Replies

All that your way does is to allow more police actions and we no longer have a government that can be trusted with those powers. If a war is worth fighting... then end should be a fight for ALL OUT VICTORY or it should not be fought. If you kill enough of the enemy and decimate his civilian population... they will be vanquished. The day of limited strikes should be over.

I have no problem taking out pockets of terrorists and leaders with pinpoint attacks... this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about attacking a sovereign nation without any clear evidence and without any clear and precise plan... we do not even have a set of goals to accomplish. This is what we must stop and I have offered the path our Founders talked about.

"I have no problem taking out pockets of terrorists and leaders with pinpoint attacks... this is not what we are talking about."

Actually, this is what we are talking about. Anytime you use your military in an act of agression against a state or a non state organization, that's war. That would be a WWII type of war (war against states) or something like the War on Terror (war against non state entities). In the case of the latter, what is vanquishing the enemy? Al Quada is never going to formally come to the table and surrendor. In these instances, we have to make clearly stated objectives, not some amorphorus "vanquishing the enemy". There are also times where you conduct limited war against states without needing to completely anihilate them and you still obtain your objectives.

The only time that the CnC should be allowed unilateral powers to use our military forces without getting approval from the Congress is when Americans have been attacked and there is no time to go to Congress. A true emergency such as the Benghazi attack.