![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Political foo: Fighting ISIS
Nov. 14th, 2015 09:07 amSo, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks on Paris yesterday. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/world/paris-attacks/)
President Hollande of France has said that they will wage "pitiless war" on the terrorists in return. (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/vive-la-france-says-secdef-carter-hollande-pledges-pitiless-war-on-terrorists/)
France is our ally. Our oldest ally as a country. They're a member of NATO. We are honor bound to support them in war.
So.. I hear there's a Democrat debate tonight. Over/under odds on a question about it?
Let's ask all the candidates running for President. What's your strategy? Not just this or that tactic (like the "no fly zone" that came up in the Republican debate). What's your plan? What does victory look like? Do you think we ought to do nothing? To move economically? Invade and capture territory and hang the bastards?
I note that four of the candidates (Rubio, Cruz, Paul, and Sanders) are in the Senate. They can, in fact, introduce legislation to support whatever strategy they think is best. You think the President ought to go to war? Bring up legislation to declare war. You think we ought to impose sanctions? Well, go to it, sunshine. You think we ought to just sit back and support France financially? Congress holds the purse. Appropriate funds.
No need to wait for an official debate. You can go right down to the floor of the Senate and argue your plan in front of the C-Span cameras.
We don't know who's going to be President next year? Well, you're right! Means you'd better be careful designing that legislation so it doesn't have any extra stuff you wouldn't hand Hillary/Trump/Cruz/etc.
A year is a LONG time in war. If it's the right strategy now, it's the right thing to do NOW. It might not be enough later.
Plus, if we get the public debate going now, we'll have something approaching a consensus when we do have a new President. He'll know what's expected of him.
And I know, Obama might not use the shiny new tools you give him if you pass legislation. He might disdain them. Fine. At least, when the new President steps into office, the tools will be ready for use, instead of rusting away in the shed.
So, when the Senate gets back in session after the weekend, what's stopping you guys? Any of you? Rand Paul thinks we can oppose ISIS without sending in the troops? Okay, give us a plan and sponsor a bill to back it up. I honestly have no idea what Sanders would do. Tell us. Rubio and Cruz talk a mean game, but they could take action next week. It might die on the Senate floor, but at least we'd know there's more to it than posturing.
Are you serious, or not?
President Hollande of France has said that they will wage "pitiless war" on the terrorists in return. (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/vive-la-france-says-secdef-carter-hollande-pledges-pitiless-war-on-terrorists/)
France is our ally. Our oldest ally as a country. They're a member of NATO. We are honor bound to support them in war.
So.. I hear there's a Democrat debate tonight. Over/under odds on a question about it?
Let's ask all the candidates running for President. What's your strategy? Not just this or that tactic (like the "no fly zone" that came up in the Republican debate). What's your plan? What does victory look like? Do you think we ought to do nothing? To move economically? Invade and capture territory and hang the bastards?
I note that four of the candidates (Rubio, Cruz, Paul, and Sanders) are in the Senate. They can, in fact, introduce legislation to support whatever strategy they think is best. You think the President ought to go to war? Bring up legislation to declare war. You think we ought to impose sanctions? Well, go to it, sunshine. You think we ought to just sit back and support France financially? Congress holds the purse. Appropriate funds.
No need to wait for an official debate. You can go right down to the floor of the Senate and argue your plan in front of the C-Span cameras.
We don't know who's going to be President next year? Well, you're right! Means you'd better be careful designing that legislation so it doesn't have any extra stuff you wouldn't hand Hillary/Trump/Cruz/etc.
A year is a LONG time in war. If it's the right strategy now, it's the right thing to do NOW. It might not be enough later.
Plus, if we get the public debate going now, we'll have something approaching a consensus when we do have a new President. He'll know what's expected of him.
And I know, Obama might not use the shiny new tools you give him if you pass legislation. He might disdain them. Fine. At least, when the new President steps into office, the tools will be ready for use, instead of rusting away in the shed.
So, when the Senate gets back in session after the weekend, what's stopping you guys? Any of you? Rand Paul thinks we can oppose ISIS without sending in the troops? Okay, give us a plan and sponsor a bill to back it up. I honestly have no idea what Sanders would do. Tell us. Rubio and Cruz talk a mean game, but they could take action next week. It might die on the Senate floor, but at least we'd know there's more to it than posturing.
Are you serious, or not?
