If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   "Five repercussions of a military strike in Syria." Only five?   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, U.S., U.S. military, ramifications, Anthony Cordesman, Heads of state of Syria, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

5553 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 8:59 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-29 11:51:42 AM
If the military would just scratch out the "Made In America" on the bombs and painted "Property Of UN" instead, we might be cool.
 
2013-08-29 11:54:35 AM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?


Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.
 
2013-08-29 11:58:22 AM

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.


I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
 
2013-08-29 11:59:36 AM

BullBearMS: AngryDragon: BullBearMS: Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?

Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?

We're missing each other here somehow.  The War Powers Resolution is not a part of the Constitution.  The enumerated powers of the branches of government are.  The Senate ONLY can declare or authorize war.  In my opinion if the WPR is going to be the way going forward it should be amended to remove the 60-day grace.

Ahhh... I get your drift now.

Remember that the 60 days only applies if another nation attacks us first.

With modern communications, however, allowing the President to retaliate for 60 days without Congressional approval does seem excessive.


Nope.  (b)Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commands
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
 
2013-08-29 12:02:26 PM

AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.


Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?
 
2013-08-29 12:02:52 PM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Libya didn't attack America. Libya didn't attack any NATO nation.

You know what Libya did do?

Thanks to State Department cables leaked by Manning, we know that Libya was threatening to kick western oil firms out of Libya and keep their oil wells right before we decided to depose him.

So yet another oil nation where we deposed a leader who threatened us.

Obama's illegal war was about oil company profits, and nothing else.


That may be what the war was about, but it was a NATO operation, not Obama'a war..
On 19 March, nineteen French Air Force aircraft entered Libyan airspace to begin reconnaissance missions, and flew over Benghazi to prevent any attacks on the rebel-controlled city.[44] Italian Air Force planes reportedly also began surveillance operations over Libya. In the evening, a French jet destroyed a government vehicle. Shortly afterward, a French airstrike destroyed four tanks southwest of Benghazi.[45] US and British ships and submarines fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.[46] Three US B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew non-stop from the US to drop forty bombs on a major Libyan airfield, while other US aircraft searched for Libyan ground forces to attack.[47][48] Twenty-five coalition naval vessels, including three US submarines, began operating in the area.[49] NATO ships and aircraft began enforcing a blockade of Libya, patrolling the approaches to Libyan territorial waters.
 
2013-08-29 12:05:38 PM

Slaxl: AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?


Well, we wouldn't be pirates if we had Letters of Marque.
 
2013-08-29 12:12:27 PM

Slaxl: Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?


Sounds like someone's been playing Sid Meier's Pirates! again.

/I cannot fault you for such a thing
//+$5
 
2013-08-29 12:12:30 PM

simplicimus: That may be what the war was about, but it was a NATO operation, not Obama'a war


Where exactly in the War Powers Act is this exception that says that the President doesn't need to consult with Congress if at all possible before sending our military into action, because NATO?

NATO predates the War Powers Act, so it must be in there somewhere, right?

You're getting more and more idiotic.

The United States was not attacked by Libya.

No NATO nation was attacked by Libya.

You know who was threatened by Libya? BP.
 
rka
2013-08-29 12:20:56 PM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.

Um, we're not the UK.

The President can't call Congress into session?


The Prime MINISTER is a member of Parliament.

The President of the United States is not a member of Congress. On what basis or authority could he call them back into session? The US President is not King of the Country.
 
2013-08-29 12:21:39 PM

simplicimus: Slaxl: AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?

Well, we wouldn't be pirates if we had Letters of Marque.


We can do it without the Letter of Marque and be truly piratical if you prefer.
 
2013-08-29 12:22:05 PM

rka: The US President is not King of the Country.


img180.imageshack.us

Frowns
 
2013-08-29 12:28:30 PM

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


Look, an unused weapon is a useless weapon.  Didn' t you ever see Spies Like Us?

Real pro/con reasons:

Pros
1.  Obama threatened action if they used chemical weapons
2.  Use of CWs is a big farking deal and should have consequences
3.  Syria is a mess that needs some help...something....somehow.
4.  No one else has the balls or ability to do this as cleanly as we do.

Cons
1.  Not our fight.  The powers that be hate us being policemen unless they love us for being policemen.
2.  No UN backing (and there won't be.)  Even Ban is saying stuff like, "well, its just a little pepper spray".
3.  It will have consequences on the entire region...so will doing nothing though.
4.  Whoever wins, the world loses.  Assad was somewhat stable and Westernized.  Al qaida is...not.  Yet, al Quaida is slightly ahead of Assad in being the good guy here.

That pretty much is it summed up.  We don't have any strategic interests there.  We would be doing it for purely humanitarian reasons...or for other countries with interests there.  Or we'd do it do cover up our arms dealing with the rebels, and possibly the use of our chemical weapons we sold to Iraq.  But it doesn't really bear on US interests.

That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives.
 
2013-08-29 12:32:20 PM

simplicimus: Slaxl: AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?

Well, we wouldn't be pirates if we had Letters of Marque.


The proper term would be Privateers.  Sounds more capitalisty and swashbuckly.
 
2013-08-29 12:34:15 PM
BullBearMS: simplicimus: That may be what the war was about, but it was a NATO operation, not Obama'a war

Where exactly in the War Powers Act is this exception that says that the President doesn't need to consult with Congress if at all possible before sending our military into action, because NATO?


Same part as last time:
 (b)Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commands
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

NATO predates the War Powers Act, so it must be in there somewhere, right?
Yep, NATO was formed before Nov. 7, 1973.

You're getting more and more idiotic.

The United States was not attacked by Libya.

No NATO nation was attacked by Libya.

You know who was threatened by Libya? BP.
 
2013-08-29 12:35:28 PM

I_C_Weener: That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives


They've already been used.  This won't stop anything.  It's retaliation plain and simple.  Whoever used them knew that military reprisal was a risk.  The only things that will be harmed by this will be the bomb catchers and the reputation of the US (either way)
 
2013-08-29 12:37:23 PM

AngryDragon: I_C_Weener: That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives

They've already been used.  This won't stop anything.  It's retaliation plain and simple.  Whoever used them knew that military reprisal was a risk.  The only things that will be harmed by this will be the bomb catchers and the reputation of the US (either way)


Well, I think we can agree it won't stop last week.  It would stop next week.  Sheesh.  You forgot to comment on my grammar too.
 
2013-08-29 12:43:36 PM

I_C_Weener: AngryDragon: I_C_Weener: That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives

They've already been used.  This won't stop anything.  It's retaliation plain and simple.  Whoever used them knew that military reprisal was a risk.  The only things that will be harmed by this will be the bomb catchers and the reputation of the US (either way)

Well, I think we can agree it won't stop last week.  It would stop next week.  Sheesh.  You forgot to comment on my grammar too.


But it won't is my point.  They knew there could be strikes if they did it, whoever they is.  Actual strikes aren't going to make them say "huh, I guess they were really serious.  We better not use them again"  It's not like the US doesn't have a track record of dropping overwhelming disproportional ordinance when it decides to strike back.

No, the response will be "Allahu Akbar!  Death to the infidels!".  Only this time, who do you think they will be talking about?  Nothing good can come from this.
 
2013-08-29 12:44:06 PM

Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?

The British Legal letters state 'war crimes', 'crimes against humanity' and genocide.

Yeah but we let bush and Cheny get away with bombing the middle east on little or no evidence.


Yes, and it proved to be such a clear and recent lesson, that it should be exactly what our Congresscritters should use to reinforce their backbones and stop it this time.
 
2013-08-29 12:46:52 PM

splashing slashie: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?

The British Legal letters state 'war crimes', 'crimes against humanity' and genocide.

Yeah but we let bush and Cheny get away with bombing the middle east on little or no evidence.

Yes, and it proved to be such a clear and recent lesson, that it should be exactly what our Congresscritters should use to reinforce their backbones and stop it this time.


That's a bingo.
 
2013-08-29 01:04:32 PM
BullBearMS:

If it makes you feel better, Obama unilaterally attacking Syria would actually be Obama's war.
 
2013-08-29 01:33:56 PM

OldManDownDRoad: Kentucky Fried Children: OldManDownDRoad: kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.

As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.

Wasn't someone pimping their stock in the Raytheon Tomahawk thread yesterday?  Methinks some farkers are trying to peddle penny stocks...

Actually, it turned up in a web development forum yesterday as a sample of truly awful writing and canned design.

" Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: KTOS) is a

specialized National Security Technology business providing

mission critical products, services and solutions for United

States National Security priorities. Kratos' core capabilities

are sophisticated engineering, manufacturing and system

integration offerings for National Security platforms and

programs. "

All the cliches are there: "mission critical," that all-purpose word "solutions," and my least favorite phrase in the English language, "core capabilities."

Oh, yeah, and "integration." Can't forget that.

And then it got stuck in my head and I spent the rest of the afternoon walking around saying "Release the Kratos!"

/I need a vacation


Ok, here he is:

xbigygames.com
 
2013-08-29 02:00:43 PM
 
2013-08-29 02:41:51 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Looks like this thing is going to happen...


That's my old ship!  Good times...
 
2013-08-29 02:51:07 PM
Screw Syria, and screw the Middle East.  Let them kill each other.  Can we please focus on domestic issues instead of back water civilizations?
 
2013-08-29 04:34:11 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Looks like this thing is going to happen...


Oh it certainly is. Akrotiri AFB in Cyprus is currently being filled up with B2s and stealth drones. UN is pulling people out on Saturday, earlier than they planned. It's coming real soon.
 
2013-08-29 06:50:53 PM
 
2013-08-29 07:55:13 PM
Pfft. What's to worry? Everybody wants the evidence to be inconclusive, so odds are it will be. No one who matters is really willing to move on inconclusive evidence after Iraq. Even if there is a smoking gun, a couple of tomahawks on suspected chemical sites and we'll leave it at that. Russia and Iran aren't going to risk escalating this if that's all there will be. As for retaliation against Israel, it'll be news when Iran and it's proxies STOP trying to destroy Israel.
 
Displayed 28 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report