If this was in response to my post, let me put into context my issue with Bake54.
He's a simpleton, who uses what he reads on some shitty partisan websites to make stupid comments regarding topics he barely understands beyond what a high schooler knows. He does little self research and merely parrots what he reads from some garbage websites.
Brings almost nothing to the table of any substance beyond throwing veiled political barbs regarding the decisions being made. Just as FMiC doesn't suffer fools when it comes to Game Day Threads, it annoys the shit out of me when people talk out of their asses about national security matters when it is clear they don't know shit about it and have done little to no honest research. Even the picture he posted above (from another stupid partisan website) is false as TTH stated. That's the simpleton level of contribution he brings.
just I don't like the way we casually do this. This is not good for either party.
If you think that our nation just "casually do this," you are dumber than even I have told you regarding your simpleton understanding of how our nation come to these decisions.
Many don't agree how this administration or many other have decided to conduct military operations in the past, but the decision makers just don't casually decide to circumvent our national or even international law as you so stupidly suggest. A lot of decision-making calculus is conducted by people far more qualified than you (and obviously with more information). You don't like it just like many others don't either, and that's your prerogative. But to state that our nation just casually decide to conduct military operations show why you continue to sound like a fucking idiot whenever you jump into any of these conversations you have very little understanding of beyond reading some conservative drivel of news sites.
so all opinions and arguments are valid. That is patently false.
There are number of people on BBI with personal experience bordering on subject matter expertise in many areas that are discussed. And some who don't have personal experience have done much honest research to gain more insight in the nuances of such topics. These individuals bring a lot to provide substance to the discussion.
However, we also have a lot of people, who think they know what they're talking about because they watch some network news coverage or read on some partisan drivel of websites regarding topics of discussion (this can be said for the football side of the house as well). But instead of coming into a discussion to learn, they start spouting their own simplistic view of what is being discussed. When they are provided with more nuanced views by others, they don't listen but rather get into a long argument showing their lack of knowledge and much times their poorly veiled political views.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut your pie hole and learn from others. That's what good discussions are about, to learn from others. But if you decide to jump in with your simplistic view, then you're probably going to get ridiculed, especially if you double down and continue to show just how little you know of the situation.
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
I try to take it all with a grain of salt. I post a lot of dumb things that I know as soon as I hit submit, but for the most part it is fun or I wouldn't be here. Oh by the way you are no longer in consideration for the Mother Teresa of BBI
Nothing is worse than arguing with someone who only has very little in depth knowledge of a subject and refuses to listen to those who have may a better understanding whether through personal experiences or actually taking the time to educate themeselves so they know what the ef they are talking about. I think arrogance lies with those who refuse to listen and actually learn something outside of their narrow politival viewpoints.
have no right an informed opinion. Already, we have some of our Syrian rebel "allies" complaining about our strikes on the Nosru Front (allegedly part of the al Qaeda affiliate, Khorasan). Strange bedfellows and all that.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
Call it arrogance. You can have opposing views on any matter in a discussion, and they will both be right on certain aspects. No one here is saying one side is more right than the other. I've been proven wrong on many occasions during a discussion and argument. As long as the opposing views are based on honest research, knowledge, I'm all for any views on a matter.
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
RE: I disagree with the notion that those of us who haven't serve Â
have no right an informed opinion. Already, we have some of our Syrian rebel "allies" complaining about our strikes on the Nosru Front (allegedly part of the al Qaeda affiliate, Khorasan). Strange bedfellows and all that.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
Who said anything about serving? Matter of fact, the best view points and knowledge in these discussions have been brought by those who never served, and this is based on their honest research and learning.
Call it arrogance. You can have opposing views on any matter in a discussion, and they will both be right on certain aspects. No one here is saying one side is more right than the other. I've been proven wrong on many occasions during a discussion and argument. As long as the opposing views are based on honest research, knowledge, I'm all for any views on a matter.
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
I admit I am pretty late to this party, so I am doing more reading than reacting... so maybe you can help me...
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
stop trolling me. I told you to leave me alone and I mean that. Bother someone else. Go away.Last time I say this.
Eh...I'm going to call a stupid a stupid. So stop making idiotic comments (and posting false pictures to add to it) if you don't want someone to call you out on it. If you bring something of substance, then we won't have any issues.
You need to be proactive in finding a variety of sources Â
There's good reporting out there, but limiting yourself to a few major media outlets isn't the way to find it. The more you read, the more you'll start to get a feel for who's serious and who isn't.
Trolling? Everyone that challenges your nonsense is trolling? Â
You cry on the George Zimmerman threads that you are being trolled when
your bullshit is called out. Don't post if you are a sensitive vagina that can't take the heat. Now you can warn me to stop trolling you
go away..don't comment on anything I say. You could have disagreed without bring disagreeable. You could have made your points without getting personal. But in your superior and infinite wisdom you decided to make it personal despite me not ever saying one unkind word to you.
I admit I am pretty late to this party, so I am doing more reading than reacting... so maybe you can help me...
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
I'm sure there are others with far more knowledge when it comes to the international impact of the military operations currently being conducted. I can only provide what my opinion is based on what I know from my experience.
1) I don't think we necessarily had a conflict with ISIL prior to our involvement if we are to look at this in a strict sense of "conflict." However, ISIL was/is in conflict with our allies, and they pose limited terrorist threat to us and our partners. With that being said, any military involvement with the situation in ISIL will most definitely "prolong" our active role in Iraq and Syria and potentially risk increasing our active role (more boots on the ground beyond advisors). Of course as ISIL move more towards international terrorism, we will be involved more with them.
2) I'm not sure that it necessarily makes the situation worse. Sure, Saudi Arabian royals may get flak for their involvement, but how does it really make the situation really all that much worse? Most of the nations involved have already made it public that they see ISIL as a grave threat to not only their nation but to the region as a whole. So I don't think it makes it any worse than it was already.
3) This is one of those topics that I think others have already covered well with far more insight and understanding than I can provide, but here's my attempt. I don't believe that the CINC is doing anything illegal as much as politically unfavorable in the eyes of many in the public and Congress. When it comes to our own legality (national), many military operations (limited and prolonged campaigns) have been conducted without the declaration of "war" (matter of fact, the last declared war was the Korean War, no?). I believe that the CINC has the legal precedence to conduct these operations based on his authorities alone. As far as the international legality is concerned, we have conducted attacks against "terrorist" and "insurgent" groups in foreign lands with tacit approval by the ruling government. My personal view is that sometimes you just have to play outside of the international law when you're dealing with organizations/nations/etc. that are not playing by the international law as well. Is that right? No. Can I live with it? Yeah. But that's just my opinion.
I find it interesting that they're sending A-10s to the region Â
First of all, because they were supposed to be heading for the boneyard at Davis-Monthan. Second of all, because I'm wondering who is going to be getting the close air support they provide?
supporting a version of the point I have been making
Quote:
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both No convincing plan - ( New Window )
from an absurd website (seriously dude, stop reading that shit...it will make you dumb), he's got a point in there somewhere. One may trust this President to duly exercise restraint, but how about the next, or the one after that? The country is poorly served when the peoples' reps are continually sidestepped.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
RE: Ironically here is the NY Times editorial board Â
supporting a version of the point I have been making
Quote:
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both No convincing plan - ( New Window )
Don't say I don't give credit where credit is due. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of this editorial peace, at least they make a somewhat cogent argument with a clearly stated reasoning.
from an absurd website (seriously dude, stop reading that shit...it will make you dumb), he's got a point in there somewhere. One may trust this President to duly exercise restraint, but how about the next, or the one after that? The country is poorly served when the peoples' reps are continually sidestepped.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
I hear your concern. I admit that I have not been a big fan of the CINC's decisions when it comes to matters such as Syria, Libya, etc. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he and his team did their due diligence to get to their decision, whether I (we) agree or not with him. I think the NYT editorial that Bake linked poses this concern clearly, at least in my opinion.
In terms of potentially making the situation worse... Â
please note that ISIS has moved in directions that even Al Qaeda wouldn't go, which is why Al Qaeda broke off.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not actually arguing with you guys Â
please note that ISIS has moved in directions that even Al Qaeda wouldn't go, which is why Al Qaeda broke off.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
I'm not sure they're fed up with extremism. Saudi Arabia IS extremist. They (and by that I mean their political and economic elites) are fed up with a brand of extremism that threatens their survival and/or their prosperity.
Obama wouldn't have to take steps of questionable constitutionality if Congress had balls.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
RE: In terms of potentially making the situation worse... Â
please note that ISIS has moved in directions that even Al Qaeda wouldn't go, which is why Al Qaeda broke off.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
all true, but you're overlooking why they are so popular to begin with, why all the arab spring shit, why Saddam, why assad, Why mubarak, why Ghadaffi.These non-monarch tyrants have largely been disposed of.The monarchies have been more stable up to thia point.
The fact is the people of the mid-east, and at this moment the citizens of the Arab Monarchies in particular are hating on their leadership, their kings, Arab nobility, and want power in the hands of the people, all of them. Some are secular, some are not, but the ones that aren't are very skilled at co-opting any rsistance movements against these regimes, and portraying the US as the Villains that have been propping up what they label as Tyrants.The one common factor amongst this coalition is all these govts involved are Sunni Monarchies.None that aren't participated, even NATO member Turkey.
I think these monarchies have seen what has happened throughout the Mideast, and they realize that if one of them goes, they all go.I think that's part of the reason they aren't that opposed to helping Assad by proxy.The Rebel movement the US would like to see succeed in Syria is NOT the same group of rebels the Sauds and other Royal houses want to see come out on top.They have no desire to see moderate secularists' with democratic sympathies prevail.
Obama wouldn't have to take steps of questionable constitutionality if Congress had balls.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
So wrong in so many ways. Don't see what's "questionable" about anything he has done, if you have any understanding of how govt., and the war powers act works.He doesn't need any autrhorization from congress, and no congressional vote can make him withdraw forces, unless it's within the frame of the War powers act.
Specifically, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress and to justify, within 48 hours, the sending of U.S. military forces:
Into hostile circumstances where imminent involvement in those hostilities is indicated,
Into a foreign nation equipped for combat, or
In "numbers which substantially enlarge" U.S. military forces presently in the foreign region.
If forces are launched without Congressional approval, the War Powers Resolution gives a 90-day window for the president to direct troops: 60 days to continue to arm military forces, and 30 days to withdraw those forces.
He has 6 months to wrap this up if he gets no congressional approval, as long as he can make a case that he has notified Congress of his actions and his rationale within 2 days of the commencement of hostilities.
He can argue he did that when he adressed Congress a couple months ago about Strikes against ISIS.He can argue he has done it since by making a public address as Congress is not in session.It's not questionable at all, he's pretty clearly withing his Authority to do this. Congress can vote it down, but under US law he has 6 months more or less to do what he sees fir even without anny consent and absent approval from Congress. Don't know what Law you think he's breaking.No US laws anyway....
By extremism I was specifically referring to violent jihadist extremism--Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boku Harum, Al Shabab, The Talaban, Hamas, etc.
These groups overlap with Islamic Fundamentalism, such as Wahabism/Salafism as practiced and promoted by many wealthy and powerful Saudis in particular, but they aren't the same issue. The Saudis are finally beginning to show some signs that they recognize the potential of the fundamentalism they have promoted and distributed though Wahabist schools and mullahs to morph into jihadism.
Been wondering what is being used to replace them. AC130s are pretty good there too.
nothing is being used to replace them. The administration and the airforce are trying to force the F-35 buys ( which have a plethora of problems so long they need their own thread)at the expense of all other programs. The F-35 is being given the close air support billet,regardless of the fact is carries like 120 rds of 25mm ammo, and if you think any commander is going to bring that thing down below 10,000 feet to get shot at by a manpad you are mistaken. I guarantee they never do, the military would never risk losing a 250 mil+ aircraft to a 35,000 dolar shoulde fired SAM.
It's a crime what the airforce is doing.That's why Congress tried to stop the airforce from forcibly retiring all A-10s, because if they can, then Congress will have no choice but to fully fund the F-35, which is the airfocres goal. The Navy, for their part are hedging their bets, they want to deploy the Advanced super Hornet and the UCAV drones they have been testing. they don't want the F-35, is a piece of shit junk after what, 17 years of development and they still haven't conducted an arrested carrier landing yet?The Marines don't give a shit, they are already making buys on their version even without it's software and ability to use all it's hardpoints. It's restricted from making the VSTOL takeoffs and landings it was designed to, but the USMC don't care, they are getting their plane and thats that.They only reason it has VSTOL to begin with is so the Marines can claim they need their own specialized aircraft, and this is the method they seized upn in the late 60s, but it's all politics.
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not actually arguing with you guys Â
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
Wouldn't it be valuable in degrading some of the armor and vehicles that ISIS has captured and is using in Iraq/Syria?
Wouldn't it be valuable in degrading some of the armor and vehicles that ISIS has captured and is using in Iraq/Syria?
Of course. Hence my comment about it being useful against ISIL (in its current state) since it resembles an actual military in its operations rather than the insurgency of OIF.
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
Must be because of the bedbugs.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not actually arguing with you guys Â
If this was in response to my post, let me put into context my issue with Bake54.
He's a simpleton, who uses what he reads on some shitty partisan websites to make stupid comments regarding topics he barely understands beyond what a high schooler knows. He does little self research and merely parrots what he reads from some garbage websites.
Brings almost nothing to the table of any substance beyond throwing veiled political barbs regarding the decisions being made. Just as FMiC doesn't suffer fools when it comes to Game Day Threads, it annoys the shit out of me when people talk out of their asses about national security matters when it is clear they don't know shit about it and have done little to no honest research. Even the picture he posted above (from another stupid partisan website) is false as TTH stated. That's the simpleton level of contribution he brings.
Quote:
just I don't like the way we casually do this. This is not good for either party.
If you think that our nation just "casually do this," you are dumber than even I have told you regarding your simpleton understanding of how our nation come to these decisions.
Many don't agree how this administration or many other have decided to conduct military operations in the past, but the decision makers just don't casually decide to circumvent our national or even international law as you so stupidly suggest. A lot of decision-making calculus is conducted by people far more qualified than you (and obviously with more information). You don't like it just like many others don't either, and that's your prerogative. But to state that our nation just casually decide to conduct military operations show why you continue to sound like a fucking idiot whenever you jump into any of these conversations you have very little understanding of beyond reading some conservative drivel of news sites.
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
There are number of people on BBI with personal experience bordering on subject matter expertise in many areas that are discussed. And some who don't have personal experience have done much honest research to gain more insight in the nuances of such topics. These individuals bring a lot to provide substance to the discussion.
However, we also have a lot of people, who think they know what they're talking about because they watch some network news coverage or read on some partisan drivel of websites regarding topics of discussion (this can be said for the football side of the house as well). But instead of coming into a discussion to learn, they start spouting their own simplistic view of what is being discussed. When they are provided with more nuanced views by others, they don't listen but rather get into a long argument showing their lack of knowledge and much times their poorly veiled political views.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut your pie hole and learn from others. That's what good discussions are about, to learn from others. But if you decide to jump in with your simplistic view, then you're probably going to get ridiculed, especially if you double down and continue to show just how little you know of the situation.
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
Both can be amazingly wrong, as well as annoying.
and of course, there's always those who do know a lot, but can still be wrong vs those who don't know shit, but can still be right.
And, if you argue with an idiot, that only means there's two idiots arguing. One simply has more details.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
Who said anything about serving? Matter of fact, the best view points and knowledge in these discussions have been brought by those who never served, and this is based on their honest research and learning.
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
I admit I am pretty late to this party, so I am doing more reading than reacting... so maybe you can help me...
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
Eh...I'm going to call a stupid a stupid. So stop making idiotic comments (and posting false pictures to add to it) if you don't want someone to call you out on it. If you bring something of substance, then we won't have any issues.
your bullshit is called out. Don't post if you are a sensitive vagina that can't take the heat. Now you can warn me to stop trolling you
Go play in a different sandbox.
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
I'm sure there are others with far more knowledge when it comes to the international impact of the military operations currently being conducted. I can only provide what my opinion is based on what I know from my experience.
1) I don't think we necessarily had a conflict with ISIL prior to our involvement if we are to look at this in a strict sense of "conflict." However, ISIL was/is in conflict with our allies, and they pose limited terrorist threat to us and our partners. With that being said, any military involvement with the situation in ISIL will most definitely "prolong" our active role in Iraq and Syria and potentially risk increasing our active role (more boots on the ground beyond advisors). Of course as ISIL move more towards international terrorism, we will be involved more with them.
2) I'm not sure that it necessarily makes the situation worse. Sure, Saudi Arabian royals may get flak for their involvement, but how does it really make the situation really all that much worse? Most of the nations involved have already made it public that they see ISIL as a grave threat to not only their nation but to the region as a whole. So I don't think it makes it any worse than it was already.
3) This is one of those topics that I think others have already covered well with far more insight and understanding than I can provide, but here's my attempt. I don't believe that the CINC is doing anything illegal as much as politically unfavorable in the eyes of many in the public and Congress. When it comes to our own legality (national), many military operations (limited and prolonged campaigns) have been conducted without the declaration of "war" (matter of fact, the last declared war was the Korean War, no?). I believe that the CINC has the legal precedence to conduct these operations based on his authorities alone. As far as the international legality is concerned, we have conducted attacks against "terrorist" and "insurgent" groups in foreign lands with tacit approval by the ruling government. My personal view is that sometimes you just have to play outside of the international law when you're dealing with organizations/nations/etc. that are not playing by the international law as well. Is that right? No. Can I live with it? Yeah. But that's just my opinion.
And those nations have acknowledged their involvement, though that might not have happened if the US hadn't announced it.
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both
No convincing plan - ( New Window )
No prob...I'm learning as much as you on this thread from others as well.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
Quote:
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both No convincing plan - ( New Window )
Don't say I don't give credit where credit is due. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of this editorial peace, at least they make a somewhat cogent argument with a clearly stated reasoning.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
I hear your concern. I admit that I have not been a big fan of the CINC's decisions when it comes to matters such as Syria, Libya, etc. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he and his team did their due diligence to get to their decision, whether I (we) agree or not with him. I think the NYT editorial that Bake linked poses this concern clearly, at least in my opinion.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
Quote:
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
I spent some time thinking about it, and came to the conclusion it's actually for the same reason, if you're honest about it.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
I'm not sure they're fed up with extremism. Saudi Arabia IS extremist. They (and by that I mean their political and economic elites) are fed up with a brand of extremism that threatens their survival and/or their prosperity.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
The fact is the people of the mid-east, and at this moment the citizens of the Arab Monarchies in particular are hating on their leadership, their kings, Arab nobility, and want power in the hands of the people, all of them. Some are secular, some are not, but the ones that aren't are very skilled at co-opting any rsistance movements against these regimes, and portraying the US as the Villains that have been propping up what they label as Tyrants.The one common factor amongst this coalition is all these govts involved are Sunni Monarchies.None that aren't participated, even NATO member Turkey.
I think these monarchies have seen what has happened throughout the Mideast, and they realize that if one of them goes, they all go.I think that's part of the reason they aren't that opposed to helping Assad by proxy.The Rebel movement the US would like to see succeed in Syria is NOT the same group of rebels the Sauds and other Royal houses want to see come out on top.They have no desire to see moderate secularists' with democratic sympathies prevail.
Quote:
Obama wouldn't have to take steps of questionable constitutionality if Congress had balls.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
Specifically, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress and to justify, within 48 hours, the sending of U.S. military forces:
Into hostile circumstances where imminent involvement in those hostilities is indicated,
Into a foreign nation equipped for combat, or
In "numbers which substantially enlarge" U.S. military forces presently in the foreign region.
If forces are launched without Congressional approval, the War Powers Resolution gives a 90-day window for the president to direct troops: 60 days to continue to arm military forces, and 30 days to withdraw those forces.
He has 6 months to wrap this up if he gets no congressional approval, as long as he can make a case that he has notified Congress of his actions and his rationale within 2 days of the commencement of hostilities.
He can argue he did that when he adressed Congress a couple months ago about Strikes against ISIS.He can argue he has done it since by making a public address as Congress is not in session.It's not questionable at all, he's pretty clearly withing his Authority to do this. Congress can vote it down, but under US law he has 6 months more or less to do what he sees fir even without anny consent and absent approval from Congress. Don't know what Law you think he's breaking.No US laws anyway....
These groups overlap with Islamic Fundamentalism, such as Wahabism/Salafism as practiced and promoted by many wealthy and powerful Saudis in particular, but they aren't the same issue. The Saudis are finally beginning to show some signs that they recognize the potential of the fundamentalism they have promoted and distributed though Wahabist schools and mullahs to morph into jihadism.
It's a crime what the airforce is doing.That's why Congress tried to stop the airforce from forcibly retiring all A-10s, because if they can, then Congress will have no choice but to fully fund the F-35, which is the airfocres goal. The Navy, for their part are hedging their bets, they want to deploy the Advanced super Hornet and the UCAV drones they have been testing. they don't want the F-35, is a piece of shit junk after what, 17 years of development and they still haven't conducted an arrested carrier landing yet?The Marines don't give a shit, they are already making buys on their version even without it's software and ability to use all it's hardpoints. It's restricted from making the VSTOL takeoffs and landings it was designed to, but the USMC don't care, they are getting their plane and thats that.They only reason it has VSTOL to begin with is so the Marines can claim they need their own specialized aircraft, and this is the method they seized upn in the late 60s, but it's all politics.
F-35 is shit, we need to keep the A-10s.
Quote:
In comment 11879152 Great White Ghost said:
Quote:
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
I spent some time thinking about it, and came to the conclusion it's actually for the same reason, if you're honest about it.
Hey...whatever you want to say to be like me, sure thing...;)
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
but look at how goddamned big it is out of the plane!
And it fires 70 of these per second
Quote:
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
Wouldn't it be valuable in degrading some of the armor and vehicles that ISIS has captured and is using in Iraq/Syria?
Of course. Hence my comment about it being useful against ISIL (in its current state) since it resembles an actual military in its operations rather than the insurgency of OIF.
Quote:
after I spent a night in a Holiday Inn Express
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
Must be because of the bedbugs.
Quote:
In comment 11879207 RC02XX said:
Quote:
In comment 11879152 Great White Ghost said:
Quote:
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
I spent some time thinking about it, and came to the conclusion it's actually for the same reason, if you're honest about it.
Hey...whatever you want to say to be like me, sure thing...;)
Well then...that's one way to say "no."