CalvinBall wrote:Yeah we bombed them

Justin Amash @justinamash
These offensive strikes against Syria are unconstitutional, illegal, and reckless. The next speaker of the House must reclaim congressional war powers as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution. @SpeakerRyan has completely abdicated one of his most important responsibilities.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 29 Aug 2013
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

jerseyhoya wrote:Mattis and Dunford are reassuring

slugsrbad wrote:Unlike last time, Russia wasn't warned... no word if there were any Russian casualties from what I've seen. Hold onto your butts.

JFLNYC wrote:They’re reassuring in the sense that they don’t know what damage was done, if there were any civilian casualties and to what, if any, significant degree we degraded Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, not to mention not knowing if there were any coalition casualties. Which is to say that their complete ignorance, real or feigned, about the results and consequences of the strikes was reassuring only in the sense that they reassured us something happened.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:They’re reassuring in the sense that they don’t know what damage was done, if there were any civilian casualties and to what, if any, significant degree we degraded Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, not to mention not knowing if there were any coalition casualties. Which is to say that their complete ignorance, real or feigned, about the results and consequences of the strikes was reassuring only in the sense that they reassured us something happened.

They have no way of knowing any of that immediately, so the alternative to them explaining the sites chosen, goals, next steps, etc. would have been to say nothing. They are going to give an update in the morning that is more focused on the outcomes.

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:They’re reassuring in the sense that they don’t know what damage was done, if there were any civilian casualties and to what, if any, significant degree we degraded Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, not to mention not knowing if there were any coalition casualties. Which is to say that their complete ignorance, real or feigned, about the results and consequences of the strikes was reassuring only in the sense that they reassured us something happened.

They have no way of knowing any of that immediately, so the alternative to them explaining the sites chosen, goals, next steps, etc. would have been to say nothing. They are going to give an update in the morning that is more focused on the outcomes.

So in the aftermath of a completed mission our Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tell us they have no idea about the success (or lack thereof) of the mission and the extent of any military and civilian casualties and they’ll get back to us in the morning. Somehow I find it hard to believe they delivered a similar non-report to Trump. So they’re either lying or their communications with the field are frighteningly bad. Either way, you may find that reassuring. I don’t.

swishnicholson wrote:So, jh, why do you think this administration wants to limit chemical attacks by the Syrian army?

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:They’re reassuring in the sense that they don’t know what damage was done, if there were any civilian casualties and to what, if any, significant degree we degraded Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, not to mention not knowing if there were any coalition casualties. Which is to say that their complete ignorance, real or feigned, about the results and consequences of the strikes was reassuring only in the sense that they reassured us something happened.

They have no way of knowing any of that immediately, so the alternative to them explaining the sites chosen, goals, next steps, etc. would have been to say nothing. They are going to give an update in the morning that is more focused on the outcomes.

So in the aftermath of a completed mission our Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tell us they have no idea about the success (or lack thereof) of the mission and the extent of any military and civilian casualties and they’ll get back to us in the morning. Somehow I find it hard to believe they delivered a similar non-report to Trump. So they’re either lying or their communications with the field are frighteningly bad. Either way, you may find that reassuring. I don’t.

They gave answers to what they knew. Said the only military response from the enemy that they were aware of was from Syrian anti-missile/aircraft defense. Said to the best of their knowledge there were no casualties sustained by American or coalition forces. I dunno what you want. They aren't gonna go out on a limb while it's still dark out over there and claim they've destroyed everything without killing anyone accidentally before getting a chance to inspect it. They gave a briefing within like 90 minutes of the attack happening.