I get what he’s saying. What path is there to negotiation? My response is: Why are we negotiating with a nation state which is currently committing terrorist acts against our troops?
He’s right, but you have to ignore the constant attacks not just in Iraq but in Syria, Lebanon, Africa and elsewhere to get to the negotiating table with a straight face. Iran has operated with nearly impunity for almost a decade now with various third parties promising to reign them in.
You can’t kill a leading general without an act of war from congress? Request already granted and never rescinded: The war on terror authorizes the president to use whatever means are required to attack, capture or kill known terrorists. It specifically permits operating in countries which are both friendly or hostile to the United States. There are urges that civilian casualties should be minimized when possible.
Rand Paul ignores this already authorized use of action. If he wants to shackle the president, go ahead, Rand, let’s see you stand up and put forth a resolution calling the war on terror to be completed.
Well put.
Well written.
“What path is there to negotiation?”
When negotiating each party anticipates to get something out of it. But Iran is an aggressor, having waged war against the US since 1979. They should not receive anything. They must unconditionally surrender and we all know when that will happen..