A discussion of the War Powers Resolution seems appropriate


The War Powers Resolution limits the Presidents ability to take military action

Congress has the sole power to declare war, but in our modern world, there are circumstances under which the President can take military action. Those circumstances would be a limited authorization by  Congress short of a declaration of war, and attack on a country with which we have a mutual defense treaty, or an attack, or imminent attack on the US, or it’s forces abroad.

When acting under the War Powers Resolution, the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of his actions and has 60 days to act without further Congressional approval.

Iran has launched ballistic missiles against US Troops from within Iranian territory, so the requirements of the WPR have been met, but I think it would be useful for President Trump to ask for a declaration of war against Iran, just to put them on notice that they have pushed a bit too far.

Perhaps the people of Iran need “A Taste  of Armageddon”


20 thoughts on “A discussion of the War Powers Resolution seems appropriate

  1. Do you think we would be justified to retaliate if Iran had assassinated our Secretary of Defense (assuming we actually had one) while he was visiting Iraq?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If our Sect of Defense was a terrorist proscribed from travel outside the US, illegally in Iraq, as part of an assault on the Iranian embassy, probably not.

      Inside Iran, Soleimani was a government official, but in Iraq he was an unlawful enemy combatant.


      1. Some of our activities around the world like taking out elected leaders and replacing them with friendly dictators, or supporting insurgencies or invading the wrong countries and the like, make many think of us as a terrorist nation.

        Just sayin’.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. @Tabor

        Your uncritical parroting of administration lies is very unattractive. There is no evidence that Suleimani orchestrated the rioting at the American embassy following American air strikes on Shia militias but plenty that he is the one who was able to make it stop. Similarly there is no evidence that Suleimani was in Iraq to foment attacks and plenty of evidence – from no less than the Iraqi Premier – that he was there on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions. Common sense confirms the Premier’s version since :unlawful enemy combatants” do not openly fly into an International airport. WMD all over again.

        Finally, what the administration is not talking about is the fact that the much touted success against ISIS was achieved with substantial help from the two men assassinated by Trump. Just as with the Kurds, his wives, his mistresses, his porn stars, his subordinates, his contractors, his investors and his lenders Trump does not hesitate to betray anyone at any time.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. “Inside Iran, Soleimani was a government official,”….

        So based on that, SEC State, SEC Def, and any other government official is no longer a government official when he or she travels outside of the US? Interesting concept.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. When they travel outside the country to commit clandestine acts of war, yes.

          The left’s attempts to make Soelimani a statesman are laughable. He was a murderous fanatic both inside and outside of Iran.


          1. No argument about who he was and what he did. However, to indicate that while outside of the country he is no longer a government official is laughable and dangerous. If something were to happen to one of our government officials while traveling outside of the country and the party responsible considers that official a terrorist, then what would you say?

            We are not clean in a lot of this. (And that is not an anti-Trump statement, but one that goes back a few decades.) And Solelimani was helpful in our execution of actions against ISIS. So statesman, no. But a useful tool in our battle against ISIS he was.


          2. @Tabor

            So planting a roadside bomb that kills the target and maybe some innocent bystanders is “a clandestine act of war”, but launching a hellfire missile from a cubicle in Langley that kills the target and maybe some innocent bystanders is not? Soelimani may well have been a dedicated and ruthless enemy of the United States but that does not mean that he is not a statesman nor does it provide evidence that he was not travelling openly on a diplomatic mission when he was assassinated. According to the Premiere of Iraq that is exactly what he was doing there. Is that laughable too?

            Unless you are oblivious to history you would know that the enmity with Iran has been mostly caused by the behavior of the United States. For decades. So what you style as a “murderous fanatic” is seen as a patriot by the people he fought for.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah, maybe so.

      I don’t think we should be in Iraq this long, if at all. But we are. And attacking our embassy is an act of war, only the latest of countless acts of war by Iran. They have gotten used to sending terrorists around the world and attacking our people without consequence.

      It’s time for consequences.

      I just want the price to fall on the leadership, and not the people.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. What about going back a few thousand years and send the kings to do battle. Winner gets the gold and the babes, losers not so much.

      The Mayans has a quasi-basketball game played with a hard rubber ball and high vertical “hoops”. No hands allowed. Tough to score, but the winning captain was set for life with riches, power, women, etc. Losing team was enslaved and their captain lost his head.

      Obama was a pretty good basketball player. Trump? Well…how’s your Farsi?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I read the “Taste of Armageddon” link and found it interesting. The threat of total destruction ended the “games”, hopefully, in favor of negotiations for peace.

    Would that it could be so simple in the current imbroglio. Unfortunately, land masses are not separated by vast stretches of space. Also, secondary actors in the Middle East are well embedded near allies like Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, etc.

    One twist is the martyrdom scenarios. However, that is more a part of the Sunni extremists scattered throughout the world than the Shia establishment in Iran.

    One of the more reassuring elements of the Cold War with the Soviets despite the concentration of global destruction capabilities on both sides was that our enemy loved life more than they hated us.

    I’m not so sure that is the case with Islamic extremism. Yet, those in charge are not suicidal. They convince the faithful to handle the “groundwork” so to speak.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “They will refuse. When they do you will order the strikes, followed by the invasion. They will resist and be overrun. They will retaliate against another target somewhere else in the world, most likely Berlin. We will honor our treaty commitments and resist them there, defeating them per our plans.”

    “Those plans,” JFK replies,”call for the use of nuclear weapons. So what is the next step?”

    “Hopefully,” Acheson says, “cooler heads will prevail before we reach the next step.”


    Only one problem… the casting today involves two persons of much, much lower IQs.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. This it the same kind of thing Tim Kaine has been calling for for several years. It should have been done under W., Obama, and now today. Congress needs to stop acquiescing to the Oval Office. And I say this not because of Trump, but because it should have been addressed year ago.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. The War Powers Act has all the restrictive and compulsory power of a gentlemen’s agreement. If I were president right now, I would comply with all the requirements openly, answer all of Congress’ questions, but otherwise ignore it. Let the warmongers and the Neville Chamberlain wannabes reveal themselves, as they will, but don’t seek a declaration of war. It is not needed.

    Since no U.S. personnel were hurt in last night’s bombing, I think the Soleimani incident is closed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s