politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Rand Paul: Trump needs Congress to authorize military action in Syria
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief ... nal-authorization-for-military
Published: Apr 7, 2017
Author: BROOKE SEIPE
Post Date: 2017-04-07 00:30:02 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 3424
Comments: 25
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asserted Thursday night that President Trump needs congressional authorization for military action in Syria after Trump ordered an airstrike in the country following a deadly chemical attack earlier this week.
"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Paul said in a statement shortly after reports that the U.S. had launched more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against an airfield in Syria.
"The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate," Paul said. "Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different."
Paul expressed similar sentiments earlier Thursday amid reports that the Trump administration was considering a strike. Earlier this week, President Bashar Assad's forces reportedly used chemical weapons against opponents in Syria's years-long civil war.
A number of Democrats on Thursday night also urged caution after the Trump administration struck at an airfield near the city of Homs, where it said a gas attack originated earlier this week.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) sided with Paul on Twitter, saying that Trump "can use military force in defense of US. But attacking #Assad regime requires congressional approval."
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) also called the strike "an act of war" on Twitter, saying that "Congress needs to come back into session & hold a debate. Anything less is an abdication of our responsibility."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#2. To: All (#1)
Here’s your damned “red line” Obama …
Trump demonstrates comfort with military action in ordering missile strikes in Syria.
Trump Shows He Is Willing to Act Forcefully, Quickly.
#4. To: Gatlin (#2)
Here’s your damned “red line” Obama … Trump demonstrates comfort with military action in ordering missile strikes in Syria.Trump Shows He Is Willing to Act Forcefully, Quickly.
HOW is that a good thing?
#5. To: sneakypete (#4)
HOW is that a good thing?
Unites the country more, with an easy victory over a cartoon villain.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
HOW is that a good thing?Unites the country more, with an easy victory over a cartoon villain.
Are you,a devout Catholic,telling me,a devout agnostic,that morality should take a backseat to political convenience?
What are you,a Jesuit?
#7. To: sneakypete (#6)
Smacking Assad is a just war.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
Smacking Assad is a just war.
"Onward Christian murderers,rapists,and looters"?
Kinda reminds me of the Crusades.
BTW,I hope you are planning on enlisting for the infantry.
#12. To: sneakypete (#9)
BTW,I hope you are planning on enlisting for the infantry.
Fight the war right and you NEVER use the infantry. You NEVER put boots on the ground. You just bomb them whenever you please, destroy everything they have from the sky, leave them in the dark, dying of thirst, and unable to rebuild anything until they surrender.
And if they won't, then you just keep squashing them like roaches, year after year, from the sky, without taking any casualties at all.
You use air power to either force them to terms or, if they are stubborn fucks who won't come to terms, you use them as live target practice for your pilots for decades. Either way, they suffer unending horror until they finally give up. And you don't lose a single soldier.
We don't need to send in the infantry. Shouldn't have in Vietnam. We should have just wholesale bombed Hanoi and Haiphong and everywhere else for ten years, dropped incendiaries, dropped nukes - treated Vietnam like Germany or Japan in 1945, and kept on doing it, from the air, from the sea - wreck them and never let them get up. If they want to live in the stone age, keep them there. Without the US troop losses we could STILL be slaughtering Vietnamese with impunity if we felt like it.
We wouldn't have needed to - the bombing pressure on Hanoi in 1973 forced them to terms. We should have been doing that all along, from the beginning, and never sent in the army.
Today with drones and precision munitions we can get a long closer to the ground and kill individuals in tents and buildings, and risk no American troops doing it.
That is the kind of war I favor. Forget troops on the ground, just keep bombing them and striking them, on and on. It's good for the defense industry too, keeps the munitions pipelines flowing.
Once you put troops on the ground, they can hurt you. We already know that Muslims are not going to be governable anyway, so putting troops on the ground in their countries just gives them the chance to hurt you by killing your troops, and eventually causing the pain to cause the American public to end the war. You can't break their will because they are religious fanatics. So just kill them from the skies and wreck their lives and countries, leave them living in the 7th Century they so desperately want to go back to.
We can't change their minds, but we can kill them without risk to ourselves. So we should.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
That is the kind of war I favor.
How about favoring no fucking war at all and keeping or goddamned noses out of quarrels that are non of our business? Which is what most of the vets I know strongly believe.
Bombs nor boots solve nothin'. That is because when "we" decide to go in somewhere on some specious pretext or other, the objective is not to solve anything. It is just to cause chaos.
#18. To: randge (#13)
Boots and bombed obtained American Independence, the liberation of the slaves, the near- doubling of the size of the United States, Cuban and Filipino independence, victory in two World Wars over aggressive powers, and a free and thriving South Korea, for starters.
There are wars worth fighting, with outcomes that are good for our people.
We must be judicious about when we fight them, but America came into existence because of war. Without war, we would still all be living in Europe under kings, or be kings ourselves if we are winners of the lucky sperm club.
Replies to Comment # 18.
There are no replies to Comment # 18.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]