Congressional approval for war

If I am not mistaken the President has to go to Congress to get approval to go to war. When President Trump decides it is time to hit N. Korea, He will have to go to Congress for approval. What will happen when the Democrats say NO? I suspect they will say NO because they are against anything President Trump wants to do. At the very same instant, that will give Kim the advanced warning he will need to cover his behind. The Democrats will be all up in arms and trying to get as much face time in front of the TV camera's. Saying we stopped the President from making a mistake. He is not competent to be Commander and Chief. In the mean time Kim will simply lob as much firepower as he can onto S. Korea, and Guam. There could be political upheaval here in the states. It is a tricky time we are in at this time. I know I would like to see N. Korea people not have to live under a dictator. Hopefully!

The war with the Korea's never ended...simply an agreement to cease hostilities.

a reply to: Ceeker63

If I'm not mistaken, Obama never got Congressional approval to go into Libya.

If N. Korea instigated, I don't see why Trump would have a problem getting Congressional approval.


At any rate, I'm just amazed our lives all sit in the hands of the idiots in Congress and other psychopaths in DC. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst

a reply to: openyourmind1262

The US never officially declared war on N. Korea but we have been in conflict with them since the 1950s.

a reply to: Ceeker63

The president can order up to 90 days of operations under the War Powers Act. To officially go to war, he has to get Congressional approval.

I criticize Obama and Hillary for the Libya result, but that was a UN sanctioned operation backed up by NATO, and not a full war. A chapter VII UN Security Council resolution does not require congressional approval... I DO criticize the US and NATO for illegally arming the rebels just like in Syria. That was expressly forbidden by the very same resolution.

a reply to: Ceeker63

The last time Congress approved a "war" was world war 2.

We don't have wars anymore. We have corporate sponsored military occupations in order to funnel tax dollars into the hands of private contractors and subvert a nation's resources.

a reply to: Ceeker63

Reagan never got Congressional approval before he bombed Libya in 1986.

a reply to: Ceeker63

Who needs an "official" declaration anymore?

A "Police action" was all that was required for about 1.2 million battle deaths last time.

It never "officially" ended, just a shaky Armistice that has lasted since 1953.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Correct and from what I've read the B-1 bombers are already in the air, buzzing about doing practice bombing runs near the border with NoKo. My thought would be that it shouldn't be too difficult for the Air Force to nuke Pyongyang and any other major cities into oblivion, knocking out NoKo's ability to retaliate.

a reply to: Ceeker63

We are already at war with NK, or more accurate I think is that the Korean war never ended, which we are involved in.

a reply to: TonyS

We've had forward deployed bombers on Guam for years now. They use them to send a message after every missile or nuke test. The B-1s won't be nuking anything though. They had that mission removed a long time ago, and would require fairly significant modification to get it back.

a reply to: Ceeker63

Are you kidding me?

The precise reason why your nations people are so screwed, is because there are war criminals and wannabe war criminals on both sides of your congress, senate, and in both of the wider political machines which operate at their backs. That is also why they have no proper understanding of the paradigm of left and right, why people on both sides of congress believe the incestuous relationship between big business and government to be nothing more than a way to gain prestige and power for themselves.

Clinton was such an evil wench, and unfortunately, the DNC, being corrupt as all hell, prevented the only contender in your last election with a proper attitude toward... ANYTHING, from preventing her from being the candidate. As it was, your last election was between a barely competent psychopath, and a psychopath who had already proven herself to be of that ilk.

Both of them were always going to be hair triggered, ruthless, and clueless.

The Democrats are not at all likely to refuse to go to war with North Korea, because they are as mindlessly self interested and improperly connected, as their idiot counterparts on the right. If you reduced your governments membership in all branches, down to exclusively those who would not only refuse to profit from war themselves, but have arrested anyone who tried, like a decent person would, then you would be looking at having maybe five out of the legions of sycophants which make up the current political machinery, left.

a reply to: Ceeker63

In the mean time Kim will simply lob as much firepower as he can onto S. Korea, and Guam.

That would be suicide and he / they know it.

When an aggressive mob is in your yard threatening you, you could invite disaster by provoking them, if you're that stupid.

Even stupider would be for the bully mob (us military) to start another war, this time with all of Asia, lol.

Stupid is as stupid does. Greed and Pride know no bounds.

a reply to: Ceeker63

Imo, Congress is more likely to push Trump to go to war. Many of the corrupt career politicians are funded by the military industrial complex, big banks, big oil, big pharma, etc.. This in conjunction with MSM makes up the deep state. How do you think the career politicians become so rich? I believe any conflict with N. Korea/China will be a distraction for the death of the USD & may even preserve it a little longer. Here are some links which point to this.

www.cnbc.com...

www.zerohedge.com...

www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Welll we would not want to use nuke missiles for fear that would trigger China/Russia. So do we have nuclear capable bombers?

a reply to: TonyS

Yes, and tactical air. The F-15E and some F-16s can carry the B61, and both the B-52 and B-2 can carry nuclear weapons. The F-16 can only carry the over B61, not the -12 mod, but that is still being tested and hasn't entered service yet.

a reply to: Ceeker63


Good Heavens, Man, you are way behind the times.

Congress passed the sophistry named AUMF back in 2001, and that was happily accepted by the Unitary Executive in the White House. Bush loved it, Obama loved it, and Trump loves it.

It simply means the Unitary Executive can do whatever he wants and Congress will bless off on it.

Has Congress abdicated its constitutional authority? Hell yes, but that's how we roll these days.

Dear Mr or Mrs MURIKAN.

Your country is not the only one that is being threatened or has been for the umpteenth year!

All you armchair USA warmongers bring it on... you are pathetic...

Think about those people closer to North Korea and even those in Europe who want nothing to do with your war mongering ideas!?

But yea... you couldn't care less as you are far far away in your comfy office chair...

Pathetic...

a reply to: Ceeker63

a reply to: intrptr

That would be suicide and he / they know it.

I don't think Lil' Kim cares. He has proven that by developing the hydrogen bomb.

When an aggressive mob is in your yard threatening you, you could invite disaster by provoking them, if you're that stupid.

Would you invite that aggressive mob in for tea and biscuits?


.