Ron Pauls political add.

Very effective ad on getting is view out there but I disagree with the whole premise of his arguement. It angers me that he is basically saying our American soldiers are acting like thugs every where we go. Iraq people were greatful for what we did and having us there. The people attacking Americans and Iraqs over there are not Iraqs upset with us being there but the Iranian soldiers and terrorists coming in. The more I see this stuff from the more im so done with Ron Paul and he is sickening me with this kind of stuff.

Very true advert. The Iraqi people were glad to have us there and overthrowing Saddam. But that's about where their happiness ended. And to say they weren't fighting us is nuts. Our troops were killing Iraqi civilians every day over there, by accident, as collateral damage, and even on purpose. Want the proof? Thanks Wikileaks... http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/wiki-o25.shtml

Quote :

...15,000 civilians killed in incidents not previously reported by the US military—which publicly denied it was even counting civilian deaths, while keeping an extensive internal log.

“The war logs, seen by the Guardian, contain a horrific dossier of cases where US troops killed innocent civilians at checkpoints, on Iraq's roads and during raids on people's homes. The victims include dozens of women and children. The US rarely admitted their deaths publicly.”

A key example of the failure by US forces to record civilian casualties they have inflicted comes in the two major urban battles against insurgents fought in 2004 in Falluja. Numerous buildings were reduced to rubble by air strikes, tank shells and howitzers, and there were well-attested deaths of hundreds of civilians. IBC has identified between 1,226 and 1,362 such deaths during April and November. But the leaked US internal field reports record no civilian casualties at all.

In its analysis of the army reports, al Jazeera tabulated all the instances in which American soldiers shot and killed Iraqi civilians at checkpoints along the highways—arriving at a total of 681, many of them women and children. Many of these involved the massacre of entire families, with the worst involving 11 people in a van, including four children.

How many vans full of civilian families would the hypothetical Chinese in Texas have to kill before you stopped being grateful to them?

The Iraqi's didn't all love us. A lot of them hated our guts. And even though there were outside forces there carrying out guerrilla attacks on us, most of them were done by Iraqi's. In fact that country loved us so much they just got done kicking our military out. And are now making allies with Iran, including shared military infrastructure. Sure, they love us so much they kicked us out and are embracing our new 'big bad' enemy.

Come on your trusting Al Jazeera to tell us how many civilians were killed. No way in hell will I believe this crap that our soldiers were killing innocent civilians like this says. The majority of these attacks and bombing going on came from Iran and foreign terrorists. And there is a big difference between the people wanting us gone which they didnt and the Iraq government wanting us out which they did. Which has a agenda to have us gone which they are putting into play now to possibly split up the country.

ssvs04 wrote:

Come on your trusting Al Jazeera to tell us how many civilians were killed. No way in hell will I believe this crap that our soldiers were killing innocent civilians like this says. The majority of these attacks and bombing going on came from Iran and foreign terrorists. And there is a big difference between the people wanting us gone which they didnt and the Iraq government wanting us out which they did. Which has a agenda to have us gone which they are putting into play now to possibly split up the country.

I have to agree. Even in Afghanistan have you watched Bomb Patrol? What a great series. One guy put it like this. The ANA love us the locals love us the Taliban doesn't. That tells you all you need to know. I to would never believe that news agency.

ssvs04 wrote:

Come on your trusting Al Jazeera to tell us how many civilians were killed.

In this case yes, because they counted up all the incidents that occurred in the official US military records that were released by Wikileaks. They added them up and reported it first, but dozens of other news agency had those same records, if Al Jazeera had lied the others would have known and corrected it. These were just the first few big name agencies to get the records... the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde...

ssvs04 wrote:

No way in hell will I believe this crap that our soldiers were killing innocent civilians like this says.

Well then you're living in a fantasy world. It goes on all the time, happen all the time in Nam. Are most of our troops running around killing civilians for no reason? No. But all it takes is one group, or one guy to do that and you just created a dozen or hundreds of locals who hate your guts. On top of that, when they are ordered to kill civilians they do.

Again it doesn't matter that the death count was first reported by Al Jazeera, what matters is that it came from the official US military records and was verified by the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde among many others.

eber322 wrote:

ssvs04 wrote:

Come on your trusting Al Jazeera to tell us how many civilians were killed.

In this case yes, because they counted up all the incidents that occurred in the official US military records that were released by Wikileaks. They added them up and reported it first, but dozens of other news agency had those same records, if Al Jazeera had lied the others would have known and corrected it. These were just the first few big name agencies to get the records... the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde...

ssvs04 wrote:

No way in hell will I believe this crap that our soldiers were killing innocent civilians like this says.

Well then you're living in a fantasy world. It goes on all the time, happen all the time in Nam. Are most of our troops running around killing civilians for no reason? No. But all it takes is one group, or one guy to do that and you just created a dozen or hundreds of locals who hate your guts. On top of that, when they are ordered to kill civilians they do.

Again it doesn't matter that the death count was first reported by Al Jazeera, what matters is that it came from the official US military records and was verified by the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde among many others.

Sorry Eber but I am calling total propaganda BS on this one. Al Jazeera will stretch the truth and outright lie. I can find no credible news source on this.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

eber322 wrote:

ssvs04 wrote:

Come on your trusting Al Jazeera to tell us how many civilians were killed.

In this case yes, because they counted up all the incidents that occurred in the official US military records that were released by Wikileaks. They added them up and reported it first, but dozens of other news agency had those same records, if Al Jazeera had lied the others would have known and corrected it. These were just the first few big name agencies to get the records... the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde...

ssvs04 wrote:

No way in hell will I believe this crap that our soldiers were killing innocent civilians like this says.

Well then you're living in a fantasy world. It goes on all the time, happen all the time in Nam. Are most of our troops running around killing civilians for no reason? No. But all it takes is one group, or one guy to do that and you just created a dozen or hundreds of locals who hate your guts. On top of that, when they are ordered to kill civilians they do.

Again it doesn't matter that the death count was first reported by Al Jazeera, what matters is that it came from the official US military records and was verified by the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde among many others.

Sorry Eber but I am calling total propaganda BS on this one. Al Jazeera will stretch the truth and outright lie. I can find no credible news source on this.

Exactly! If our left wing nut job press got a even a hint that this might be true they would be plastering this stuff day and night about how our troops are butchers. Because we all know how the left just loves our military ;) No this is a absolute crock of horse manure.

ssvs04 wrote:

It angers me that he is basically saying our American soldiers are acting like thugs every where we go. Iraq people were greatful for what we did and having us there. The people attacking Americans and Iraqs over there are not Iraqs upset with us being there but the Iranian soldiers and terrorists coming in. The more I see this stuff from the more im so done with Ron Paul and he is sickening me with this kind of stuff.

You just don't get it. The point isn't that our troops are thugs, the point is that if they were doing to us what we're doing to them (Invasion, occupation), we'd be outraged and would kill as many of the invaders as possible. Put yourself in their place. Did you know that Iraqi civilian casualties may be over 600,000?

“Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at over 600,000.”
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

If we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq these people wouldn’t have died. Remember, we went ballistic over a mere 3,000 people being killed in the World Trade Center bombing, and what’s 3,000 compared to 600,000?

As for your belief that "Iraq people were greatful for what we did and having us there," here's how the Iraqi's feel about it:

RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)

Iraqis “strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops – 82%

Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security – less than 1%

Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation – 67%

Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces – 72%

So, with 82% of Iraqi's "strongly opposed" to us being there, is it any wonder they keep killing our soldiers? Ron Paul is right - we need to bring our troops HOME! And our troops agree, because they overwhelmingly want to come home. So stop the warmongering and vote for peace instead - vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is our only hope to bring Constitutional law back to our dying nation. It's THAT serious! If he doesn't win, things will get worse and worse until our nation is DEAD!

You just don't get it. The point isn't that our troops are thugs, the point is that if they were doing to us what we're doing to them (Invasion, occupation), we'd be outraged and would kill as many of the invaders as possible. Put yourself in their place. Did you know that Iraqi civilian casualties may be over 600,000?

Saddam put them in that place. No one else. Even if you say no WMDs Saddam acted like they had some. He was the one that kicked the inspectors out. This would all be a mute point if Saddam does no invade Kuwait. Which I still at that time we screwed by not going all the way.
As far as 600,000 civilians I have heard this number before however it around 57,000 not saying that it is a good thing it is not. However when war is declared you are going to have civilian casualties.

Now as far as closing bases overseas I would close some. Germany and all bases in Europe are no longer needed. However we still need some small bases that monitor the ocean for submarine activity. I would not close South Korea. I do not think we need bases in Japan any longer. We have enough U.S. territory to take of that.


So, with 82% of Iraqi's "strongly opposed" to us being there, is it any wonder they keep killing our soldiers? Ron Paul is right - we need to bring our troops HOME! And our troops agree, because they overwhelmingly want to come home. So stop the warmongering and vote for peace instead - vote for Ron Paul.

That point is mute now. I will agree with Obama on this one. Iraq would not sign a status forces agreement. So they can weep what they sow. We see what is happening now.


Ron Paul is our only hope to bring Constitutional law back to our dying nation. It's THAT serious! If he doesn't win, things will get worse and worse until our nation is DEAD!
Ron Paul like I said before has some great domestic ideas. I like a lot of them. But his foreign policy is dangerous at best. If the United States was attacked like it said in the add and Ron Paul waited for congress to act it would be to late. After all Ron Paul he would not got to war until congress said so.

I take that to mean I will do nothing. All these terrorist are not part of any government. They are a radical part of a religion who thinks they are doing gods bidding.

Now saying that if Ron Paul does get the nomination I will vote for him. We can ill afford another 4 more years of Barrack Hussein Obama.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Sorry Eber but I am calling total propaganda BS on this one. Al Jazeera will stretch the truth and outright lie. I can find no credible news source on this.

Really, POV? No credible sources?

Eber wrote: "Again it doesn't matter that the death count was first reported by Al Jazeera, what matters is that it came from the official US military records and was verified by the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde among many others."

So, even though the information was verified by all these sources, it's not credible? Perhaps you just believe what you like to believe, even when contrary to the evidence. Sadly, I've known many Republicans who do the same.

Skycastle wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Sorry Eber but I am calling total propaganda BS on this one. Al Jazeera will stretch the truth and outright lie. I can find no credible news source on this.

Really, POV? No credible sources?

Eber wrote: "Again it doesn't matter that the death count was first reported by Al Jazeera, what matters is that it came from the official US military records and was verified by the Guardian in London, the New York Times, the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the French daily Le Monde among many others."

So, even though the information was verified by all these sources, it's not credible? Perhaps you just believe what you like to believe, even when contrary to the evidence. Sadly, I've known many Republicans who do the same.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/10/100000_deador_8000.html

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/258511

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/afghanistan-iraq-wars-killed-132000-civilians-report-says

Regardless if it was one civilian death or 600 thousand or 1.22 million. The only the death that matters is the one if there family member was killed.

So depending on which figure you want to believe. It does not matter because we will never truly know.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Saddam put them in that place.

And the US is the one that put that tyrant in power and supported and kept him there even as he committed genocide of one group of his own citizens. We only got mad at him after he disrupted oil from Kuwait.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

That point is mute now.

Troops wanting to come home isn't mute, there are still troops in Afganistan. None of them want to be there, that's why more active and retired military people contribute to Paul then all the others combined. They don't want to be there, they don't believe in any of those pointless wars.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

If the United States was attacked like it said in the add and Ron Paul waited for congress to act it would be to late. After all Ron Paul he would not got to war until congress said so.

That is absolute bull. The Constitution allows a President to take charge and defend this nation if it's attacked, doesn't have anything to do with congress. What it doesn't allow is for a President to start a war, as in attack somebody else, without a declaration from Congress.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

All these terrorist are not part of any government.

Islam isn't just a religion, it's also a government. All Islamic country are governed by the Koran, any country, Islamic or otherwise, that is harboring terrorists could be declared war on by congress.

Skycastle wrote:

ssvs04 wrote:

It angers me that he is basically saying our American soldiers are acting like thugs every where we go. Iraq people were greatful for what we did and having us there. The people attacking Americans and Iraqs over there are not Iraqs upset with us being there but the Iranian soldiers and terrorists coming in. The more I see this stuff from the more im so done with Ron Paul and he is sickening me with this kind of stuff.

You just don't get it. The point isn't that our troops are thugs, the point is that if they were doing to us what we're doing to them (Invasion, occupation), we'd be outraged and would kill as many of the invaders as possible. Put yourself in their place. Did you know that Iraqi civilian casualties may be over 600,000?

“Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at over 600,000.”
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

If we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq these people wouldn’t have died. Remember, we went ballistic over a mere 3,000 people being killed in the World Trade Center bombing, and what’s 3,000 compared to 600,000?

As for your belief that "Iraq people were greatful for what we did and having us there," here's how the Iraqi's feel about it:

RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)

Iraqis “strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops – 82%

Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security – less than 1%

Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation – 67%

Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces – 72%

So, with 82% of Iraqi's "strongly opposed" to us being there, is it any wonder they keep killing our soldiers? Ron Paul is right - we need to bring our troops HOME! And our troops agree, because they overwhelmingly want to come home. So stop the warmongering and vote for peace instead - vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is our only hope to bring Constitutional law back to our dying nation. It's THAT serious! If he doesn't win, things will get worse and worse until our nation is DEAD!

If we hadnt been there they wouldnt even be able to express themselves in any poll whatsoever to complain about anything. Instead they would be worrying about who would either be kidnapped in the middle of the night to be Tortured, raped and killed. No way to I believe this death toll that we killed 600,000 innocent civilians. Did civilians die. Yes. But having a future to create your own government created by the people doesnt come easy and it costs lots of lives in most cases.

The poll suggests they are unhappy on the slow progress of there country not that they are trying to kill us. Which they are not. I have no problem that we are bringing home our troops and am happy that they are coming home. I think if thats what the people want fine. Good luck to them.

If Ron Paul wasnt a total basket case on foreign affairs he would have my number one vote. But the man is dangerous in this matter and no founder would have followed his foreign policies to the extreme he wants. With no intelligence we would be ripe for attacks.

ssvs04 wrote:

With no intelligence we would be ripe for attacks.

I really wish you'd stop saying that. He doesn't want to get rid of intelligence, he wants to get rid of the CIA. One of these videos I posted here somewhere before he is telling a guy who asks about it that he wants military intelligence to handle the intelligence gathering the CIA currently handles.

Islam isn't just a religion, it's also a government. All Islamic country are governed by the Koran, any country, Islamic or otherwise, that is harboring terrorists could be declared war on by congress. Right but I think you are missing my point. The radicals are the ones causing the problems. Afghanistan was a terrorist religious nation. The government supported terrorism. Saddam was just an evil guy period.

But as a whole the terrorism has come from non government sponsored radicals. With the exception of Afghanistan and now Iran most likely.


Military intelligence has it's role. CIA has it's role. Getting rid of the CIA is a bad thing. Now if Ron Paul did become president he has all the power to change the CIAs role. He can set down the policy.


Troops wanting to come home isn't mute, there are still troops in Afganistan. None of them want to be there, that's why more active and retired military people contribute to Paul then all the others combined. They don't want to be there, they don't believe in any of those pointless wars.
Afghanistan attacked us we did not attack them. If left up to Ron Paul we would have done nothing. He would have just said alright you killed 3000 Americans no big deal.

Afghanistan sponsored a crazy man after we helped them oust the Russians. However as Charlie Wilson democrat put it. We helped them get rid of the Russians then we Fracked it up.

That is absolute bull. The Constitution allows a President to take charge and defend this nation if it's attacked, doesn't have anything to do with congress. What it doesn't allow is for a President to start a war, as in attack somebody else, without a declaration from Congress.
You just contradicted yourself. Afghanistan did attack us. Congress did say use of force. As far as I am concerned both wars are legal. You can't say congress has to declare war then in the same sentence say the president has the right to defend itself. The president is the Commander in Chief.


And the US is the one that put that tyrant in power and supported and kept him there even as he committed genocide of one group of his own citizens. We only got mad at him after he disrupted oil from Kuwait.

Of course we put him power. We even supported him during the Iran Iraq war. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It will not be the last time this happens.

Now when he invaded Kuwait then it was the worlds responsibility to oust him from there. I will say our military did a superb job. If left up to Ron Paul he would see the USSR gain power again and invade all of Europe. Ron Paul is a dinosaur in a changing world. It only take hours to cross oceans now not months or weeks.

I am sorry but Ron Paul is bat crazy on foreign policy and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

But like I said before if he becomes the nominee then I will be forced to vote for him because we cannot afford another 4 years of Bam. No matter who our nomination is.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

You just contradicted yourself. Afghanistan did attack us. Congress did say use of force. As far as I am concerned both wars are legal. You can't say congress has to declare war then in the same sentence say the president has the right to defend itself. The president is the Commander in Chief.

No, I didn't contradict myself.

Afghanistan didn't attack us, some people living in that country did, not the government. What you are saying is like saying the US attacked Oklahoma City because McVeigh lived in the US.

Congress never declared war on Afghanistan. The only way they can authorize the use of force is by passing a vote and declaring war, they didn't do that so they are in violation of the Constitution and the war isn't legal.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

You can't say congress has to declare war then in the same sentence say the president has the right to defend itself.

That's exactly what I can say, and do. And that's exactly what the Constitution says. There's a big difference between defense and starting a war. Look at it this way, say a general in charge of a base say on the edge New York City. Without orders he has no power to just decide to send his troops into New York and kill everybody and seize the city. However, if a big mob of citizens from New York charge the base he has the right to defend the base without receiving orders first. That's exactly what the president has, the right to defend the US (his base) but not the right to invade other countries without receiving orders to do so.

The Constitution clearly separates the powers of the military between the congress and the president. The Congress has the power to start wars (declare them) but no power to command troops. So they can say, we're at war with Canada, but they can't tell troops to move in, nor how, where, in what fashion, etc. The President has the power to command the troops, but no power to declare war. So he can't command troops into Canada until after Congress declares it.

The president does have the right to command troops in defense, without waiting for congress first, in the case of an attack. For example, after 9-11 Bush had the right to deploy troops into New York, position ships to defend the harbor, order fighters into the air, etc. What he didn't have was the right to start a war with Iraq or Afghanistan. It was up to congress to decide if those wars were warranted and to declare them. And now we're also fighting in Pakistan again illegally.

Let me put it in football terms. The President (quarterback) has the right to play defense as soon as an opposing team takes the field as offense. The President has no right to take the field in offense unless the coach (congress) tells him he can. (declares war on the other team)

eber322 wrote:

ssvs04 wrote:

With no intelligence we would be ripe for attacks.

I really wish you'd stop saying that. He doesn't want to get rid of intelligence, he wants to get rid of the CIA. One of these videos I posted here somewhere before he is telling a guy who asks about it that he wants military intelligence to handle the intelligence gathering the CIA currently handles.

Having all our intelligence under military control would not be good. But as I said before in his book he says he wants the CIA gone and to cut intelligence budget drastically. And the crazy notion that intelligence will just come our way through willing civilians. So basically leaving us with no intelligence. Next week will have to get his latest audio book out and listen to it again what he said exactly.

Anyways I got a party to go to for the new year. Even though we dont agree on this I think in general most of us here agree on most and the many things that are needed to fix our country. So everyone have a great new year and I will talk to you guys again in the new year.

Quote :

Afghanistan didn't attack us, some people living in that country did, not the government. What you are saying is like saying the US attacked Oklahoma City because McVeigh lived in the US.

NO NO NO NO Bin Ladin and the Taliban which was in control of the government were working hand in hand. That is not disputed that government sanctioned it funded it and allowed the training camps to go on. Absolutely they attacked us.

Quote :

Congress never declared war on Afghanistan. The only way they can authorize the use of force is by passing a vote and declaring war, they didn't do that so they are in violation of the Constitution and the war isn't legal.

Like I said as far as I am concerned and this went to court and I was a juror I would say the war was legal.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

NO NO NO NO Bin Ladin and the Taliban which was in control of the government were working hand in hand. That is not disputed that government sanctioned it funded it and allowed the training camps to go on. Absolutely they attacked us.

Actually the Afghan government claimed that they couldn't get rid of the Taliban because they were more powerful than the Afghan military. That's why the Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) is one of our allies in the war. They are an Afghanistan military group that was established by the Afghan government in 1996 for the sole purpose of fighting the Taliban and Bin Laden. So no we were no attacked by a country, that's why Bush spent so many speeches talking about how we were in a new situation and were at war with borderless terrorist not a country.

We could have still legally went to war in Afghanistan against the Taliban. There is an ability built into the Constitution that allows us to aid an ally in their national defense, but just like declaring war it requires a vote and approval of Congress. However in that case we would be guests in that ally country and under their orders.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Like I said as far as I am concerned and this went to court and I was a juror I would say the war was legal.

Well that's fine, but you'd be wrong according to the Constitution. It is perfectly clear on this matter, no question about it. It's laid out as clear as 2+2=4.

Quote :

Well that's fine, but you'd be wrong according to the Constitution. It is perfectly clear on this matter, no question about it. It's laid out as clear as 2+2=4.

There are plenty of people who say I would be right.

I have to say im in agreement when it comes to the constitution we are supposed to make a declaration of war. We did everything right with congress approving us going into these countries just didnt officially declare war for whatever political reason. But in WW2 we didnt take orders from the country we were defending or trying to take back. That would be a insane to ever do for our troops. And this is where Ron Paul just goes to far with his foriegn policy ideas.

ssvs04 wrote:

I have to say im in agreement when it comes to the constitution we are supposed to make a declaration of war. We did everything right with congress approving us going into these countries just didn't officially declare war for whatever political reason. But in WW2 we didn't take orders from the country we were defending or trying to take back. That would be a insane to ever do for our troops. And this is where Ron Paul just goes to far with his foreign policy ideas.

I agree. We did not say war but we did say use of force and that will stand up in any court.

ssvs04 wrote:

But in WW2 we didnt take orders from the country we were defending or trying to take back. That would be a insane to ever do for our troops. And this is where Ron Paul just goes to far with his foriegn policy ideas.

That's because we declared war on the Axis powers, then all we need from our allies is permission to operate from their land. And of course we don't need any permission to operate in enemy lands or enemy occupied lands, once we've declared war on that enemy.

There's another term I can't recall, I think it's french, that isn't declaring war, it's simply agreeing to defend another nation. For example if we didn't declare war on Nazi Germany, but England asked us to help defend them, we could do that. But we'd be limited to defending English territory, not making attacks into German territory. Just like the President is (supposed to be) limited to the protection US territory but can't attack out. In that situation the host country calls the shots, of course if they asked for our aid we could say; "Ok, but only if you give us your permission to act autonomously". That would be the way to do it.

And that has nothing to do with Ron Paul, it's simply an alternative to declaring war. Declaring mutual defense, I guess you could call it that, then defending the other country as if it was ours. This concept is kind of how NATO works. NATO acts as the host country (even though they are an organization not a country) and gets troops from other nations to act under their orders. This just shows how all the NATO engagements we've went along with are also illegal since Congress never declares these actions either. And of course I'm against ever letting NATO command our troops, to bad it happens.