Posted on 05/01/2022 4:17:54 PM PDT by RomanSoldier19
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Congress's war power works like THIS:
"Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that...the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war..."
The last time that power was used, the result was total victory.
Every time Congress has "allowed" rather than "directed the President to", the result has been defeat.
https://apnews.com/article/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5
It sounds as if you're saying that Trump turned out to be correct (even if he did, in fact, act prematurely).
let dirtbag Kinzinger go there if he wants.
The US needs to stay out of other countries civil wars.
“Your retort does nothing to change the inescapable fact that you consistently side with Russia over the USA.”
What concerns the anti-American dimwits such as yourself is that I side with America over UKRAINE.
You would make US interests subservient to Ukraine.
I would not. Nor would any real American.
“You would make US interests subservient to Ukraine.”
The concept of more free countries enhancing freedom doesn’t cross your mind, does it? Ukraine being enslaved by Russia again diminishes freedom and it encourages a dictator named Putin to contemplate the next country he’ll conquer and enslave.
Further, it is absolutely in the interests of the USA to frustrate a goon like Putin who keeps threatening to use nuclear weapons on the USA as if this were 1983.
By the by, the regime you consistently defend has now announced THAT HITLER WAS A JEW!!! That’s so they can excuse themselves for calling Zelensky a Nazi.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/02/israel-lavrov-ukraine-war-hitler/
>>> JERUSALEM — Israeli officials reacted with fury Monday after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Ukraine’s Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of supporting Nazism and asserted that “Hitler also had Jewish blood.” <<<
So now you’re supporting the nation that wants to kill Jews.
Nice friends you’ve got there.
So, USSR invades Poland in 1939 along with its ally Nazi Germany (it’s funny, isn’t it, that Russians had no problem aligning themselves with REAL Nazis back in 1939-1940).
Prior to the invasion Poland’s eastern border incorporated what is today western Belarus and western Ukraine (hell, in the early 17th century the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth included ALL of what is today Latvia, Lithuania, Kaliningrad, Belarus; one-half of Estonia; 80% of Ukraine; and a portion of western Russia).
Shortly before the German surrender in May, 1945, the allies agreed to establishing a provisional coalition government in Poland (an agreement that Stalin immediately broke). With the close of WWII, the USSR gobbled up all of eastern Poland up to the Bug River. It then installed a communist, pro-Kremlin government and in a few years incorporated “Poland” into the Soviet Union as a satellite state.
Poland has been caught between the aggressions of Russia and Germany (Prussia) for hundreds of years. It has been tossed around like a rag doll by both Germany and Russia. No wonder Poland detests both and trusts neither.
The borders of eastern Europe have been as fluid as thin treacle, moving this way and that, malleable in the hands of whatever power wants to play with it.
Russia is upset because it lost its hegemon over the region, and it wants it back. Russia is all about conquest and expanded empire to restore its “glory days,” if ever there truly was such a Russia (but, IT thinks so, and that is what matters today).
You easily slide into the equivalence argument, which seeks to justify an act simply because it has been done before, by someone else: “Well, if Johnny did it, so can I!” Such logic concludes that if one commits a crime or an injustice, then another is entitled to commit the same wrongs and cannot be called to account for it simply because...well, someone else has also done it.
“The concept of more free countries enhancing freedom doesn’t cross your mind, does it?”
Not at US expense.
“Further, it is absolutely in the interests of the USA to frustrate a goon like Putin who keeps threatening to use nuclear weapons on the USA as if this were 1983.”
That has not happened. You invented that. Putin has not threatened the US with nukes.
“So now you’re supporting the nation that wants to kill Jews.”
LOL
If you say so.
Damn, neocons are stupid. They think their arguments are cogent...and matter.
I don't see it that way. To me its more a case of recognizing the hypocrisy of being outraged when somebody else does exactly what the US does. I don't see the fundamental fairness in anything being justified for some but not for others. We falsified evidence to justify regime change in Iraq. We did what was necessary to justify a decision we made based on what we saw as in our interest. I think it is hypocritical to set a double standard when Russia takes similar actions for purposes that they feel is in THEIR interest. We invaded Grenada for less justification than Russia has now. Even after the 2014 coup, Russia tried to work with Zelenskyy and his predecessor to reach acceptable conditions. They'd reach agreements, and then the Ukrainian side would inevitably renege on what they had agreed to.
There are numerous examples of the US taking actions to implement regime changes around the world in the past 60 years. The US has interests that they need to pursue, just as France did when they helped the US throw off British rule in the 1700s. I won't deny Russia the same rights that we grant ourselves.
A key part of the rule of law is that the rules are set, and then they apply to everyone. It isn't "We can do it, but you'll be punished if you do the same." The rule of law doesn't allow for different standards, depending on who has more or less political or military clout.
I'm much more concerned about whether the US is abiding by the rule of law themselves than I am about them trying to get everybody else in the world to abide by it. The US shouldn't be seizing and freezing assets of other countries. The US should be using their power to STOP piracy, not to use their financial and military power to engage in piracy themselves.
It seems that the US wants a unipolar world. We decide right from wrong, and if anyone disagrees with us they can face our wrath. That viewpoint is bound to lead to fear and animosity from leaders of countries around the world who wind up becoming fearful of what will happen to them if they get on our bad side. Not only the countries big enough to directly challenge us (specifically China and Russia), but a lot of less powerful countries think it would be better if the US didn't have that much power, especially when the US has shown they won't apply the power equitably. Besides their own economic calculations, I think the power dynamic was a factor in some of the 160 of the 195 countries in the world not enacting sanctions on Russia. They know they'd find favor with us if they comply with our wishes, probably thereby gaining some rewards, but they're willing to forego that to avoid harming Russia as a counter to the US.
Looks like the Biden clown show is setting up for a false flag event. Then game on.
“That has not happened. You invented that. Putin has not threatened the US with nukes.”
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/putin-just-threatened-u-nukes-210100537.html
“Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target the U.S. with nuclear-tipped missiles capable of quickly striking the continental United States.”
https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia-parliament-economy/29779491.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/how-realistic-is-vladimir-putins-nuclear-threat
“Further, it is absolutely in the interests of the USA to frustrate a goon like Putin who keeps threatening to use nuclear weapons on the USA as if this were 1983.”
If you were actually smart enough to read the source article for which the 2019 pronouncements were made, you would discover that Russia did not initiate a threat.
And all subsequent “threats” were inferred by the media.
Because they know stupid-assed neocons will believe them.
FReepers are also posting such articles:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4058118/posts
So I’m curious. Since you don’t Putin’s nuclear threats seriously you’re not worried about NATO supporting Ukraine, right?
“I don’t see it that way. To me its more a case of recognizing the hypocrisy of being outraged when somebody else does exactly what the US does.”
You now grasp how the game is played, and has been played since ancient Babylon, and likely before. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s just national interests, and leverage. But to be supportable they must be justified under the circumstance and conditions that exist at the time.
“We invaded Grenada for less justification than Russia has now.”
Uh, no. We invaded Grenada — which was under occupation by Cuban forces — pursuant to the request of the OECS (which, at the time, consisted of Antigua and Barbuda; Dominica; Grenada; Montserrat; St. Kitts and Nevis; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and the Grenadines), and to rescue several hundred US students who were trapped because of the ongoing revolution. Tell, me: Which international body asked Russia to invade Ukraine? Which foreign nation — other than Russia itself! — had massed troops in Ukraine?And as for rescuing one’s nationals, we didn’t destroy the island nation of Grenada to achieve that nor did we even attempt to; our action was pretty much confined to the restoration of stability and the rescue and extraction of our people.
“Even after the 2014 coup, Russia tried to work with Zelenskyy and his predecessor to reach acceptable conditions.”
The “coup” was AFTER Russia had already invaded Crimea and annexed it, and AFTER Russia had invaded the Donbas region.
The rest of your comment is just an anti-US screed.
I get it; you don’t like the US. You are pro-Russia and anti-US.
I’m pro-US, and in this instance, I am anti-Russia. If China invades Russia I will in all likelihood be pro-Russia and anti-China, because China is the bigger threat to the US.
“Since you don’t Putin’s nuclear threats seriously you’re not worried about NATO supporting Ukraine, right?”
Every penny spent on Ukraine is a penny wasted.
But, hopefully, even stupid-assed neocons know that Russia will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine if NATO sends forces there.
And probably as those forces are congregating for deployment.
But for some reason stupid-assed neocons think Ukraine is worth fighting a nuke war over.
Proving to every person on the planet that they must be ridiculed and shamed at every opportunity.
The 'press' is owned by the people who feed them...that would be 'corrupt intelligence' people who are not suppose to leak (trade) intelligence with DNC war rooms and then with 'the press'...
When the coin of the realm is 'information' that's the form brides - obvious or subtle - will take.
“But for some reason stupid-assed neocons think Ukraine is worth fighting a nuke war over.”
Russia’s the country that keeps making nuclear threats here, not NATO.
If Russia goes nuclear then that’s Russia’s choice to commit suicide.
In the meantime it’s NATO’s choice and a growing list of other countries to support Ukraine. I’ll guarantee you that any qualms the Israelis had about suppporting Ukraine are gone now that Lavrov is calling Hitler a Jew.
“If Russia goes nuclear then that’s Russia’s choice to commit suicide.”
Russia can go nuclear in the territory of Ukraine with impunity. NATO will not cross that border.
Because every member knows it would result in worldwide conflagration. And that they too will die.
Stupid-assed neocons don’t care so they’ll advocate for it anyway.
DOD won’t let them have it.
“Russia can go nuclear in the territory of Ukraine with impunity. NATO will not cross that border.”
That’s not how the real world works. If Russia uses nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state then that’s nuclear terrorism and Russia goes from an aggressive country to being a terrorist regime.
The odds of a NATO strike on Russia go waaaaaaay up if Russia does this.
If Russia nukes Kyiv (likely target) then they also hit the US Embassy and a number of NATO embassies. That’s our legal justification for war right there.
Within minutes if not seconds the US goes to DEFCON 1. Missiles get fueled, bombers scramble with nukes aboard, subs go silent, aircraft carrier battle groups go to a war footing, and the probability of NATO attacking Russian nuclear forces becomes more and more likely with each passing minute.
Russian subs near to the US and Europe will get killed by the attack subs shadowing them. Any Russian planes near the US likewise get killed. Certain Russian satellites will last no more than 90 minutes.
I’ve seen some of these games play out in Newport and the whole mindset of the US military is geared to neutralize the threat. And that’s what will happen.
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. 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.
My biggest complaint is about the response, just as it was to the response to Covid. 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. As I've said before, the food and energy inflation and shortages will lead to mass migration from third world countries into first world countries.
Looking at the map, it looks like all of Africa, South Asia, the Middle East (including Israel), the western hemisphere south of the Rio Grande (other than a few small island nations), and all of SE Asia (except for South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Taiwan) have declined on joining in the sanctions. We set a marker and asked all the countries to back us up. Most chose not to, and every time in the future it will be easier for them to scorn us when we make a request.
On top of all that, since the future is always unknown, its feasible that the conflict could somehow spiral into a world war if we keep taking actions which we have stated openly are intended to weaken Russia. China would take over Taiwan, North Korea would probably invade South Korea, with unknown results, and we'd be spread too thin to offer them much help. Many of the countries we consider friends would choose neutrality, and a few might even fight against us.
I don't see how ANY of those results are in our best interest. Seems to me like they are all directly opposed to our best interest.
“The odds of a NATO strike on Russia go waaaaaaay up if Russia does this.”
Bullshit. They go WAY down.
You just lie in dumb-assed neocon world and would like to think there is any real bravery in NATO.
There is not.
They, just like the CHICKENHAWK dumb-assed noecons that are rooting for them will not engage Russian forces directly.
Under any all circumstances other than direct self defense.
Russia will use battlefield nukes and will not destroy the cities.
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.