Trump is the Commander-in-Chief!

Should President Trump, or any future POTUS, invaded a country without provocation?

  • I really don't care, do you

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
Read and consider:

Trump pressed aides on Venezuela invasion, US official says

If as Commander-in-Chief is there a check and balance which would prevent such an order?

Checking into the possibility is not an "order".

And I for one think it would be foolish and irresponsible if we did NOT have such a plan already resting somewhere in the Pentagon. Because of the growing unrest in that region, it would be foolish to not have such a plan in place.

And let me give you a perfect example of why such might end up being used.

Imagine the country of Myopia is going through a long term phase of civil disorder. Food supplies have broken down, and the government has started to enforce it's control brutally. And in the wake of this, separatist factions have popped up, to the point that civilians are under constant attack, and some are even starting to attack neighboring nations for food and supplies.

And in the wake of such activities, the UNSC decides to put in a group of "peacekeepers" on the ground of Myopia. Of course the first groups to go in to help enforce UN resolutions are going to essentially be "invaders". Landing by sea or air into a location where they have no facilities. Having to seize a location, and probably hold it against one or more groups that will be hostile to the UN presence.

And I am not entirely speaking hypothetically. It has happened a great many times in the past. In Lebanon twice. Cyprus, Haiti, Korea, India and Pakistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Mozambique, Cambodia, Somalia, Liberia, Congo, the list simply goes on and on and on.

Being that Venezuela is in the Western Hemisphere, it would only be natural for the US to get tapped to lead such an operation. And putting into place the initial peacekeeers would be exactly like an invasion.

And if anybody has been watching Venezuela in the last few years, they are teetering dangerously close to civil war again. Making sure there are actually plans in place is not dangerous, it is the thing I would expect the President and military to be doing before they are actually needed.

Trump was not concerned and is never concerned with people in crisis. The Military is for defense. In you scenario the UN would be the place to go, and that is the province of the State Dept. - an agency, btw, still unfunded and still lacking diplomats.
 
In you scenario the UN would be the place to go, and that is the province of the State Dept. - an agency, btw, still unfunded and still lacking diplomats.

Yea, right.

Tell you what, let me know the next time the State Department makes plans for the military, ok?

Yes Virginia, there are stupid questions, above is one.

"All war represents a failure of diplomacy"
Tony Benn Quotes
 
"All war represents a failure of diplomacy"
Tony Benn Quotes

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stewart Mill

Oh, and we tried "diplomacy" with Germany with the Munich Agreement. How well did that work out?
 
Only Congress has the power to declare war.

Unlike Barry Soetoro, Trump will adhere to the Constitution.
Correct, only Congress can declare war, however, a president does have the power to send troops into conflict on a temporary basis.
 
LBJ had far greater credit with Congress and the American people than Trump ever could hope for.

Kelly and Mattis, hopefully, will make Trump toe the line.
 

Forum List

Back
Top