Printable View
That wasn't the case at the beginning of the two wars you refer to. Attacks on Syria will also inevitably lead to the conclusion that you are at war. Can't really tell with who, because Syria itself is already in a state of civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In the interstate component of both wars, we did quite well. We overthrew both regimes in record amount of time with minimal casualties.
What practical difference will it make? And once again, I think you're overestimating the effect of limited strikes.
I am not overestimating the effect; the single effect is that it makes the US and whoever is stupid enough to join in the strikes a party in what is a civil war in the now defunct state of Syria.
It's been a "problem" actively debated (even on this forum) since 9/11, mostly in the context of executive and legislative powers...and the decision process behind military 'engagement'. If you've forgotten the arguments about whether the Iraq War was legitimate or constitutional, and congressional voting records being used in debates to compare policies and philosophies, your memory is damn selective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Is it just semantics? Legislators got stung by Sequester mandates, and worried about military budget cuts and furloughs during "War"...since we're not technically in a state of "War". They've had problems paying and budgeting for our expanding military 'engagements', because they don't fall under a title of "War Spending" or "War Budget". There have been suggestions of enacting a "War Tax" any time we send troops to 'engage' in a conflict, so funding is transparent to tax payers...and costs of "War" isn't hidden in spread sheets.
We're already a party to the civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No. The draft had been active since 1948. Congress and the President kept it active because it encouraged voluntary enlistment.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I am not aware of the US sending arms of aid directly to any of the sides in that civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
We send intelligence and non-lethal equipment to the rebels (non-lethal to the extent that it can't directly be used to kill soldiers, which is not to say that it doesn't help the rebels accomplish that objective).
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/wake_up_call.jpg
“WMD”, “DICTATOR”, “RED LINE”…. HE always find an excuse to slaughter.
The name "Egypt" should be changed with Iran. Egypt military isUS puppet. Nothing happens when they slaughtered 3 thousands people.
Former Bush and Clinton Administration Insider –Nobody is Asking the Basic Question
“The Russians andthe Chinese have people on the ground. They didn’t pull their diplomats out.They didn’t pull their people out of Syria. They went to the last chemicalweapons attack site in March. They did forensics on the ground themselves. Theyfound two striking things that have not been covered in the press here at all.One was that the rockets used to deliver those chemicals were homemade rockets,not military, not industrial produced. The other thing they found was the sarinthere was not military produced. They didn’t use stabilizers. Maybe this istotally different. Maybe this time Assad said, ‘I’m winning on the battlefield,so I’m going to send chemical weapons in for the fun of it’. Maybe the Russianshave a point. Here Obama is going to go to Russia, and we think he’s not goingto hear an earful? The rest of the world does not believe what we’re saying forgood reason. We made it up last time,” said Mann Leverett.
http://counterpsyops.com/2013/09/11/...asic-question/