22 Work Weeks on the Golf Course

[Zzzptm]

Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941. All other actions since then have been UN-sanctioned policing/peacekeeping actions (such as Korea) or involvement in internal politics (such as Vietnam). There's also the matter of clandestine operations that we know about and whether or not those constitute wars, as well as how the US and USSR would back different sides in proxy wars, such as the USA and South Africa backing the UNITA faction in Angola against the Soviet-Cuban backed MPLA.

Even more bizarre is when we get into the matter of how large corporations pursue foreign policy independently of the USA. In WW2, for example, there were a number of firms (IBM being a big example) that provided goods and services to Hitler's Germany, even though the USA was at war with Germany. In the Angola example, Chevron backed the MPLA so as to get at the oil in the independent nation of Cabinda for much less cost than the Cabindese were asking for. Once the Chevron-backed MPLA took over, Chevron got to exploit the Cabinda fields for cheap. The MPLA got its hard currency to buy those Russian weapons and Cuban advisors and carried the fight to the US-backed UNITA.

[Billy Underdog]

Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2.

....  Well, it explains why some people think war is a good thing if they don't even understand what a war is. Technically...

[Typhon]

Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941.

This is correct.

On Syria: you can't sit by if anyone uses chemical weapons.  The U.S. does not want to act alone.  That's why Trump spoke with the heads of England and France, in an attempt to have any counter strikes be a UN backed effort.

On North Korea: as crazy as it sounds, Trump is the first president that actually has a shot to improve the relationship between the 2 countries, with the possible upcoming talks.  It is still a long shot, but at least there is a chance.  Now can you imagine if he were able to pull that off?  I bet then nobody would care if he had any past affairs or how many hours he spends at a golf course. 

[Zzzptm]

I agree, if Trump can get DPRK to agree to de-nuclearization of the peninsula and the deal sticks, then he'll have a real head-spinner of an accomplishment on his hands. That would be a complicating factor I would love to be able to be forced to consider.

Sort of like Nixon and China and the Clean Air Act... life would be easier if he were a comic-book villain, but facing his legacy honestly requires some exercise of judgment about the good he did against the bad.

Same thing, from an opposite side of the scene with Jimmy Carter and his support of both Pol Pot and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Carter staked his reputation on having a more moral/ethical US foreign policy, but his support for these two were real disappointments in that regard. Realpolitik and the struggle against China and Russia dictated his moves there, making his lack of support for pro-US despots in Nicaragua and Iran ring hollow.

[Typhon]

Not a big story in the news, but certainly newsworthy:

Flanked by victims and family members who have lost loved ones, President Donald Trump signed a bill to help combat sex trafficking.  The action drew tears and a subtle, albeit demonstrative dance of vindication from those around him.

Yvonne Ambrose was brought to tears as she thanked President Trump.  “It means so much to our family,” Ambrose said. “Hopefully there won’t be any more people who have to endure that pain.”

The Chicago woman lost her 16-year-old daughter, who was murdered by a man who used Backpage.com to buy her for underaged sex, according to Cleveland.com.  The founding executives of Backpage.com, a private advertisement website federal authorities have shut down, were charged with 93 counts of facilitating prostitution and fraud on Monday.  President Trump graciously gave Ambrose the pen he used to sign the bill.

Behind Ambrose was a woman identified only as “M.A.,” who broke into dance as the president signed the bill.  “It’s about damn time,” she said, when another woman drew Trump’s attention to her.  “M.A.,” who was kidnapped and sold on the internet through Backpage.com in 2010, according to The Daily Caller, was the first to sue the owners of the website, Village Voice Media.  The lawsuit was unsuccessful and the dance reflected her feeling of vindication.

The president credited daughter Ivanka Trump, who was on hand, for helping with the bill: “She’s been a great representative, I will say.”  The legislation will penalize website operators that facilitate online sex trafficking and weaken legal protection for the technology industry, Reuters reported.  “The law is intended to make it easier for state prosecutors and sex-trafficking victims to sue social media networks, advertisers and others that kept exploitative material on their platforms,” the news agency reported.

Here's the brief video of the signing.

[Charger]

Good to see another one for the plus column for mr. Trump.

[Zzzptm]

This is expected of a president, to sign laws such as these. Not a lot of controversy in getting that bill to the president to sign. Going here... https://www.govtrack.us/events/enacted-bills ... one can see that he also signed into law a bill that renamed a post office in Kansas, a ceiling fan bill, the EGO act - which prohibits government officers from using taxpayer money to get their portraits done, and a bill that renamed a post office in New Jersey.

At the same time, Michael Cohen's official story about the payment to Stormy Daniels comes across as election fraud and/or bank fraud, not a good combination. The search warrant had to come from more than just Mueller's investigation. To search a lawyer's office, the warrant has to be approved by a US attorney of the district, the criminal division of the Justice Department, and a US Magistrate. This is not a rogue investigator or a witch hunt. It's the wheels of bureaucracy turning.

Adding to the severity of the search of Cohen's office is that the investigators are supposed to use the least intrusive measures possible. For a warrant to have been issued instead of a subpoena means that there is ample concern that Cohen was not going to be cooperative with the investigation, possibly to the point of destroying documents.

Which leads to the next concern, that the lawyer may have been in collusion with a client to commit crimes. The materials seized from Cohen's office will go through a legal team that is not part of the investigation. This team will redact anything that is properly attorney-client privilege and allow non-privileged information such as informal discussions and plans involving illegal activities on through to the investigators. This was done after Paul Manafort's lawyer's office was raided.

The fact that this was referred to the federal attorney for New York is significant in that the Stormy Daniels business may have been determined by Mueller's team to be outside the scope of his investigation. Even so, if evidence obtained in the raid is determined to be pertinent to Mueller's investigation, it can be handed back over to his team.

We usually expect our presidents to sign the typical laws that go across their desks without their personal lawyers being under criminal investigation.

[Typhon]

^^^^^^
We'll see if any actual evidence of illegal activity comes out of that, this time.

My reason for posting the previous story was to indicate how little attention the press gives to something when it shows the president doing something positive.

[Zzzptm]

^^^^^^
We'll see if any actual evidence of illegal activity comes out of that, this time.

My reason for posting the previous story was to indicate how little attention the press gives to something when it shows the president doing something positive.

Although I did see the story on it on CBS This Morning, it's also quite a routine sort of bill. Landmark, administration-defining legislation will grab bigger attention.

[Billy Underdog]

Sooo, the US is NOT at war again... Might be a good excuse right now, but go back in history to see why it've become this way.

[Billy Underdog]

Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941.

By that logic Germany wasn't at war with Sovjet in WWII, as there was no declaration when they invaded...

[Typhon]

Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941.

By that logic Germany wasn't at war with Sovjet in WWII, as there was no declaration when they invaded...

Different countries have different rules, buddy.  I don't know about Germany, but in the U.S. congress must approve a declaration of war.  This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons, a very different approach than simply assisting another country with a conflict.

[Billy Underdog]

This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons

Which is war, no matter what your congress choose to call it... 

Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.

[Typhon]

This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons

Which is war, no matter what your congress choose to call it... 

Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.

  I never said that nor believe that.
What I am trying to get you to understand is that assisting another country with their war, is not the same as being at war with the same enemy.

[Charger]

Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.

The problem is The US has aided so many countries (some succesfully some not so much) over the past decades that it is EXPECTED of them to get involved and if they don't they are accused of not caring as much about a certain country as opposed to some. And then when they DO get involved they get accused of getting involved...it really is a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation...granted much of it is because of US' own making but still. When there is injustice going on in the world the US is expected to act...so the WORLD has pretty much made the US the world police...

Also yes there is a difference between being IN war with a country and aiding a country fight it's own war...that being said it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.