Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a POTUS from deploying combat troops anywhere for longer than 60-90 days without a formal Declaration of War form congress, as it is we go to war far too easily.
Only the standing Navy is authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution does not authorize a standing Army or Air Force. Congress must authorize both the existance and the size of the Army and Air Force year-to-year.
Congress has already passed the War Powers Resolution. They have already re-formatted the DoD so that a president can't wage any significant action without calling up the Guard and Reserves--which requires specific Congressional authority (unless they write a blank check resolution as they did for Bush to invade Iraq).
If Congress really wanted all US troops out of Iraq, they merely have to do is not pass a funding authorization bill that includes funds for Iraq operations for the next fiscal year.
IOW, the problem is that Congress doesn't have the guts to use the Congressional tools they already have. That, plus the fact that the US military/industrial complex needs continued military operations to keep itself going.
Well, if US personnel weren't where they don't belong striking that artillery wouldn't be necessary, eh?
Please tell me, at what point do you APPROVE of fighting genocide, or the threat of it? Do you consider yourself an isolationist, not wanting to get involved in any conflict at all? while I relize that we cannot police the world and get involved with every conflict, it seems to me that the far left doesn't want ANYONE to fight evil Islamists. Especially not Israel.
Well, no red lines, no dog and pony show from elected officials, no meeting of Congress to approve..just man the planes and bomb away.
In this case, the Army is already in Irbil from the prior war. The situation with the Kurds is quite different from that under the al Maliki government.
al Maliki basically destroyed the ability of the Iraqi army to function in areas that are predominantly Sunni. There is no point providing air support when there is no army on the ground to exploit it.
That's not the case with the Kurds. They have an effective army on the ground that can take advantage of air support.
Not the point , I was wondering if there was a camera crew with them .
Must be. I saw film showing the people climbing the mountain. It is nothing but rocks and sand. They have no shelter, no water, no food and temps reach 40C.
When the last of the aid was dropped, Obama announced the airstrikes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
