Trump unconstitutionally sending troops to Saudi Arabia?

So, this happened a few days ago and no one is talking about it. President Trump is going to send troops to Saudi Arabia, again escalating tensions with Iran. All about the oil again. We are sending our troops to die for Saudi Arabia, a supporter of terrorism and who is committing war crimes in Yemen. The guy really wants war with Iran, hasn't gotten approval from congress and the democrats are focusing on what for the so called "impeachment".
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...di-arabia-raises-worries-of-looming-conflict/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/09/25/us-troops-to-saudi-arabia-stand-by/

 

Saudi Arabia has been fighting terrorists for 20 years.

 

Evidence? Saudi Arabia's support and escalation of the current tragedy in Yemen is not "fighting terrorism". It is just another theocratic dictatorship same as Iran we continue to support because it has oil. We don't need their oil and the alliance needs to end now.
"Trump response to Saudi oil strikes a disgrace"

 

In 1994 KSA revoked OBL's citizenship and declared AQ as a terrorist group. They made Muslim Brotherhood unlawful in the early 1970 when Faisel was king.. They have been fighting AQ, ISIS and the Al Houthis since 2002.

Tulsi is disappointing. I thought she was smarter.

 

Even if they have outlawed some terrorism in the past does not excuse their present actions. I don't know how anything Tulsi was saying here relates to something 20 years ago or to the statements she made in the PRESENT. Also, there is evidence the Saudis were supporting AQ not the other way around.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...links-between-saudi-royal-family-and-al-qaeda

 

If a President sending troops to another country without an official declaration of war in unconstitutional, then virtually every President over the course of the last few decades is guilty of it.

 

I don't think Trump wants war, so if he's moving towards war, either his military advisers (and possibly certain war hawks in the senate) are pushing him towards it, or there's a very good reason.

Saudi Arabia is pretty much just as bad as Iran, but one is the U.S. ally and the other is not.
The Saudis have continually flattered all visiting American leaders and given them expensive gifts, and funneled money to their foundations and charities.
Maybe Trump will be less vulnerable to falling under their sway since he already has plenty of his own money, but showering him with flattery and royal treatment seem to have at least some effect.

I suspect he will be pushing Saudi Arabia to start paying for their own defense, even if American help is still forthcoming.

 

What a shame.. The Saudis don't support Terrorists and the haven't supported AQ since the Soviet Uniion got out of Afghanistan. Most certainly the royal family would NEVER support terrorists.

Tulsi is ignorant about Arabia and the Wahhabi beliefs.

 

So you confirmed the Saudi's have continuously been bribing US officials? Neither the Saudi's nor Iran should be an ally of the US. The only reason they are is because of their bribes and because they have oil which we don't need. It's not in our interest to be allied to theocratic dictatorships which violate basic human rights. Especially when they are so close to being in a war we have no interest in being in.

 

In indirect sort of ways, yes.

Even with lower level logistical officers the U.S. military sends over there, it's very common.
I talked to one. He said a Saudi contractor took him out to expensive dinners and bought him an expensive fine silverware set.
He was in charge of purchases.

None of this is anything new, been going on for some time.
Go see "The Moral Dimension" episode of "Yes Minister" (1982).

 

Trump unconstitutionally sending troops to Saudi Arabia?

I need to ask. How does a Commander-in-Chief send troops unconstitutionally? You mean the same way our troops went to Nicaragua, Libya, Somalia, Grenada, China and a hell of a lot more places over the past 75 years that 99% of America has no clue of? How many times do you think Special Ops has included deploying Special Forces/troops in Iran, Russia, Bosnia, Croatia, Yeman, Burma, Sudan, Chad, Pakistan and countless other war torn nations?

 

When were special ops mentioned? We are talking about the escalation of a full scale war in which the US would be involved, not some small operation of civil war intervention.

I've known second hand for some time, just interesting that you confirmed it. Thanks for the move suggestion too

 

Saudi Arabia has been the swing producer for over 40 years to try and keep price and supply as steady as possible. They have been a solid US ally since the late 1930s, fueled the Marshal Plan.. were loyal all thru the Cold War. I admire them a great deal for all they have accomplished since 1950 and how they have maintained peace, stability and progress.

There is a reason that KSA isn't like Iran, Iraq or Syria.

 

Special Ops is a task in which troops are deployed (sent) to accomplish an operation. The thread title states that is unconstitutional.

 

You can apply that definition to literally any military operation so obviously I'm not going to accept that flawed definition.

Either way, It is not what is occurring here. These would be regular forces, deployed to defend Saudi oil fields against Iranian attacks. It is unconstitutional to declare war against another nation without congressional approval which it could be argued this is a preamble. We have been in many wars since WW2, none of which have been approved by congress, all of which were unconstitutional. I'm not saying otherwise. This is just the latest. I'm not saying it's happened yet, but it is an escalation. War with Iran would be much more devastating than desert storm.

 

Every troop delivery in the past 100 years has been unconstitutional except the world wars.

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 defines the powers of Congress and delegates their ability to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"....He is the Commander and Chief he can send troops, He isn't declaring war

 

What does "declaring war" mean to you exactly?

Yes, the commander in chief can move all the troops he wants in foreign territory, once a war has been declared. He is commander in chief only, he cannot give himself unlimited power.

 

Really?.....a means to end a political dispute when no other solutions can be found. Most only define war as a kinetic situation.
But in this case of Saudi Arabia neither apply, we were invited. He sends Troops all over the world, what about this one bothers you?

 

That we shouldn't be allied with a theocratic dictatorship which is currently escalating the tragedy in Yemen and has had strong direct ties to terrorist organizations. That and it's not in our interest to be in a war with Iran which we will be if it comes to that being allied to Saudi Arabia. Key note: it is not in our national interest to send troops to the middle east at all.

If it does escalate, we have effectively declared war with Iran.

 

You don't know anything about Yemen, do you?

 

Do you? I know it's a disaster.
"In March 2015, a group of several regional countries called “The Coalition”, led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States and several other Western countries, went to war on members of Ansar Allah. Since then, the situation has deteriorated."
https://www.nrc.no/news/2018/january/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-crisis-in-yemen/

 

Sorry but that wasn't my call to make. So no different than the Koreas to name just one.

 

Not sure how whether you think it's your call is relevant.

What is relevant is whether the president can make these calls. In most of these cases, the answer is no. US support of the interventionist war in Yemen? That was not the presidents call. It was unconstitutional and completely illegal. Impeachable offense. So was the Korean war, so was Desert Storm, so was Vietnam,etc.... But no one cares about that because most of Washington is set on interventionist wars being the norm.

 

True...You are not.