The DEFCON Warning System Community Forum

TruthandJustice wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting article that supports my assertion that we will NOT go to war over Syria. However, with all of the various conflict zones going on at the same time something else could give. Their hands are tied right now because Congress won't even vote on the matter. The President can force them to vote but I don't think even he wants to engage Syria. So for anybody that complains that this government is too soft blame it on Congress. The President can only authorize military force in situations where he feels there is an immediate threat to this country. Only Congress can declare Offensive action. Syria never directly attacked us so we don't have grounds to attack them. That is why the President was able to attack ISIS only since they do pose a direct threat to the United States. What he is trying to do now is at least slow the bombing by placing US troops in harms way. If they blatantly bomb US troops and it is made official then it might get him the votes he needs in Congress.

BygmesterFinn wrote:

TruthandJustice wrote:

TruthandJustice wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting article that supports my assertion that we will NOT go to war over Syria. However, with all of the various conflict zones going on at the same time something else could give. Their hands are tied right now because Congress won't even vote on the matter. The President can force them to vote but I don't think even he wants to engage Syria. So for anybody that complains that this government is too soft blame it on Congress. The President can only authorize military force in situations where he feels there is an immediate threat to this country. Only Congress can declare Offensive action. Syria never directly attacked us so we don't have grounds to attack them. That is why the President was able to attack ISIS only since they do pose a direct threat to the United States. What he is trying to do now is at least slow the bombing by placing US troops in harms way. If they blatantly bomb US troops and it is made official then it might get him the votes he needs in Congress.

I think Russia is worried about Hillary in my opinion. She might take a more aggressive approach than Obama.

By the time she gets into office, Aleppo will have fallen.
If only Gary Johnson had asked "and where is Aleppo," instead of "and what is Aleppo,"
would've been a much more thought provoking question and not the end to a campaign of someone that is not Trump or Hillary... Scattered amongst the middle east...

TruthandJustice wrote:

TruthandJustice wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting article that supports my assertion that we will NOT go to war over Syria. However, with all of the various conflict zones going on at the same time something else could give. Their hands are tied right now because Congress won't even vote on the matter. The President can force them to vote but I don't think even he wants to engage Syria. So for anybody that complains that this government is too soft blame it on Congress. The President can only authorize military force in situations where he feels there is an immediate threat to this country. Only Congress can declare Offensive action. Syria never directly attacked us so we don't have grounds to attack them. That is why the President was able to attack ISIS only since they do pose a direct threat to the United States. What he is trying to do now is at least slow the bombing by placing US troops in harms way. If they blatantly bomb US troops and it is made official then it might get him the votes he needs in Congress.

I think Russia is worried about Hillary in my opinion. She might take a more aggressive approach than Obama.

TruthandJustice wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting article that supports my assertion that we will NOT go to war over Syria. However, with all of the various conflict zones going on at the same time something else could give. Their hands are tied right now because Congress won't even vote on the matter. The President can force them to vote but I don't think even he wants to engage Syria. So for anybody that complains that this government is too soft blame it on Congress. The President can only authorize military force in situations where he feels there is an immediate threat to this country. Only Congress can declare Offensive action. Syria never directly attacked us so we don't have grounds to attack them. That is why the President was able to attack ISIS only since they do pose a direct threat to the United States. What he is trying to do now is at least slow the bombing by placing US troops in harms way. If they blatantly bomb US troops and it is made official then it might get him the votes he needs in Congress.

BygmesterFinn wrote:

chiari wrote:Tiger paper, Tiger Piper ....

Exactly, Kerrys pissed that we can only have diplocatic tactics without military means because it would be illegal to intervene in Syria whereas Russia is there legally.
Weve been outfoxed (outbeared) in Syria