BREAKING: Rand Paul Calls for a Formal Declaration of War Against ISIS

[pulp8721]

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.

Unlike other resolutions circulating on Capitol Hill that would give the president various degrees of authority to use force against Islamic militants, Mr. Paul would take the extra step of declaring war — something Congress has not done since World War II.





ny times.com/2014/11/24/us/politics/rand-paul-calls-for-a-formal-declaration-of-war-against-isis.html

[presence]

Shit I didn't realize ISIS had boots in Georgia raiding peach farms.

[pulp8721]

No doubt this was prompted in part because of this exchange by Elise Jordan/Lanny Davis from last week (Go to 2:40)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urKmWaaH5IA

[Crashland]

He might be calling for it, hoping that it fails.

[mosquitobite]

He might be calling for it, hoping that it fails.

I'm guessing he just wants to get the @$$holes on record, once and for all. Making the pansy yellow bellies define where they stand. This is why they LIKE giving the POTUS more power - so they don't have to make those difficult votes and worry about re-election.

[JJ2]

This is great news. All that talk about Obama needing "authorization" and AUMFs had me worried that Rand had forgotten to stick to "declaring war." I'm glad he has still not abandoned that position: that war must actually be declared.

When what they ultimately vote on is an AUMF instead of a declaration of war, will Rand use that as a reason to vote "No"?

[idiom]

Make the bastards nail their colours to the mast.

Call the bluff of everyone. Get Hillary on the record on whether she would vote yes.

And get the bill in before Obama, leaving Obama holding his dick in his hands, looking like he doesn't have a clue.

Then when the declaration of war fails, impeach.

[tsai3904]

When what they ultimately vote on is an AUMF instead of a declaration of war, will Rand use that as a reason to vote "No"?

No. He's said he would have voted for the 2001 AUMF so he's not opposed to AUMFs.

[philipped]

Controversial votes > Seceding power to the executive branch

[Galileo Galilei]

A declaration of war would be a disaster for the neocons. Questions like this will be asked:

1) who is ISIS?

2) how much will it cost? How many will die? How long will it take?

3) what is the definition of victory?

[MaxPower]

My goodness, that Lanny Davis is obnoxious. Rather than admit that Obama's actions are illegal *even under the War-Powers-Act rationale that the administration has invoked,* which Rand pointed out in his op-ed and Elise Jordan was making her central point, he cherry-picks one sentence from the op-ed to construe with over-the-top literalism that could easily be clarified by simply consulting the rest of Rand's public record, then tries to divert the entire conversation into a personal attack on him.

[JJ2]

Did anyone else read the full text of Rand's resolution? If that made it onto the Senate floor for a vote, it would get 1 "Yes" vote and 99 "No" votes.

[anaconda]

Did anyone else read the full text of Rand's resolution? If that made it onto the Senate floor for a vote, it would get 1 "Yes" vote and 99 "No" votes.

What percentage of the 99 would be "It doesn't go far enough" vs. "It goes too far?"

[FindLiberty]

He might be calling for it, hoping that it fails.

Yea,

That was the way dad rolled (getting pork for his constituents).

But here, Rand's reasons for this bill are not as simple as playing
to the blood lusts of the MIC...

Rand will make a great POTUS!

+++

Is ISIS the latest excuse for perpetual external war now that
"the war on terror" is mostly contained, right here at home,
as it relentlessly keeps chewing away at the U S Constitution?

[jmdrake]

Obama is already waging war against ISIS based on the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda and the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. Rand's proposal would put and end to both of those "wars" and limit the ISIS war to one year. It's a damn good idea.

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.

“Conservatives are mad at him about immigration. And they’re mad about him using executive authority on Obamacare,” Mr. Paul said. “But this is another example where he doesn’t have much respect for Congress, and some conservatives don’t quite get that.”

A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment on the Paul proposal but said Mr. Obama believes “we are strongest as a nation when the executive branch and Congress work together on matters involving the use of U.S. military force.”

Mr. Paul faces doubts within the Republican Party, particularly among those who take a more traditional interventionist approach, that he is trustworthy on matters of national security and defense. He has sought to shake the “isolationist” label that he believes is unfairly attached to him because of the noninterventionist views of his father, Ron Paul.

“All I want people to do is report the truth,” he said, “and for opponents to know the truth.” He added that much of the criticism is based on misperceptions of his worldview. “The truth is it’s a ridiculous sort of parlor game,” he added.

The debate in Congress over the American effort in Iraq and Syria is likely to revolve around how much lawmakers limit the president’s authority and how they attempt to settle a disagreement over the White House’s justification for its airstrikes so far.

The administration has said that it is covered under two existing laws: a 2001 authorization passed after the 9/11 attacks, which Mr. Obama has invoked to carry out strikes against suspected terrorists in Yemen and Somalia, and a 2002 authorization sought by President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.

There are differences of opinion in Congress about what to do with those two laws. Mr. Paul’s resolution would repeal the 2002 authorization and terminate the 2001 law after one year. But some lawmakers say those moves would tie the president’s hands as commander in chief.

A proposal by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, would set similar limitations, though Mr. Kaine does not seek to repeal the 2001 law, nor does he seek a formal declaration of war. His resolution would also expire after one year, forcing Congress to revisit the issue. And, like Mr. Paul’s proposal, it would preclude the military from sending in ground forces except in very specific circumstances, like the pursuit of a high-value target.

“Rand and I, we see very closely on this issue,” Mr. Kaine said in an interview on Friday. “We both feel like you can’t have a war without congressional authorization of some kind. Congress cannot just let this power rest down at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Some conservatives may balk at setting up a narrow set of parameters for the president. Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, has introduced a resolution that would give the president “all necessary and appropriate force” to defend the country against the Islamic State but would require him to report back to Congress on the effort every 90 days.

[Brett85]

Are expiration dates and limits on ground trops supposed to be attached to declarations of war?

[Matt Collins]

Make the bastards nail their colours to the mast.

Call the bluff of everyone. Get Hillary on the record on whether she would vote yes.

And get the bill in before Obama, leaving Obama holding his dick in his hands, looking like he doesn't have a clue.

Then when the declaration of war fails, impeach.

I'm guessing he just wants to get the @$$holes on record, once and for all. Making the pansy yellow bellies define where they stand. This is why they LIKE giving the POTUS more power - so they don't have to make those difficult votes and worry about re-election.


BINGO!


It's time for them to put up or shut up....

[Matt Collins]

A declaration of war would be a disaster for the neocons. Questions like this will be asked:

1) who is ISIS?

2) how much will it cost? How many will die? How long will it take?

3) what is the definition of victory?
And those are things that they don't want discussed because it gets out of their narrative....

[GunnyFreedom]

He might be calling for it, hoping that it fails.

That is what Ron actually did for OIF.

[GunnyFreedom]

Still the wrong tactic. A Non State Entity needs Marque and Reprisal. Per the Jeffersonian doctrine of M&R you can use military special forces providing they are Department of the Navy. In fact, the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R would be 100-fold more effective at actually eliminating ISIS than any Declaration of War. Elimination of ISIS is surgery. War is a sledgehammer. You perform surgeries with a scalpel (M&R) performing surgery with a sledgehammer does more harm than good.

I fully suspect he is doing what Ron did for OIF, but if there were to be a legitimate need to eliminate ISIS, then it needs to be the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R.

[GunnyFreedom]

Are expiration dates and limits on ground trops supposed to be attached to declarations of war?

No. DOW is supposed to leave the President fully in charge. If the President is really screwing up, Congress may be able to revoke a DOW, but that would be totally unprecedented and there are simply no guidelines to follow for doing such a thing as it has likely never been countenanced in all of US History.

[Inkblots]

Controversial votes > Seceding power to the executive branch

Precisely. The only trouble is, if Congress votes down the war declaration, there's very little chance they will take the necessary steps to force Obama to obey the Constitution and end his war on the Islamic State.

I wish 90% of our senators did suck so much :(

[Inkblots]

My goodness, that Lanny Davis is obnoxious. Rather than admit that Obama's actions are illegal *even under the War-Powers-Act rationale that the administration has invoked,* which Rand pointed out in his op-ed and Elise Jordan was making her central point, he cherry-picks one sentence from the op-ed to construe with over-the-top literalism that could easily be clarified by simply consulting the rest of Rand's public record, then tries to divert the entire conversation into a personal attack on him.

Yeah, but to be fair, that girl did a terrible job of pushing back on that. Rand's going to need a better class of surrogates going into the primaries...

[Inkblots]

Still the wrong tactic. A Non State Entity needs Marque and Reprisal.

Sure, but the Islamic State now claims it is a state. It controls and administers territory. It collects taxes. It maintains a standing army and conducts military operations internally and externally.

It's not formally recognized by any other nation, but I don't think there are any grounds for denying that IS is indeed a state at this time.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sure, but the Islamic State now claims it is a state. It controls and administers territory. It collects taxes. It maintains a standing army and conducts military operations internally and externally.

It's not formally recognized by any other nation, but I don't think there are any grounds for denying that IS is indeed a state at this time.

The actual states in the territories they claim might dispute that. A state doesn't have to be recognized by others to be a state for the purposes of declaring war, and merely controlling and administering some territory does not make one a state. the Barbary Pirates around 1800 held and administered VASTLY more territory than ISIS ever has or will, and yet they were NSE's for the purposes of M&R.

[GunnyFreedom]

Although the Barbary Pirates held vast tracts of undisputed claims, and were still not considered a "state" for the purposes of declaring war, holding at least SOME undisputed claim would seem a prerequisite for being a "state." So far as I know, ISIS does not even hold a claim to single acre of land that is not disputed.

[ClydeCoulter]

Are expiration dates and limits on ground trops supposed to be attached to declarations of war?

What do you think?


The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[Inkblots]

The actual states in the territories they claim might dispute that. A state doesn't have to be recognized by others to be a state for the purposes of declaring war, and merely controlling and administering some territory does not make one a state. the Barbary Pirates around 1800 held and administered VASTLY more territory than ISIS ever has or will, and yet they were NSE's for the purposes of M&R.

The situation isn't analogous at all, Gunny. The Barbary pirates didn't claim to be independent nations -- they operated within the territory and under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, far from claiming to be independent of Istanbul, they operated with the tacit approval and sometime open encouragement of the Ottoman authorities. The Barbary pirates unambiguously met the definition of a NSE, in a directly analogous way to al Qaeda in pre-invasion Afghanistan.

That's why a declaration of war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan wasn't appropriate - back in 2001 Ron vote for an AUMF against a non-state actor, not a war on the Afghani state. On the other hand, the Islamic State has declared independence from Iraq and Syria -- whether they recognize it is immaterial, IS is a functional, independent state. By the standard you seem to be applying, the Confederacy during the Civil War would be a NSE, which is plainly nonsense. If you want to apply the "belligerent power" designation used by the Union during the Civil War for the CSA as a de facto but not de jure state, that's fine -- but it's definitely not a NSE at this point.

[GunnyFreedom]

The situation isn't analogous at all, Gunny. The Barbary pirates didn't claim to be independent nations -- they operated within the territory and under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, far from claiming to be independent of Istanbul, they operated with the tacit approval and sometime open encouragement of the Ottoman authorities. The Barbary pirates unambiguously met the definition of a NSE, in a directly analogous way to al Qaeda in pre-invasion Afghanistan.

That's why a declaration of war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan wasn't appropriate - back in 2001 Ron vote for an AUMF against a non-state actor, not a war on the Afghani state. On the other hand, the Islamic State has declared independence from Iraq and Syria -- whether they recognize it is immaterial, IS is a functional, independent state. By the standard you seem to be applying, the Confederacy during the Civil War would be a NSE, which is plainly nonsense. If you want to apply the "belligerent power" designation used by the Union during the Civil War for the CSA as a de facto but not de jure state, that's fine -- but it's definitely not a NSE at this point.

I don't buy it. I could claim my home and land to be an independent state but my claim does not make it so. The CSA never successfully achieved secession, so it was never an independent state. Declaring war on the CSA was blatantly illegal. Lincoln had no right to declare war, invade, OR issue M&R. Pretty much everything the North did in the Civil War was illegal, so that's really not a fitting counter example. In order to declare war on the CSA, Lincoln would have had to allow them to completely secede first, and then go to Congress and seek a DOW against a foreign power. But then he would have had no legitimate reason to declare war.

I do not buy your argument here at all. If anything your argument supports MY case. Declaring war on the CSA was illegal, which, if you considered them parallel (I do not, ISIS is not seceding from the United States) then declaring war on ISIS would have to be likewise illegal.

[Matt Collins]

Still the wrong tactic. A Non State Entity needs Marque and Reprisal. Per the Jeffersonian doctrine of M&R you can use military special forces providing they are Department of the Navy. In fact, the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R would be 100-fold more effective at actually eliminating ISIS than any Declaration of War. Elimination of ISIS is surgery. War is a sledgehammer. You perform surgeries with a scalpel (M&R) performing surgery with a sledgehammer does more harm than good.

I fully suspect he is doing what Ron did for OIF, but if there were to be a legitimate need to eliminate ISIS, then it needs to be the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R.Fair point but this is a political objective... getting the other Senators on the record about Obama's actions... It will not pass I am betting therefore the exact tool doesn't really matter as much. It's more about the vote than it is the end result.

[Brian4Liberty]

TEXT OF RESOLUTION


TEXT OF RESOLUTION:

Whereas Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, ''The Congress shall have the Power to . . . declare war'';

Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ''The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.'';

Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ''The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.'';

Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ''In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.'';

Whereas the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies; And

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and consulate in Erbil, Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ''Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.-The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.-The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.-

(1) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.-Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization-

(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or

(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.-Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except-

(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or

(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.

(d) WAR POWER RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.-

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.-Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.

The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. NO EXISTING AUTHORITY.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.

SEC. 5. SUNSET OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

SEC. 6. EXPIRATION.

The declaration and authorization in this joint resolution shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
...
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1249

[Brian4Liberty]

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.

The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

Nice.

[satchelmcqueen]

Shit I didn't realize ISIS had boots in Georgia raiding peach farms.

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

[JJ2]

What percentage of the 99 would be "It doesn't go far enough" vs. "It goes too far?"

100% would be "it doesn't go far enough" in the sense that it repeals the two AUMFs!

[jmdrake]

Still the wrong tactic. A Non State Entity needs Marque and Reprisal. Per the Jeffersonian doctrine of M&R you can use military special forces providing they are Department of the Navy. In fact, the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R would be 100-fold more effective at actually eliminating ISIS than any Declaration of War. Elimination of ISIS is surgery. War is a sledgehammer. You perform surgeries with a scalpel (M&R) performing surgery with a sledgehammer does more harm than good.

I fully suspect he is doing what Ron did for OIF, but if there were to be a legitimate need to eliminate ISIS, then it needs to be the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R.

Seems Great Britain got the memo WRT to special ops.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-sas-troops-riding-quad-4678493

[phill4paul]

Still the wrong tactic. A Non State Entity needs Marque and Reprisal. Per the Jeffersonian doctrine of M&R you can use military special forces providing they are Department of the Navy. In fact, the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R would be 100-fold more effective at actually eliminating ISIS than any Declaration of War. Elimination of ISIS is surgery. War is a sledgehammer. You perform surgeries with a scalpel (M&R) performing surgery with a sledgehammer does more harm than good.

I fully suspect he is doing what Ron did for OIF, but if there were to be a legitimate need to eliminate ISIS, then it needs to be the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R.

X1000. Even the concept of re-introducing M&R would make him stand out heads above the rest.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

And what about all the other nations that have made threats against the U.S. such as North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc? Should the U.S. government steal from me in order to fund military operations against those "threats", thus creating more devastation in the process?

[Tywysog Cymru]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

If a group of Americans were threatening Switzerland, I highly doubt Switzerland would send people to America to take them out.

[JJ2]

And what about all the other nations that have made threats against the U.S. such as North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc? Should the U.S. government steal from me in order to fund military operations against those "threats", thus creating more devastation in the process?

Agreed, just because someone threatens us doesn't mean they are a threat.

[Uriah]

If this is ever voted on either way the chips fall this will be a major problem for the executive branch. First, if it succeeds then the war is defined and then has a foreseeable end. If it fails then it can be said the president is directly ignoring the voice of the people through congress and his actions are illegal. I like the way the bill is written. I wouldn't vote for it because I don't support this war and see no need. Although, it really pins everyone down to their vote.

The worst case scenario is the bill changes to something horrible that actually passes and this sham continues.

Also, I would be much more comfortable with letter of marque and reprisal if congress sees ISIS as a true threat to Americans.

[GunnyFreedom]

X1000. Even the concept of re-introducing M&R would make him stand out heads above the rest.

I get that he is pulling a political move, and that "war" people understand while "Marque" not so much, therefore M&R would be less effective to do politics with. However, M&R would be a hundredfold more effective militarily at actually eliminating ISIS. The UK doesn't even have a formal doctrine and their SAS troops (jmdrake post 35) are more being effective than a standard infantry battalion.

If ISIS needs eliminating, it needs to be M&R. If all we're doing is calling out McCain, Graham, and Obama as hypocrites, then "war" is a word people understand better.

[GunnyFreedom]

Seems Great Britain got the memo WRT to special ops.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-sas-troops-riding-quad-4678493

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

Aye, this is what works against this kind of enemy.

[Crashland]

If this is ever voted on either way the chips fall this will be a major problem for the executive branch. First, if it succeeds then the war is defined and then has a foreseeable end. If it fails then it can be said the president is directly ignoring the voice of the people through congress and his actions are illegal. I like the way the bill is written. I wouldn't vote for it because I don't support this war and see no need. Although, it really pins everyone down to their vote.

The worst case scenario is the bill changes to something horrible that actually passes and this sham continues.

Also, I would be much more comfortable with letter of marque and reprisal if congress sees ISIS as a true threat to Americans.

Absolutely. It is a win-win, whether the bill succeeds or fails (unless as you said, if it changes into something else). Very smart move by Rand, I applaud this maneuver.

[twomp]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

Are you consistent with this or are you just doing what the media is telling you to do? North Korea "threatens" us every other week and they have a nuclear arsenal. I don't see you yelling at the top of your lungs to bomb North Korea? Or are you waiting for the media to tell you that "North Korea is a threat" before you overreact and hide under your bed? You are only scared of ISIS because the media told you to be scared.

[twomp]

On a side note, its so hypocritical that the "pro-life" people and the bible thumpers on these forums agree with Rand Paul on preemptive war. Didn't Jesus say "turn the other cheek?" I didn't remember Jesus saying, "hey these guys might pose a threat in a few years, let's bomb them before they bomb us!"

The whole "get them before they get us" is a Neo-con argument for war that you guys are now starting to use.

[alucard13mm]

Are you consistent with this or are you just doing what the media is telling you to do? North Korea "threatens" us every other week and they have a nuclear arsenal. I don't see you yelling at the top of your lungs to bomb North Korea? Or are you waiting for the media to tell you that "North Korea is a threat" before you overreact and hide under your bed? You are only scared of ISIS because the media told you to be scared.

ISIS is an off shoot of AL Qaeda, an organization that did attack US soil. North Korea never attacked US soil ever.

[phill4paul]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

The CIA, state department, MIC, Pentagon etc........... It will never be over. There is money in fear.

[kcchiefs6465]

As if Air Support can win a war short of vitrifying the entirety of that region (which no one is going to risk as it would quite possibly be the end of this planet if it did occur). And even then (vitrifying that region without a nuclear apocalypse being had), lone wolf attacks for reprisal would still occur.

Stupid as hell.

I might actually donate to Rand Paul should he decide to take up arms against ISIS his damn self.

[twomp]

ISIS is an off shoot of AL Qaeda, an organization that did attack US soil. North Korea never attacked US soil ever.

ISIS just RECENTLY joined up with Al-Nusra which is an Al Qaeda off shoot long after the bombings started so no, they aren't an "Al-Qaeda" off shoot. Nice attempt, try again. John McCain has helped Al Qaeda more than ISIS.

[Rudeman]

I think some of you are missing the point Rand is trying to make. The focus isn't on ISIS (if Rand viewed them as a real/serious threat he wouldn't have placed limitations on the use of force and he wouldn't have placed a 1 year end date). What it does is repeal the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF which is the real objective of the declaration.

Either Rand repeals the 2001 & 2002 AUMF or he gets people on the record opposing the declaration of war against ISIS. No way congress will pass this, so Rand will just use it as a way to show he isn't an isolationist.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think some of you are missing the point Rand is trying to make. The focus isn't on ISIS (if Rand viewed them as a real/serious threat he wouldn't have placed limitations on the use of force and he wouldn't have placed a 1 year end date). What it does is repeal the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF which is the real objective of the declaration.

Either Rand repeals the 2001 & 2002 AUMF or he gets people on the record opposing the declaration of war against ISIS. No way congress will pass this, so Rand will just use it as a way to show he isn't an isolationist.
Why wouldn't Congress pass this? Because of the deadline? The people would probably support such a bill (bombing ISIS). Considering that probably 30 or 40% of those here would, I'd say that 75% or so of the general public would support such an effort. Even without the AUMF it is well known and the precedent established of using the War Powers Resolution to start proxy wars on indefinite timelines. Same as the CIA "prepares the battle space" dodging Congressional oversight and doing whatever the hell they want. Which includes toppling governments, and creating a reason that 'the people' will want to go into a given area.

What have the Generals said about the key to eliminating ISIS? Has any one come out and said that airstrikes alone could possibly accomplish the job? The collateral damage and the image of violating sovereignty will create a danger greater than ISIS could ever be. This is really depressing to be discussing this, here, in this day and age.

[GunnyFreedom]

On a side note, its so hypocritical that the "pro-life" people and the bible thumpers on these forums agree with Rand Paul on preemptive war. Didn't Jesus say "turn the other cheek?" I didn't remember Jesus saying, "hey these guys might pose a threat in a few years, let's bomb them before they bomb us!"

The whole "get them before they get us" is a Neo-con argument for war that you guys are now starting to use.

It looks like you found ONE GUY who is OK with going off to war with ISIS, and so far as I know I don't believe he matches your qualifications anyway. You might want to put down the broad brush.

[GunnyFreedom]

Why wouldn't Congress pass this? Because of the deadline? The people would probably support such a bill (bombing ISIS). Considering that probably 30 or 40% of those here would, I'd say that 75% or so of the general public would support such an effort. Even without the AUMF it is well known and the precedent established of using the War Powers Resolution to start proxy wars on indefinite timelines. Same as the CIA "prepares the battle space" dodging Congressional oversight and doing whatever the hell they want. Which includes toppling governments, and creating a reason that 'the people' will want to go into a given area.

What have the Generals said about the key to eliminating ISIS? Has any one come out and said that airstrikes alone could possibly accomplish the job? The collateral damage and the image of violating sovereignty will create a danger greater than ISIS could ever be. This is really depressing to be discussing this, here, in this day and age.

OK, maybe 2 or 3 at most. Where are you getting this 30-40% figure?

[twomp]

It looks like you found ONE GUY who is OK with going off to war with ISIS, and so far as I know I don't believe he matches your qualifications anyway. You might want to put down the broad brush.

There is more than ONE guy who supports bombing ISIS. Would you like me to P.M. you their names as I prefer not to call people out in public. These people are also the ones who claim to be "conservatives" who love Jesus.

[twomp]

OK, maybe 2 or 3 at most. Where are you getting this 30-40% figure?

Sounds like it's time for another poll. There is definitely more than 2 or 3 "at the most." They support Rand Paul and Rand Paul supports air strikes. That alone should tell you there are more than "2 or 3" people who support attacking ISIS.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is more than ONE guy who supports bombing ISIS. Would you like me to P.M. you their names as I prefer not to call people out in public. These people are also the ones who claim to be "conservatives" who love Jesus.

Maybe I'm lowballing a little, but it's hard not to kneejerk when people are unjustly calling out near half the forum as warmongers. 11k users active in the last 24 hours. *30% = 3300. I'm supposed to believe there are 3300 warmongers running around here? c'mon...

[kcchiefs6465]

OK, maybe 2 or 3 at most. Where are you getting this 30-40% figure?
Well I've read quite a bit more than 2 or 3.

40% was a number out of my ass though. I barely am on here anymore. Maybe it's just a false perception I got?

[Crashland]

Sounds like it's time for another poll. There is definitely more than 2 or 3 "at the most." They support Rand Paul and Rand Paul supports air strikes. That alone should tell you there are more than "2 or 3" people who support attacking ISIS.

Do we have a poll for this? If not, seems like a reasonable way to see where the RPF community lands on the spectrum, as long as the poll is fairly constructed. I would tend to agree with Gunny, I would be very surprised if it turned out anywhere near 30-40%

[kcchiefs6465]

Do we have a poll for this? If not, seems like a reasonable way to see where the RPF community lands on the spectrum, as long as the poll is fairly constructed. I would tend to agree with Gunny, I would be very surprised if it turned out anywhere near 30-40%
I think there was a poll and the results were all but a few against bombing ISIS. The wording wasn't too good and regardless, if I recall correctly, the very people voting that they didn't support airstrikes had post after post in other threads that'd call their votes into question.

Don't much care to look for it, though.

I can certainly see that the fear propaganda is working.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well I've read quite a bit more than 2 or 3.

40% was a number out of my ass though. I barely am on here anymore. Maybe it's just a false perception I got?

It's easy enough to do when faced with an issue one is deeply passionate about. It's extremely difficult to submerge preconceptions on important issues, and those do color the way we perceive an ambiguous statement. And being an internet message board, more statements are ambiguous than not. That's just the nature of the beast.

WRT a poll, making it anonymous will skew it inaccurately towards warmongering since there will always be a handful of jokers trolling, while making it public will skew it inaccurately towards anti-war since there are likely to be people who may support bombing but are ashamed to admit it publicly. Also on this particular issue it will be difficult to avoid wording the questions in a way that presupposes an outcome.

I would honestly be surprised if the number of true intervention supporters around here was larger than 6-8%. But again, how a question is worded can have a dramatic effect on the actual polling. F-U Frank!

[mosquitobite]

I don't see how this is any different than what Ron did plenty of times. This bill makes them wear their war status out in the open. It puts anti war dems in the uncomfortable position of showing their boss as a warmonger. It makes warmongering repubs uncomfortable because it withdraws the unilateral POTUS power.

I fail to see a downside. Obama is going to "do something" with or without this bill. Why wouldn't we want all their butts on the record?

[cindy25]

will he vote for his own bill? he doesn't have to

[GunnyFreedom]

will he vote for his own bill? he doesn't have to

No, he doesn't have to, but if he does not then it would probably undo a lot of what he is trying to accomplish by introducing it.

[cindy25]

there is precedent, Rangel introduces legislation for military draft and then votes no.

[idiom]

Upside is nobody will be able to whine that we haven't "declared a war since WW2" any more. Gawd I hate that whinge.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Another advantage of declaring an actual war is that it makes anyone running guns to ISIS in the future (as Hillary, Petraeus, Kerry, etc have been) guilty of treason and subject to trial and execution.

[Galileo Galilei]

And those are things that they don't want discussed because it gets out of their narrative....

I love the way Rand quotes George Washington, James Madison, and the US Constitution in his resolution. Way cool.

[eleganz]

And then when Rand gets a declaration, he will start demanding clarifications in objectives and budgeting and timelines, etc... with press all along the way, it really is genius. And the language, it seems so neocon yet no neocon can really deny it publicly.