people aren't dogs?

plus pretty sure Syria has an actual air force, & other defenses unfavorable to use of drones. Pretty amazing given that its embroiled in a civil war & has a total pop just south of Texas, but there you are.

plus some of the military activity is for show to entities other than that one you're gonna light up a bit

jerseyhoya wrote:It was hilarious when he tried to get Dempsey to back him up on that during Rand Paul's questioning, and Dempsey was like, uh, you're on you're own buddy (youtube below 8:15 to the end). We're attacking another sovereign nation, of course it's war. It might not be an invasion, but it's war.

Haha, that was awesome.

I think if Syria did a "limited action to degrade the capacity of the US President" to use his weapons, it would be considered an act of war. Even in the "classic sense" of going to war.

mccain was playing poker on his phone during the foreign relations hearing yesterday

@SenJohnMcCain: Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing - worst of all I lost!

Hahaha lulz!!!! Not like your listening and considering testimony about an extremely important topic that deals with the stabilization of an area where human suffering is pervasive on an alarming scale, not too mention this is a decision that will put American personnel at risk. Keep at it Johnnie

pacino wrote:mccain was playing poker on his phone during the foreign relations hearing yesterday

It's not like he would have listened even if he were hearing the words.

You do realize that almost all this testimony has nothing to do with the wisdom of the issue up for debate and has everything to do with political calculations made by various speakers. This is only slightly less dumb than the idea that representatives need to read the entire text of the legislation before they vote on it.

Two most likely outcomes of this, from a military perspective:

1. No effect at all, we've just wasted hundreds of millions if not billions maneuvering carrier strike groups and expending very scarce and expensive munitions. Most likely outcome.

2. It triggers a major expansion of the conflict in the Middle East. Most dangerous outcome. Most likely due to Assad somehow getting killed in one of the strikers and a power vacuum emerges within the remnants of his regime...then there is no one to actually deal with, and since the rebels are very weak, they will not be able to overpower the Syrian Army, which is probably going to remain unscathed for the most part. Then we will see a lovely Balkanization of Syria occur, but on a intra-state level. Kind of like Lebanon during the 80s. Hmm, kind of like Spain during the 30s. And once Pandora's Box is opened up, only God knows what is going to emerge, and from what I've seen in my career, God doesn't like to share future outcomes.

We're simply addicted to war. War junkies. We really need the draft back in place, and fucking sooner the better.

LG and Charlie Rangel. (Not really surprising, Rangel is one of how many members of Congress who is a real combat vet?

Also, I wonder if Tom Cotton going all wargasmic over this doesn't hurt his chances in his upcoming US Senate election.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:mccain was playing poker on his phone during the foreign relations hearing yesterday

It's not like he would have listened even if he were hearing the words.

Yup, pulls support for Syria.. wants "stronger" response, but by pulling his support we'll probably have no response. Go USA?

slugsrbad wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:mccain was playing poker on his phone during the foreign relations hearing yesterday

It's not like he would have listened even if he were hearing the words.

Yup, pulls support for Syria.. wants "stronger" response, but by pulling his support we'll probably have no response. Go USA?

I'm guessing some allowance has been made for 'acceptable' amendments. All part of the process

McCain voted for it after getting the committee to approve an amendment (offered with Senator Coons of Delaware) - "It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria"

Ed Markey voted present for whatever reason

Here is how my congressmoderate is framing the/our choices, as circulated to constituents this morning:

Please indicate which statement below best represents your point of view:*

___ I agree with the President that Congress should approve a limited military strike against the Syrian regime in response to its use of chemical
weapons, not involving "boots on the ground".
___ I oppose the President's proposal and believe we should not get militarily involved in Syria in any way.
___ I believe a more robust military response than the President envisions is appropriate.
___ I don't feel I have enough information to make a decision.
___ Other (Please reply to this email with your response)

*By submitting this survey, you are signing up for my e-newsletter.

Gotta love the congressperson's furtive 'forced email signup' gambit....

I'm leaning 'other', but too lazy right now to compose an alternate response - your suggestions welcome, of course

by rights, pretty much everyone should check the "not enough info" box.

this isn't about rights, it's about opinions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ities.html

Exactly the kind of shit I mean about the means and ends not jiving. This is phase 1 in the works

TenuredVulture wrote:You do realize that almost all this testimony has nothing to do with the wisdom of the issue up for debate and has everything to do with political calculations made by various speakers. This is only slightly less dumb than the idea that representatives need to read the entire text of the legislation before they vote on it.

Yes, so? Just let me complain about Congress without trying to redirect my complaint into some other reason to dislike them.

karn wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html

Exactly the kind of shit I mean about the means and ends not jiving. This is phase 1 in the works

there's little precision in any of that Daily Mail report. Perhaps you can connect some dots for us?

Should've just done what Clinton did in 93. Pick one target, a handful of tomahawks, done in an hour, "now quit it with the chems or I'll bitchslap that matchstick head of yours again".

If the air strikes prove ineffective I can definitely see the Obama administration utilizing a series of elite specialized units to secure certain sites within Syria. However, I have no doubt that if this happens they will face fire from b