go. I would do it myself if I could.
I like it when a lot of people die. 2.2 billion need to go. I would do it myself if I could.
We're seeing that regularly now. I'm thinking that's a sign that Barron is actually composing the post.
You're a god damn adult. Start acting like it and vote in ALL of the polls.
I know we've come to think of them that way, but are they?
Wasn't Pearl Harbor just "a strike?"
No. They also invaded the Philippines nearly simultaneously. Guam as well. PH was the first strike in a war against the US.
Hypothetically, had Japan done nothing other than the Pearl Harbor attack, would you define that as an act of war?
Yes. It is an act of war. So is our strike.
