any action by a strong, sovereign Nation such as ours, which I say with humility is a leader in the world in so many issues of foreign policy, can be used as a precedent. But I say to my friend, what is the precedent of inaction? I have given some comments about the League of Nations here earlier today. Throughout the history of the League, it is documented inaction, from Mussolini's attack on Abyssinia in the 1930s, to other operations militarily, naked aggression--inaction. So what is the precedent of inaction, if our President and our Nation does nothing collectively with Great Britain, in the face of this crisis? So, of course, it would be a precedent. But the times have changed. I also put a list in the Record the other day of some 13 instances where Presidents of our United States, going back as far as 1901, have instituted--you might characterize it, as I do, as preemptive; I certainly so characterize it--preemptive strikes in the use of the military, the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of military action and inaction in foreign policy.
Share
More from Mark Warner
I think it’s important that we stand up for the independence of the press.
The Shenandoah Valley helped shape our nation's history, and preserving these battlefields will ensure that future generations can better understand the sacrifices and defining moments that took place there during the Civil War.
This was the opening shot of trying to undermine Americans' confidence that their vote will be actually counted and mean something.
This arrangement presents a serious risk to market integrity, creates a clear and unacceptable pathway for corruption, and undermines public confidence in the fair dissemination of market-moving government information — a crucial factor in…





