Only Democrats want to stop war....as usual.

[dianaiad]

House Democrats vote to repeal 2001 law used to authorize perpetual war

So, here we are, 18 years after congress abdicated their responsibility to control whether or not our nation goes to war with another. They gave all the power to one human being: the president of the United States of America. Directly contradicting their constitutional duty.

Now, the Democrats in the house have signed a bill (among many since 2018) that retracts/repeals that war authority from the POTUS, and puts the control back into the hands of the people’s representatives, as the US constitution demands.

With Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, and of course McConnell in control of the US war machine, and rattling sabers at Iran, Venezuela, and others...... Do you think that McConnell will try to begin carrying out his duties as leader of the Senate, and let this bill (along with so many others) even come to the floor for discussion?

How much you wanna bet?

Oh, that's baloney. Democrats only want to 'stop war' if someone ELSE wants to send troops. Don't believe me?

Obama sent a WHOLE bunch of people to the middle east.
Johnson was responsible for gutting Social Security in order to fund VietNam.

I have no patience for this level of hypocritical balderdash.

 

[Kenny]

Ya, and I've been doing a lot of groaning over the last two years, especially with President Pants-On-Fire "running the country" as he recently bragged about.

Pray Metis... PRAY!

 

[We Never Know]

House Democrats vote to repeal 2001 law used to authorize perpetual war

So, here we are, 18 years after congress abdicated their responsibility to control whether or not our nation goes to war with another. They gave all the power to one human being: the president of the United States of America. Directly contradicting their constitutional duty.

Now, the Democrats in the house have signed a bill (among many since 2018) that retracts/repeals that war authority from the POTUS, and puts the control back into the hands of the people’s representatives, as the US constitution demands.

With Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, and of course McConnell in control of the US war machine, and rattling sabers at Iran, Venezuela, and others...... Do you think that McConnell will try to begin carrying out his duties as leader of the Senate, and let this bill (along with so many others) even come to the floor for discussion?

How much you wanna bet?

Republicans vs Democrats in Launching Wars: We Have the Numbers

https://sputniknews-com.cdn.ampproj...803271062904845-us-war-democrats-republicans/

 

[Shad]

You mean to write that the left and the right are basically the same on this matter - we trust our guy in the White House but not their guy?

Not all. I have been arguing against stuff like this for a year or so. I would like the bill to pass even if I do not believe in the BS rationale Dem's claim.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The Senate still needs to sign off or the repeal dies. I expect it to die

Too bad they didn't go after the War Powers Acts as well. It would do more to convince me this is just not partisan roadblocks. Of course the Dems are lapping it up due to omission.

I agree it will die. That’s sort of my point.
McConnell is still operating on the GOP system of blocking anything and everything put forward by anybody with a -D- attached to their name, rather than debating and voting on those things, as his job description dictates.
He is betraying his country, his job, and the will of the people whom he is supposed to be representing.

The result is what the Republicans (not the Dems) are “lapping up”.

 

[Valjean]

Congress should actually act as if it's a congress.

Congress doesn't want to take any position it doesn't think will appeal to the public and generate votes. The presidency has been steadily gaining power.

Legally, we're not supposed to have any wars without permission of the UN. How's that working out?

 

[Shad]

I agree it will die. That’s sort of my point.
McConnell is still operating on the GOP system of blocking anything and everything put forward by anybody with a -D- attached to their name, rather than debating and voting on those things, as his job description dictates.
He is betraying his country, his job, and the will of the people whom he is supposed to be representing.

The result is what the Republicans (not the Dems) are “lapping up”.

Both side have people lapping it up. However as it is a Dem repeal which is only a half-measure it is the Dems doing the larger share of lapping PR up.

 

[Shad]

Legally, we're not supposed to have any wars without permission of the UN. How's that working out?

Nope. There is no such US law.

 

[Valjean]

Nope. There is no such US law.

We're not signatories to the UN charter?
Last I heard we were members.

 

[Shad]

We're not signatories to the UN charter?

The UN charter does not require UN permission for war nor is such a law in the US books.

Last I heard we were members.

Without a US law it does not matter. This is due to the ratification process of treaties.

 

[Valjean]

The UN charter does not require UN permission for war nor is such a law in the US books.
Without a US law it does not matter. This is due to the ratification process of treaties.

From the Mighty Wiki:
A crime against peace, in international law, is "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind.

 

[Shad]

From the Mighty Wiki:
A crime against peace, in international law, is "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind.

That isn't a UN law nor a law on the US books requiring permission to conduct a war. Try again.

 

[Valjean]

That isn't a UN law nor a law on the US books requiring permission to conduct a war. Try again.

The US is a signatory.