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.
Yes, we must use whatever means necessary to prevent another terrorist attack
umm so u prevent a terriost attack by killing them and making them upset? bruh
The only time our military should be used without any approval is if we are in imminent threat of being attacked. Any military commitment to an overseas war must have congressional approval. If we would have stuck to this principle, we would not be in the situation that we are in today.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion