Sentences with phrase «of using military force»

Not exact matches

Third, for those in Congress who worry that a more aggressive national security team in the White House may push the President too quickly to use military force, this week should focus their concern about the increased risk of military response to Iranian actions.

«We targeted a system of tunnels and caves that ISIS fighters used to move around freely, making it easier for them to target US military advisers and Afghan forces in the area,» the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, said at a press briefing.

«For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941 and on September 11, 2001.»

As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well - established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.»

«It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws... for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,» he wrote.

LARGO — The contents of the Armed Forces History Museum have been sold, but no one is ready to talk about the future of the collection of military memorabilia.A collector named John Piazza used his personal collection to start the public museum, whic...

People of peace, we use our military power sparingly; but when we do so we do so with full conviction, gathering our forces as men and women who believe that the freedoms we enjoy can not be taken from us.

This agreement will strengthen co-operation between the Canadian Armed Forces and the Japanese Self - Defense Forces and will allow both countries to make efficient use of each other's military equipment during operations and exercises in Canada, Japan, and other locations.

Instead of supporting this attempt — a drive that has the positive consequence for world peace that it will limit U.S. military adventurism (much as the Vietnam War finally forced the dollar off gold in 1971), Krugman is using the crisis to attack China — as if its success is what is harming U.S. labor.

Even the Pope and his diplomats, quite reluctant to condone military action of any kind, have acknowledged the necessity of using force to defend and protect innocent lives.

The findings that indicate many Americans have a dim outlook on Islam come as President Obama sent a formal request to Congress on Wednesday to authorize the use of military force to combat the Islamic State.

In a world as dangerous as ours, a judicious use of military power is probably unavoidable, I did not oppose the war in the Persian Gulf: annexation by force must be reversed.

Thus we are skeptical of Jimmy Carter's early posture of refusing to use military power, and we reject Ronald Reagan's position that force and bluster can solve our problems.

Will a modern president actually use restraint the use of military force abroad?

One matter that has been morally muddied in recent decades should now be clarified: those who in principle oppose the use of military force have no legitimate part in the discussion about how military force should be used.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed individual citizens the rights to own arms JUST AS GOOD as those of the regular soldiers they might have to oppose in an armed rebellion — the very sort of armed rebellion that the writers of the 2nd Amendment had recently successfully engaged in, defeating the most powerful military force on the planet using their own guns, which were JUST AS GOOD as what the British regulars and their Hessian mercenaries had.

Janet Reno, the Attorney General of the United States at the time, authorized and ordered the use of UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES, WITH THEIR MILITARY ASSUALT ARMAMENT, to MURDER seventy - six American men, women and children in their own home in the U.S.....

The mainstream of Christian ethics has contended that there can be a legitimate or «just» use of military force — legitimacy being determined by a variety of factors, such as the presence of a «just cause,» «right authority,» «last resort,» and the use of «means proportional to the end.»

It is, at least, apparent that the debates about humanitarian intervention by military force in the last decade, about the creation of international criminal tribunals in a number of cases, about the idea of a state's «universal jurisdiction» in cases of violations of the Genocide Convention or other «crimes against humanity,» about how far the global war on terror may proceed without violating the rights of states, and most recently, about the United - States - led use of force against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, have all raised important points of positive and customary international law, and that in every one of these cases the outcome remains unsettled.

First, the ability to use military force with due respect to such considerations is absolutely contingent on the quality and quantity of the intelligence information available.

These, and many other distinctive elements of this conflict, pose challenges to existing moral frameworks for assessing the use of military force.

And Roach's references to the Middle East carry the message that he assumed that the use of force against Saddam Hussein's military would produce a regional conflagration.

In the debates over humanitarian intervention in the 1990s some moralists made a distinction between «war,» which they understood as having to do with state uses of armed force for their own interests, and intervention by military force for humanitarian purposes, which they regarded as altruistic and not «war.»

The use of military force is one part of an overall strategy.

Thus in 1998 the United Presbyterian Church in the United States adopted a resolution that accepted uses of military force for humanitarian intervention only so long as there were no national interests being served; use of force for those interests was opposed.

A decade ago humanitarian intervention, defined by Brian Lepard as «the use of military force to protect the victims of human rights violations,» seemed...

It is turning into a combination of ideological tics and irritable gestures even as the worst actors gain power.Ross Douthat argues that the Obama administration is shifting the U.S.'s foreign policy strategy from a Pax Americana model (where the U.S. uses military force to impose order) to one of offshore balancing (where the U.S. strategically sides with one local power or another while keeping U.S. commitments to a minimum).

Finally, there is the injustice of an ever - expanding and necrophilic militarism as violent uses of power and force whereby nonegalitarian relationships are defended, whether internally through various forms of police and surveillance force, or externally through massive military and espionage forces.

In their editorial «In a Time of War» (December 2001), the editors of First Things declare: «One matter that has been muddied in recent decades should now be clarified: Those who in principle oppose the use of military force have no legitimate part in the discussion about how military force should be used.»

Much like Hitler used Christianity as his motivating force printing «Gott Mit Uns» on their military garb, but in reality was only using it to control the masses, Stalin and others used the lack of religion or anti-religious sentiment to control.

The unipolarist ideology by whatever name, adds a fourth party to the foreign - policy debate, which has otherwise involved 1) liberal internationalists, who seek world peace and stability by securing collective agreements from nation states to comply with international law; 2) realists, who seek to ensure a balance of power among competing regimes; and 3) principled anti-interventionists, who renounce the use of military force for all reasons besides self - defense.

The purpose of our Armed Forces is not about building churches and stomping around according to their manipulative and subversive machinations behind the scenes using simple mind - control techniques against our own military's usage of mind - control in training.

Disagreements will arise over the seriousness of particular threats, whether «just cause» and «last resort» are present for the use of military force, the utility of nonviolent and persuasive methods, whether a missile defense system (required by the strategy paper) is itself defensible practically and morally, and whether the U.S. should make interventionary decisions unilaterally or with international consent and support.

In July 2017, a new bill co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of four lawmakers was introduced «to ensure effective implementation of the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2008» and «to prohibit assistance from being provided to, or licenses for direct commercial sales of military equipment issued to, the government of a country whose police or other security forces recruit and use child soldiers.»

Any congregation that is committed to Christian action in its community needs to have at its center or very close to it, a group of men and women prepared to be — to use military language — the reconnaissance and intelligence force of the main body.

There are some few who regard international organization as being opposed to national interest, and some pacifists are unable to sanction the U.N.'s use of military force for collective security.

10:34), is certainly in its context not a justification of the use of military force, but a warning that fidelity to the Christian cause would precipitate peril and persecution.

Simply by living as a citizen of a State that maintains gigantic armaments, to say nothing of paying taxes to that State, one makes concessions to the use of military force.

Though the use of «enemy» in the Old Testament often did refer to a nation - state enemy of Israel, Jesus» exhortation was never meant to refer to a public enemy — like another nation's military force — that would let me off the hook.

A decade ago humanitarian intervention, defined by Brian Lepard as «the use of military force to protect the victims of human rights violations,» seemed to be a policy whose time had come.

At Eisleben, or on the journey to his parents, he realised that the whole situation was out of control, not least because his own ruler, the dying Elector had refrained from using military force, hoping for a negotiated settlement.

Having rejected the authority of the Church as the glue holding together Christendom, Protestantism was ineluctably drawn to the force of military might, to using the secular arm of the state as the source for order and unity.

«The Hebrew word «helper» in this verse definitely does not refer to a servant it is most often used of God in the Old Testament, and occasionally of aid coming from a superior military force.

By contrast, in every branch of the US military and in the US penal system, physical punishment has long been outlawed as it was deemed «cruel and unusual» and a «use of excessive force.»

There are treaties and treatises out there that inform efforts to articulate what constitutes international law, but there is no world legislature out there, and there is no court with the power to issue decisions to any country in the world that will be observed without the use of military force on a wide array of issues.

This entitles the UN Security Council to use coercive measures of economic and military force «to maintain or restore international peace and security».

Once territorial control is a fait accompli and an international war isn't in continuing progress since before that happened, the use of military force to resolve territorial disputes is strongly frowned upon.

A third party country that uses force in territory controlled by another sovereign state, without the express or implied consent of a sovereign state with a legitimate claim to that territory, is an illegal aggressor under international law, rather than a participant in a collective security effort which international law recognizes as a legitimate reason to use military force.

As a general rule, the use of military force to resolve territorial disputes that haven't arisen «imminently» (i.e. hours or days or weeks or maybe even a few months ago), is frowned upon, and the more less imminent the threat, the more problematic intervention becomes.

The American military strike against Syria threatened Russian - American relations as the Kremlin denounced President Donald Trump's use of force and the Russian military indicated it would suspend an agreement to share information about air operations over the country that was devised to avoid accidental conflict.