Sentences with phrase «not take military action»

Christian leaders in the All - Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea say America should not take military action against the regime.

Not exact matches

On July 27, Bennett admonished Gantz as he was speaking before the cabinet, telling him that military leaders should be like «galloping horses» that need to be restrained by the government, not like «lazy bulls,» which require prodding to take action.

(It didn't help that in the interview Bannon scoffed at the idea that U.S. would ever take military action against North Korea.)

Nevertheless, Netanyahu's hawkish retort not only increases the odds the US will pull out of the deal but raises the spectre of Israel taking military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Mr Grieve added: «That said, I think the basic principle that you should seek parliamentary authorisation before taking military action is a perfectly sound one and I don't think the Prime Minister disagrees with that.»

On the other hand, the Assad regime does not appear to have involved its own military forces in this strike by Iran on Israeli forces, or in many of the other actions taken by Iran supported forces against Israel.

With the rising Ukrainian nationalism and the increasingly more and more visible loss of control of the central government over the country (in the recent trade blockade of Donbass by Ukrainian nationalists, president Poroshenko protested the blockade but was unable to force its lifting), it is possible that Ukrainian military will take more forceful action against Donbass and Luhansk, which may force Russia's hand, so not all risk of war is beyond us.

Even if Congress doesn't declare war, the Vice President would be sworn in as President following from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and they would take military action:

That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an «unprecedented threat to international peace and security» and calls on states to take «all necessary measures» to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to «eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria»; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government's continued determination to cut ISIL's sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK's particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government's commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

If any NATO actions (NATO being a military and not a political organization) were to take place they could easily occur now as there little to prevent sea or land resupply of any military.

So the president may take any military action of any magnitude against any target so long as he informs congress within 48 hours and does not take longer than 60 days?

Our own PM will be happy, not least because his decision to play the key role in this operation, pushing President Obama and others to take military action has paid off.

However, as the leader of the UK's main opposition party there is at least a theoretical possibility that he will one day be in the position of deciding whether or not Britain should take military action to defend our neighbours and allies.

«That this house notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an «unprecedented threat to international peace and security» and calls on states to take «all necessary measures» to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to «eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria»; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government's continued determination to cut ISIL's sources of finance, fighters, and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian causalities; using the UK's particular capabilities; notes the Government's will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government's commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces.»

While Congress prepares to vote on whether or not to take military action against Syria, two local members of Congress are still considering all the facts.

WHEREAS, over the years, reserve military personnel have taken an active role in most if not all military actions this country has seen;

Yes, the government lost the 2013 Commons vote on military action in Syria, largely because it was mishandled — but having lost that vote, Cameron had no choice but to rule out military action, and his decision not to take it was a reassuring signal that the era of hard - charging militaristic unilateralism was over.

And as if that wasn't enough to handle on the Prime Minister's first day back at work, she was also called on to explain herself to the House over military action taken in Syria last weekend.

19.30 The Stop the War coalition hosts a «Don't Iraq Iran» cultural event to raise money for campaign against taking military action against Iran.

«With Warriors up to now, all the military action not taking place right onscreen is still simulated in a pretty basic way.

When two strange new M.U.T.O.'s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) hatch from their chrysalis, Godzilla's dormant slumber ends, as the big G reveals himself to the world to take on the M.U.T.O.'s, and the military decides the best course of action to take against creatures they don't yet understand.

For the military to take AGW seriously would mean taking expensive action, on the order of the expensive mitigation or adaptation steps the rest of the government is also not taking.

Countries are perfectly allowed to complain about the treatment of their citizens, to take diplomatic action against countries that mistreat them, and in extreme cases (not including this one) to use military action.

Courts are utterly unqualified to determine proper diplomatic or military actions to take, or to evaluate whether the President's actions were enough to meet the requirement of «do what's necessary to restore security;» foreign policy is a case where a country needs a unified face (because other countries aren't particularly willing to deal with US internal politics), and where the courts could easily screw up what the government is doing; and whether to send Americans to war is a question that is clearly a matter for those accountable to the people.

Sir John also concluded that the peaceful options for disarmament had not been exhausted before the decision to take military action was taken.

Being in a military, there are many obstacles and I'm not so sure if it works for me but taking some actions are my first steps.