Resolution would allow US military to fight if Russia uses nukes, other WMDs

Rep. Adam Kinzinger on Sunday said he has introduced a resolution to authorize US military force if Russia uses chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Ukraine — calling the scenario a “clear red line.”

Kinzinger (R-Ill.) revealed on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he introduced the resolution, which, if passed by Congress, would give President Biden the authorization to allow the US to help militarily Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.

“I don’t think we need to be using force in Ukraine right now. I just introduced an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force, giving the president basically congressional leverage for permission to use it if [weapons of mass destruction] — nuclear, biological or chemical — are used in Ukraine,” Kinzinger told host Margaret Brennan.

The Air Force veteran, who twice served in Iraq, said the authorization would provide Biden leverage while also serving as a deterrent to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Wow, so Russia can achieve world peace if only they fire off enough nuclear weapons?”

No.

But they can achieve their objectives in spite of international neocon stupidity. And they have stated clearly they will. And nobody will do jack sh!t about it.

“And you have the nerve to call ME the chickenhawk? LOL.”

I have a letter, signed personally by Ronald Reagan, thanking me for my support to his mission...while I was wearing the uniform of the US Navy.

And you never wore the uniform.

So yeah, you’re a pussy-assed CHICKENHAWK.

And I’ll waste no more time with you.

“In regards to Grenada, Wiki says our action was criticized by both Canada and Britain (with Thatcher as prime minister, I believe), and was condemned in the UN General Assembly by a 109 to 8 vote. A similar resolution was supported in the Security Council by 11 nations, but was vetoed by the US. Don’t act as if our action was universally accepted as justified any more than Russia’s is now.”

I never said it was universally accepted, or I would have mentioned it in my post. The US is generally NOT seen favorably in the UN, regardless the matter before it. There is only one nation in the UN that gets shabbier treatment than the US, and that is Israel. I’ve been all for taking the US out of the UN for decades, as it is a sham organization that outlived its usefulness within ten years of its establishment.

But, please respond to my explanation of the differences between the US in Grenada and Russia in Ukraine: I spelled out three differences right off the bat, I’d to see your response to them instead of your passing right over them.

“We’ve set a standard that might makes right (Iraq, the whole Arab Spring, etc), so if Russia can use it’s might to get it’s way, I say they’re just following our lead and we ought not act shocked about it, like it is completely unprecedented.”

I already addressed this in a previous post. But, you must never have studied history, or you would not have made the ridiculous statement that we (the US) set a standard that might makes right. That standard was set thousands of years ago. An honorable country will always try to do right, and make sound and lawful arguments to support its position; but at the end of the day if right doesn’t work, and that country is at risk, then might sure as hell can be persuasive.

“It doesn’t affect our national interests, so we should complain as loud as we want, but stand by and let happen whatever is going to happen.”

I submit to you that we DO have national interests in the outcome of this war, just as Europe does (and Europe’s interests are arguably greater than ours, but we have obligations toward Europe that cannot and should not be ignored; if you don’t like that, then convince the US to pull out of NATO and every other defensive pact or treaty we have with anyone. Isolationism won’t keep you out of the tiger’s jaws forever; but killing the tiger, or at least defanging it and declawing it will sure as hell stop or deter the tiger from any aggression. Remember the saying, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

“My biggest complaint is about the response, just as it was to the response to Covid.”

Our response to Covid was initially warranted, because we had no idea what the hell we were dealing with. But when we
basically turned it all over to that insufferable dwarf we jumped the shark.

“With our sanctions, we’re driving China and Russia into each other’s arms, driving up prices of energy and food, and destroying the faith in countries around the world that their assets won’t be frozen by us on a whim.”

Bull crap. Russia and China were best buds way before Russia ever invaded Ukraine and sanctions were applied. And the price of energy is due solely to Biden’s imbecilic decision to hamstring domestic production. Destroying faith in countries around the world? Faith is just the hope that your beliefs are correct. Anyone who places faith in a country is naïve. Put faith in God (if you believe in God), and in your spouse (if you believe in your spouse); but other than that, Faith is just the name of a country singer.

I had planned to be done with this conversation and let you have the last word, but since you said "please" I'll respond this one last time. I'll read and think about any additional points you might choose to make, but I'm moving on after this post. I've enjoyed the back and forth, by the way.

No two situations are 100% identical so analyzing differences is pointless in most cases, IMO. It just becomes an exercise to rationalize contradictions in how you view your thoughts and actions versus how you view somebody else's. We felt justified. Russia feels justified. The differences in circumstances don't matter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.