Rand Paul: Military action in Syria needs Congressional approval (4/6 CNN)

Rand Paul: Military action in Syria needs Congressional approval

Quote:

---

(CNN)Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday Congress would need to approve military action in Syria.
"The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution," Paul said on "Kilmeade and Friends." "When Nikki Haley came before my committee and I voted for her, I asked her that question. 'Will you try to take us to war? Will you advocate for war without constitutional or congressional authority?' And she said no. So I assumed what she means by this is that, the President, if he decides to do something in Syria, he would come to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Short of Congress voting on it, I'm opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars."

---

more at:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politi...ampaign=buffer

Senate approval? fu*k that shit. It need not to happen at all, how about that? Rand is like the one guy in a group of gang rapists asking that the rapist gang take a vote before committing the rape. And Rand should stop acting like a naive child. They are already doing something in Syria and they did not ask for your approval. What makes you think they would start now? The camels nose is already under the tent Rand and resistance right now is futile, congress can say no all they want and the MIC would still go to war.

Voting for hardcore neocons and then hoping that they obey the constitution is not very smart. You have been played, the lunatics never relinquished control of the asylum they merely got new agents. It would ttake a miracle (not congress) and/or Russia and China to stop these bloodthirsty animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juleswin

Senate approval? fu*k that $#@!. It need not to happen at all, how about that? Rand is like the one guy in a group of gang rapists asking that the rapist gang take a vote before committing the rape. And Rand should stop acting like a naive child. They are already doing something in Syria and they did not ask for your approval. What makes you think they would start now? The camels nose is already under the tent Rand and resistance right now is futile, congress can say no all they want and the MIC would still go to war.

Voting for hardcore neocons and then hoping that they obey the constitution is not very smart. You have been played, the lunatics never relinquished control of the asylum they merely got new agents. It would ttake a miracle (not congress) and/or Russia and China to stop these bloodthirsty animals.

---

Ron would make the same point as Rand, that there needs to be congressional approval...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudeman

Ron would make the same point as Rand, that there needs to be congressional approval...

---

And that wouldn't be the first time Ron Paul was wrong on an issue. Wars of aggression is wrong and it makes no difference if a bunch of elected idiots put their stamp of approval on it. Would it still be OK if congresses voted and passed civil asset forfeiture laws? I don't give a fu*k that the criminals in power made it OK, it is still wrong and any liberty politician should be against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juleswin

Senate approval? fu*k that shit. It need not to happen at all, how about that? Rand is like the one guy in a group of gang rapists asking that the rapist gang take a vote before committing the rape. And Rand should stop acting like a naive child. They are already doing something in Syria and they did not ask for your approval. What makes you think they would start now? The camels nose is already under the tent Rand and resistance right now is futile, congress can say no all they want and the MIC would still go to war.

Voting for hardcore neocons and then hoping that they obey the constitution is not very smart. You have been played, the lunatics never relinquished control of the asylum they merely got new agents. It would ttake a miracle (not congress) and/or Russia and China to stop these bloodthirsty animals.

---

While all you say is true at least he stands on principle and I am glad he does. I think you have been here long enough to know how Rand operates. It's not like only his vote counts. If it goes before the House then it can be debated. That is what he hopes to achieve.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juleswin

And that wouldn't be the first time Ron Paul was wrong on an issue. Wars of aggression is wrong and it makes no difference if a bunch of elected idiots put their stamp of approval on it. Would it still be OK if congresses voted and passed civil asset forfeiture laws? I don't give a fu*k that the criminals in power made it OK, it is still wrong and any liberty politician should be against it.

---

Well, Ron's theory has been if Congress was forced to take responsibility for a war they would chicken out more often and settle for peace. I dunno, but I imagine there's a reason the neocons try to avoid an actual vote. But yeah an unjust war is an unjust war regardless.

Do you have ANY doubts that Rand would vote against it??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Tell

Well, Ron's theory has been if Congress was forced to take responsibility for a war they would chicken out more often and settle for peace. I dunno, but I imagine there's a reason the neocons try to avoid an actual vote. But yeah an unjust war is an unjust war regardless.

---

Yes, and it sure as heck is better than having just one person make the decision to send the country into war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juleswin

And that wouldn't be the first time Ron Paul was wrong on an issue. Wars of aggression is wrong and it makes no difference if a bunch of elected idiots put their stamp of approval on it. Would it still be OK if congresses voted and passed civil asset forfeiture laws? I don't give a fu*k that the criminals in power made it OK, it is still wrong and any liberty politician should be against it.

---

I'm not sure why you're bitching about Rand or Ron's stance. Neither are the leader of the nation and they are both likely to oppose this war so what do you expect them to do? Bitching about people who are opposed to it does nothing positive.

If all you want to do is vent, then vent, but vent about the people who are pushing this, not about the people who would oppose it if they could.

Well. Guess not. Our gov just bombed em.

Rand took a similar stance back when Obama was ready to go after Assad and was able to gather enough resistance to stop those direct plans of attack. Hopefully a similar resistance will develop, and with the hatetred for Trump maybe the left will fake being anti-war again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptUSA

Well. Guess not. Our gov just bombed em.

---

Wait! What? Crap.

How many kids just got exploded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juleswin

Senate approval? fu*k that $#@!. It need not to happen at all, how about that? Rand is like the one guy in a group of gang rapists asking that the rapist gang take a vote before committing the rape. And Rand should stop acting like a naive child. They are already doing something in Syria and they did not ask for your approval. What makes you think they would start now? The camels nose is already under the tent Rand and resistance right now is futile, congress can say no all they want and the MIC would still go to war.

Voting for hardcore neocons and then hoping that they obey the constitution is not very smart. You have been played, the lunatics never relinquished control of the asylum they merely got new agents. It would ttake a miracle (not congress) and/or Russia and China to stop these bloodthirsty animals.

---

I can find no fault with your critique.

How'd that work out for you Rand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jllundqu

How'd that work out for you Rand?

---

I guess he didn't have time to golf with him before the attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannno

Do you have ANY doubts that Rand would vote against it??

---

but congress would rubber stamp it anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCount

I guess he didn't have time to golf with him before the attack.

---

Did you?