User Panel
Quoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. View Quote Like we legitimized AQ and the Taliban? Oh, we didn't formerly declare war.... the point is congress tasking the .mil in a constitutional manner instead of willy nilly national security harrumph mode. |
|
Quoted:
He wants to force the administration to put things in writing, which they HATE having to do. Our formal constitutional process for the declaration of hostilities basically predates non state actors. Would you rather Obama be given his own Gulf of Tonkin resolution? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. He wants to force the administration to put things in writing, which they HATE having to do. Our formal constitutional process for the declaration of hostilities basically predates non state actors. Would you rather Obama be given his own Gulf of Tonkin resolution? It also allows the Commander in Chief to use the military however he sees fit. The Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, it does not say that they have to in order to use military force. Are you saying the attack on the Maddox did not occur? |
|
Quoted:
This. He has a rare talent for sending both the nutbag right and fascist left into irrational rages. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Rand pisses off the right people, is playing chess instead of checkers and I trust him much more than the majority of the other maroons, that call themselves representatives. He has a rare talent for sending both the nutbag right and fascist left into irrational rages. So much for his "broad appeal" then. |
|
Quoted:
This. He is right that only Congress has the power to declare war. We've been fighting ISIS for a while, it's time to declare war. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Rand pisses off the right people, is playing chess instead of checkers and I trust him much more than the majority of the other maroons, that call themselves representatives. This. He is right that only Congress has the power to declare war. We've been fighting ISIS for a while, it's time to declare war. But they MAY declare war. Nowhere does it say that the declaration is necessary for us to use military force. |
|
Quoted:
That man CANNOT POSSIBLY be the son of Ron Neville Chamberlain Paul. I agree with him. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
That man CANNOT POSSIBLY be the son of Ron Neville Chamberlain Paul. I agree with him. limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces. You sure about that? |
|
Quoted:
NY Times reporting WASHINGTON — Senator Rand Paul is calling for a declaration of war against the Islamic State, a move that promises to shake up the debate over the military campaign in Iraq and Syria as President Obama prepares to ask Congress to grant him formal authority to use force. Mr. Paul, a likely presidential candidate who has emerged as one of the Republican Party’s most cautious voices on military intervention, offered a very circumscribed definition of war in his proposal, which he outlined in an interview on Saturday. He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces. More inside the link. View Quote Thus proving that Rand Paul is an idiot. Firstly it legitimises and recognises IS as a legal entity. Secondly it is yet another politician with no balls, committing other people's kids to a war that neither he nor any other spineless fucking politician have the sense and commitment to see though. Just another meaningless, half-arsed, political soundbite from another gormless politician. |
|
|
Quoted:
Very True. Colin Powell is a suit looking for an owner. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
why???/ ISIS have no real targets no infrastructure. the only thing we could do is take a hill top load it up with m2's and mk19s and hope they are dumb enough to human wave us The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States: Is a vital national security interest threatened?maybe Do we have a clear attainable objective? no Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?no Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?no Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?no no no no no no Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? no Is the action supported by the American people?not really Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]maybe As Powell said 0n an April 1, 2009 'nuff said Under the criterion established by Powell's eight questions, we probably wouldn't have launched the Normandy Invasion in 1944. Very True. Colin Powell is a suit looking for an owner. Just for curiosity sake, how do you guys figure this? Seems to me that our people back then did just about everything they could after their hands were forced. As for WWII all the answers are Yes or pretty much as close as you could get. |
|
Quoted:
But they MAY declare war. Nowhere does it say that the declaration is necessary for us to use military force. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rand pisses off the right people, is playing chess instead of checkers and I trust him much more than the majority of the other maroons, that call themselves representatives. This. He is right that only Congress has the power to declare war. We've been fighting ISIS for a while, it's time to declare war. But they MAY declare war. Nowhere does it say that the declaration is necessary for us to use military force. Congress has the power of the purse strings but will congress actually defund American Forces who are engaged in fighting in the field? No. |
|
Fine, get folks on record. Limit I was for it before i was against it BS.
But in or out. Win or don't play. Trying to fit a regional war between rounds of golf and dinner parties is insane. Wars and calendars don't mix well. |
|
Quoted:
I came here to post that. And who declares war with a one year deadline and an upfront declaration that adequate ground forces will not be dedicated to prosecuting that war? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. I came here to post that. And who declares war with a one year deadline and an upfront declaration that adequate ground forces will not be dedicated to prosecuting that war? Isn't that the platform that Obama ran on? |
|
Quoted:
I don't. What good is having the world's best military if all they don't go to war? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
NY Times reporting WASHINGTON — Senator Rand Paul is calling for a declaration of war against the Islamic State, a move that promises to shake up the debate over the military campaign in Iraq and Syria as President Obama prepares to ask Congress to grant him formal authority to use force. Mr. Paul, a likely presidential candidate who has emerged as one of the Republican Party’s most cautious voices on military intervention, offered a very circumscribed definition of war in his proposal, which he outlined in an interview on Saturday. He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces. More inside the link. Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all. What we have been doing the past 15 years is half assed. Because the American people lack the will to allow the military to do what has to be done. I don't. What good is having the world's best military if all they don't go to war? That's you. Enough Americans lack the will to prosecute a war fully. That is part of why Obama got elected. |
|
Quoted:
So if they legitimize the Islamic State by actually declaring war instead of just killing them, doesn't that legitimize or affirm/recognize would be a better word(s), that all the countries that help them are in fact ISIS allies and well.....you see where that goes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. So if they legitimize the Islamic State by actually declaring war instead of just killing them, doesn't that legitimize or affirm/recognize would be a better word(s), that all the countries that help them are in fact ISIS allies and well.....you see where that goes. Exactly. IS/ISIS/ISIL/Whatever wants to be a nation, let them. Let them attempt real diplomacy with other governments (and see how far Sharia law will take them in international negotiations). Let them bear the responsibility when they are unable to feed their citizens. Let them defend their sovereignty against the power hungry nations who's geographic sphere of influence they reside within. Let them attempt to recruit allies in a global environment that is hostile to them. While they have risen swiftly, IS leadership is not yet ready to handle the true responsibilities of nationhood. It would be wise to exploit this weakness by thrusting the responsibility of nationhood upon them before they gain the resources and organization required to sustain it. |
|
Quoted:
Thus proving that Rand Paul is an idiot. Firstly it legitimises and recognises IS as a legal entity. Secondly it is yet another politician with no balls, committing other people's kids to a war that neither he nor any other spineless fucking politician have the sense and commitment to see though. Just another meaningless, half-arsed, political soundbite from another gormless politician. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
NY Times reporting WASHINGTON — Senator Rand Paul is calling for a declaration of war against the Islamic State, a move that promises to shake up the debate over the military campaign in Iraq and Syria as President Obama prepares to ask Congress to grant him formal authority to use force. Mr. Paul, a likely presidential candidate who has emerged as one of the Republican Party’s most cautious voices on military intervention, offered a very circumscribed definition of war in his proposal, which he outlined in an interview on Saturday. He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces. More inside the link. Thus proving that Rand Paul is an idiot. Firstly it legitimises and recognises IS as a legal entity. Secondly it is yet another politician with no balls, committing other people's kids to a war that neither he nor any other spineless fucking politician have the sense and commitment to see though. Just another meaningless, half-arsed, political soundbite from another gormless politician. That's why I hated seeing my friends going off to war. Politicians talk a big game but then hold them back from taking care of business. You think anyone gave two shits when we Nuked Japan and killed all those innocent people, hell no, no one gave a shit because we didn't want the world to go to shit. Same thing today, those cowards hide in mosque and schools. Then then everyone gets all up in arms when one of those baby milk factories gets hit. Hey here's a novel idea, how about you don't harbor terrorist and your shit won't get blown up. |
|
|
Quoted:
Yup, no half assing, And if we go back we should keep what we take. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That's you. Enough Americans lack the will to prosecute a war fully. That is part of why Obama got elected. Yup, no half assing, And if we go back we should keep what we take. QFFT! None of this democracy building bullshit. Go in, make them play nice. |
|
Quoted:
Isn't that the platform that Obama ran on? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. I came here to post that. And who declares war with a one year deadline and an upfront declaration that adequate ground forces will not be dedicated to prosecuting that war? Isn't that the platform that Obama ran on? Yeah, the similarities between FBHO and Paul are becoming increasingly evident on more than one important national issue. Ferguson, and now this. |
|
Quoted:
Oh good grief. He is proposing the same thing that Obama is already doing....................limited time, few troops. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
He is right but the current asshat in the White House will not do it. Congress needs to step the fuck up. Oh good grief. He is proposing the same thing that Obama is already doing....................limited time, few troops. Perhaps it's intentional, as a means of restricting Obama to only doing what he says he wants to do. That way, when he goes back to congress asking for more money/troops/time he must admit that his initial plan never had any chance of succeeding, and that he was wrong about the resources it would require to achieve his goal. Obama says we can do it in a year with xxx troops and for xxx dollars, fine that's what he gets. Then, when he comes back and says he needs more, it can be portrayed as Obama and the Democrats that are getting us mixed up in never ending wars in the middle east, and the Republicans only voted for the small, specialized force that we were promised was sufficient for the job. |
|
This is just about the only practical way in the current environment to check Obama's power. It actually provides an excuse to oppose further involvement in the war against ISIS if the president doesn't want to play ball with Congress. Rand needs to get other senators on board though.
Quoted:
All the Neocons hate Rand Paul because they thought he believed in noninterventionism so this should make them all happy. View Quote Since the Islamic state is hurting primarily Iraq and Syria they now want to stay out of the conflict. |
|
Quoted:
Firstly it legitimises and recognises IS as a legal entity... View Quote No, it doesn't...anymore than the existing AUMF did for AQ. By bearing arms and having a flag/command structure/etc. IS has functionally legitimized itself for the purposes of LOAC and Western observance of LOAC. Our actions have little or nothing to do with it, other than our requirements that we follow the LOAC regardless of our adversaries actions. |
|
Quoted:
Just for curiosity sake, how do you guys figure this? Seems to me that our people back then did just about everything they could after their hands were forced. As for WWII all the answers are Yes or pretty much as close as you could get. View Quote We're still looking for an exit strategy from Japan, Germany, Korea, and Italy. The Powell Doctrine isn't that profound, or even very useful. Its a classic of "Army strategic thinking," which is to say its neither strategic or thinking. |
|
Quoted:
Since the Islamic state is hurting primarily Iraq and Syria they now want to stay out of the conflict. View Quote I don't see much requirement for the US to redeem the flaws of Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian governance and their COIN strategy. The POTUS missed the opportunities to strangle IS in the crib, and now its too far gone to easily fix, and what do we have if we're successful? |
|
Quoted:
NY Times reporting He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces. View Quote That's dumber than dogshit. |
|
Quoted:
No, it doesn't...anymore than the existing AUMF did for AQ. By bearing arms and having a flag/command structure/etc. IS has functionally legitimized itself for the purposes of LOAC and Western observance of LOAC. Our actions have little or nothing to do with it, other than our requirements that we follow the LOAC regardless of our adversaries actions. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Firstly it legitimises and recognises IS as a legal entity... No, it doesn't...anymore than the existing AUMF did for AQ. By bearing arms and having a flag/command structure/etc. IS has functionally legitimized itself for the purposes of LOAC and Western observance of LOAC. Our actions have little or nothing to do with it, other than our requirements that we follow the LOAC regardless of our adversaries actions. You cannot formally declare war on a state that doesn't legally exist. You can undertake military action to whatever level you deem fit against the threat, but not formally declare war. By suggesting "declaring war" on IS, he is suggesting that IS be formally recognised as a state. Something that plays directly to the very thing that he claims to oppose. It's nothing more than a meaningless soundbite until (and if ever) IS is formally acknowledged as as a state. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
NY Times reporting He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces. That's dumber than dogshit. All limiting the duration of an authorization does is require congress to take the issue up again in a year. We'd rather have Obama making the decisions than the Republican congress? |
|
Quoted:
All limiting the duration of an authorization does is require congress to take the issue up again in a year. We'd rather have Obama making the decisions than the Republican congress? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
NY Times reporting He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces. That's dumber than dogshit. All limiting the duration of an authorization does is require congress to take the issue up again in a year. We'd rather have Obama making the decisions than the Republican congress? Telling your enemy you're going to come play around in his yard for a year is dumber than dogshit. I don't give a fuck how you try to spin it to mesh with your pro-Paul agenda. First Ferguson, then semi-amnesty, now this limpdickery, Paul's done. What's Cruz saying about this mess? |
|
Old man Ron Paul and his supporters used to bitch over what they perceived was a lack of media coverage of Ron Paul's policies.
This time around, Rand Paul is getting all the media coverage he could ask for but he's killing himself with his policy gaffes same as did his dad. |
|
Quoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. View Quote If we do that we could fucking level the cities they hold. think about it. We call them a state and we can destroy their infrastructure, even tho it belongs to iraq and syria. We would not be declaring war on "Iraq and Syria" We'd declaring war on "IS" The U.S. military could wipe them out in 6 months with SF and air support. Or atleast drive them back into the states they came from. one group comes to mind when I think of who would best deal with this. Marines. |
|
Quoted: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ptAqeqIdoX0/TKwXOPVec0I/AAAAAAAADxo/sY0-8rxEHpU/s1600/JihadPoster2.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Only if we go in and fucking massacre them all, no half measure BS. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ptAqeqIdoX0/TKwXOPVec0I/AAAAAAAADxo/sY0-8rxEHpU/s1600/JihadPoster2.jpg What the world needs now is the historic Military Orders back, the Templar's wouldn't be having this shit. |
|
3+ trillion dollars
7+ thousand dead 100's of thousand wounded For what? To keep the House of Saud in power. "To keep Americans safe". Please. Those idiots are still killing Americans. To destroy and entity we helped create. To develop a spying infrastructure to gobble up any and all information on everyone. Including Americans. To imprison Americans without due process. To willy-nilly place Americans on some sort of "list" to limit their rights. To watch what you are doing on those library computers. Force projection. Forward operating bases. But some of those places have nukes. We can't have the bad guys in control of those. Newsflash, they already are in control. We can fuck up all of those place without going total war on them. But hey, some people want to play war. Is it because of the oil and gas deposits in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. To keep the Chinese from getting their grubby paws on it. Now if our gov was willing to go into these places to fuck them up and not concern itself with "fixing" them then I'm all for it. Killing terrorists is a good thing. That won't happen though. So all you delusional types just keep banging your head on that wall hoping something changes. Meanwhile we will keep "fixing" these place while groups like isis continue to pop up constantly. Yeah we're doing it right. |
|
Quoted:
QFFT! None of this democracy building bullshit. Go in, make them play nice. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's you. Enough Americans lack the will to prosecute a war fully. That is part of why Obama got elected. Yup, no half assing, And if we go back we should keep what we take. QFFT! None of this democracy building bullshit. Go in, make them play nice. Or.... Bomb them then colonize |
|
|
|
The only thing we will get is more body bags and national debt for an ungrateful muslim region. I hate ISIS as much as the next person, but they are only a regional threat. The only threat to our national security is IRAN and their pursuit of nuclear technology. We should have given IRAN an ultimatum and if no comply pulverize their nuclear sites. Screw ISIS let Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and all the other muslim degenerates in the region kill each other.
Nation building does not work for muslim countries. |
|
Quoted:
We're still looking for an exit strategy from Japan, Germany, Korea, and Italy. The Powell Doctrine isn't that profound, or even very useful. Its a classic of "Army strategic thinking," which is to say its neither strategic or thinking. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Just for curiosity sake, how do you guys figure this? Seems to me that our people back then did just about everything they could after their hands were forced. As for WWII all the answers are Yes or pretty much as close as you could get. We're still looking for an exit strategy from Japan, Germany, Korea, and Italy. The Powell Doctrine isn't that profound, or even very useful. Its a classic of "Army strategic thinking," which is to say its neither strategic or thinking. Seriously? We could have left those locations many many years ago. The reason forces remain in place is to try to keep other neighboring nations in check. It's strategic. It's not because we think the Japanese will bomb Pearl again or the Germans will march to France. |
|
Quoted:
Just for curiosity sake, how do you guys figure this? Seems to me that our people back then did just about everything they could after their hands were forced. As for WWII all the answers are Yes or pretty much as close as you could get. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Under the criterion established by Powell's eight questions, we probably wouldn't have launched the Normandy Invasion in 1944. Very True. Colin Powell is a suit looking for an owner. Just for curiosity sake, how do you guys figure this? Seems to me that our people back then did just about everything they could after their hands were forced. As for WWII all the answers are Yes or pretty much as close as you could get. The Normandy Invasion would have had great difficulty answering these questions in the affirmative: Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? - Ike and Churchill both held it to be extremely high risk. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? - We had no clue how long our occupation would last. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? - No way. For example, we had no clue as to how the occupation of France was going to work out, considering how unpredictable DeGaulle was. Powell's 'questions' were simply a means for him to appear like the thoughtful moderate among the thinly informed. The more you think about it, the more it seems like chin-stroking pablum. |
|
Quoted:
Old man Ron Paul and his supporters used to bitch over what they perceived was a lack of media coverage of Ron Paul's policies. This time around, Rand Paul is getting all the media coverage he could ask for but he's killing himself with his policy gaffes same as did his dad. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Old man Ron Paul and his supporters used to bitch over what they perceived was a lack of media coverage of Ron Paul's policies. This time around, Rand Paul is getting all the media coverage he could ask for but he's killing himself with his policy gaffes same as did his dad. +1 This is a great example of the Paul-o-matic gaffe generating machine in action: Daily Beast Link In an interview with The Daily Beast in September, Paul said he was against the idea of U.S. forces on Middle East soil. “I don’t think there needs to be any American soldiers over there on the ground,” he said. “I don’t mind helping them through technical support, through sophisticated intelligence, drones, Air Force, etc.”
He added: “The people on the ground fighting these battles, going hand-to-hand with ISIS, need to be their fellow Arabs and those who, I think and hopefully do, represent civilized Islam.” Doug Stafford, a senior aide to Paul, said the senator has not flip-flopped: “He doesn’t believe we should send a bunch of troops in to start a ground war. But he has always said we have an obligation to defend people in the region. The declaration is tailored to allow for this.” Stafford later added: "It has always been a given that American troops could be required to secure the people and property of our embassy and consulate. Senator Paul believes that boots on the ground beyond those limited number as outlined in the declaration should come from allies in the region, as he has previously stated." Paul has outlined his stance on ISIS over the past few months: He is in favor of “destroying” the terrorist organization “militarily” with bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria but is against arming rebels and believes President Obama should formally declare war. So we have four separate statements - sorry, 'tailored declarations' - from two separate parties all to get a 'policy' that needs the word 'destroy' placed in quotation marks. |
|
Quoted:
Powell's 'questions' were simply a means for him to appear like the thoughtful moderate among the thinly informed. The more you think about it, the more it seems like chin-stroking pablum. View Quote Well, it worked on our elites...as James Michener wrote "Where do we get such men?" |
|
Quoted:
Seriously? We could have left those locations many many years ago. The reason forces remain in place is to try to keep other neighboring nations in check. It's strategic. It's not because we think the Japanese will bomb Pearl again or the Germans will march to France. View Quote You.Dont.Say. I appreciate your interest in National Security. Of course we could have left...but, we haven't. Because we didn't have a clear exit strategy. Because, seemingly unknown to Powell, such a thing truly doesn't exist. The point is Colin Powell is a bonehead, that people loved because, well, to quote the Vice President regarding someone else, Powell is a "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..." |
|
Declare "Kinda War"? A "tailored" declaration of war?
Doesn't Rand even AUMF? |
|
|
Quoted:
He's Presidential material, though. Libertarians tell me so. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Declare "Kinda War"? Doesn't Rand even AUMF? He's Presidential material, though. Libertarians tell me so. Checkers not chess is how HE plays it, I am told. |
|
Quoted:
He's Presidential material, though. Libertarians tell me so. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Declare "Kinda War"? Doesn't Rand even AUMF? He's Presidential material, though. Libertarians tell me so. He's committed to 'destroying' ISIS 'militarily'. For a year, anyway, if you believe his tailored declaration. |
|
Quoted:
He's committed to 'destroying' ISIS 'militarily'. For a year, anyway. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Declare "Kinda War"? Doesn't Rand even AUMF? He's Presidential material, though. Libertarians tell me so. He's committed to 'destroying' ISIS 'militarily'. For a year, anyway. So by implication he has far to much faith in the abilities of the U.S. military? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky. Um... 2003? Wat Am I missing something? Lol, the president cannot declare war. There have only been five declarations of war in US history, the last one was WW2. |
|
Quoted:
Lol, the president cannot declare war. There have only been five declarations of war in US history, the last one was WW2. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky. Um... 2003? Wat Am I missing something? Lol, the president cannot declare war. There have only been five declarations of war in US history, the last one was WW2. Sure he can, and he can declare 5 20 million mexicans' citizens too. What America do you live in? |
|
Quoted:
Lol, the president cannot declare war. There have only been five declarations of war in US history, the last one was WW2. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky. Um... 2003? Wat Am I missing something? Lol, the president cannot declare war. There have only been five declarations of war in US history, the last one was WW2. What format or wording within a document, does the US Constitution require for something to be considered a Constitutionally legitimate "Declaration of War? Please quote the Constitution for the answer. If Congress passes a Law that authorizes and funds the military to conduct miliatry operations and committ acts of war against another nation, AND the President signs it......would that count? |
|
Quoted:
So by implication has has far to much faith in the abilities of the U.S. military? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Declare "Kinda War"? Doesn't Rand even AUMF? He's Presidential material, though. Libertarians tell me so. He's committed to 'destroying' ISIS 'militarily'. For a year, anyway. So by implication has has far to much faith in the abilities of the U.S. military? It's hard to gauge what he means to any reasonable degree of precision. 'By implication' he could mean just about anything, which is why I've soured on him. He's falling deep into the John McCain trap of talking to see his name in the papers, to the very predictable result. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.