A Quote by Bradley Byrne

I am prepared to vote in support of a new military authorization that specifically authorizes U.S. military actions against ISIS. We must stand up against this vile enemy and protect United States citizens both at home and abroad.
I voted against the war in Iraq. I voted against the first Gulf War. I think war is the last resort - the last option of a great military power like us. I think that we need to focus on building coalitions. Yes, ISIS must be destroyed. But it should be destroyed by a coalition of Muslim nations on the ground with the support of the United States and the other major powers in the air and in training the troops there.
Nine years ago on September 14, 2001, I placed the lone vote against the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force' - an authorization that I knew would provide a blank check to wage war anywhere, at any time, and for any length.
I believe that the United States has a moral obligation to stand up for those citizens of the world who cannot stand up for themselves, and I am proud to have authored the bill signed into law today that continues to put significant pressure on the brutal Burmese military junta.
The United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime.
I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States.
The president doesn't order the military to seize political opponents. He doesn't order his intelligence community to lie about national security for political purposes. He uses the military or intelligence communities to protect the United States and our citizens, not to help him win elections.
After 9/11 we were prepared to use military force. We were prepared to go after not only the terrorists, but those who sponsor terror and provide sanctuary and safe harbor for them. We were prepared to use our intelligence assets the way we would against an enemy that threatened the United States itself, to put in place, for example, things like the Terror Surveillance Program and to have a robust interrogation program on detainees. Those are the acts you take when you feel you're at war and that the very existence of the nation is threatened.
We have an authorization to use military force against terrorists. We passed it after 9/11.
I intend to vote against authorizing the president to use military force in Syria. The Obama Administration has not provided a clear or convincing strategy for inserting our military into the conflict. I am also deeply concerned about the extent to which al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists are involved in the rebellion.
Insurgents have capitalized on popular resentment and anger towards the United States and the Iraqi government to build their own political, financial and military support, and the faith of Iraqi citizens in their new government has been severely undermined.
I am not a pacifist and I would back a lawful, coherent and compelling case for the use of military force by the U.K. against Isis.
The United States and China have both beefed up their naval presence in Southeast Asia, leading to fears of a military confrontation. This is just one example of China flexing its military muscle in recent months, and it coincides with a slowdown in the nation's economy.
People have a good reason to be afraid of tear gas, considering it's a banned agent of war under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. Here's the catch - there's a clause in the treaty that includes an exception for domestic use. Yes, it's illegal for the U.S. military to use tear gas against ISIS, but cool to use against American citizens.
There had been a free and open election in Haiti in the early 1990s and president Jean-Bertrand Aristide won, a populist priest. A few months later came the expected military coup - a very vicious military junta took over, of which the United States was passively supportive. Not openly, of course, but Haitians started to flee from the terror and were sent back and on towards Guantanamo Bay. Of course, that is against International Law. But the United States pretended that they were "economic refugees."
I'm post-cynical on this stuff. I look at the El Salvador model as the glory days: Why don't we just fund the death squads secretly and keep our boys at home? That where I almost am at this point. Clearly the American military has been a force for good for the United States. There's a reason we have a standing military. But there's something to be said for having a much smaller military because then we wouldn't be tempted to get involved in things we shouldn't be getting involved in.
The fight against drug trafficking is a false pretext for the United States to install military bases.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!