User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:36:12 AM EDT
[#1]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:36:39 AM EDT
[#2]
Only if we go in and fucking massacre them all, no half measure BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:37:57 AM EDT
[#3]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:40:57 AM EDT
[#4]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:41:15 AM EDT
[#5]
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:41:48 AM EDT
[#6]
All the Neocons hate Rand Paul because they thought he believed in noninterventionism so this should make them all happy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:47:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All the Neocons hate Rand Paul because they thought he believed in noninterventionism so this should make them all happy. Nah, look up. They're already finding new and interesting ways to spin it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:51:42 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:52:23 AM EDT
[#9]
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. That sounds just like Obama's 'strategy' for Afghanistan. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:52:40 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That sounds just like Obama's 'strategy' for Afghanistan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. That sounds just like Obama's 'strategy' for Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:53:14 AM EDT
[#11]
<edited - please read CoC 1>
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:53:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:56:12 AM EDT
[#13]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:57:21 AM EDT
[#14]
I'm going to sound like the rest of Arfcom and say it…if we go in, we go in with TOTAL WAR, as in General Sherman type warfare. Otherwise, let the goat fuckers sort it out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:58:45 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:06:07 AM EDT
[#16]
Total war, by its definition, means to mobilise the entire country and gear everything exclusively for war production. That's not going to happen. Furthermore you can't completely annihilate them and all their infrastructure without destroying the entire Middle East and all the countries who harbour them. That's not going to happen either, considering where all the money is coming from.
This is a job for SOF and drones, not some grand new war effort. The SAS and likely a few other forces have been quietly picking them off already. Killing off the leadership and drying up their finances is the most effective way to fight this kind of cancer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:08:21 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only if we go in and fucking massacre them all, no half measure BS. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:11:24 AM EDT
[#18]
The definition of "war" sure has changed in the last 100 years
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:14:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:16:37 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. agreed. declare war and then significantly restrict the use of ground forces? what the fuck are we supposed to do? hand out puppies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:17:51 AM EDT
[#21]
That man CANNOT POSSIBLY be the son of Ron Neville Chamberlain Paul.
I agree with him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:19:14 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... agreed. declare war and then significantly restrict the use of ground forces? what the fuck are we supposed to do? hand out puppies? Maybe he is saying that to placate the fucking 'tards? But in the end, he wants full out attacks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:24:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe he is saying that to placate the fucking 'tards? But in the end, he wants full out attacks? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............... agreed. declare war and then significantly restrict the use of ground forces? what the fuck are we supposed to do? hand out puppies? Maybe he is saying that to placate the fucking 'tards? But in the end, he wants full out attacks? It seems to me that he's been calling for war against IS for some time, but only recently has shoe horned in the stuff about limited war, or light footprinting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:24:01 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The definition of "war" sure has changed in the last 100 years it has no choice the under 30 lbs machine gun, heavy bomber and the mortar changed it not humans we die just like we always did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:25:09 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only if we go in and fucking massacre them all, no half measure BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:58:12 AM EDT
[#26]
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:01:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:03:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Um... 2003? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:03:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky. 1941. How you declare war on an idea is beyond me. There is no Islamic State in the conventional sense. I'm not at all clear just who we would be declaring war on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:07:18 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. The new rules of engagement ... "Terminate with extreme prejudice". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:11:20 PM EDT
[#31]
He is right but the current asshat in the White House will not do it. Congress needs to step the fuck up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:14:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1941. How you declare war on an idea is beyond me. There is no Islamic State in the conventional sense. I'm not at all clear just who we would be declaring war on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky. 1941. How you declare war on an idea is beyond me. There is no Islamic State in the conventional sense. I'm not at all clear just who we would be declaring war on. That was my point with how the definition of "war" has changed. The point of Chess used to be to checkmate the king; now, the point of Chess is to take the king and queen off the board, let them have a huge orgy with some pawns, and let your knights duke it out in a tournament of whose lance is longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:19:06 PM EDT
[#33]
When all else fails, they take you to war.
let Saudi Arabia or iran worry about it maybe protecting Syria and iran will keep putin occupied for a while |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:23:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. Looks like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:23:49 PM EDT
[#35]
It's long past time the congress took up its responsibility rather than leaving these decisions in the hands of FBHO or any other individual.
ROE isn't Paul's call alone, he needs to maintain a position he's comfortable defending for the rest of his career. Like the American people, I'm sure he's conflicted between wanting to wipe those assholes off the face of the planet and not wanting to get embroiled in the internal struggles of Iraq again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:24:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Don't think we can do that against a non-state actor. Can only declare war on things (drugs) and ideas (poverty)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:24:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wat Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:26:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1941. How you declare war on an idea is beyond me. There is no Islamic State in the conventional sense. I'm not at all clear just who we would be declaring war on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky. 1941. How you declare war on an idea is beyond me. There is no Islamic State in the conventional sense. I'm not at all clear just who we would be declaring war on. There's a bit too much great area for me to agree with that statement. It all comes down to how one identifies a "state". While it's true that the international community doesn't recognize IS for political reasons, they exhibit many qualities of a state. They have a power structure. They control territory. They enforce laws and regulations inside that territory. It's obvious that IS intends on, and is in the process of, creating a state (whether or not they will succeed is yet to be seen). The exact point at which they cease to be an insurgency and become a governing power is open to interpretation. I'd say that, while they've got a long ways to go if they ever want to be considered successful, their level of control over the territories they've claimed are sufficient to qualify as a "state" for military purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 12:26:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. Looks like it. Looks like it's a lesson to the Islamic State to be careful what they wish for. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:44:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What we have been doing the past 15 years is half assed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Yeah. Exactly my point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:47:13 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. But that's not how the US does it anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:49:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:51:13 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting. They hold a significant portion of two countries and have a more successful public diplomacy campaign than the US. I don't think we're de-legitimizing them, anytime soon. What is more troublesome is a Senator not being about to distinguish between a DoW and a AUMF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:51:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the Neocons hate Rand Paul because they thought he believed in noninterventionism so this should make them all happy. Maybe should read his statement a little more thoroughly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Under the criterion established by Powell's eight questions, we probably wouldn't have launched the Normandy Invasion in 1944. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What we have been doing the past 15 years is half assed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:53:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the American people lack the will to allow the military to do what has to be done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
