Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:34:53 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:36:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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



Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:36:39 AM EDT
Only if we go in and fucking massacre them all, no half measure BS.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:37:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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



Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:40:57 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:41:15 AM EDT
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:41:48 AM EDT
All the Neocons hate Rand Paul because they thought he believed in noninterventionism so this should make them all happy.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:47:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Flash66:
All the Neocons hate Rand Paul because they thought he believed in noninterventionism so this should make them all happy.
View Quote


Nah, look up. They're already finding new and interesting ways to spin it.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:51:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:



Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:52:23 AM EDT


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.

View Quote


That sounds just like Obama's 'strategy' for Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:52:40 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:


That sounds just like Obama's 'strategy' for Afghanistan.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:


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.

Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:53:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2014 2:04:57 PM EDT by DK-Prof]
<edited - please read CoC 1>
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:53:32 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By badfish274:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting.
View Quote


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?
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:56:12 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:57:21 AM EDT
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.


Link Posted: 11/24/2014 10:58:45 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SD307:
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
View Quote


Under the criterion established by Powell's eight questions, we probably wouldn't have launched the Normandy Invasion in 1944.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:06:07 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:08:21 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CplRick:
Only if we go in and fucking massacre them all, no half measure BS.
View Quote







Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:11:24 AM EDT
The definition of "war" sure has changed in the last 100 years
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:14:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TecRsq:
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.
View Quote

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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:16:37 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:



Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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?
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:17:51 AM EDT
That man CANNOT POSSIBLY be the son of Ron Neville Chamberlain Paul.

I agree with him.

Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:19:14 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aare:

...............

agreed. declare war and then significantly restrict the use of ground forces? what the fuck are we supposed to do? hand out puppies?
View Quote


Maybe he is saying that to placate the fucking 'tards?

But in the end, he wants full out attacks?
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:24:00 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:


Maybe he is saying that to placate the fucking 'tards?

But in the end, he wants full out attacks?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Aare:

...............

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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:24:01 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RayFromJersey:
The definition of "war" sure has changed in the last 100 years
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:25:09 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CplRick:
Only if we go in and fucking massacre them all, no half measure BS.
View Quote

Link Posted: 11/24/2014 11:58:12 AM EDT
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:01:45 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By m193:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky.
View Quote


Um... 2003?
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:03:48 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:


Um... 2003?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
Originally Posted By m193:
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
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:03:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By m193:
When was the last time the US formally declared war? Korea? Can you declare war on a non-state? Rand Paul is sneaky.
View Quote



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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:07:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shqype:

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
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shqype:
Originally Posted By TecRsq:
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".
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:11:20 PM EDT
He is right but the current asshat in the White House will not do it. Congress needs to step the fuck up.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:14:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:



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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
Originally Posted By m193:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:19:06 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:23:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By badfish274:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting.
View Quote

Looks like it.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:23:49 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:24:29 PM EDT
Don't think we can do that against a non-state actor. Can only declare war on things (drugs) and ideas (poverty)
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:24:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaveyDug:

Wat
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaveyDug:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
Originally Posted By m193:
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?
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:26:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2014 12:27:51 PM EDT by gribble]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:



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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
Originally Posted By m193:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 12:26:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:

Looks like it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By badfish274:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:44:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Molotov357:


What we have been doing the past 15 years is half assed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Molotov357:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:47:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:



Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't half-ass wars. Either all in, or not at all.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:49:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TecRsq:
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.
View Quote
This.

He has a rare talent for sending both the nutbag right and fascist left into irrational rages.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:51:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By badfish274:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting.
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:51:27 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Flash66:
All the Neocons hate Rand Paul because they thought he believed in noninterventionism so this should make them all happy.
View Quote


Maybe should read his statement a little more thoroughly.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:


Under the criterion established by Powell's eight questions, we probably wouldn't have launched the Normandy Invasion in 1944.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By SD307:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SD307:
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
View Quote
The same Powell who was instrumental in getting us into the Iraq War? That Powell? He didn't follow his own doctrine.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:14 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Molotov357:


What we have been doing the past 15 years is half assed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Molotov357:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By badfish274:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting.
View Quote


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?
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:52:48 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By badfish274:
So he wants to legitimize the Islamic State by putting them on the level of a state actor? Interesting.
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 11/24/2014 1:53:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LARRYG:


Because the American people lack the will to allow the military to do what has to be done.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By Molotov357:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
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?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top