Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: Rand Paul Forces Vote On 2001/2002 AUMFs

  1. #1

    Rand Paul Forces Vote On 2001/2002 AUMFs



    The Senate will weigh in on Sen. Rand Paul's push to sunset two war authorizations, a vote that follows the Kentucky Republican's threat to grind an annual defense bill to a standstill.

    Senators will hold a vote on Paul's amendment to sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Wednesday.

    Paul wants to attach a six-month sunset of the two war bills to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, while the 2002 AUMF authorized the Iraq War..


    ...

    However, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), one of the Senate's most vocal proponents of a new war authorization, said on Tuesday that he would support Paul's push. "I am supporting Senator Paul's amendment. I think it is way past time—way past time—for Congress to take this up and for everybody to be on the record. I think our allies need to know whether Congress supports the American military missions currently under way," Kaine said.


    A spokesman for Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said she would also vote in favor of Paul's proposal. And Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) announced on the Senate floor that he would support it.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...s-war-proposal



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Supporting Member
    Michigan



    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    3,005
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    I think it is way past time—way past time—for Congress to take this up and for everybody to be on the record.
    Ya think!!??

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by KEEF View Post
    Ya think!!??
    Yes, please.
    "The Patriarch"

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nikcers again."

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nikcers again."
    Covered.
    "The Patriarch"

  9. #8
    Imagine if we had someone in the white house that wasn't a complete cuck for the MIC? someone who actually follows the constitution regarding the deployment of our military. This bill would not have been this urgent if we had an ally in the white house. He as a commander in chief can ignore this law.

    Only if we had someone in the white house who wasn't beholden to the globalists, Zionists and warmongers. I can only imagine



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Imagine if we had someone in the white house that wasn't a complete cuck for the MIC? someone who actually follows the constitution regarding the deployment of our military. This bill would not have been this urgent if we had an ally in the white house. He as a commander in chief can ignore this law.

    Only if we had someone in the white house who wasn't beholden to the globalists, Zionists and warmongers. I can only imagine
    We gotta give Rand Paul credit where credit is due, he is making them vote on ACA and now AUMF. We might not have drained the swamp but Rand Paul is sure throwing a wrench in their gears. I really think he stopped us from bombing Syria during Obama's presidency.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    We gotta give Rand Paul credit where credit is due, he is making them vote on ACA and now AUMF. We might not have drained the swamp but Rand Paul is sure throwing a wrench in their gears. I really think he stopped us from bombing Syria during Obama's presidency.
    Wrench in their gear? this is nothing more than a minor speed bump. The globalist with their puppet n chief Trump will continue to wreck havoc with wars. Btw, didn't Rand support the arming of the Kurds who are now fighting the Syrian govt in Deir Ezzor? I wonder if he is willing to cut 100% of their funding to pay for the hurricane relief. i doubt it, I think just like most senators, they all think their unconstitutional pet project is important.

    I will wait and see what effect this attempt at a correction of the endless war has in the world before I start elecbrating.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Wrench in their gear? this is nothing more than a minor speed bump. The globalist with their puppet n chief Trump will continue to wreck havoc with wars. Btw, didn't Rand support the arming of the Kurds who are now fighting the Syrian govt in Deir Ezzor? I wonder if he is willing to cut 100% of their funding to pay for the hurricane relief. i doubt it, I think just like most senators, they all think their unconstitutional pet project is important.

    I will wait and see what effect this attempt at a correction of the endless war has in the world before I start elecbrating.
    Well $#@!, maybe its because he purposed arming the kurds instead of arming ISIS as a way to get congress to debate arming ISIS/authorization of military force? Maybe if you watched his speech he quoted Ron Paul and said we marched in there, we can march right back out.

  14. #12
    The only reason to not celebrate this is that it won't pass...

    ...because most Senators/Congressmen are wholly owned subsidiaries of the MIC.

    But one isn't: like father like son.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The only reason to not celebrate this is that it won't pass...

    ...because most Senators/Congressmen are wholly owned subsidiaries of the MIC.

    But one isn't: like father like son.
    We should celebrate this because Rand Paul is trying to stop them from using kim jung un to invade Iran the way they used saddam hussein to invade Afghanistan. This moves political debate in the direction of America needs to stop these wars not create more.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Well $#@!, maybe its because he purposed arming the kurds instead of arming ISIS as a way to get congress to debate arming ISIS/authorization of military force? Maybe if you watched his speech he quoted Ron Paul and said we marched in there, we can march right back out.
    Yea, it must be Rand's "I've abandoned the free market to save the free market" line. He wants to unconstitutionally arm a land stealing, traitorous group of terrorists to attack the Syrians and take their land so that he can have a discussion about war authorization?

    Btw, I completely disagree with your assertion that Rand brought up to the topic of funding the Kurds as a way to start a discussion about AUMF. This is is pet project and he has been talking about it for years now. Btw, Ron would never bring up the idea of using US tax payers money to fund the Kurds.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Yea, it must be Rand's "I've abandoned the free market to save the free market" line. He wants to unconstitutionally arm a land stealing, traitorous group of terrorists to attack the Syrians and take their land so that he can have a discussion about war authorization?

    Btw, I completely disagree with your assertion that Rand brought up to the topic of funding the Kurds as a way to start a discussion about AUMF. This is is pet project and he has been talking about it for years now. Btw, Ron would never bring up the idea of using US tax payers money to fund the Kurds.
    So you think Rand Paul was trying to argue that we arm ISIS and the Kurds so they fight each other and we basically just burn money? Or do you think Rand was arguing that we stop arming ISIS and just arm the Kurds?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    So you think Rand Paul was trying to argue that we arm ISIS and the Kurds so they fight each other and we basically just burn money? Or do you think Rand was arguing that we stop arming ISIS and just arm the Kurds?
    I think he has for the longest time wanted to arm the Kurdish terrorist in Syria and Iraq. He also has talked about helping em steal land from Syria and Iraq(not turkey) to create their own homeland. Lastly, I don' believe for a second that he was proposing this idea to bring about some dialogue. Luckily for all of us, he hasn't brought up the idea about the arming of ISIS yet



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    didn't Rand support the arming of the Kurds who are now fighting the Syrian govt in Deir Ezzor?
    Well sure if you take anything out of context you can make it mean anything you want. Rand Paul also called for a new car stabilization fund to go with the insurance stabilization fund the republicans were trying to pass. Rand Paul said that the best way to defeat ISIS is not with military force but to stop arming ISIS. I think he gets it from his dad, one time Ron Paul said that we should stop sending money overseas and spend it here at home, oh no he wants to replace warfare spending with welfare spending he is not even conservative.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Well sure if you take anything out of context you can make it mean anything you want. Rand Paul also called for a new car stabilization fund to go with the insurance stabilization fund the republicans were trying to pass. Rand Paul said that the best way to defeat ISIS is not with military force but to stop arming ISIS. I think he gets it from his dad, one time Ron Paul said that we should stop sending money overseas and spend it here at home, oh no he wants to replace warfare spending with welfare spending he is not even conservative.
    You are confusing me, what am I taking out of context? He wasn't asking for funds for Kurdish terrorists to fight ISIS, he was asking for this money to assist the Kurds in stealing Iraqi and Syrian(aka fight the Syrian and Iraqi legit army) lands for themselves. Also, it is not the job of the US to fight ISIS in Syrian, they do not need our help in fighting ISIS and I doubt any significant number of US tax payers would lose sleep if we did not finance them.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    You are confusing me, what am I taking out of context? He wasn't asking for funds for Kurdish terrorists to fight ISIS, he was asking for this money to assist the Kurds in stealing Iraqi and Syrian(aka fight the Syrian and Iraqi legit army) lands for themselves. Also, it is not the job of the US to fight ISIS in Syrian, they do not need our help in fighting ISIS and I doubt any significant number of US tax payers would lose sleep if we did not finance them.
    show me the bill, the neocons hated Obama bin ladens foreign policy because it was leading from behind. We were micro managing ISIS in the middle east. Rand wanted to debate this, how else can he debate this. publicly so people understand the situation?? He said lets stop arming ISIS in the debates and everyone ignored him.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    show me the bill, the neocons hated Obama bin ladens foreign policy because it was leading from behind. We were micro managing ISIS in the middle east. Rand wanted to debate this, how else can he debate this. publicly so people understand the situation?? He said lets stop arming ISIS in the debates and everyone ignored him.
    I don't know about bills, these lawless men just authorize the military and send in weapons without any formal orders. Also, we have been managing ISIS with Trump. Ever wonder why the Kurds dominated US backed SDF were able to advance deep into Deir Ezzor without being harassed by ISIS?

    You don't have to create more problems to debate the issue.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    You are confusing me, what am I taking out of context? He wasn't asking for funds for Kurdish terrorists to fight ISIS, he was asking for this money to assist the Kurds in stealing Iraqi and Syrian(aka fight the Syrian and Iraqi legit army) lands for themselves. Also, it is not the job of the US to fight ISIS in Syrian, they do not need our help in fighting ISIS and I doubt any significant number of US tax payers would lose sleep if we did not finance them.
    You might want to reconsider your recollection of history. Rand brought up arming the Kurds to fight ISIS, not to attack Syrian military but with the carrot being assisting them diplomatically in obtaining sovereignty. Perhaps you are ascribing motives that he never stated.

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/23...them-a-country

    I also thought at the time that Rand was making a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, not seriously advocating for arming the Kurds, due to the extreme difficulty in following through on the sovereignty assistance, which he acknowledged.
    --------------

    As interesting as this vote will be, it's bittersweet in that if it passes and eventually the wars really are wound down, it signals the end of the empire. That likely means some harsh realities taking hold in this country regarding the effects of an inability to continue to export monetary inflation.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    That likely means some harsh realities taking hold in this country regarding the effects of an inability to continue to export monetary inflation.
    We still can export guns to fight camel/toyota riding terrorists.

  26. #23
    If passed, would be a step in the right direction anyway.

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  27. #24
    And this is why we need to keep backing Rand.
    Support Justin Amash for Congress
    Michigan Congressional District 3



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    You might want to reconsider your recollection of history. Rand brought up arming the Kurds to fight ISIS, not to attack Syrian military but with the carrot being assisting them diplomatically in obtaining sovereignty. Perhaps you are ascribing motives that he never stated.

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/23...them-a-country

    I also thought at the time that Rand was making a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, not seriously advocating for arming the Kurds, due to the extreme difficulty in following through on the sovereignty assistance, which he acknowledged.
    --------------

    As interesting as this vote will be, it's bittersweet in that if it passes and eventually the wars really are wound down, it signals the end of the empire. That likely means some harsh realities taking hold in this country regarding the effects of an inability to continue to export monetary inflation.
    Yea, fighting ISIS is the cover story, creating a new homeland for the Kurds is the true goal of the proposal. And something Rand does that annoy the hell out of me is when he says that the kurds are the most effective fighting force against ISIS. He must know that it is a lie, Hezbollah and the Syrian arab army as far more effective forces against ISIS and they do this while being constantly attacked by the US and Israel.

    This is from 2 years ago





    The second video has Rand talking about building a coalition to fight ISIS and he is talking about inviting "arab" troops from countries who just happened to fund ISIS. All of those arab countries he talks about all supported the Libyan war(The arab league voted yes in support of the NATO bombing of Libya). He gets half of the story right and get the other half really bad.

    Btw, his push to steal Syrian and Iraqi land is not tongue and cheek, he is deadly serious about thieving. Non interventionism my a**.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    The second video has Rand talking about building a coalition to fight ISIS and he is talking about inviting "arab" troops from countries who just happened to fund ISIS.
    So Rand Paul said we should give "arab" troops who happen to fund ISIS weapons to fight the ISIS whom we were arming? Even in the first video it says even at the end that Rand said it would be "easier said then done because Iraq and Turkey would have to go along with it". The second video is about authorizing war against ISIS, so Rand Paul says alright $#@!ers go to war with yourselves, and then people like you spin his argument into wanting war. You probably think he was dead serious when he offered an amendment that increased military spending with offsets and cuts in other areas along side Marco Rubio right?

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    So Rand Paul said we should give "arab" troops who happen to fund ISIS weapons to fight the ISIS whom we were arming? Even in the first video it says even at the end that Rand said it would be "easier said then done because Iraq and Turkey would have to go along with it". The second video is about authorizing war against ISIS, so Rand Paul says alright $#@!ers go to war with yourselves, and then people like you spin his argument into wanting war. You probably think he was dead serious when he offered an amendment that increased military spending with offsets and cuts in other areas along side Marco Rubio right?
    You heard what he said, half of the time I have to admit that he barely rational when it comes to the middle east. Sometimes, he correctly calls out the arab nations funding ISIS and talk to him on a different day, he wants to form a coalition with those same ISIS funding arab countries to take out ISIS. He says the Kurds are the best fighting force against ISIS even though reality says hes wrong but that don't stop him from spreading the lie.

    He also correctly called the catalyst of the crisis which was the regime change operation in Libya but instead of coming out strong against regime change and making effort to strengthen/not weaken the leadership in Syria, he is completely mum on the issue of Syria. Actually, he said of Wolf Blitzer once that Assad had to go. Sadly, I can no longer find the clip for this. But, that's not where it stops, instead of him to call for a freeze in American and Arab arms to the region (which accelerated the crisis) and maybe even sanctions of countries that fund ISIS. No, he wants to make things even harder for the best fighting force against ISIS which is the SAA and Hezbollah by giving it another enemy to fight.

    Confused after reading this? well, that is his position and solution to fight ISIS. We should do like father has suggested so many time, we should get out of the region. Iraq and Syria can ask for help from the Arab countries if they desire to. I wonder if Rand knows that those sovereign countries don't need permission from the US to ask their neighbours for help.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Rand more than any politician in office now but his understanding and solution for peace in the Middle east is horrible. It is even more painful to hear it come out from his mouth because he more than most pols should know better.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    You heard what he said, half of the time I have to admit that he barely rational when it comes to the middle east. Sometimes, he correctly calls out the arab nations funding ISIS and talk to him on a different day, he wants to form a coalition with those same ISIS funding arab countries to take out ISIS..
    That's the point, how else do you defeat isis without defeating the narrative that was orchestrated by the Obama administration. So when he gets asked 80 times as day 80 different ways how to defeat ISIS he trys to argue that we can't do it without stopping those countries from funding isis he tends to speak towards the logical conclusion and in language that paints his opposition into a corner.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    That's the point, how else do you defeat isis without defeating the narrative that was orchestrated by the Obama administration. So when he gets asked 80 times as day 80 different ways how to defeat ISIS he trys to argue that we can't do it without stopping those countries from funding isis he tends to speak towards the logical conclusion and in language that paints his opposition into a corner.
    Wrong, you don't defeat ISIS by creating new false narratives about the victim in this case Rand creating new false narratives about Syria. One of the most pernicious is the one he says a lot of TV interviews and that is the idea that this is part of 1000 yr sectarian war between factions of Islam. When it is in fact Israel, US and its allies trying to create a sectarian divide in the country. What Rand wouldn't tell u is that the majority of the soldiers fighting in the SAA are Sunni, Assad's wife is a sunni, the foreign minister a sunni and so are many other members of his cabinet. This is not a civil way, this is an invasion from Syrians enemies in the west, Israel and the arab league. And what Rand is trying to do is legitimate the invasion of those countries by the formation of this coalition. That is not painting his opposition into a corner but if he got his way would paint the victim into a corner.

    Lastly, another thing that annoys me about Rand with regards to this issues is that when ever he talks about Syria, he never talks about what would be good for the Syrian people as a whole. He talks about what would be good for the Kurds, the sunni arab neigbours, the region, Israel etc etc. Not once have I seen him talk about what would be good for the Syrian people as a whole without bring in religious sect into the answer. It is a if he is the one projecting the sectarian strife on the Syrian people where there is none.

    If his true goal is to fight ISIS and end the war in Syria, he wouldn't be saying half of the things he says about Syria and its people.

  34. #30

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-03-2017, 01:09 AM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-08-2014, 07:34 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 06:56 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 06:56 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 06:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •