We have laws and treaties governing this sort of thing and might even try abiding by them for a change. might want to vote yes for that in the Security Council and wish all concerned the best of luck. authorizes Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Zionist Entity to invade Syria and bring peace to its people by killing them (nothing more peaceful than a graveyard), then the U.S. Those countries just don’t include the United States after the end of World War II. There may be a time when a country has to “go it alone” in fighting a war for genuine national interests.
The game’s afoot:Ĭry ‘God for, , and Saint George!’ I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.įor there is none of you so mean and base, Like the brass cannon let the brow o’erwhelm it In peace there’s nothing so becomes a manīut when the blast of war blows in our ears,ĭisguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more The speech for Obama in the final vote has already been written (with a few modest edits): Nevertheless, democrats like Nancy Pelosi are demanding action and once again absolute (and blind) loyalty to Obama. personnel and spent hundreds of billions. They also took no action later as the war killed thousands of U.S. While they later claimed that they had no idea and were misled, they ignored critics at the time questioning the evidence and objecting to the blank check language of the authorization. This is how politicians like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted to allow the Iraq War. It allows members to claim that they merely wanted to protect the nation while making it unnecessary for the President to ask them again (and expose them to difficult votes).
Now replace the terrorist attacks with the chemical attacks and you have our latest blank check demanded by a President. The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002), stated “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Indeed, it reminds one of the authorization leading into Iraq with only the 9-11 angle replaced by a chemical weapons rationale. The authorization would allow Obama to take any action that he “determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria” as well as acting to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of the weapons or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners” from the weapons.” While claiming that he just needs a “limited” war against Syria to back up his “red line” threat, President Barack Obama is actually seeking a far broader mandate from Congress.
0 kommentar(er)
