On-topic, off-topic, who cares!
https://datforumdoe.com/forum/
And Republicunts are pretty partisan on this topic it seema.[user not found] wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:26 pmDemocrats are pretty consistent on this topic it seems.
This[user not found] wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:22 amSeems like an opportunity for them to try and find an f-35 BUT you allow mapping of your entire infrastructure.
If the Russians tried to engage an f35 and didn’t get their SAM system destroyed in the process. We wouldn’t tell the public shit.wap wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:41 pmPlus, if the Ruskies tried and failed to bring down a 35, it would be a public humiliation.[user not found] wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:22 am
Seems like an opportunity for them to try and find an f-35 BUT you allow mapping of your entire infrastructure.
seriously?
of this civil war/proxy war.All the Syrian gear is Soviet era stuff right? No chance. And supposedly the Russian air defenses didn't respond so there's no way they knocked down 70 missiles.Barnes93cb wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:00 am I have a hard time believing that they managed to shoot down 70 of our munitions. I could believe something closer to 10-20.
Russia has a great IA and PSYOPS game. Im sure they will manage to come out ahead of this.Gberg2119 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:28 pmAll the Syrian gear is Soviet era stuff right? No chance. And supposedly the Russian air defenses didn't respond so there's no way they knocked down 70 missiles.Barnes93cb wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:00 am I have a hard time believing that they managed to shoot down 70 of our munitions. I could believe something closer to 10-20.
Barnes93cb wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:54 pmRussia has a great IA and PSYOPS game. Im sure they will manage to come out ahead of this.
Fake news. I beat Crooked Hillary fair and square.This is true: they have at least 3KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:06 pm[user not found] wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:26 pm
Democrats are pretty consistent on this topic it seems.
True, but to be fair, they also don't have an entire cable news Network devoted to feeding them propaganda to sway their opinions.
An argument can had either way. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Also the tendency to back to party over your country.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:33 amyeaaaaaaa....
but hey, there is good reason to warn civilians of impending strikes before the infrastructure is turned into dust.
But twitter is no the tool to do it with.
See, I'm consistent on the fact that we should just leave the sandbox to sandbox things and not be involved.KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:37 amAn argument can had either way. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Also the tendency to back to party over your country.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:33 am
yeaaaaaaa....
but hey, there is good reason to warn civilians of impending strikes before the infrastructure is turned into dust.
But twitter is no the tool to do it with.
I think Trump is right to bomb Asad for using chemical weapons. I think Obama was right too.
Fair enough.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:41 amSee, I'm consistent on the fact that we should just leave the sandbox to sandbox things and not be involved.
Good a line as any. Also if our allies are being attacked directly on their soil and ask for assistance, like WW2.KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:50 amFair enough.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:41 am
See, I'm consistent on the fact that we should just leave the sandbox to sandbox things and not be involved.
Where do you take a stand? At our border?
I don't have a real strong opinion on it but I feel like if you let things get so bad that it makes it to your door step, it might be too late.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:52 amGood a line as any. Also if our allies are being attacked directly on their soil and ask for assistance, like WW2.
Or you know a really good reason that gets consensus in congress, you know, like how the constitution (IE literal law of the land) is written.
Assad was never a threat to the US. We jumped into a damn civil war. His civil war spawned in the power vacuum we originally created with terrible sandbox policy. We aid'ed one group of "moderate rebels" WHICH WAS THE SAME FUCKING GROUP OF ASSHATS WE WERE FIGHTING JUST A COUNTRY OVER. We have ruined nearly every country in the sandbox and decreased their quality of life.KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:50 amFair enough.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:41 am
See, I'm consistent on the fact that we should just leave the sandbox to sandbox things and not be involved.
Where do you take a stand? At our border?
I understand all that. The use of chemical weapons complicates or more.dubshow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:31 amAssad was never a threat to the US. We jumped into a damn civil war. His civil war spawned in the power vacuum we originally created with terrible sandbox policy. We aid'ed one group of "moderate rebels" WHICH WAS THE SAME FUCKING GROUP OF ASSHATS WE WERE FIGHTING JUST A COUNTRY OVER. We have ruined nearly every country in the sandbox and decreased their quality of life.
Then the arms we gave one group show up being used against us in another war.
Endless wars are what I am against. Either take full military action, taken legally with congressional approval, or stay out of other countries problems.
and its a bad law and authorization for war needs to come from congress.KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:03 amI don't have a real strong opinion on it but I feel like if you let things get so bad that it makes it to your door step, it might be too late.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:52 am
Good a line as any. Also if our allies are being attacked directly on their soil and ask for assistance, like WW2.
Or you know a really good reason that gets consensus in congress, you know, like how the constitution (IE literal law of the land) is written.
Obama went to Congress to get approval and was denied. They said if he attacked, they would impeach. Now crickets.
From what I understand, the war powers act gves authorization for 30 or 60 days but I'm not sure.
In this day and age Congress could act in 1 day if necessary. No need for 60 day time frameBig Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:00 amand its a bad law and authorization for war needs to come from congress.KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:03 am
I don't have a real strong opinion on it but I feel like if you let things get so bad that it makes it to your door step, it might be too late.
Obama went to Congress to get approval and was denied. They said if he attacked, they would impeach. Now crickets.
From what I understand, the war powers act gves authorization for 30 or 60 days but I'm not sure.
exactly.KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:03 amIn this day and age Congress could act in 1 day if necessary. No need for 60 day time frameBig Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:00 am
and its a bad law and authorization for war needs to come from congress.
, too.
