After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The resolution authorizes the president to undertake war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates without Congressional approval. Since 2001 the law has been used to approve military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Proponents argue that the law is necessary to give the President the powers to act quickly in order to prevent another terrorist attack on the U.S. Opponents argue that all U.S. military conflicts should have Congressional approval and this act has been used in military conflicts that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No
@9FJFF7F7mos7MO
Doing whatever means necessary can mean using your allies for your countries benefit. At the end of the day, is it worth it?
@9FFHB8VLibertarian7mos7MO
Whilst in war, if something is to happen like a threat made or another bombing on American soil, there is no time to lolli gag around we must do something to defend our nation.
@9F74MH87mos7MO
Is see both ways yes the president should have the power to start wars but if it’s something not crazy serious right at this moment then go through Congress
@9F89MMP7mos7MO
When the country is under attack you have few minutes to make a decision to fight back.it's in the presidents best interest to act quickly and not wait for congress.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes
@9F89MMP7mos7MO
If we're being bombed or damage to infrastructure like 911 I'm sure you don't want to wait for congress.You want to defend yourself.
The United States is not a monarchy. One man should not have the power to rob our nation’s cradles to feed the dogs of war.
@9FBMC267mos7MO
while the principle of congressional approval for military conflicts is essential for democratic oversight, opponents argue that it must be balanced with the need for timely and effective responses to emerging threats, especially when classified information and specialized knowledge are involved. The debate centers on finding the right balance between preserving democratic principles and ensuring national security.
@9F9W9N37mos7MO
If Yes, what about a decision a president will make that could jeopardize the safety of Americans by the possible breakout of war?
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts
@9FPVSQJ7mos7MO
It is not congress's job to be the chief in command, and all decisions about the military themselves should be left the the president.
@9FBMC267mos7MO
congressional approval for military conflicts emphasizes democratic principles and oversight, opponents argue that it may not always be practical or in the best interest of national security, particularly in emergency situations or those requiring a swift response.
@8GQ3BHZ3mos3MO
Congress has given the President to use war powers through the War Powers Resolution.
@9FP68FW7mos7MO
Requiring congressional approval would put our troops at risk. certain actions should be kept highly confidential and under the purview of the president
@9FLMSBW7mos7MO
Democracy is slow by nature, and thus bound to delay assistance to people who desperately and urgently need it. Non-congressional military action isn't something I'd overuse, but quickly being able to come to the rescue would be nice.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, we must use whatever means necessary to prevent another terrorist attack
@9FLDBB4 7mos7MO
Top Disagreement
We should ensure that the rights outlined by the constitution and the powers given to the government are not misused and inadvertently trampling the constitution it wishes to protect.
@9FKZG9X7mos7MO
We must do everything in our power to keep innocent citizens alive while preventing terrorist attacks
@9FLN36G7mos7MO
we shouldn't get our selves into international affairs and use whatever cuz that means we can nuke someone again
@9JZH4LX2mos2MO
Yes, and in theory, as the most powerful person in the nation, the President can do whatever they want without anybody else’s approval
Yes, but only in emergencies when an instant response is needed. Such operations shouldn’t last beyond 30 days without congressional authorization
@9D8GBQR8mos8MO
Yes and drug and slave traffickers
@8KCVNJZ3yrs3Y
I don't even know what that is.
Yes, but with reasonable cause
@8PW6YFS3yrs3Y
Yes, only for extreme emergencies
@8JMGP6B3yrs3Y
Yes, but only on a temporary basis.
@8DLZR9G4yrs4Y
In certain situations yes
@9GJ79J66mos6MO
Man, don't ask me this. I don't even know how the government works. I'm practically an anarchist dude.
@99SCYPV1yr1Y
only if they become a threat
@8SFXCQ73yrs3Y
Yes, but only with good reason
@9BHDPVR12mos12MO
Yes in critical situations.
@9B8YZH2Republican1yr1Y
Yes, But only against specific terrorist organizations such as al-qeada and isis in response to a terrorist attack against Americans. He should be required to notify and inform congress, and congress should have the ability to recall troops.
@8HS5R6L4yrs4Y
I don’t understand the question
@8N57JGWNatural Law3yrs3Y
depends on the president.
@8JM259H3yrs3Y
depends on what they did
@8DFLY6Z4yrs4Y
Depending on the severity of the situation, yes
@96XB8VV1yr1Y
I don’t have an opinion on this
@9FC9JN67mos7MO
Yes and no, congress should have a say in some conflicts, only in the extreme should the president beable to authorize without congressional approval.
Interesting perspective you've got there, but let's consider this: The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war. It's not about some conflicts or extreme situations. It's about preserving the balance of power and preventing unilateral decisions that could plunge our nation into war. Remember Vietnam? It started as a limited engagement but escalated into a full-blown conflict with huge costs.
Now, how would you propose the line between 'extreme situations' and 'some conflicts' be drawn to prevent such a scenario from repeating?
@9D6PL8H8mos8MO
@8X7HB542yrs2Y
It depends on who the president is
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
