Trump is making a great number of points by doing what he is doing. And the level of intensity with which he is doing it is causing a lot of death on the ISIS side.

Stopping the arms shipments to the FSA "Rebels" would be helpful. It's time that Trump says NO to the neocon warmongers. There is no real difference between the Free Syrian Army and ISIS.

Getting in the middle of the war between Syria/Russia and ISIS is a lousy idea. It's highly provocative and unnecessary, since ISIS has already been virtually defeated .

How does he think NATO-ally Turkey would take a de facto Kurdistan

Turkey was a NATO U. S. ally under Ataturk. But no longer.

Ron Paul is spot on, as usual.

This is certainly a shortcoming on the part of Trump.

Ron Paul thinks in terms of international law. What a dumb ass.

Ron Paul is spot on, as usual.

… as usual?

Uh-huh!

The same usual spot he was on when he said that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation.

And when at a campaign stop while he was running or president, a man asked Ron Paul how terrorist groups would then react if the U.S. removed all its military presence in Middle Eastern nations…..a position that Ron Paul advocates.

Ron Paul’s answer was an interesting one …

“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

The man specifically asked Ron Paul Radical Islam.

Ron Paul, however, did not answer the man’s question, but went into his “song and dance routine” to say …

I don’t see Islam as our enemy.

It cannot go unnoticed here that Ron Paul [like Obama and his aides] “bent over backwards” to avoid using the phrase “radical Islam” in his answer and he did not respond directly to the man’s question.

I cannot help but wonder, why that was …

Finally, Ron Paul said …

I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.

From this, I understand that Ron Paul is saying had the U.S. removed all of our troops from the entire Middle East, the 911 attacks would never have occurred. And had the U.S. removed all of our troops from the entire Middle East after the 911 attacks, then the motivation of radical Islamists would cease and desist.

Cease and desist like ”poof”….the radical Islamist would somehow magically abandon their unwavering faith in a transcendent deity where radical Islam is a militant, politically activist ideology whose ultimate goal is to create a worldwide community, or caliphate, of Muslim believers….and execute all non- believers who do not embrace Islam.

Sorry, Li'l Abner you may convince your Daisy Mae to believe that …

Ron Paul is spot on, as usual.

… but you damn sure will have a helluva time convincing the vast majority of American that he is “spot on” in his Middle East position and how the radical Islamists will no longer be a threat to Americans.

Get out of Syria, get out of the ME, there is no point in escalating the conflict to massarge Dump's ego, afterall that is big enough already. There is no win situation for the US in the ME, unless the US troops will stand side by side with Russians at Racca and recognise that defeat of a common enemy is a win for everyone

There is no win situation for the US in the ME, unless the US troops will stand side by side with Russians at Racca and recognise that defeat of a common enemy is a win for everyone

That's true. The US and Russia should ally to crush the Islamists into powder.

Top Islamic Extremist recruiter ISIS McCain, meets with Wahhabi Saudi terrorists.

That's true. The US and Russia should ally to crush the Islamists into powder.

Russia and the US should be allies,period.

Russia and the US should be allies,period.

I agree with you on that.

Ron Paul thinks in terms of international law. What a dumb ass.

....it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration.

Or maybe you missed that part.

The last thing this country needs is another invasion of a foreign country under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Of course, I'm not surprised to see that Trump is caving to the neocons.

....it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration.

Or maybe you missed that part.

I know that.

Still that he even considers "international" pretend law is dumb.

He has lots of other good points just not this one.

....it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration.
Or maybe you missed that part.

Side Bar –

Hey, Bubba, maybe you missed the point that both the Korean and Vietnam Wars were notable exceptions of the “US law” to take the country to “war without a declaration.”

Truman claimed the Korean War was a “police action” and did not require congressional authorization….while Johnson exploited the vaguely worded Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as justification for pursuing the armed conflict in Vietnam.

I point out to you these are two significant examples to show you how war powers have shifted toward the executive branch since the early days of American history….as I continue my relentless effort to educate you and all libertarians.

“Pay attention to what things are called and may not be called….because things need not be called what they really are to not be what be really are.” ~ Something Yogi Berra would have said …

I point out to you these are two significant examples to show you how war powers have shifted toward the executive branch since the early days of American history….as I continue my relentless effort to educate you and all libertarians.

Do you know what usurp means?

Was the "shift" legitimate per constitutional rules?

How was it legitimatized? If you know.

Do you know what usurp means?

I could say: “Maple or sugar cane?”

But I want…although that did cross my mind.

Joking aside – Please read and take my statement literally….and don’t read something into it or try to read something into it, if that’s what you are doing, or trying to do.

I stated:

The Korean [Conflict] and Vietnam War were notable exceptions of the US law to take the country to war without a declaration.

This is true. They did take our country into wars without a declaration [although one was called a conflict…it was same thing] and they were notable exceptions of the US law to take the country to war without a declaration. That is exactly what I said, and that is a true statement….period.

Was the "shift" legitimate per constitutional rules?

I didn’t call it a “shift.” So what I think you are asking is: “Were those actions constitutional?”

I will only take time to discuss what, if any, legal basis did Truman act to commit U.S. troops to Korea in June of 1950….which incidentally still stands as the single most important precedent for the executive use of military action without congressional approval.

I am of the opinion that Truman's unilateral use of armed force in Korea violated the U.S. Constitution [and also the UN Participation Act of 1945, for that matter] because the decision to place U.S. troops in combat and engage the nation in a state of war [regardless of what it’s call….including a “conflict”] requires prior approval by Congress.

I point out to you these are [but] two significant examples to show you how war powers have shifted toward the executive branch since the early days of American history …

Ah, but you must realize there have been more that two hundred “incidents” where Presidents have used “force abroad.” I say that a war, either small or large, by any other name is still a war although they have been referred to as “incidents.”

But, WOAH, there “Old Nellie”….hold on. Most of those “incidents” were minor actions, or “adventures” taken in the name of directly protecting American lives. Can, or should I condemn or condone any of those? Hmmm … I would need to examine each of the specific incidents before doing so.

As great as the Constitution is, and I do think it is….it is a short document and it cannot and it does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it appears clear to some Constitutional Lawyers and Constitutional Experts….there are other Constitutional Lawyers and Constitutional Experts who will argue against them and have different interpretations. There can be conflicting rights and conflicting spheres of power. That is why it is important that judges of the Judicial Branch interpret the Constitution, for that is the way our system was designed.

How was it legitimatized? If you know.

I could give you many reasons that hundreds of people explained how it [the “shift” as you called it] was legitimatized….but that would be their justification and not mine. So I say this question is not applicable to me and I trust you can understand this.

I hope I have adequately and thoroughly answered your question….and I thank you for taking your time to ask it.

I will now be glad to listen to your opinion or anything you have to say …

Truman claimed the Korean War was a “police action” and did not require congressional authorization….while Johnson exploited the vaguely worded Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as justification for pursuing the armed conflict in Vietnam.

Both wars were based on lies then - I guess that makes it OK, right?

Just like Dubya and his invasion of Iraq to go after non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

De-classified Vietnam-era Transcripts Show Senators Knew Gulf Of Tonkin Was A Staged False Flag Event

The committee decided in the end to effectively conceal the truth, with Senator Church noting that if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, “we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president.”

He also noted that if the senators were to follow up on their skepticism over Tonkin, “The big forces in this country that have most of the influence and run most of the newspapers and are oriented toward the presidency will lose no opportunity to thoroughly discredit this committee.”

The LBJ Presidential tapes, declassified and released in 2001, prove that LBJ knew the Tonkin incident never happened. After dressing down his Defence Secretary Robert McNamara for misleading him, Johnson then discussed how to politically spin the non-event and escalate it as justification for air strikes.

“You just came in a few weeks ago and said they’re launching an attack on us – they’re firing at us,” Johnson tells McNamara in one conversation, “and we got through with the firing and concluded maybe they hadn’t fired at all.”

The NSA also deliberately faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost in the “attack”.

Johnson used the 1964 false flag event to expand dramatically the scale of the Vietnam War by ushering in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as well as to rope in much needed domestic support with the Congress and public.

*****

THE BIG LIE SELLING YOU WAR WITH NORTH KOREA

The Long History of Lies for War