Kinzinger Introduces Use of Force Resolution against Russia

You can’t use MAD argument from the times of the height of the Cold War - at that time each country had 60,000 nukes. Yes, if Russia and the U.S. showered each other with 60k nukes then it would suck. These days it’s 1,500, not 60,000.

 

Yeah, 50 years ago. When each had 60k nukes. Not 1,500.
During the course of the Cold War, the U.S. detonated over 1,000 nukes on its territory. The planet is still here. We are still here.

 

They elected a man, not a party line. They may have thought they were voting for a party line, but that's the inherent problem with voting for a party rather than the individual.

 

First, we are in a war - plenty of people on the forum just don't realize it.

Next, Kinzinger is just trying to make as much noise as possible before he scoots his way out of office. People tend to post about what an exiting congressman says when they have an axe to grind.

On a side note, resolutions have no power or effect of law. It's like passing the 2007 resolution to balance the budget. Resolutions do nothing.

Finally, we will already be at war with any nation which attacks NATO.

 

If we aren't going to defend an ally after they've been nuked, then we have no allies. Which, let's be honest, is what the reactionary right really wants.

 

The executive branch is not a candidate. National security is not an open debate. Strategy is not a public opinion poll.

 

The power of those ruling Russia is based upon materialism, not theology. Their occupation is with this world, not the next. They would lose everything if they used nukes.

 

I don't think there is any "overtime" here....I said earlier that Dwarfstan won't stop until ,Ukraine,Moldova,Belarus, are annexed completely.....a land corridor to Konigsberg is established....so as to pressure the Baltics into some sort of capitulation....and an attack on Finland or even Sweden....the Kremlin midget was serious about Nato rollback to 1997 structures.

Either he's taken out....or this is what one can expect.

 

That could be. It's one reason he really needs to be stopped in Ukraine.

 

Exactly.
Looking the other way on the Ukrainian war will just result in U.S. sending our troops to fight Russians in baltics or Poland.
We either do something about it now when Russia is not really ready, or we wait for them to build up, become stronger, and then deal with them.
Both options are evil, but stopping Pootin in Ukraine is a lesser evil, at least for us.

 

On the bright side, time is on our side, economically speaking. Russia's little petrol empire is in trouble.

 

And I think the Dwarfstan is quite prepared to sacrifice a 3rd of Russia population in order to achieve this....there's enough brain dead sheeple in Dwarfstan to support this.

There's no "off ramp" here.....the sooner Europe wakes up to this the better.

 

Hopefully this leads to some further breakup of the "gas station"?

 

The candidates for executive office who often hope to run for re-election are just that. I think we have long ago established that in fact all claims involving 'national security' are definitely open for debate. Lyndon Johnson was a victim of that disconnected logic of yours in 1967. We discovered the flaws of NOT debating them more fully in the Southeast Asia Resolution, Pub.L. 88–408, 78 Stat. 384, enacted August 10, 1964, , in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and in giving such executive claims undue deference passing Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

There is a reason that Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, and there is a reason why Kinzinger felt the need to introduce that use of force resolution. He wants us to have that very debate (which of course he wants to win), you apparently don't want us to have, about just what kinds of support for Ukraine, the American people will stomach and which they will not!

Polling numbers will matter in the coming days, and those Americans who are asked by pollsters, about their opinion, should think very carefully before they reply. The rest of us need to grab this moment and let Congress know what we want and believe ought to happen.

 

Even if you are right, and the consequences of a nuclear war are not enough to destroy the US (merely knock it down to 3rd world standards), what is at stake for US national interest to role that dice? What is worth killing 10's of millions of Americans?

 

OK I admit I don't understand what you are trying to say. So you are pro Use of Force?

 

Our other option is to put our tail between our legs and become a neutral island nation.
Also, have you considered the possibility that Russia won’t stop in Ukraine? What’s your plan of action when the “pro-Russian separatists” start to take over towns in Poland and Baltic states? Do you prefer us to confront Russians when they are ready, or before they are ready?

 

Your OP is about a resolution. It has no power. It just urges the president to use force as a reaction to a hypothetical scenario where Russians use WMDs. It’s really meant to serve as a warning to Russia.

 

The Russian war hysteria is a mystery to me too.

 

This is part of a larger picture. A significant shift in the war aims was broadcast last week. Not from the Ukrainians, but from the United States.

On Sunday, a day after her visit to Ukraine, Ms. Pelosi told a news conference in Poland: “America stands with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine until victory is won. And we stand with NATO.”

Ms. Pelosi, the second in line to succeed President Biden, is the highest-ranking American official to visit Kyiv since the war began, and her words carry weight, seeming to underscore an expanded view of American and allied war aims.

Wait we’re in this until victory?

For the life of me, why is victory so important for Ukraine to achieve, but had literally no value or interest by our leaders in our own wars?

“Her visit, with a congressional delegation, followed a joint visit to Kyiv by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III only last Sunday. Mr. Austin caused some controversy and debate afterward when he appeared to shift the goal of the war from defending Ukraine’s independence and territorial sovereignty to weakening Russia.

“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Mr. Austin said, implying that the United States wanted to erode Russian military power for years to come — presumably so long as Vladimir V. Putin, president of Russia, remains in power.”

What this means is, we are actually at war, albeit a proxy war, with Russia. So this isn't a mosquito, it's an F-35.

 

Does a Use of Force Authorization count as a declaration of war?

 

It's only the next major fascist war in Europe. Why are people getting so excited, eh?

 

It just looks like a mosquito on radar...................

 

It’s not hysteria! People need to start accepting the reality of what is happening in Europe. If there was no nato then yes, we could just sit here and watch from safe distance, like we watch wars in Africa and other regions. But, because we have legal commitments there, we have no way out of this situation outside of running away and hiding on our North American continent, which would completely ruin our standing on the world stage. This is 1938 over again, Pootin and Russian government openly craves the return of Warsaw Pact control/influence, his foreign minister openly spews antisemitic statements and their foreign ministry just posted a statement on social media accusing Israel of being nazi supporters. We are legally obligated to defend some countries in the former Warsaw Pact. You must accept the reality that we are on the collision course with Russia now and the only way to stop this is to stop Pootin in Ukraine!

 

I am anti Russian testing of nukes on civilian populations resisting an invasion.

A better question is Russia against NATO use of force?