bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Representative Frank Wolf (R-Va.) wants to “end any ambiguity about the president’s authority – or the Congress’ support – for a U.S.-led international coalition to disrupt and eliminate ISIS” with a piece of legislation that appears to eliminate constraints on the White House’s ability to strike just about anyone, anywhere it pleases.

Wolf’s bill to “authorize the use of military force against international terrorism” targets by name no fewer than six terror groups (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al Qaeda and its affiliates, like al Nusra, Ansar al Sharia, al Shabaab and Boko Haram) operating in a spate of countries.

Furthermore, it leaves the door open for the president, working with NATO and regional allies, “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those countries, organizations, or persons” associated with the aforementioned terror groups or “any other emerging regional terrorist groups that share common violent extremist ideology with such terrorist groups, regional affiliates, or emerging terrorist groups.”

“For far too long the Obama Administration and the Congress have been debating whether or not authority exists for action to address this threat,” Wolf said. “This resolution would provide clear authority for the president and our military, working with coalition partners, to go after these terrorists, whether in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere. We cannot continue operating on outdated authorities passed 13 years ago; it is time for this Congress to vote.”
Read the full proposal here.

The rife ambiguity in who, where and for what reason Wolf’s bill would give the government authority to kill appears aimed at eliminating the government’s need to provide justification for controversial military actions in many of the same ways post-9/11 legislation removed barriers for surveillance.

In other words, the U.S. is already doing much of what Wolf’s legislation proposes but the legislation would effectively do away with certain political consequences of greasing the wheels of the military-industrial complex.

Wolf’s legislation could be the result of the lawmaker’s legitimate fear of ISIS, or the desire to authorize executive authority to wage perpetual war on an ever changing, ever present and easy to create faceless enemy could come from a place of far greater political purity.

numenian

Sorry, I find this extremely sick. Fear with honors and a headdress. That is not good!

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Why do you feel this way?

numenian

Because it is fear-based.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

It may seem that way, but look at it this way. Similar legislation was enacted when we fought the Japanese and Germans in World War II. This is just the natural progression of a resolve to defeat the enemy. It would have come up sooner or later.

But with the bill going through Congress, which I believe is a good step forward, for the Act will expire once the international terrorist groups are eliminated. Also it serves the purpose of stopping before it starts a Vietnam style tactic, of fighting up to a line, then pulling back. This solves that problem. Allowing Nato to check the United States and allows the United States in checking Nato.

When the threat of War is removed in today's world, then I agree with the expiration of the Act as well as disbanding the military. But as long as we have the enemy and we are at War, we must authorize the President, or Commander-In-Chief to do what is necessary to win that war.

The last effective, and great Commander-In-Chief we had in the White House was Harry Truman. For Eisenhower, though a good general, and great highway maker, failed to command in certain aspects of the Cold War. Which was Carried to John Kennedy. He failed in the Bay of Pigs invasion, but he came back, in threatening Russia and Cuba. Then there was Johnson, who escalated, and escalated the worst war America ever fought.

Then there was Nixon, Ford, and Carter, that tried to solve these problems with diplomacy and succeeded until the Terrorist threat came about. Then there was Reagan, who lived the rule, the "Enemy of my, Enemy is my friend", in the Iran contra affair, born was the infancy of Al Qaeda. This I blame on bad intelligence. However, we then make the leader of the intelligence community president, his name was Bush, sr.

Then he too made crucial mistakes, which allowed these terrorist groups to become powerful, which brings us to the diplomacy of the Clinton administration, which may be inadvertently caused the building of a powerful and rich group of Al Qaeda, that 3000+ Americans would pay for with their lives in the next administration on 9/11/01. Then Bush had not only the red tape of Congress to cut through but now Nato, and The United Nations. He succeeded partly, but because of the grip of Control on his administration he was unable to carry through with the operation to the fullest. Bush succeeded in completing the mission to about 70%. This brings us to the current president.

So we shifted the command from War to diplomacy, back to War, back to diplomacy. Now learning from the past, I would rather fight the terrorists, which are using the weapons we made, and the tactics we came up with; I would rather fight them all in, then half ass. In order to do this, a bill similar must pass through congress. Unfortunately, for if the president has full control over the military, on a map with no lines, then we can fight and defeat ISIS and terrorism.

Remember, when Bush told the American people about the War on Terror, for we didn't want it to end up like the war on Drugs? Do you remember that argument? Well, Obama's actions turned the war on terror into the war on drugs. That really did not work out for us too well. This explains the Fast and Furious failure. As a result of these misdirected, and unwise decisions from leadership, Congress both Democrats and Republicans tried to make the voice of Peace speak louder than the voice of War. With the failure of Vietnam still within the hearts and minds of the people, we sought Peace over War. We succeeded to a point. However now Diplomacy has failed.

When diplomacy fails, then the only solution is War. In order to win the war, we must rally around the Commander-in-Chief, in order to get the job done as quick as possible, and with as few casualties as possible. This brings us to another problem.

In order to be effective we must allow the leader to lead. Even though my faith in Obama is not there. It is prudent to make him do his job. No matter how dirty, no matter how disgusting it may be the job must be done, and Obama has been elected to the post on this watch. So right or wrong it is prudent to rally behind him(I hate to do so, but it must be done).

Now just like we, in our history has seen what a pacifist like Obama has done through their failure, bringing to mind two previous presidents, Carter and Johnson. We must either force him to lead, or get him out of the post and put someone into the post who can do the job. This is why the Presidency is not for just anyone, but one with the fortitude to be America's son.

During the past six years as president, Obama has been put through a great fire, and has won his way. Now, that the situation he inherited by not only his predecessor Bush, jr, but Clinton, Bush sr, Regan and Carter, are coming back to haunt him.

So now before the entire world, Obama must take off the hat of a politician and Democrat, and put on the helmet of Commander-in-Chief. He will not be able nor is he culpable to talk America out of this one. Diplomacy will not work. For this reason, it is time for Congress, to allow the president to do his job. Yes, it is scary and Yes it will prove his character, but you must ask this question: "If Obama is not up to the challenge, that tries men's souls, then why did we elect him?"

If the faith in the Commander-In-Chief has been destroyed then we must remove him from office, and grant the next Commander-In-Chief these powers. That's all there is to it. For if there is more red tape to go through, we will never be able to defeat this evil. Therefore, This is the cold hard truth that has been building since 1945. We must end it and end it soon or it will consume us.

I hate writing like this, but the images that I posted on my other topic haunt me, because the presidents I have listed could have stopped it but didn't. And now Obama must do something or else we will all pay for it. Either way, the old saying he must sh@t or get off the pot, is what is going on here. And in order for him to sh@t he has to have the power of the push.

That might raise his morale, and get him into action. Who knows we are American and we show greatness, while our souls are being tried in the fire of circumstance. So I guess we must just sit back and wait for now. This is why I support the action of Wolf.

rumitoid

"A resolve to defeat the enemy" opens to an extravaganza of fear.

The Patriot Act is a testimony to humankind's hatred of freedom and the desire for control.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Let me ask you a question. If you had a gun, holstered on your hip. And someone started shooting at you and you took cover. Would you fire back?

rumitoid

Not enough information, but the very fact that this is more information than some would need to inflict serious or deadly bodily harm spells a very serious and distinct difference in mindsets.

I am a Viet Nam Vet. I was never once threatened or ever needed to fire a shot...except for the 4th of July. Or qualification. Yet I am not inclined to kill in defense. That some would not hesitate to use deadly force in such an event is thoroughly anathema to me. Such a mindset, to me, is akin to the sum of all wrong and cruelty on this planet. No matter how righteous or grand in appearance, such a person is a direct enemy of humanity and the future of our species.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I am a Desert Storm/Iraqi Freedom vet and I had to raise my weapon at the enemy, however never had to pull the trigger on my watch, however, we had diplomacy back then, now there is no diplomacy. Until the terrorists can come to the table and resume diplomacy the only option left is war. I hate talking about killing because I am for life, however, if there is another option, I will be willing to take it. But due to the horrible pictures on google coming from ISIS, (I will not post them again, but if you search for ISIS victims and click on images you will see the brutality), you will see there is only one option and that is kill or be killed.

Realize this, we are fighting a battle that is not over money, or oil, we are fighting a war over ideology. And since the enemy will not stop until every American is dead, and anyone who is not Muslim is dead, then there is only one option left. Get them before they get us. This is a hard situation for a very peace loving nation to digest but while we are wasting time in digesting it the death toll continues to rise. Over 3000 people died in 9/11, and another 3,000 died in the genocide of the Christians over there. Plus two American Journalists. We must act, and not drag our feet. That is what I am saying.

During World War II, the Japanese were going to fight until every last Japanese were killed by America and their allies. Truman then authorized the use of the Atomic Bomb. Two cities were selected. After this, no matter what the conspiracy theorists say, the Japanese surrendered, thus the sacrifice of life in those two cities ended the war.

Now today we have the same situation going on. Only they are not Japanese, they are ISIS and Al Qaeda. This is the problem. Their resolve is such that they are brave enough to flood the internet with these videos and images of death, brutality and to promote fear.

As for me however, after rescuing the people of the area twice, in the past 20 years, I feel it is time to finish the job started by Bush, Sr. Go in and crush all these terrorist organizations and take the fight out of them.

Unlike the enemy of Japan, ISIS fights a guerilla warfare similar to the fighting in Vietnam. They use Vietnam as their training against America. This is disturbing. However, thanks to Vietnam, we have learned from our errors and increased our technology where we could destroy the enemy with pin point accuracy.

One disadvantage of pin point accuracy, is what is left still standing. We learned this in Afghanistan and in Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath. During Vietnam it was a war against a philosophy of governmental form, meaning it was the principles of Democracy against Socialism or Communism. Russia spreading their influence. Vietnam was a civil war that three countries other than Vietnam came to the aid of the Vietnamese. Here, it is an extremist group, that is brutal, rich, and trained by us.

If we grab a CIA handbook from the cold war, I can bet that their tactics are in that book. Because of this diplomacy is not an option for the undisciplined and a people who believe life is cheap. Under that umbrella, ISIS is exterminating people in some of the ancient ways that the earth hasn't seen on this scale in a very long time, or at least a very long time in the west.

Sad to say, that America is the prize of these people. If they kill an American they go to heaven. That is their thought process. Therefore, since peace is not an option, War is bound to happen.

I wish this wasn't so, but that is the facts as we know them. And it is sad and a pitty.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

We Spatter People Willy-Nilly As It Is.
This Bill Just Makes It Official ??
With The Clown In Charge ??

Nuclear Exchange Coming Right Up....

larrypuckett1939

Gentlemen,
I think there is something you are missing, and that is this;
War any time, anywhere, INCLUDES American soil, and THAT is
a scary concept to me! That would give our military the right to
attack American citizens, with no just cause, other than the fact
we are armed, and could create problems for (IT) when (IT) has
the idea it is time to turn us into a Dictatorship!!
Am I going to far with this, or am I reaching a justifiable
conclusion!!!

43 year government and history teacher

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

No I don't believe your wrong at all ,this bill will allow a government that seems to be owned by outside forces, not of the people to start wars around the world.
When I originally heard of this bill, my concern is the same as it was w/ the patriot act. How will the goverment abuse this new power both at home or around the world.
If there's one thing history has taught us once we crack open that door it swings wide open. Once again who deems who, to be a terrorist?

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

My thoughts exactly but I just thought I was over thinking! :thumbup:

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

No such thing as over thinking, it just seems that way because we live in a world of under thinkers. :thumbup:

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I believe you are overthinking the bill that was proposed. Did you read it. It is not about giving the president absolute power, it is about allowing him to do his job as he sees fit. We accidently made ourselves the police force of the world. Due to this extreme power that was enjoyed after World War two by 12 presidents, the power was seemingly too much for one man. That is why Congress limited the powers of the president, initiated by Truman, and Nixon and many other presidents.

However, the bill is limited to "international terrorists and close consultation of NATO" the bill also lists specific terrorist organizations. This bill was well thought out and serves the purpose of allowing the Commander-in-Chief to exercise his war powers as he sees fit. This bill is not intended nor can it be used against Americans. This is why I think the fear, that sparked the bill, and that same fear is making people read into the bill, more than what the bill says. We are at war, therefore we need a leader that can exercise his war powers, in a justified, humane and wise way. Wisdom cannot be taught but experienced.

We will make mistakes, but the bill expires once the threat of terrorism is eradicated. For this reason, and the reasons of the limitations of the bill, I support it. We do not need 535 people dierecting troops overseas, we need one person directing the troops under one unified unit, not 536 chiefs trying millions of different strategies thus putting our soldiers in harms way causing the death of more innocence. No one leader, with the power to win this war.