Tim Kaine - Opposed to Syrian regime change, Obama's Libya action was illegal

[Shadows]

Tim Kaine criticized Obama's action in Libya as illegal & said he is opposed to any of these regime change policies including over-throwing Assad although he would support limited Strikes with Congressional approval if presented with a long term sound plan!

MTP Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Sr9-hEXmk

How far left is HRC's VP on foreign policy? Even Schumer is moving left on foreign policy, at this rate HRC & a handful of her buddies will be the only for regime change !

[Devout Centrist]

Stop chasing squirrels.

[Skill and Chance]

50 Tomahawk missiles launched at a single military target /=/ regime change.  Don't exaggerate.

[SoLongAtlas]

At this rate, they would want Congress to be briefed before anything, have Baghdadi in your UAV sights oh let us get a briefing before you take him out!! There is a reason why the president is the commander in chief.

[Shadows]

Why are people making ridiculous statements here? He didn't call this regime change, he specifically said he is opposed to a regime change in Syria.

I am sure there are some people who love wars & killings etc but Unlimited Executive action can make the President attack any country with or without a check which is why an act of war must be approved by the Congress.  

Whether a Congressional approval can stifle military action & leak out information is a different debate but in that case you have also have the severe risk of a power hungry dictator unilaterally playing war games as & when he likes !

[SoLongAtlas]

Why are people making ridiculous statements here? He didn't call this regime change, he specifically said he is opposed to a regime change in Syria.

I am sure there are some people who love wars & killings etc but Unlimited Executive action can make the President attack any country with or without a check which is why an act of war must be approved by the Congress. 

Whether a Congressional approval can stifle military action & leak out information is a different debate but in that case you have also have the severe risk of a power hungry dictator unilaterally playing war games as & when he likes !

A Tomahawk strike is not an act of war per se. This is where it gets tricky because a full on war needing Congress to vote hasn't happened since WW2 and likely won't again because Congress had given so much control to the president. The need for Congress approving major wars is something I support but we are technologically capable of doing war in a short period of time without it. Also, an AUMF does not equal a full on declaration of war but the last AUMFs have covered every action since 2001 and 2002 which is why there is talk on a new one or amending the GWOT ones.

[Skill and Chance]

Why are people making ridiculous statements here? He didn't call this regime change, he specifically said he is opposed to a regime change in Syria.

I am sure there are some people who love wars & killings etc but Unlimited Executive action can make the President attack any country with or without a check which is why an act of war must be approved by the Congress.  

Whether a Congressional approval can stifle military action & leak out information is a different debate but in that case you have also have the severe risk of a power hungry dictator unilaterally playing war games as & when he likes !

Most people recognize that sometimes you have to kill people who are actively trying to kill you or who are using internationally banned weapons on civilians in a way that could desensitize everyone to their use if and when there is a larger war between more militarily powerful nations in the future.  Acknowledging that doesn't mean you want Operation Iraqi Freedom 2.0 in Syria.

[Skill and Chance]

Why are people making ridiculous statements here? He didn't call this regime change, he specifically said he is opposed to a regime change in Syria.

I am sure there are some people who love wars & killings etc but Unlimited Executive action can make the President attack any country with or without a check which is why an act of war must be approved by the Congress. 

Whether a Congressional approval can stifle military action & leak out information is a different debate but in that case you have also have the severe risk of a power hungry dictator unilaterally playing war games as & when he likes !

A Tomahawk strike is not an act of war per se. This is where it gets tricky because a full on war needed congress to vote hasn't happened since WW2 and likely won't again because Congress had given so much control to the president. The need for Congress approving major wars is something I support but we are technologically capable of doing war in a short period of time without it. Also, an AUMF does not equal a full on declaration of war but the last AUMFs have covered every action since 2001 and 2002 which is why there is talk on a new one or amending the GWOT ones.

This.  To have a congressional declaration of war, there would need to be a multi-year on the scale of WWII or the Civil War.  I think the test of whether the president feels obligated to go to congress for a formal war would be if conscription is needed.  After the Vietnam debacle, I don't think anyone would dare reinstate the draft within getting a large majority of congress on the record first.

I highly doubt this type of war will happen anytime soon.  You need way fewer soldiers to launch missiles and drop smart bombs than were needed to storm the beaches of Normandy.