• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mickey Rat

U.S. warplane shoots down Syrian jet

95 posts in this topic

Trump, making America great again by shooting down a Syrian jet while supporting the "freedom fighters" as they destroy that country. 

Quote

 

The convoluted war zone in Syria grew more complicated Sunday with the downing of a government warplane by an American jet defending U.S.-backed coalition forces battling the Islamic State and, for the first time, direct action against the insurgent terror group by Iran, which fired ballistic missiles at ISIS targets in Syria.

The American shoot down of the Syrian jet took place near the Syrian town of Ja’Din, located south of Tabqa dam, the coalition’s main logistics and air support hub for the ongoing assault to drive the terror group known as ISIS or ISIL from their self-styled capital of Raqqa, according to a Pentagon statement. 

“Pro Syrian regime forces” had launched an attack on Ja’Din Sunday afternoon, retaking the town from the Syrian Democratic Forces or SDF, the network of Arab and Kurdish militias tasked by the U.S. coalition with liberating Raqqa. 

U.S. warplanes carried out several low passes over the Ja’Din, halting the attack by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. 

It remains unclear whether the regime forces that led the assault on Ja’Din were government troops or Iranian paramilitaries sent in by Tehran to support the regime.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/18/us-warplanes-shoot-down-syrian-jet/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our military is shooting weapons at people and taking human lives. 

The decision enter the USA into a shooting war is a power reserved to the legislative branch of our government 

 

1. Who authorized this military action?

2.which team is the USA team?

3. Who is the enemy and why are we killing them

4. What is the positive result we expect from the killing?? 

 Note : seriously!! I am a fairly well educated and informed American. I do not know why it is legal to go to war without the consent of Congress. 

I do not know who we are killing, who we are protecting, or why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

I do not know who we are killing, who we are protecting, or why. 

Have no fear...you are no more confused or ignorant than Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Our military is shooting weapons at people and taking human lives. 

The decision enter the USA into a shooting war is a power reserved to the legislative branch of our government 

 

1. Who authorized this military action?

2.which team is the USA team?

3. Who is the enemy and why are we killing them

4. What is the positive result we expect from the killing?? 

 Note : seriously!! I am a fairly well educated and informed American. I do not know why it is legal to go to war without the consent of Congress. 

I do not know who we are killing, who we are protecting, or why. 

1. Congress did, in 2001

2. The ones we're pretending are not terrorists at the moment.

3. The terrorists. Because they're terrorists.

4. Fewer terrorists, allegedly, though some of us suspect each death generates a few more.

Seriously, this has been the situation since 2001 through two administrations. You didn't notice until now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have successfully avoided the facts of the matter. No surprise. 

 

The Syrian jet was bombing American forces and their allies. Shooting it down was self defense.

Those forces are fighting ISIS, not Assad.

 

I am really sorry to take the wind out of your feigned outrage with facts, but its something you should get used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sorry, I think I must have missed the part about why American Forces are in Syria. 

Is this because Syrians did 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

The Syrian jet was bombing American forces and their allies. Shooting it down was self defense.

Those forces are fighting ISIS, not Assad.

Is it really defence when you are illegally supporting terrorists in an attempt to "change the regime"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you people ever make a coherent point, or is it really all rhetoric?

 

I have no idea if Syria was involved in 9/11.

But it's not 2001 anymore either.  In 2017 ISIS is a direct and immediate threat to our interests and safety world wide.  

The problem stems from the Obama's and Clinton's removing dictators and forcing regime change in the ME.  Those dictators, as bad as they were, dis some good in keeping the really bad people that are in their countries in check.  But no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Is it really defence when you are illegally supporting terrorists in an attempt to "change the regime"?

What terrorists are being supported by the new administration? 

Unless you're talking about Obama, who definitely used the US taxpayer to fund terrorism, I don't follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Annihilator said:

I have no idea if Syria was involved in 9/11

They must have been involved because the US only invades countries that did 9/11 ... you know like Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, see, Trump called for regime change in Syria and drew this red line that Assad maybe crossed and the russians looked like heroes when they got the chemical weapons out except they didn't so we gotsta kill people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Well, see, Trump called for regime change in Syria and drew this red line that Assad maybe crossed and the russians looked like heroes when they got the chemical weapons out except they didn't so we gotsta kill people.

 

 

I don't recall Trump calling for regime change, or demanding Assad step down.

I recall Trump sending a bunch if Tomahawks up their ass and demanding they never use chemical weapons again, or else.

 

The facts have snowballed in your head because of your rabid dislike for the President and your fatal error of letting yourself be brainwashed by the MSM.

My advice, think for yourself, only react and respond to facts.  Some people call it "thinking critically" or "being objective".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

I recall Trump sending a bunch if Tomahawks up their ass and demanding they never use chemical weapons again,

Were those the ones that all landed on an empty airfield that was back in use the next day?

lk040917_color.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, random said:

Were those the ones that all landed on an empty airfield that was back in use the next day?

lk040917_color.jpg

So which is it?

 

You say you don't want a live fire war in Syria, whilst in the same breath chastising Trump for taking only a warning shot that would keep us out of it.

If it wasn't so obvious that you were suffering from TDS, I'd be truly confused as to why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You deliberately invent things I was supposed to have said.  If it wasn't so obvious that you are suffering from trolling disease I'd be truly confused as to why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original point is solid. Where's the authorization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Original point is solid. Where's the authorization?

Same place it has been for the past 16 years. See post 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

Same place it has been for the past 16 years. See post 5.

And it's been a stretch the whole time. At least there's a bill in congress to "declare war" on ISIS.  It's a bit of partisan fuckery but better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a poll anywhere for most wound up incoherent sock for 2017? I thought it was eazy but man this "Annihilator

" sure amps it up to a new level of post 911 goodlieness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

And it's been a stretch the whole time. At least there's a bill in congress to "declare war" on ISIS.  It's a bit of partisan fuckery but better than nothing.

So it is good to sell $$$ of arms (again) to the revised leadership crowd that flew planes into American skyscrapers. ( or just got blamed for it depending on how shiney the tinfoil hat is)

It is bad to allow the folks who were previously on the outer of the other  towelheads of mass destraction, now being sold guns, as they do not openly agree with unspoken oil for the multinational ExoRussian  Empire?

Release the kraken!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

And it's been a stretch the whole time....

I agree. It's one reason I won't vote for either half of the Duopoly. That shit has been OK with both halves for 16 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six months in and it looks like we have another trillion or two to add to the deficit. Thanks, O Great Orange One.

 

"Russia has said it will treat US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its air forces are present as "targets" amid a diplomatic row caused by the downing of a Syrian jet. 

The country's defence ministry said the change in position would apply to all aircraft operating as part of the US-backed coalition west of the Euphrates River. 

It will also suspend a hotline between Russia and the US set up to prevent mid-air collisions. 
... 
The US did not use its communication channel with Russia ahead of the downing of the Syrian government warplane, the ministry was quoted as saying, accusing the US of a "deliberate failure to make good on its commitments" under the de-confliction deal."

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-shoot-down-all-flying-objects-in-syria-us-regime-warplane-isis-terror-a7797101.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Our military is shooting weapons at people and taking human lives. 

The decision enter the USA into a shooting war is a power reserved to the legislative branch of our government 

 

1. Who authorized this military action?

2.which team is the USA team?

3. Who is the enemy and why are we killing them

4. What is the positive result we expect from the killing?? 

 Note : seriously!! I am a fairly well educated and informed American. I do not know why it is legal to go to war without the consent of Congress. 

I do not know who we are killing, who we are protecting, or why. 

Didn't Trump say he was encouraging our military command to make tactical (at least!) decisions in the Middle East without asking for permission with White House?

So here we go, Medals or Retirement?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Six months in and it looks like we have another trillion or two to add to the deficit. Thanks, O Great Orange One.

 

"Russia has said it will treat US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its air forces are present as "targets" amid a diplomatic row caused by the downing of a Syrian jet. 

The country's defence ministry said the change in position would apply to all aircraft operating as part of the US-backed coalition west of the Euphrates River. 

It will also suspend a hotline between Russia and the US set up to prevent mid-air collisions. 
... 
The US did not use its communication channel with Russia ahead of the downing of the Syrian government warplane, the ministry was quoted as saying, accusing the US of a "deliberate failure to make good on its commitments" under the de-confliction deal."

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-shoot-down-all-flying-objects-in-syria-us-regime-warplane-isis-terror-a7797101.html

 

 

Schizophrenic US foreign policy continues unabated under the leadership of orange haired clown.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...accusing the US of a "deliberate failure to make good on its commitments" under the de-confliction deal."

??

I thought the "de-confliction" deal was already cancelled  -  ?  -  by Russia, after Trump tomahawked the Syrian airfield.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good war removes attention from the fact the Gropenfuhrer is unfit for the job. 

IMG_2850.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Annihilator said:

I don't recall Trump calling for regime change, or demanding Assad step down.

I recall Trump sending a bunch if Tomahawks up their ass and demanding they never use chemical weapons again, or else.

 

You are correct in that Trump has no coherent stated policy or objectives WRT Syria, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, badlatitude said:

"Russia has said it will treat US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its air forces are present as "targets" amid a diplomatic row caused by the downing of a Syrian jet. 

I hope Russia sent the threat in writing, so that the Trump Administration will remember it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, frenchie said:

"...accusing the US of a "deliberate failure to make good on its commitments" under the de-confliction deal."

??

I thought the "de-confliction" deal was already cancelled  -  ?  -  by Russia, after Trump tomahawked the Syrian airfield.

 

I was following it at the time and it was re-instated the same day. Had to be, I would guess, due to the on-going ops. 

 It was reported in the last couple weeks that Trump is letting Mattis and Dunford call the shots in the region, described as a "streamlining" of the decision making for tactical reasons. There is a certain reason for this change...Obama's administration had the NSC mico-managing things, and our NSC has grown exponentially to a large number of people. We know all about the inherent flaws of committees. 

 It's patently obvious Trump is not competent to establish policy and handle tactical decisions in the region, so it appears he was at least smart enough to recognize this and has utterly delegated the task to our military leaders. They, in turn, are strident adherents to the notion that we must help the Saudis prevent the Shia Crescent, the Saudis are for whatever reason terribly worried about a direct link for Iran, through Iran (another now-Shiite state- thanks to George II) right to the Levant, The best place in the ME, and coveted by all desert Arabs since there were such. The Saudis have a long range dream of Wahabbitizing the Levant, Iran is dedicated to keeping it at least a multi-confessional area, and if our Evangelicals had a lick of sense they would actually support Iran in this. So it goes....

 But I digress. To the topic at hand, the Syrians are pushing the envelop towards re-establishing their border with Iraq and we are pushing the Kurdish SDF to include that area within their desired end-state. Both sides have been jockeying for position for over a month. Push is coming to shove. We will see if anyone blinks. Both sides have problems with having a war between the SDF and the Syrian Army....and by proxy that would be a war between the US and Russia. 

 Make that BIG problems. 

   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The US Gov’t Just Committed an Act of War.
One notes that the War criminals of Washington DC has absolute no right or authority to even be in Syria. Their being there means they have invaded a country which has not attacked USA/Washington DC or America. This type act is recognized world wide as an International war crime.
So Washington DC’s excuse that they did it because Syria was attacking terrorist that Washington Dc, in a international war crime, sent to try to murder the Syrian head of State and occupy Syria, is the Cognitive Dissonance hypocrisy of US pedophilic ass holes.
This was an international war crime by international criminals, nothing more, nothing less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, joydivision said:

 The US Gov’t Just Committed an Act of War.
One notes that the War criminals of Washington DC has absolute no right or authority to even be in Syria. Their being there means they have invaded a country which has not attacked USA/Washington DC or America. This type act is recognized world wide as an International war crime.
So Washington DC’s excuse that they did it because Syria was attacking terrorist that Washington Dc, in a international war crime, sent to try to murder the Syrian head of State and occupy Syria, is the Cognitive Dissonance hypocrisy of US pedophilic ass holes.
This was an international war crime by international criminals, nothing more, nothing less!

Well...we did shoot down a Syrian AF jet in what is technically "Syria"...but then again it is an area of Syria which had been taken over by DAESH and has been held by them for a couple years now.

 Prosecute us?

Lotsa luck with that counselor.  Let me know when the prosecutions start for you guys over Libya, EU boy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Well...we did shoot down a Syrian AF jet in what is technically "Syria"...but then again it is an area of Syria which had been taken over by DAESH and has been held by them for a couple years now.

 Prosecute us?

Lotsa luck with that counselor.  Let me know when the prosecutions start for you guys over Libya, EU boy. 

So if Daesh has held that part of town for some time, that clearly means that the US was preventing the Syrian AF from bombing Daesh.  Something that everyone who has read up on what is really happening already knows, that the US/Saudis are funding Daesh/ISIS.

As usual, the US Government are lying cunts.  Running a proxy war because every other country they have directly invaded has kicked their fucking arses out of town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

You are correct in that Trump has no coherent stated policy or objectives WRT Syria, at least.

Aaaannnnd that is a change how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Annihilator said:

I don't recall Trump calling for regime change, or demanding Assad step down.

I recall Trump sending a bunch if Tomahawks up their ass and demanding they never use chemical weapons again, or else.

 

The facts have snowballed in your head because of your rabid dislike for the President and your fatal error of letting yourself be brainwashed by the MSM.

My advice, think for yourself, only react and respond to facts.  Some people call it "thinking critically" or "being objective".

Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

I was following it at the time and it was re-instated the same day. Had to be, I would guess, due to the on-going ops. 

 It was reported in the last couple weeks that Trump is letting Mattis and Dunford call the shots in the region, described as a "streamlining" of the decision making for tactical reasons. There is a certain reason for this change...Obama's administration had the NSC mico-managing things, and our NSC has grown exponentially to a large number of people. We know all about the inherent flaws of committees. 

 It's patently obvious Trump is not competent to establish policy and handle tactical decisions in the region, so it appears he was at least smart enough to recognize this and has utterly delegated the task to our military leaders. They, in turn, are strident adherents to the notion that we must help the Saudis prevent the Shia Crescent, the Saudis are for whatever reason terribly worried about a direct link for Iran, through Iran (another now-Shiite state- thanks to George II) right to the Levant, The best place in the ME, and coveted by all desert Arabs since there were such. The Saudis have a long range dream of Wahabbitizing the Levant, Iran is dedicated to keeping it at least a multi-confessional area, and if our Evangelicals had a lick of sense they would actually support Iran in this. So it goes....

 But I digress. To the topic at hand, the Syrians are pushing the envelop towards re-establishing their border with Iraq and we are pushing the Kurdish SDF to include that area within their desired end-state. Both sides have been jockeying for position for over a month. Push is coming to shove. We will see if anyone blinks. Both sides have problems with having a war between the SDF and the Syrian Army....and by proxy that would be a war between the US and Russia. 

 Make that BIG problems. 

they appear to have succeeded at securing a link back to the Iraqi border in fact - marooning amerca's carefully-trained terrorists in the middle of a useless desert on the border of Jordan.

A very suspiciously competent military manoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

but then again it is an area of Syria which had been taken over by DAESH and has been held by them for a couple years now.

 

Like when the Western powers used the training camps located in the Af-Pak border regions to train and arm Afghan “Mujahideen” against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan? Yep, funny how history repeats itself, don't ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

Like when the Western powers used the training camps located in the Af-Pak border regions to train and arm Afghan “Mujahideen” against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan? Yep, funny how history repeats itself, don't ya think?

Charlie Wilson's war? Sorta. But in that case everything we did was run through the Paki intelligence services. Bin Laden was not part of that. The whole notion that we are responsible for that guy is wrong. He was directly funded by Saudis. The current situation is quite different in another ways. Our interest in cock-blocking the the USSR in Afghanistan was prompted by the Cold War, stopping that brand of communism, and that shit is long gone. We didn't give a rats ass about religion in that one. In this one it is essentially a religion fueled conflict top to bottom. It is also about an order of magnitude more complex. There was no DAESH, Syria and Afghanistan are vastly different.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure history is repeating anything, the same crowd is still going.

Afghanistan -> Serbia -> Chechnya -> Afghanistan -> Iraq (accidentally) -> Libya -> Syria

There has only been one main strain of terrorists moving around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Charlie Wilson's war? Sorta. But in that case everything we did was run through the Paki intelligence services. Bin Laden was not part of that. The whole notion that we are responsible for that guy is wrong. He was directly funded by Saudis. The current situation is quite different in another ways. Our interest in cock-blocking the the USSR in Afghanistan was prompted by the Cold War, stopping that brand of communism, and that shit is long gone. We didn't give a rats ass about religion in that one. In this one it is essentially a religion fueled conflict top to bottom. It is also about an order of magnitude more complex. There was no DAESH, Syria and Afghanistan are vastly different.  

Good movie....sometimes YCMTSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, frenchie said:

"...accusing the US of a "deliberate failure to make good on its commitments" under the de-confliction deal."

??

I thought the "de-confliction" deal was already cancelled  -  ?  -  by Russia, after Trump tomahawked the Syrian airfield.

 

I thought I read that somewhere as well. Maybe it was just a "report"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed it in this thread, but there are a number of really knowledgable people posting here so ... why is the US in Syria shooting down their aircraft?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.  The US has trained AUS that it's only safe to bomb brown people if there are no enemy aircraft about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Not as good as the book. 

Only a rare few movies are as good as, or better than the book..... "JAWS!" for one..... "The Wizard of OZ." another.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, My name is Legion said:

I thought I read that somewhere as well. Maybe it was just a "report"?

Was the source unnamed?  You gotta have that to make things believable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tough guys are getting worked up. I just hope they deal with how to pay for this excursion before it gets going.

"U.S. senators called on Congress on Tuesday to take back its authority to determine whether the country goes to war, saying recent U.S. strikes in Syria were not covered by existing authorizations for the use of military force. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has begun considering legislation that would cover military action in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Yemen against the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups. 

"I have always believed that it's important for Congress to exercise its constitutional role to authorize the use of force," the committee's chairman, Republican Senator Bob Corker, told a hearing on Tuesday. 

As President Donald Trump has ordered stepped-up military activity in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, members of Congress also want Trump to present a strategy for defeating Islamic State and other militant groups."

  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-military-idUSKBN19B2MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The tough guys are getting worked up. I just hope they deal with how to pay for this excursion before it gets going.

"U.S. senators called on Congress on Tuesday to take back its authority to determine whether the country goes to war, saying recent U.S. strikes in Syria were not covered by existing authorizations for the use of military force. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has begun considering legislation that would cover military action in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Yemen against the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups. 

"I have always believed that it's important for Congress to exercise its constitutional role to authorize the use of force," the committee's chairman, Republican Senator Bob Corker, told a hearing on Tuesday. 

As President Donald Trump has ordered stepped-up military activity in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, members of Congress also want Trump to present a strategy for defeating Islamic State and other militant groups."

  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-military-idUSKBN19B2MM

 

I think Mattis thinks we can kick Russia's ass without breaking a sweat, and I think he thinks the Russians know it too. The problem is, they have all sorts of ways to " win" geopolitical conflict and that includes breaking up communications and confidence just like they broke up our politics.

If the Republican leaders in Congress are uneasy about Trump starting a real-live shooting war, then I congratulate them on figuring it out. They're a little slow, but better late than never.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

The tough guys are getting worked up. I just hope they deal with how to pay for this excursion before it gets going.

"U.S. senators called on Congress on Tuesday to take back its authority to determine whether the country goes to war, saying recent U.S. strikes in Syria were not covered by existing authorizations for the use of military force. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has begun considering legislation that would cover military action in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Yemen against the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups. 

"I have always believed that it's important for Congress to exercise its constitutional role to authorize the use of force," the committee's chairman, Republican Senator Bob Corker, told a hearing on Tuesday. 

As President Donald Trump has ordered stepped-up military activity in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, members of Congress also want Trump to present a strategy for defeating Islamic State and other militant groups."

  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-military-idUSKBN19B2MM

Wait, I thought he already kicked ISIS's ass and they had been defeated?  You know, as soon as he took power. that was the promise, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Wait, I thought he already kicked ISIS's ass and they had been defeated?  You know, as soon as he took power. that was the promise, right?

Golden Boy Kushner is working on it. Should be ready any minute now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some are forgetting here is the SDF has US forces embedded within them. We will not allow someone to bomb them...especially from the air. The Syrians attacked the SDF in full knowledge of this. We must bear in mind the decision making process going on on the part of those guys. What were they thinking? 

 Could have been a mistake. They might have thought the SDF was DAESH. One batch of scruffy guys in used US camo looks very much like another after all. But if so I would've  expected them to apologize, albeit somewhat obliquely. That didn't happen. They copped a bit of a 'tude instead, so it was most likely a test of our resolve and the Kurdish SD. Jeff can tell us if and SU-22 is worth anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19 June 2017 at 9:11 PM, random said:

They must have been involved because the US only invades countries that did 9/11 ... you know like Iraq.

I thought The GoP, the NRA and the John Birch society were behind 911? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are people in PA who were 100% behind the invasion of Iraq at the time.  I know this because they have told me.  They watched with revengeful pleasure as the bombs a rockets fell on Baghdad.  Only to gradually realise that "hey ... WTF did they have to do with 9/11?  Mmmmm".

However these same people still refuse to accept that the same people who fooled them for the Iraq invasion, are still fooling them about 9/11.  Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark K said:

 Could have been a mistake. They might have thought the SDF was DAESH. One batch of scruffy guys in used US camo looks very much like another after all. But if so I would've  expected them to apologize, albeit somewhat obliquely. That didn't happen. They copped a bit of a 'tude instead, so it was most likely a test of our resolve and the Kurdish SD. Jeff can tell us if and SU-22 is worth anything. 

america has been quite happy bombing SAA bases in apparent support of IS ground ops. I wouldn't be expecting any apologies to invading forces.

 In this instance, I think they're shitty about the SAA doing an end-run around their forces to the Iraqi border, and this is their subtle reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Battlecheese said:

america has been quite happy bombing SAA bases in apparent support of IS ground ops. I wouldn't be expecting any apologies to invading forces.

 In this instance, I think they're shitty about the SAA doing an end-run around their forces to the Iraqi border, and this is their subtle reply.

One base, not bases, and only as a demonstration against the use of CW. In apparent support of IS ground troops is just plain ignorant. It's only apparent to those who wish it to be so. People who actually follow events know the support is incidental. One has to be Random-dishonest or stupid to believe we desire an IS. Get a grip. 

 Yes, they are shitty about it. Our leaders have bi-partisan consensus that we wish a buffer-state between Syria and Iraq. This is as the Israelis and the Saudis wish so the tail has spoken, we will wag.

It appears Mattis has given up on the Free Syrian Army and is now focusing on using the Kurds to achieve our goals. If I were the Syrian government I'd let that be and hash things out with the Kurds after we leave. The Kurds are probably only going along with it because they know they will lose a lot less people in the process of destroying the IS with our help than without. I doubt they wish to hold sway over Arabs outside of their traditional areas myself. They are only pushing into them because that is where IS is and they are sure as can be that beast must be totally destroyed. Not a good bunch to have as neighbors. Once this is over they should pull back from those areas and also attempt to make friends with Syria. It is extremely unlikely they will agree to march on Damascus or anything like that. 

Trying to attack them with our AF on scene and embedded Green Berets living with them is likely to prove fruitless at best and Catastrophically Bad is totally in this deck of cards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they drop a jet and a drone and ignore where ISIS gets it's money?  Ah so they need Money to buy weapons with ... from the US ... who would have thought?

No wonder Putin bombed the fuck out of them at the first opportunity.

Why Is The U.S. Reluctant To Bomb ISIS Oil Fields?

There has been some revealing new information coming out recently regarding the strategy against ISIS. One aspect many find troubling is the apparent failure of U.S. and coalition forces to sufficiently target and destroy oil infrastructure located in ISIS territory, which accounts for a significant portion of the terror group’s annual income. The argument goes, if we want to impact their operations, we should target their primary sources of income, and choke off their operational funds. So, why does ISIS oil infrastructure still stand? Is this the result of an intelligence failure? Negligence? Or, is there a more purposeful reason?

Using data from the Department of Defense, we can see the targeting of oil infrastructure has indeed been a relatively low priority. Buildings and military positions receive the bulk of coalition attention, and only 260 oil-related targets have been destroyed since operations began, out of 16,075 targets damaged or destroyed. And, we now know just how many of these oil-related targets remain. So, what reason could coalition forces have for holding off?

 

We now know with a high degree of certainty that ISIS receives the majority of its oil income selling unrefined crude, at the pump. There was some idea this was the case, but now it is more certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

One base, not bases, and only as a demonstration against the use of CW. In apparent support of IS ground troops is just plain ignorant. It's only apparent to those who wish it to be so. People who actually follow events know the support is incidental. One has to be Random-dishonest or stupid to believe we desire an IS. Get a grip. 

Not the recent missile attack, the one last september.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2016_Deir_ez-Zor_air_raid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why the USAF is shooting down Syrian aircraft in Syrian air space?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

So they drop a jet and a drone and ignore where ISIS gets it's money?  Ah so they need Money to buy weapons with ... from the US ... who would have thought?

No wonder Putin bombed the fuck out of them at the first opportunity.

Why Is The U.S. Reluctant To Bomb ISIS Oil Fields?

There has been some revealing new information coming out recently regarding the strategy against ISIS. One aspect many find troubling is the apparent failure of U.S. and coalition forces to sufficiently target and destroy oil infrastructure located in ISIS territory, which accounts for a significant portion of the terror group’s annual income. The argument goes, if we want to impact their operations, we should target their primary sources of income, and choke off their operational funds. So, why does ISIS oil infrastructure still stand? Is this the result of an intelligence failure? Negligence? Or, is there a more purposeful reason?

Using data from the Department of Defense, we can see the targeting of oil infrastructure has indeed been a relatively low priority. Buildings and military positions receive the bulk of coalition attention, and only 260 oil-related targets have been destroyed since operations began, out of 16,075 targets damaged or destroyed. And, we now know just how many of these oil-related targets remain. So, what reason could coalition forces have for holding off?

 

We now know with a high degree of certainty that ISIS receives the majority of its oil income selling unrefined crude, at the pump. There was some idea this was the case, but now it is more certain.

Big fonts and colours! GP's back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2017 at 7:07 PM, Annihilator said:

Do you people ever make a coherent point, or is it really all rhetoric?

 

I have no idea if Syria was involved in 9/11.

But it's not 2001 anymore either.  In 2017 ISIS is a direct and immediate threat to our interests and safety world wide.  

The problem stems from the Obama's and Clinton's removing dictators and forcing regime change in the ME.  Those dictators, as bad as they were, dis some good in keeping the really bad people that are in their countries in check.  But no more.

What about Bush?  Was his removal of two dictators ok and did not contribute to the rise of daesh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The tough guys are getting worked up. I just hope they deal with how to pay for this excursion before it gets going.

"U.S. senators called on Congress on Tuesday to take back its authority to determine whether the country goes to war, saying recent U.S. strikes in Syria were not covered by existing authorizations for the use of military force. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has begun considering legislation that would cover military action in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Yemen against the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups. 

"I have always believed that it's important for Congress to exercise its constitutional role to authorize the use of force," the committee's chairman, Republican Senator Bob Corker, told a hearing on Tuesday. 

As President Donald Trump has ordered stepped-up military activity in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, members of Congress also want Trump to present a strategy for defeating Islamic State and other militant groups."

  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-military-idUSKBN19B2MM

Looks like the Senate is growing a spine after all.....  Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mark K said:

What some are forgetting here is the SDF has US forces embedded within them. We will not allow someone to bomb them...especially from the air. The Syrians attacked the SDF in full knowledge of this. We must bear in mind the decision making process going on on the part of those guys. What were they thinking? 

 Could have been a mistake. They might have thought the SDF was DAESH. One batch of scruffy guys in used US camo looks very much like another after all. But if so I would've  expected them to apologize, albeit somewhat obliquely. That didn't happen. They copped a bit of a 'tude instead, so it was most likely a test of our resolve and the Kurdish SD. Jeff can tell us if and SU-22 is worth anything. 

Correctamundo.  I think we already told the Rooshians and the syrians a couple of weeks ago to stop messing around dropping bombs near our forces or letting any of their ground troops get too close to our SF guys.  We popped a few on the ground who got too close recently, IIRC.  So this shouldn't come as too much of a shock to anyone, especially assad and puti.  

And no the SU-22 is not worth a whole lot these days, as evadent.  But they can drop bombs, even if inaccurately, they can be effective.  Close still does count in horseshoes, hand grenades and 750 kg unguided gravity bombs when you're on the receiving end.  

As a side note, the Navy Super Hornet that shot down the Sukhoi flew off the aircraft carrier the USS George Bush.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

One base, not bases, and only as a demonstration against the use of CW. In apparent support of IS ground troops is just plain ignorant. It's only apparent to those who wish it to be so. People who actually follow events know the support is incidental. One has to be Random-dishonest or stupid to believe we desire an IS. Get a grip. 

 Yes, they are shitty about it. Our leaders have bi-partisan consensus that we wish a buffer-state between Syria and Iraq. This is as the Israelis and the Saudis wish so the tail has spoken, we will wag.

It appears Mattis has given up on the Free Syrian Army and is now focusing on using the Kurds to achieve our goals. If I were the Syrian government I'd let that be and hash things out with the Kurds after we leave. The Kurds are probably only going along with it because they know they will lose a lot less people in the process of destroying the IS with our help than without. I doubt they wish to hold sway over Arabs outside of their traditional areas myself. They are only pushing into them because that is where IS is and they are sure as can be that beast must be totally destroyed. Not a good bunch to have as neighbors. Once this is over they should pull back from those areas and also attempt to make friends with Syria. It is extremely unlikely they will agree to march on Damascus or anything like that. 

Trying to attack them with our AF on scene and embedded Green Berets living with them is likely to prove fruitless at best and Catastrophically Bad is totally in this deck of cards.  

As usual Mark, you succinctly and correctly sum up the state of play.  

My only bone to pick with your assessment is with the bolded above.......  you seem to be under the mistaken impression that "Randumb-dishonest" and "Randumb stupid" exist independently.  I would suggest otherwise.....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US Intelligence Agency response to ISIS getting most of their money from selling oil.

I can't see any oil wells or truck convoys!!!!

 

businessman-blindfolded-stretching-his-a

 

Russian solution to ISIS to getting most of their money from selling oil.

hqdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

What about Bush?  Was his removal of two dictators ok and did not contribute to the rise of daesh?

 

Of course it's a contributing factor.

Do you think I would just blindly support a politicians actions no matter what since they are a member of my political party?

Only morally corrupt Demonrats do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

As usual Mark, you succinctly and correctly sum up the state of play.  

My only bone to pick with your assessment is with the bolded above.......  you seem to be under the mistaken impression that "Randumb-dishonest" and "Randumb stupid" exist independently.  I would suggest otherwise.....  

I struggled with that a bit....but in the end I am forced to throw in the towel. "Not mutually exclusive" couldn't cut that brand of musTARD either. They ARE synonymous.  Good catch. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil wells?   What oil wells!

businessman-blindfolded-stretching-his-a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

Does anyone have a problem with these two bills? They seem reasonable enough at first glance.

Unfortunately they don't seem to be going anywhere.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/608

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/532

 

Actually, yeah - I do.  I don't think it should name specific groups, it should instead reference an artifact that is a listing of all known organizations that are engaged in terrorist activity against the US or its allies.  The other issue, though, is that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing that happens every once in a while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
8 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

Does anyone have a problem with these two bills? They seem reasonable enough at first glance.

Unfortunately they don't seem to be going anywhere.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/608

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/532

 

Actually, yeah - I do.  I don't think it should name specific groups, it should instead reference an artifact that is a listing of all known organizations that are engaged in terrorist activity against the US or its allies.  The other issue, though, is that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing that happens every once in a while. 

It certainly gives the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) a lot of power... essentially the power of waging war. But IMHO it's a good idea to draw firm lines around what we (the USA) should not do, and who we should not arm.

I did not devote a lot of time to studying the two, how much difference is there?

-DSK

n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It certainly gives the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) a lot of power... essentially the power of waging war. But IMHO it's a good idea to draw firm lines around what we (the USA) should not do, and who we should not arm.

I did not devote a lot of time to studying the two, how much difference is there?

-DSK

n

I didn't see anything substantially different in my quick perusal, other than noticing that many groups that I think should be sanctioned weren't listed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I didn't see anything substantially different in my quick perusal, other than noticing that many groups that I think should be sanctioned weren't listed.  

 

Sure. They may be covered under the "allied or associated with Al Queda and/or ISIL" or they may not.... up to the discretion of the ODNI. A guy you don't want to piss off... is he a political appointee or a career military/GS type?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure. They may be covered under the "allied or associated with Al Queda and/or ISIL" or they may not.... up to the discretion of the ODNI. A guy you don't want to piss off... is he a political appointee or a career military/GS type?

-DSK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence

Usually someone w/solid military and intel community credentials, but still a cabinet level appointee. I don't think that Trump's appointee, though he's done a few things, has anywhere near the awareness or experience that Adm Clapper had. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Actually, yeah - I do.  I don't think it should name specific groups, it should instead reference an artifact that is a listing of all known organizations that are engaged in terrorist activity against the US or its allies.  The other issue, though, is that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing that happens every once in a while. 

Exactly, all a group has to do is reorganize and start with a new name and board of directors.

Somethings should not be hard coded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I didn't see anything substantially different in my quick perusal, other than noticing that many groups that I think should be sanctioned weren't listed.  

 

Looks like Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard have reached a mutual agreement...that there may be a way to cut our funding of the rebels in Syria, who at times are very much aligned with Al-Nusra, or Jabat al-Sham. They launched separate bills which say essentially the same thing to make it less embarrassing for Paul, perhaps for each, by not collaborating with the enemy (the other party, be they UnAmericans or the Americans). The modern form of bi-partisanship...I guess. 

 Neither bill is going to go anywhere...I feel safe in predicting...both will be summarily executed by the neocons in committee, placed against the wall and shot faster than you can say "freedom fighter". The notion that there can be no peace with Assad in charge of the Syrian government has been well-implanted.  

 Nevertheless they should both be applauded for attempting to do their own thinking. Not a heck of a lot of that stuff around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The other issue, though, is that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing that happens every once in a while. 

Ok. I guess I'll put you down for being in favor of funding terrorists.

Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark K said:

Looks like Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard have reached a mutual agreement...that there may be a way to cut our funding of the rebels in Syria, who at times are very much aligned with Al-Nusra, or Jabat al-Sham. They launched separate bills which say essentially the same thing to make it less embarrassing for Paul, perhaps for each, by not collaborating with the enemy (the other party, be they UnAmericans or the Americans). The modern form of bi-partisanship...I guess. 

 Neither bill is going to go anywhere...I feel safe in predicting...both will be summarily executed by the neocons in committee, placed against the wall and shot faster than you can say "freedom fighter". The notion that there can be no peace with Assad in charge of the Syrian government has been well-implanted.  

 Nevertheless they should both be applauded for attempting to do their own thinking. Not a heck of a lot of that stuff around. 

Are you talking about this from last March?

March 10, 2017
Quote

 

Washington, DC—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Rand Paul. The bipartisan legislation (H.R.608 and S.532) would prohibit any Federal agency from using taxpayer dollars to provide weapons, cash, intelligence, or any support to al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it will prohibit the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries who are directly or indirectly supporting terrorists.

The legislation is currently cosponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Scott Perry (R-PA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tom Garrett (R-VA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Ted Yoho (R-FL), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), Veterans for Peace, and the U.S. Peace Council. ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Are you talking about this from last March?

March 10, 2017

 

As we have been discussing, they have not moved much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does reinforce what's always important about Congress.

Many of us have said they should take some responsibility under their power to declare war. Using the 2001 AUMF to cover "anyone bad" as has been done for a long time makes a mockery of that power.

But the bill Mark referenced is not about that power at all and shows why it really doesn't matter whether they exercise their war powers. It's about spending. If the spending isn't authorized, it doesn't matter whether Congress declared a war or not. In theory anyway. Presidents have found other funding sources, as in Cocaine-Contra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

Ok. I guess I'll put you down for being in favor of funding terrorists.

Anyone else?

Your binary opinion is irrelevant - put me down for whatever you'd like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Presidents have found other funding sources, as in Cocaine-Contra.

Boy - do you and I have a lot to speak about off line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Your binary opinion is irrelevant - put me down for whatever you'd like. 

No point bitching at me. You wrote it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

No point bitching at me. You wrote it.

Not bitching - just pointing out that you are taking an either/or approach to a complex issue, and as such are intentionally ignoring the myriad of factors that need to be considered in deciding the correct approach to specific, dynamic situations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-6-24 at 0:56 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not bitching - just pointing out that you are taking an either/or approach to a complex issue, and as such are intentionally ignoring the myriad of factors that need to be considered in deciding the correct approach to specific, dynamic situations. 

Can you name any group funded by the us during the last 50 years which was not manifestly worse than the government they are hoping to overthrow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 3:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

It does reinforce what's always important about Congress.

Many of us have said they should take some responsibility under their power to declare war. Using the 2001 AUMF to cover "anyone bad" as has been done for a long time makes a mockery of that power.

But the bill Mark referenced is not about that power at all and shows why it really doesn't matter whether they exercise their war powers. It's about spending. If the spending isn't authorized, it doesn't matter whether Congress declared a war or not. In theory anyway. Presidents have found other funding sources, as in Cocaine-Contra.

It's about more than spending though. It's about decision making. Congress as a whole appears to have accepted the notion they are collectively incapable of handling the job so they have delegated it to the executive branch. They hold a trump card, they retain the right and power to end this or that, but they don't want to be the primary deciderers. 

 Gabbard and Paul propose to bring the judiciary into that loop. Make it illegal and then the courts will decide. Sorta like the "balanced budget amendment" stuff, it will taxi around the field a lot but is unlikely to get on the active or get off the ground. The courts don't want to be the ones who sort out government budgeting...they don't have the resources or the experience. They no wanna be in some rodeos...budget is but barrel-racing, war is bull-riding. 

  I view this bill and designed to make a point but I think the point has already been tacitly decided. Perhaps somewhere in our future is a Congress willing/able enough to take up their intended role...but not this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Perhaps somewhere in our future is a Congress willing/able enough to take up their intended role...but not this one. 

Holy fuck we agree Jarhead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mark K said:

It's about more than spending though. It's about decision making. Congress as a whole appears to have accepted the notion they are collectively incapable of handling the job so they have delegated it to the executive branch. They hold a trump card, they retain the right and power to end this or that, but they don't want to be the primary deciderers. 

 Gabbard and Paul propose to bring the judiciary into that loop. Make it illegal and then the courts will decide. ..

The press release on Gabbard's page talked about prohibiting spending twice in the first paragraph, so naturally it has appeal to me.

If Congress refuses some spending, does that always wind up in court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic ... can someone tell me why the USAF is shooting down Syrian aircraft in Syria?  Has war been declared and I missed the announcement?  Or is this part of the global bully thing and there's nothing to see here?

Thanks on advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0