True, but the president can order military actions, in effect, pursuing an undeclared war, without declaring war.
The Trump Crime Family
- Thread starter Doc Holliday
- Start date
True for the first part, but this executive power was limited after the Vietnam War by the War Powers Resolution. The president is required to report to the congress, precisely to avoid what you refered to in the second part of your answer, following the principle that even a president cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Still less a president at the end of his term of office, when there is a president-elect. He has even less political and moral authority to do so. But with Trump, it is true that all these fine principles no longer apply because he has no respect for the rule of law or for institutions; he respects only one constitution, his own. This is what makes Trump an atypical and adulated president, and what makes 74 million American citizens ready to throw away their constitution in order to better venerate his own, even if it means sending the sons of the motherland to serve as cannon fodder. But that would be a small sacrifice, wouldn't it, if it were to make America great again? As long as they are not losers, too.
Last edited:
You definitely need to move.
It looks like your leftist bleeding heart neighbour has finally gotten to you and you are starting to sound just like him.
I hope your Doberman will still respect you and won’t look for a new owner.
Roosevelt started a war to stay in power? I thought the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the United States? Oh man. I’m relearning US and world history from you guys. First the orange man created a global pandemic and then Roosevelt started WWII? What’s next? Did Wilson assassinate the Arch Duke and start WWl?
Hungry, I think you misunderestimate FDR, he was a really devious s-o-b. He started the war in Europe in 1939, without the U.S. even participating. Hard to say how it helped him to win the third term in 1940, but the plain fact is it did, nothing succeeds like success. And it is only now that we can fully appreciate his diabolical vision through the generations. His only purpose was to show Trump how to properly usurp power. Awe-inspiring forethought, isn't it?
Actually, both those statements are open to interpretation.
I have no idea what Roosevelt's motives for wanting war, but he was definitely in favor of joining the fray at a time when the majority of Americans wanted to remain neutral.
The Japanese were offered terms which would have ended their empire and made it extremely difficult to get the raw materials they desperately needed. The Americans, having already broken the Japanese encryption scheme, knew that they were not willing to accept. The American leadership neither ordered a strike nor declared war, but deliberately goaded the Japanese.
The Germans invaded Russia in June 1941 and declared war on the USA in December of that year. The USA had been officially neutral, but they sent convoys of ships loaded with food and armaments to the enemies of the Germans, Britain and Russia. The Germans attacked American supply ships and, due to their treaty with Japan, finally declared war on the USA a few days after the Pearl Harbour attack.
Last edited:
You are never too old to learn.
Merb historians definitely know their stuff whether it is wars or McDonald’s coffee.
Most agree that we can certainly blame Trump for all of it.
With Trump’s time in the White House dwindling, his state of mind after losing the election has even some of his closest allies worried. The Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig and Ethics and Public Policy Center's Peter Wehner- who served in the administrations of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43- react to reports Trump considered instituting martial law and seizing voting machines in an effort to overturn election results. Wehner asserting “this is what happens when you elect someone who is essentially sociopathic."
Trump is "sociopath"
A sociopath is a term used to describe someone who has antisocial personality disorder. They’ll often break rules or make impulsive decisions without feeling guilty for the harm they cause.
Vlad - Yes, I can't argue with a single thing that you said. I will say this: Japan was fighting all over Asia since 1931. They invented an incident similar to the incident that Germany created (Poland supposedly attacked a German radio station at the border in 1939 which was BS) so that they could conquer Manchuria. Supposedly, The pretext for Japan invading China in 1937 (the Marco Polo Bridge incident) involved similar circumstances as the Mukden incident. The point is that by the time of Pearl Harbor, war raged all over Europe and Asia. Blaming FDR for WWII is as silly as blaming Trump for the Chinese virus but hate is a powerful drug. I've read a number of books about the start of WWII. I would recommend Ian Toll's Pacific trilogy as the most recent scholarship. It is murky. One could argue that the only real advantage we had over Japan at the time the war broke out was in intelligence and more specifically code breaking. The problem is that the code was only partially broken and that only a select few knew that we had the code partially broken (That did not include the two scapegoats in command at Pearl). We had to keep it secret in case there was a Swalwell in the government. I am aware that we pissed the Japanese off with the Washington treaty of 1922 (3 battleships for Nippon for every 5 USA and 5 British) but the USA and British had two oceans to worry about and the Japanese only had one. This treaty inadvertently aided Japan as it caused them to invest in carriers and they still secretly built at least one battleship anyway. There were a few other treaties about scrap metal and oil I believe but the Japanese were an aggressor. Should any of this shock a logical person?
One thing I will say is thank God for the Atomic bomb. The two bombs saved countless lives on both sides. Quebec doesn't know the countless lives that were saved by the merciful deployment of the two bombs. If you don't believe me read Tennozan by George Feifer about the battle of Okinawa and the dropping of the atomic bomb. They predict 1MM Allied deaths and 20 MM Japanese dead. If the Japanese followed the code of bushido it would have meant the entire population (~90-100 Million?). Read the book. Many civilians on Okinawa did destroy themselves by suicide or were shot down by IJA while trying to surrender. There are better books about the dropping of the bomb but the strength of Tennozan is to understand the destruction of the civilian population of the Okinawans as well as the savagery of the fighting. One reason that Pacific veterans hated the Japanese was because they fought so hard in a lost cause. Why the hell didn't they just give up? Anyway, if you extrapolate to what would of happened if the US and it's allies invaded Japan expect at least 20 million dead. My favorite book about the war in the Pacific is With the Old Breed: At Okinawa and Peleliu by Eugene Sledge. It is considered the best war memoir ever written. It gave me nightmares. It makes a great audible book. If you want to understand the basis for the hate that front line military had for the Japanese you need to read this book. It is even handed. The book said that there is nothing more blood thirsty than a 17 year old American male that has been on the front lines too long...read it. There was no chivalry. I digress.
One thing I will say is thank God for the Atomic bomb. The two bombs saved countless lives on both sides. Quebec doesn't know the countless lives that were saved by the merciful deployment of the two bombs. If you don't believe me read Tennozan by George Feifer about the battle of Okinawa and the dropping of the atomic bomb. They predict 1MM Allied deaths and 20 MM Japanese dead. If the Japanese followed the code of bushido it would have meant the entire population (~90-100 Million?). Read the book. Many civilians on Okinawa did destroy themselves by suicide or were shot down by IJA while trying to surrender. There are better books about the dropping of the bomb but the strength of Tennozan is to understand the destruction of the civilian population of the Okinawans as well as the savagery of the fighting. One reason that Pacific veterans hated the Japanese was because they fought so hard in a lost cause. Why the hell didn't they just give up? Anyway, if you extrapolate to what would of happened if the US and it's allies invaded Japan expect at least 20 million dead. My favorite book about the war in the Pacific is With the Old Breed: At Okinawa and Peleliu by Eugene Sledge. It is considered the best war memoir ever written. It gave me nightmares. It makes a great audible book. If you want to understand the basis for the hate that front line military had for the Japanese you need to read this book. It is even handed. The book said that there is nothing more blood thirsty than a 17 year old American male that has been on the front lines too long...read it. There was no chivalry. I digress.
After former national security adviser Michael Flynn suggested Trump should impose martial law to overturn the election and Trump reportedly asked about doing so during a meeting, top military leaders rebuked him and released a joint statement asserting they would not get involved in the election. Former National Security Council member and retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey reacts to the news, asserting he was “horrified” hearing Flynn’s suggestion and called for Senate Republicans to publicly step up against the idea.
Trump and Michael Flynn: 2 dangerous men.
There is another version of the facts. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have precipitated the Japanese surrender somewhat, but it was still imminent, especially since the Soviets had opened a front in Manchuria. With its supplies depleted, Tokyo decimated, deprived of naval and air fleets, and squeezed between two fronts, Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway. The atomic bomb was to save the lives of American soldiers, of course, but it was mainly to avoid having to negotiate the surrender of the Japanese with the Soviets, by getting ahead of them, and to send them the message that the Americans had a weapon that they didn’t have and made them militarily superior. With the de facto partition of Berlin, the Cold War had indeed already begun. The "official" version — saving lives — served much more to justify a political-strategic choice that was otherwise difficult to justify morally. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let’s not forget, killed tens of thousands of civilians, men, women, old people and children in a matter of seconds. I don't think we should thank God for that. In fact, I think He would’ve strongly disapproved the "merciful […] of the two bombs" if He had been asked for His advice on the subject.
Last edited:
If it is any consolation to you, I had understood very well, otherwise I would’ve served you a "reprimand" on the subject, as is customary here.
Last edited:
President Donald Trump announced 26 new pardons, including ones for longtime ally Roger Stone, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner's father, Charles.
The pardons extend Trump's streak of wielding his clemency powers for criminals who are loyalists, well-connected or adjacent to his family. While all presidents issue controversial pardons at the end of their terms, Trump appears to be moving at a faster pace than his predecessors, demonstrating little inhibition at rewarding his friends and allies using one of the most unrestricted powers of his office.
The pardons of Manafort and Stone reward two of the most high-profile and widely condemned former advisers of the President, both of whom were indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller, went to trial and were convicted by juries of multiple crimes.
Manafort, who is serving home confinement, admitted his crimes and initially agreed to cooperate with Mueller then lied to prosecutors, while Stone never cooperated after lying to Congress to protect the President. Manafort spent close to two years in prison for bank and tax fraud, illegal foreign lobbying and witness tampering conspiracies before being released because of the Covid-19 pandemic, while Stone's sentence for obstruction of Congress and threatening a witness was commuted by Trump earlier this year days before he was set to surrender.
All honest people
I am not an expert in foreign politics but is Usa the only major democratic contry that allows is President or Prime Minister to allow pardons like Kings in 16, 17th century ?
President Donald Trump announced 26 new pardons, including ones for longtime ally Roger Stone, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner's father, Charles.
The pardons extend Trump's streak of wielding his clemency powers for criminals who are loyalists, well-connected or adjacent to his family. While all presidents issue controversial pardons at the end of their terms, Trump appears to be moving at a faster pace than his predecessors, demonstrating little inhibition at rewarding his friends and allies using one of the most unrestricted powers of his office.
The pardons of Manafort and Stone reward two of the most high-profile and widely condemned former advisers of the President, both of whom were indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller, went to trial and were convicted by juries of multiple crimes.
Manafort, who is serving home confinement, admitted his crimes and initially agreed to cooperate with Mueller then lied to prosecutors, while Stone never cooperated after lying to Congress to protect the President. Manafort spent close to two years in prison for bank and tax fraud, illegal foreign lobbying and witness tampering conspiracies before being released because of the Covid-19 pandemic, while Stone's sentence for obstruction of Congress and threatening a witness was commuted by Trump earlier this year days before he was set to surrender.
All honest people
I didn't use Google to verify for that but when did you heard on the news of this kind of behavior ?Are you by any chance an expert in using google?
Pardon - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
USA got rid of Monarchy in 18th century but kept one of his worst usage.
Womanizer used a stylistic device called a "rhetorical question", a question not asked from the desire to know the real answer, but rather than to create some effect. It’s obvious to him, probably a detractor of the greatest president ever, that Trump's pardon of all these dubious characters is quite medieval.
Last edited:
Similar threads
