• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump acts against Syria- 49 Tomahawk Missiles strike air force base.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IronWing said:
Last I checked, the Constitutional authorities of the Congress and the President have not changed. Trump was correct then and wrong now.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think it's the other way around. There's pretty widely established precedent that the president doesn't need congressional authorization for limited military actions (assuming that's what this is). Trump still exposed himself as an idiot and a hypocrite yet again, but legally he's fine.
 
IronWing said:
Last I checked, the Constitutional authorities of the Congress and the President have not changed. Trump was correct then and wrong now.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what is Congress' recourse for things like this? Like if it became enough of an 'issue' that they'd want to do something about it. Is there an action level below impeachment but above petty vetoing out of spite?
 
fskimospy said:
Nah, I think it's the other way around. There's pretty widely established precedent that the president doesn't need congressional authorization for limited military actions (assuming that's what this is). Trump still exposed himself as an idiot and a hypocrite yet again, but legally he's fine.
Click to expand...

Isn't that only during wartime though? Or is it a universality? I would assume since a given action can *lead* to war, it would be only a wartime authorization.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Everyone should be uncomfortable with escalation, and with retaliation attacks in general. The fact that any of this is even happening is representative of how unstable the region is, and how global powers meddling in things only makes it worse.

Unfortunately, we're in for a dime, in for a dollar.
Click to expand...

I am fairly ambivalent about striking Syria, I see plusses and minuses. The thing is about this strike is that I'm not sure what it was supposed to accomplish. I mean, what's his goal? Presumably it's not to oust Assad. Is it to get him to stop using chemical weapons? If so, what about all the other atrocities? What if he uses chemical weapons again, are we going to strike harder? I don't get the sense that Trump has thought this through or has an overarching strategy.
 
fskimospy said:
Nah, I think it's the other way around. There's pretty widely established precedent that the president doesn't need congressional authorization for limited military actions (assuming that's what this is). Trump still exposed himself as an idiot and a hypocrite yet again, but legally he's fine.
Click to expand...
The precedent is there and it is patently unconstitutional. Decades of craven Congress critters have allowed the President to usurp powers unambiguously assigned to the Congress.
 
sportage said:
Gee lets see here....
Trump in co-operation with Putin have masterminded then instigated the gassing and death of innocent children just so Trump could now take military action with the full blessing of Putin to make it appear that Trump can stand up against the Soviets, and all the while this scheme was cooked up by Putin and the Soviet KGB, handed to Trump on a silver platter, only to fool the American people.
Believe me.... things ARE NOT as they appear.

Trump is in bed with the Soviet high echelon. They handed Trump the presidency, their murderous system of deceit and corruption made Trump a billionaire, funds the Trump empire, and Americans had begun to figure all of this out.
Lets just say It was getting a little bit too hot in the Trump kitchen for this unholy alliance between the communist leader Putin and his most successful KGB agent of all time, American president Donald Trump.

So once again and working together they have dreamed up this little Alice in the looking glass reality TV show scheme only to fool the foolish star stricken American public as well as the American media.
Who, by the way, fall for this Trump stunt every time....

The worrisom part of all this is this now places the idea of gassing ones own citizenry for personal profit and political gain into the mind of none other than our glorious Putin enabled leader, Donald Trump.
Voter suppression? That's old school.
Gass them democrats instead.
Then, blame Islamic terrorism.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. You're out of your mind.
 
fskimospy said:
I am fairly ambivalent about
striking Syria, I see plusses and minuses. The thing is about this strike is that I'm not sure what it was supposed to accomplish. I mean, what's his goal? Presumably it's not to oust Assad. Is it to get him to stop using chemical weapons? If so, what about all the other atrocities? What if he uses chemical weapons again, are we going to strike harder? I don't get the sense that Trump has thought this through or has an overarching strategy.
Click to expand...

It's a couple things. The biggest one is a show of force that the US 'won't stand for' chemical weapon usage. Now of course that's bound in hypocrisy since genocide still gets a pass, but it leans against American values of 'murder, just don't melt their skin', so 'something' had to be done. The air strike itself was to destroy this air field with a rather overwhelming level of force (as opposed to targeting only the chemical supplies or the strip itself). This could have been as a goal accomplishment + show of force, or it could have been because we had intel that there was in fact a large stash of weapons there, but we didn't want to tip our hand, so we flattened the whole base instead.

EDIT: oh, and there's issues with just straight rolling into Syria with tanks and planes and stuff, hence no 'ousting'. This is more just a pseduo-disarmament, with a vague promise we'll keep doing it if he keeps his shit up. Given that he's kept his shit up with another attack, we'll see where it leads.
 
Given Trump's earlier positions on this issue, and all the trouble his chaotic admin is in, this blatant pulling of the dead kid card smacks of wag the dog.

No surprise at all his supporters are acting every bit as hypocritical as the man baby. They've been keeping to the script for months now, I don't expect them to change.
 
Jaskalas said:
Those were supposed to be missile defense?
I always viewed them as solely anti aircraft.
Click to expand...

It's an air defense system. Be kinda of stupid to build an air defense system that gets all judgmental if the the thing invading doesn't have a cockpit.
Cruise Missiles included. Ballistic missile, Planes, large birds...the butterfly from the Butterfly effect movie

At least according this sale brochure and the glorious promotional video
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Isn't that only during wartime though? Or is it a universality? I would assume since a given action can *lead* to war, it would be only a wartime authorization.
Click to expand...

It's really any time. From a practical sense Congress is ill-equipped to make fast decisions and so the president has a lot of latitude in how to respond to quickly unfolding events. The whole war powers act thing would be the primary check, but in practice that mostly just covers sustained military action. One-offs like this (assuming that's what it was) are always going to be in the president's wheelhouse.
 
IronWing said:
Last I checked, the Constitutional authorities of the Congress and the President have not changed. Trump was correct then and wrong now.
Click to expand...

fskimospy said:
Nah, I think it's the other way around. There's pretty widely established precedent that the president doesn't need congressional authorization for limited military actions (assuming that's what this is). Trump still exposed himself as an idiot and a hypocrite yet again, but legally he's fine.
Click to expand...

IronWing said:
The precedent is there and it is patently unconstitutional. Decades of craven Congress critters have allowed the President to usurp powers unambiguously assigned to the Congress.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, did you guys feel this way when Obama ordered military strikes?
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Out of curiosity, what is Congress' recourse for things like this? Like if it became enough of an 'issue' that they'd want to do something about it. Is there an action level below impeachment but above petty vetoing out of spite?
Click to expand...
Short of impeachment, Congress can cut off funding. Those are really the two options. Congress can file suits in federal court but the courts don't seem inclined to take up those suits very often.

And for folks who think I might harbor a double standard, I thought Clinton's Congress-free military actions in the Balkans were impeachable offenses. I agreed with Clinton's goals but w/o Congressional authorization, Clinton violated the Constitution. Ditto for Obama's military actions where he had no Congressional authorization. But in all these cases, Congress rolled over.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
It's a couple things. The biggest one is a show of force that the US 'won't stand for' chemical weapon usage. Now of course that's bound in hypocrisy since genocide still gets a pass, but it leans against American values of 'murder, just don't melt their skin', so 'something' had to be done. The air strike itself was to destroy this air field with a rather overwhelming level of force (as opposed to targeting only the chemical supplies or the strip itself). This could have been as a goal accomplishment + show of force, or it could have been because we had intel that there was in fact a large stash of weapons there, but we didn't want to tip our hand, so we flattened the whole base instead.

EDIT: oh, and there's issues with just straight rolling into Syria with tanks and planes and stuff, hence no 'ousting'. This is more just a pseduo-disarmament, with a vague promise we'll keep doing it if he keeps his shit up. Given that he's kept his shit up with another attack, we'll see where it leads.
Click to expand...

I think that a show of force is what they THINK was the goal but again I'm still not sure Trump has thought this through as I'm unsure what his end goal is. When Obama threatened strikes the goal was clear: no more Assad. In this case it seems to be 'keep killing your citizens but in a slightly different way'. Is that really worth pursuing?
 
fskimospy said:
It's really any time. From a practical sense Congress is ill-equipped to make fast decisions and so the president has a lot of latitude in how to respond to quickly unfolding events. The whole war powers act thing would be the primary check, but in practice that mostly just covers sustained military action. One-offs like this (assuming that's what it was) are always going to be in the president's wheelhouse.
Click to expand...

But per the war powers, only congress can initiate war. What's to stop a president from simply initiating it from the back-end by say, air-striking a military target in another superpower's country?
 
Phynaz said:
I'm curious, did you guys feel this way when Obama ordered military strikes?
Click to expand...

Sure, there's an old thread about Obama threatening to strike Syria I'm sure you can find if you search.

I think Trump is on track to be easily the worst president in history but that doesn't change the fact that ordering a limited strike is within his powers.
 
fskimospy said:
I think that a show of force is what they THINK was the goal but again I'm still not sure Trump has thought this through as I'm unsure what his end goal is. When Obama threatened strikes the goal was clear: no more Assad. In this case it seems to be 'keep killing your citizens but in a slightly different way'. Is that really worth pursuing?
Click to expand...

Well, if punching the bully in the nose actually gets him to stop then it was worth it. If it causes him to start lighting kids on fire instead, maybe it wasn't the best idea... one of those hindsight things.

However, the administration needs to be ready to follow through with this. They've stepped up to the line and if Assad isn't going to back down, they've gotta keep pressing or look like limp noodles.
 
OutHouse said:
he didnt start a war.
Click to expand...

Never said he did, was just asking how the president can have unilateral power to use military force on any country's soil without congressional approval, and yet doesn't have the authority to declare war (which is what that action would traditionally classify as).
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
But per the war powers, only congress can initiate war. What's to stop a president from simply initiating it from the back-end by say, air-striking a military target in another superpower's country?
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't say INITIATE war, it says DECLARE war. Think about it this way:

1) Presumably if Pearl Harbor 2 happened today you would be okay with the president ordering troops to fight back even without Congressional authorization.
2) What if the president learned that Pearl Harbor 2 was about to happen an hour from now? Do you need Congress then? What if it involves top secret information where we don't want to tip our hand?
3) What if the president has information that Pearl Harbor 2 will take place 3 days from now. Can he order a preemptive strike to defend the country or does Congress need to authorize that?

And so on and so forth. The system has to be biased in favor of freedom of action at least in short/limited/extremely dire circumstances.
 
The final takeaway from this Trump attack:
Runway completely undamaged
Most bunkers undamaged
Zero dead or injured personnel
Out of 59 tomahawks fired, only 23 actually made it to their targets.




Good enough for government work amirite😉😕
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top