Trump Bombs Syria Hours After 88 Lawmakers Urged Him To First Consult Congress

GySgt John Olson I'm not sure it was in violation of international law. The U.S., U.K., and France bombed Syria because of Syria's violation of the treaty regulating use of chemical weapons.

GySgt John Olson that's interesting info.

Do you believe this action taken by the coalition forces was a violation of international law? If so, and there is no method for enforcement, why does it matter?

To clarify, since that last message was a bit ambiguous, I didn't mean why do the actions matter; I meant why do international laws matter.

GySgt John Olson well yeah, I get that, but if none of the agreements can be enforced when someone violates ths agreement then why make them in the first place?

GySgt John Olson wasn't Assad's use of chemical weapons on civilians an act of terrorism? It could easily be said that protecting U.S. interests is protecting the U.S., thus Assad's unlawful use or violence against civilians for his political aims being a threat to U.S. interests could certainly fall under that act.

Definition of terrorism:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Thanks for the excerpts of the WPA, and dubious sources. The Congress didn’t want the responsibility to declare war to be on their shoulders, yet didn’t want the blame when immediate action was required, so we got the WPA. If so many are against it, do what is required and rescind the law by the necessary Constitutional manner.

GySgt John Olson Ah, yep. International I think is the real rub there.

I don't think there is any scenario where a sitting POTUS has to prove something is a "critical" interest, so I think that is moot.

I also can't think of many times where WPA and other similar legislation ever mattered to a sitting POTUS either, though. There is some debate as to the constitutionality of those types of resolutions with regard to the enumerated powers of the two branches and the intended separation of powers.

GySgt John Olson - George Bush said there will be no safe haven for terrorists in any county. Either you're with us or you're against us. Obama used the same mentality in what he did, and it should be no different for Trump. ISIS is a terrorist org, who happens to be of our own creation, so we should do everything possible to stamp out our creation before they can take hold and grow again. I know you cannot use any munition to destroy an ideology, and that you'll just entrench the belief deeper, but that does not excuse us from trying.


You're taking points of a document and cherrypicking parts where you want or belive the President can only do things according to what you want the document to say vs what it can/is interpreted as by those with the means to execute orders on it's behalf. If any of the last three Presidents who have used the document to do actions against terrorits regardless of location followed the letter of the document vs their interpretation of it, we'd never do anything. Everything is prohinited. That's why he has a NSC, lawyers (that aren't shielding him from porn stars or playmates), and miltary advisors. I'm sure Mattis weighed in heavily on any action for or against Syria I'm sure the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs along with the Chiefs themselves also weighed heavily in what is/will be done. That's why they get paid the big dollars, and we sit here debating whether or not ISIS is a factor in the Presidents decisions to act. Trump was right to act.

I remember a lot of consternation over Obama. I remember the brouhaha over Bush and his guys. Clinton was wagging the dog.

Selective memory seems to be a bigger issue with those who whine lately.

SFC Shirley Whitfield - ouch.......