senator calls for war powers vote on Syria

[revelarts]

https://youtu.be/TyqoKZ99WcI?si=KvfCEiKpMBXy7AKL

Senator Rand Paul called for an up or down vote on keeping troops stationed uninvited in Syria
Using senatorial privilege and sighting the War Powers Act saying the president has no authority to continue their presence.

He makes nearly a dozen powerful points about the situation.
Which should make it clear that we should remove our troops from foreign soil.

The only one he fails to bring in is the fact that President Trump bragged about.
That the troops are still there for the oil. "To get the oil".
...
PS
Some people don't like videos, I've never really understood that.
When political figures and representatives speak and you're there you SEE and hear the same thing as video.
Sure you can read a transcript or quote later. But quotes can be edited just as well as video.
Makes no sense to me to reject video just because it's video.

[fj1200]

PS
Some people don't like videos, I've never really understood that.
When political figures and representatives speak and you're there you SEE and hear the same thing as video.
Sure you can read a transcript or quote later. But quotes can be edited just as well as video.
Makes no sense to me to reject video just because it's video.

You misconstrue. If you ONLY posted videos of "political figures and representatives" you might have a point but personally I've tried to explain why I don't like videos. Biased news stories suck just as much as biased videos and it's just much easier to point out the bias in a news story.

Nevertheless, "Forbes Breaking News" isn't the Forbes we all know and love, they don't really have anything "breaking," and not exactly an unbiased source of news. :)

[Gunny]

You misconstrue. If you ONLY posted videos of "political figures and representatives" you might have a point but personally I've tried to explain why I don't like videos. Biased news stories suck just as much as biased videos and it's just much easier to point out the bias in a news story.

Nevertheless, "Forbes Breaking News" isn't the Forbes we all know and love, they don't really have anything "breaking," and not exactly an unbiased source of news. :)

Forbes Breaking News is crackpot sensationalist IMO.

Us military forces are not there for the oil. The US is not getting any of it. A US-based company had the contract to ship and refine. US forces were guarding shipments. The contract has since been awarded to a non-US company. The US, as a country or government is not and has not been getting the oil:rolleyes:

Paul's sole point to me is whether or not current admin can justify current presence.

[revelarts]

Us military forces are not there for the oil. The US is not getting any of it. A US-based company had the contract to ship and refine. US forces were guarding shipments. The contract has since been awarded to a non-US company. The US, as a country or government is not and has not been getting the oil:rolleyes:

Paul's sole point to me is whether or not current admin can justify current presence.

Can you justify it?

Anything other than the fact that the US military has been there protecting US based corporations interest... & Non US allies corporations interest... in OIL.

Did you get new job at the state dept or the Pentagon? Sounds exactly like their kind of official smoke blowing response.
Not a straight shooting gunny response.

[Gunny]

Can you justify it?

Anything other than the fact that the US military has been there protecting US based corporations interest... & Non US allies corporations interest... in OIL.

Did you get new job at the state dept or the Pentagon? Sounds exactly like their kind of official smoke blowing response.
Not a straight shooting gunny response.

Straight shooting Gunny response:rolleyes:

How's this: You're full of shit and so is Forbes. Somewhere hereabouts on this board is a thread where I shot this very BS accusation down the last time you made it complete with references to facts, not Forbes. Feel free to look it up.

I don't have to justify anything. The fool occupying the WH does. I wouldn't be half-assing shit the way they are, but you can also bet your ass I'd have you crying more than one crocodile tear over how a field Marine gets shit done.

Feel better now?

[revelarts]

Straight shooting Gunny response:rolleyes:

How's this: You're full of shit and so is Forbes.

That's strait shootin' buuuut it's just a CONTENTLESS insult with no evidence to back it up.



Somewhere hereabouts on this board is a thread where I shot this very BS accusation down the last time you made it complete with references to facts, not Forbes. Feel free to look it up.
I seem to remeber that and I believe your source was a well known state dept or CIA funded "news org"



I don't have to justify anything.

No you don't.
So you think the troops in Syria should come home then?




The fool occupying the WH does.
He and Trump too.




I wouldn't be half-assing shit the way they are, but you can also bet your ass I'd have you crying more than one crocodile tear over how a field Marine gets shit done.
Ok get WHAT sh!t done exactly?
That's the whole question Rand Paul is asking.
WHAT the H3ll are U.S. Troops doing there?!?
Besides looking out for U.S./Allies/Corporate OIL interest in a foreign country that we are illegally occupying land in?



Feel better now?
it's Not about my feelings, i'm just hoping for some honest answers.

[Gunny]

That's strait shootin' buuuut it's just a CONTENTLESS insult with no evidence to back it up.


I seem to remeber that and I believe your source was a well known state dept or CIA funded "news org"


No you don't.
So you think the troops in Syria should come home then?


He and Trump too.



Ok get WHAT sh!t done exactly?
That's the whole question Rand Paul is asking.
WHAT the H3ll are U.S. Troops doing there?!?
Besides looking out for U.S./Allies/Corporate OIL interest in a foreign country that we are illegally occupying land in?



it's Not about my feelings, i'm just hoping for some honest answers.

*yawn*

There are approximately 900 military personnel in Syria. Primary mission is there are still remnants of ISIS in the region. Secondary to that is disrupting Iran's supply train to Hezbollah and countering Iran's influence in the local region. If those missions are being accomplished, easily justified, IMO.

I don't use a CIA funded jack shit for any reference. As usual you don't know who you are talking to nor what you are talking about. The CIA and I are not and aren't likely to ever be even drinking buddies. I trust them less than you do, with good cause, and it isn't from anything I read about on some conspiracy site.

[revelarts]

*yawn*

There are approximately 900 military personnel in Syria. Primary mission is there are still remnants of ISIS in the region.
As Rand Paul stated in the video of his speech on the senate floor which you watched, there are no ISIS in the region.
and again, Syria never invited the ANY U.S. troops into their country to deal with ISIS at any point in time.



Secondary to that is disrupting Iran's supply train to Hezbollah and countering Iran's influence in the local region.

We are not at war with Hezbollah.
And we aren't at war with Iran... last i checked... unless there's a declaration of war by congress the administration cannot use troops for those activities.
Unless a president and others think of the constitution like a buffet.
Where they can choose what parts they want to take seriously and make their own priorities.
Somehow imagining their own priorities superceed the constitution. so it can be ignored because "Terroris.. NKoree... Iraq... i mean Iran is about to kill us all any minute. :rolleyes:
So we HAVE TO use the illegal Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive strikes" in foreign countries. You know, like Hitler, for "defense".
The constitution doesn't matter... when we're in GRAVE danger
and somehow we're ALWAYS in GRAVE danger.

[Gunny]

As Rand Paul stated in the video of his speech on the senate floor which you watched, there are no ISIS in the region.
and again, Syria never invited the ANY U.S. troops into their country to deal with ISIS at any point in time.


We are not at war with Hezbollah.
And we aren't at war with Iran... last i checked... unless there's a declaration of war by congress the administration cannot use troops for those activities.
Unless a president and others think of the constitution like a buffet.
Where they can choose what parts they want to take seriously and make their own priorities.
Somehow imagining their own priorities superceed the constitution. so it can be ignored because "Terroris.. NKoree... Iraq... i mean Iran is about to kill us all any minute. :rolleyes:
So we HAVE TO use the illegal Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive strikes" in foreign countries. You know, like Hitler, for "defense".
The constitution doesn't matter... when we're in GRAVE danger
and somehow we're ALWAYS in GRAVE danger.

Is "buffet" your word of the week?:rolleyes:

Here is what is a buffet: the way you try to cherrypick the Constitution and reality in your neverending attempt to ignore the portions of the latter that inconvenience your dreamworld.

In the meantime, excuse me for not taking your or Paul's word that there is no ISIS remnants holing up in an unstable region of Syria controlled more by Kurds with our supporting THEM, not Syria.

Iran has been at war with the US since 1979 and people like you ignoring that fact as inconvenient to your dreamworld have allowed Iran to be on the doorstep of possessing nukes if they already don't. When they use one against the US or allies you'll claim it's well deserved with your backwards-think; when they drop one in your neighborhood you'll be at the head of the line screaming why didn't government do something to stop it:rolleyes:

So here's a plan: you feel free to hold whatever wrong opinions you like since no amount of facts, logic and/or common sense has ever dissuaded you otherwise, and

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas :)

[revelarts]

...
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas :)

Same to you Gunny.
God bless ya