Congress may finally stop one of the (many) unjust wars.

So a vote has been pushed back to Nov 2 to end US involvement in the Saudi led war against Yemen. Though not as direct as the US led embargoes of Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children in the 1990s, US involvement in the Yemeni wars over the past five years has led to the empowerment of Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and another half million Yemeni children face starvation and widening cholera outbreaks.



A bipartisan attempt to stop the presidents of the US to continue the war - H. CON. RES. 81 - will be voted on the beginning of next month.



Call or email you congressman to stop this madness and the usurpation of the power of congress by the executive in declaring war.

There is legislation introduced that would keep the president from being able to launch a first strike nuclear attack without the authorization of Congress. Maybe it's mostly symbolic, in that it's hard to imagine there ever being a need for a first strike nuclear attack, but these days with the president we have in office you never know. Nevertheless, the Constitution very clearly states it is Congress who declares war and not the president, so I support the idea that the president shouldn't be able to unilaterally start a nuclear war.

BlueK wrote:

There is legislation introduced that would keep the president from being able to launch a first strike nuclear attack without the authorization of Congress. Maybe it's mostly symbolic, in that it's hard to imagine there ever being a need for a first strike nuclear attack, but these days with the president we have in office you never know. Nevertheless, the Constitution very clearly states it is Congress who declares war and not the president, so I support the idea that the president shouldn't be able to unilaterally start a nuclear war.

BlueK, I agree that authorization should come from congress. But I don't think Trump is any more of a threat than past presidents.



Take Obama for example. The dude most definitely would have launched a nuclear attack, but only if he was sure he could do it without looking like he did it.

Trump, he just doesn't care and will tell you what he's thinking.



I personally find Trump to be the more predictable president. When was the last time the USA didn't have a psycho as president?

BroncoBot wrote:

There is legislation introduced that would keep the president from being able to launch a first strike nuclear attack without the authorization of Congress. Maybe it's mostly symbolic, in that it's hard to imagine there ever being a need for a first strike nuclear attack, but these days with the president we have in office you never know. Nevertheless, the Constitution very clearly states it is Congress who declares war and not the president, so I support the idea that the president shouldn't be able to unilaterally start a nuclear war.

BlueK, I agree that authorization should come from congress. But I don't think Trump is any more of a threat than past presidents.



Take Obama for example. The dude most definitely would have launched a nuclear attack, but only if he was sure he could do it without looking like he did it.

Trump, he just doesn't care and will tell you what he's thinking.



I personally find Trump to be the more predictable president. When was the last time the USA didn't have a psycho as president?

I'm with you BBot.

BroncoBot wrote:

There is legislation introduced that would keep the president from being able to launch a first strike nuclear attack without the authorization of Congress. Maybe it's mostly symbolic, in that it's hard to imagine there ever being a need for a first strike nuclear attack, but these days with the president we have in office you never know. Nevertheless, the Constitution very clearly states it is Congress who declares war and not the president, so I support the idea that the president shouldn't be able to unilaterally start a nuclear war.

BlueK, I agree that authorization should come from congress. But I don't think Trump is any more of a threat than past presidents.



Take Obama for example. The dude most definitely would have launched a nuclear attack, but only if he was sure he could do it without looking like he did it.

Trump, he just doesn't care and will tell you what he's thinking.



I personally find Trump to be the more predictable president. When was the last time the USA didn't have a psycho as president?

Who did Obama want to launch a nuclear strike against?

And while we're into wild theories, i think Steve Bannon is trying to set the stage for becoming dictator of America in about 12 years or so.

BlueK wrote:

And while we're into wild theories, i think Steve Bannon is trying to set the stage for becoming dictator of America in about 12 years or so.

This is becoming quite the rabbit hole for you, isn't it?

BlueK wrote:

BlueK wrote:

There is legislation introduced that would keep the president from being able to launch a first strike nuclear attack without the authorization of Congress. Maybe it's mostly symbolic, in that it's hard to imagine there ever being a need for a first strike nuclear attack, but these days with the president we have in office you never know. Nevertheless, the Constitution very clearly states it is Congress who declares war and not the president, so I support the idea that the president shouldn't be able to unilaterally start a nuclear war.

BlueK, I agree that authorization should come from congress. But I don't think Trump is any more of a threat than past presidents.



Take Obama for example. The dude most definitely would have launched a nuclear attack, but only if he was sure he could do it without looking like he did it.

Trump, he just doesn't care and will tell you what he's thinking.



I personally find Trump to be the more predictable president. When was the last time the USA didn't have a psycho as president?

Who did Obama want to launch a nuclear strike against?

Exactly.

An update on this. The rules committee stripped the privileged status of this resolution so it looks like it may never get to a vote like it should have. Basically the US can bomb a country and certain foolish high level congressmen can just say that isn't an act of war so northrup and raytheon can sell a few more bombs.

jvquarterback wrote:

An update on this. The rules committee stripped the privileged status of this resolution so it looks like it may never get to a vote like it should have.

They're afraid it will offend Trump if it passes. That's why.

BlueK wrote:

An update on this. The rules committee stripped the privileged status of this resolution so it looks like it may never get to a vote like it should have.

They're afraid it will offend Trump if it passes. That's why.

You're just trolling now.

jvquarterback wrote:

An update on this. The rules committee stripped the privileged status of this resolution so it looks like it may never get to a vote like it should have. Basically the US can bomb a country and certain foolish high level congressmen can just say that isn't an act of war so northrup and raytheon can sell a few more bombs.

Sickening.

BroncoBot wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

An update on this. The rules committee stripped the privileged status of this resolution so it looks like it may never get to a vote like it should have.

They're afraid it will offend Trump if it passes. That's why.

You're just trolling now.

Not so fast - the congressmen who stopped the bill prefer a king to a president limited in his power to wage war. That is essentially what we have now - a king - and the congress has no check on him. And it makes no difference if we get to choose a new king every four years, he's still a king.

I agree on the king. Whether you're talking about the president and his power OR central govt in general we live in a "kingdom" where the select few tell the rest how they will live their lives.



But I don't think "being afraid of trump" was the reason the resolution didn't get a vote.

Afraid may not be the right word -- those congressmen did what they did because they want to set up a king (Trump) rather than accept their duty to declare war. They did it because they are afraid to take the blame for their actions (because their actions are wrong).

jvquarterback wrote:

Afraid may not be the right word -- those congressmen did what they did because they want to set up a king (Trump) rather than accept their duty to declare war. They did it because they are afraid to take the blame for their actions (because their actions are wrong).

I think you make a strong point and trump would be happy to be in such a position I'm afraid.