US considers military options in #Syria as diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting fail.

Reports on current military activity
User avatar
TruthandJustice
Regular contributor
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:22 pm

Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:07 pm

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.

User avatar
TruthandJustice
Regular contributor
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:22 pm

Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:19 pm

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.

User avatar
BygmesterFinn
Regular contributor
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:53 am

Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:32 pm

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...

User avatar
TruthandJustice
Regular contributor
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:22 pm

Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:37 pm

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...
lmao that guy has something wrong with him he has said and done some pretty wacky things in his tenure of course you have to be nuts to even want the job

krzepice1976
DWS Staff
DWS Staff
Posts: 9306
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:39 pm
Contact:

Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:00 pm

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.
Us has few option. Placing us troop is interesting . The most interesting option is deployment medical stuff only ....
Russia can not say anything is such situation.....
One bomb on hospital Putin have problem.

Other option is use IS against Russia.
Lets addhttps://m.sputniknews.com/politics/20161001/1045909569/us-afghanistan-scenario-syria.html?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fg1voIC5l65&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=ctdu&utm_campaign=URL_shortening which means that manpds will be used.probably on theri ways. Number of strike against isis will be reduced .
With Russian strategy is it very difficult to win if paly fair.

User avatar
jayfeather31
Power poster 3
Power poster 3
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
Contact:

Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:10 am

Got something new on the situation. It seems to be more of the same old, same old. This may actually have already been reported in this thread, and I have not seen it yet.

ARTICLE: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/01/middl ... index.html
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather

krzepice1976
DWS Staff
DWS Staff
Posts: 9306
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:39 pm
Contact:

Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:00 pm

Article from defence24 need to be translated to english http://www.defence24.pl/460651,eksperci ... -i-zachodu
A summary syria is proxy war between west and russia. Us will not directly attack syria forces.us allow for supply Advanced weapon including anti Aircraft.
Syrian goverment strategy will create hundreds of terrorist.syrian goverment force civilians to ask al quida for help.

User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:45 pm

Strategic as in geopolitically strategic, not nuclearly strategic.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

Post Reply