I'll keep beating this drum - arm the Kurds. Heavily. They're the closest thing to a real ally we have in that region, they're facing an existential threat and they can fight without the training wheels required by the Iraqi Army. Between the peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurds and the YPG of the Syrian Kurds, they've proven that they can hold their own on the battlefield but they need material and supplies.
Not that it isn't without its risks, but it is, by far, the least risky option. The Kurds have something tangible to fight for - their own country. My only question is whether they could come up with the manpower to defeat ISIS. I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
The plots against the United States were discovered by the intelligence community in the past week, an intelligence source with knowledge of the matter told CNN. The source did not say what the target may have been, but said the plot involved a bomb made of a nonmetallic device, toothpaste container, and clothes dipped in explosive material. Link - ( New Window )
President Dwight D. Eisenhower: "A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. … That isn't preventive war; that is war. I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
just I don't like the way we casually do this. This is not good for either party.
I hear you. I really do. I'm totally a rule of law guy.The thing is like greg said, go strong or not at all. We blew 100 million in munitions yesterday, easy, 80 mil just on the Tomohawks. We killed about 28 ISIS guys and 8 civilians by my intel.That's a shitty bargain.Half a moron knows you can't do shit with airpower alone. and respecting Syrian Sov or not, we will never be putting US troops in syria, the russians won't allow iot. Having said that it's clear UIS special forces are already there , as some videos were clearly taken on the ground from US troops as can be heard by their comments on the tapes. Also, some strikes were clearly from Helocopter gunships, so someone somewhere nearby is basing US choppers there. They didn't come from a US amphib.
I tried to type in 90 days under the war powers act that the president can commit troops without a say so from congress, not () days.
Numbers i compiled myself from dif news outlets that cited casualty counts at dif locations. I imagine they did more material damage than anything, TBH.Seriously though, what did CNN give for numbers?
If this is true, throw most of the discussion above in the garbage. Â
There has been a lot of speculations regarding accleration of the timing of the attack. The timing of the strike was apparently accellerated because of the need to destroy a chunk of the Al Qaeda afilliate, Khorasan.
Quote:
Airstrikes in Syria against the extremist Khorasan group were prompted by planning for an “imminent” terror attack on U.S. soil, the Pentagon said.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan.
Numbers i compiled myself from dif news outlets that cited casualty counts at dif locations. I imagine they did more material damage than anything, TBH.Seriously though, what did CNN give for numbers?
Got the number from Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has apparently got 200 observers in country and been giving casualty counts since 2011. 70 ISIS killed and 300 wounded. No estimate of civilian casualties.
RE: If this is true, throw most of the discussion above in the garbage. Â
There has been a lot of speculations regarding accleration of the timing of the attack. The timing of the strike was apparently accellerated because of the need to destroy a chunk of the Al Qaeda afilliate, Khorasan.
Quote:
Airstrikes in Syria against the extremist Khorasan group were prompted by planning for an “imminent” terror attack on U.S. soil, the Pentagon said.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan. Link - ( New Window )
I'm sure that was an important consideration, but I think the sudden flood of refugees played a part as well.
to attack a sovereign nation and this is beyond outrageous. If he does, then he should tell America what it is.
Except that we did not attack that sovereign nation. We attacked an outlaw terrorist group which that nation is also at war with. A fine point perhaps, but the way you framed it is calibrated to paint a picture that skews the reality.
that's a distinction without a difference. We're bombing Syria. That should mean we get permission from Syria to do that. I'm guessing Assad is not too happy with us on one hand and on the other he's happy that we're doing his dirty work.
And whomever was talking about Khorasan, just note that the campaign includes striking ISIS targets as well. So my original comment holds.
Again, I support this venture. It's just that it creates an ability for a president to launch attacks without congressional consent. I think that is very bad. Not that I am giving Congress a pass either. They punted on Libya and they punted on this. Feel free to disagree
there's a difference between attacking a nation and attacking a terrorist group that said nation is also fighting, then there's not much more I can say. Now, do I think it should have been done differently, or do I think the legal basis might be shakey? Maybe, but to say there's no difference is, well .... (speechless)
" As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”
It’s unclear how many soldiers will be sent, or how long they will deploy. Division headquarters average between 100 and 500 soldiers and deploy for one year."
Mission creep?Sounds like we're going back to war in Iraq.You don't deploy a division HQ unless the Division is going to follow.
I'll be shocked if he does this the right way. On the other hand, if he is, then where was the debate on it?
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.
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 )
Don't get me wrong we need to get rid of these guys.
Not that it isn't without its risks, but it is, by far, the least risky option. The Kurds have something tangible to fight for - their own country. My only question is whether they could come up with the manpower to defeat ISIS. I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
Link - ( New Window )
I tried to type in 90 days under the war powers act that the president can commit troops without a say so from congress, not () days.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan.
Link - ( New Window )
Got the number from Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has apparently got 200 observers in country and been giving casualty counts since 2011. 70 ISIS killed and 300 wounded. No estimate of civilian casualties.
Quote:
Airstrikes in Syria against the extremist Khorasan group were prompted by planning for an “imminent” terror attack on U.S. soil, the Pentagon said.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan. Link - ( New Window )
I'm sure that was an important consideration, but I think the sudden flood of refugees played a part as well.
Except that we did not attack that sovereign nation. We attacked an outlaw terrorist group which that nation is also at war with. A fine point perhaps, but the way you framed it is calibrated to paint a picture that skews the reality.
And whomever was talking about Khorasan, just note that the campaign includes striking ISIS targets as well. So my original comment holds.
Again, I support this venture. It's just that it creates an ability for a president to launch attacks without congressional consent. I think that is very bad. Not that I am giving Congress a pass either. They punted on Libya and they punted on this. Feel free to disagree
via Army Times.
" As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”
It’s unclear how many soldiers will be sent, or how long they will deploy. Division headquarters average between 100 and 500 soldiers and deploy for one year."
Mission creep?Sounds like we're going back to war in Iraq.You don't deploy a division HQ unless the Division is going to follow.
I'll be shocked if he does this the right way. On the other hand, if he is, then where was the debate on it?
Don't get me wrong we need to get rid of these guys.
This picture is complete bullshit.
Here's a link to a site that has this same picture from january 31, 2014.
http://www.diariodenavarra.es/noticias/mas_actualidad/internacional/2014/01/31/durante_ginebra_han_muerto_menos_800_personas_145820_1032.html
Link - ( New Window )
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.
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.