Can’t have any rationality in diplomacy


So what are you arguing, that we don’t need an ambassador? Got it.


OMG !!! Monte are you still quoting CNN ??? :roll_eyes: shrug …There ratings are lower than re-runs of Little House on the Prairie !!! :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


Not at all. You were shouting doom and gloom about some guy who didn’t get a job. Then you went on to claim that…

I was pointing out to you that there is in fact someone fulfilling the duties of ambassador - a career diplomat. That’s just a fact.


Well you’ve done a fine job of distraction, but the op and the purpose of this thread is to draw attention to two things. One, that the president wants to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea, and two, a principled man told him he wouldn’t be a party to it. Now the fact that a year into the Trump presidency we still don’t have an ambassador to South Korea is a side issue, and itself a fact. And, if the career dip is doing so well, why do you suppose the president was seeking to place an ambassador in Seoul?


Nope, this is about the United States once again planning an unconstitutional attack on a country that HAS NOT first attacked us!!!


Show us ‘unconstitutional’ or quit making the claim…


Mr. Know it all strikes again.

He’s now quoting Politico, ROTFLMAO.

His true colors come out when he posts his links, Politico, CNN


Well sure. But then that would not be a preemptive attack. If the constitution itself wasn’t enough, the 1973 War Powers Act adds clarity. Passed by a veto proof majority in Congress, it’s telling that Nixon wanted to veto it. Now Cha says that the White House is mulling a preemptive strike on North Korea. The question is, would it be with or without a congressional declaration of war, or at least a AUMF.


Sooo… We have backed away from our ‘Unconstitutional’ claim and fall back on the war powers act… it only takes a second to launch a few missiles… and he wouldn’t really committing troops for months… As far as a declaration of war. The war powers act was passed specifically because presidents committed US forces for years in Korea and Vietnam… not to sound partisan but, who but a democrat up to Dessert Storm started any wars? Anyway… it only seems like people have concern over congress actually doing anything… Except of course when a president takes away another presidents executive order…