Trump just dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb, enjoy.

[Dan T.]

21 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

Yes, absolutely 100 times yes.  I say that as a father who has multiple combat deployments and has a son who is also serving.  

 

Let's ask the military widow who Trump spotlighted during his address to Congress whether, given the choice of a drone or use of ground troops to complete that mission, which she would have chosen. 

 

 

One more thought on the use of drones, and the notion that war should be messy, from General George Patton (or George C. Scott, not sure if quote is real or made up):

 

No **** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb **** die for his country.

[Rskins06]

1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

 

It was Congress who did not trust the military. President Obama was ready to bomb Syria over the "red line". But he went to congress for approval - like he is supposed to. They blocked it.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/obama-congress-syria-vote-in-doubt/2788597/

Really?  That is why you think he went to Congress?  I believe he went to Congress because it removed any responsibility on his part for a decision he didn't want to make.  He had no issue bombing Libya without congressional approval.  Congress didn't make the "Red Line" statement, he did.  He didn't need Congress approval to take action, like I said, he has come out regretting that decision as has both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who supported last weeks actions by Pres Trump.

[Kilmer17]

9 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

It was Congress who did not trust the military. President Obama was ready to bomb Syria over the "red line". But he went to congress for approval - like he is supposed to. They blocked it.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/obama-congress-syria-vote-in-doubt/2788597/

Did he go to Congress for approval on every military action he took as POTUS?  Or just the one for which he wanted an excuse for not executing?

[TradeTheBeal!]

The post-mortem of every administration in our lifetimes is filled with regrets/mistakes regarding Middle East policy.  Obama certainly isn't immune to that.

[goskins10]

1 minute ago, Rskins06 said:

Really?  That is why you think he went to Congress?  I believe he went to Congress because it removed any responsibility on his part for a decision he didn't want to make.  He had no issue bombing Libya without congressional approval.  Congress didn't make the "Red Line" statement, he did.  He didn't need Congress approval to take action, like I said, he has come out regretting that decision as has both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who supported last weeks actions by Pres Trump.

 

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Did he go to Congress for approval on every military action he took as POTUS?  Or just the one for which he wanted an excuse for not executing?

 

 

So it's completely black and white? You either do it every time or never? This was a very big commitment to escalation in a very hostile region. The others were more clear. 

 

Having said that, since the Congress spent 8 yrs blocking just about everything he tried to do, not because it was a problem, simply because it was him, he should have said **** them, I will do what I want - wait he got accused of doing that too. Had he bombed Syria the Republicans would have been the loudest yelling about how he didn't go to Congress first. 

 

 

[Rskins06]

9 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Let's ask the military widow who Trump spotlighted during his address to Congress whether, given the choice of a drone or use of ground troops to complete that mission, which she would have chosen. 

 

 

One more thought on the use of drones, and the notion that war should be messy, from General George Patton (or George C. Scott, not sure if quote is real or made up):

 

No **** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb **** die for his country.

You don't think she fully supported what he was doing at the time?  If you believe that, you really don't understand the culture.  Yes, I know she wishes it didn't happen, we all do,  but I GUARANTEE you she understands WHY he went.  I wish I hadn't lost 3 good friends of mine while there, but we all knew (as our families did) the risks and possibilities.  Doesn't mean we are happy to send our loved ones into dangerous areas or situations.

 

Pres Trump was right to spotlight her, her husband was a hero and died serving something greater than himself and she deserved to be recognized for her support of his service and ultimate sacrifice.  We all wish we didn't lose families and friends and no one ever had to go into harms way, but it isn't reality.  And just so you know, a drone would not have accomplished the mission on that, it was an intelligence gathering mission, that is why it had to be someone on the ground.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, goskins10 said:

 

 

 

So it's completely black and white? You either do it every time or never? This was a very big commitment to escalation in a very hostile region. The others were more clear. 

 

Having said that, since the Congress spent 8 yrs blocking just about everything he tried to do, not because it was a problem, simply because it was him, he should have said **** them, I will do what I want - wait he got accused of doing that too. Had he bombed Syria the Republicans would have been the loudest yelling about how he didn't go to Congress first. 

 

 

There certainly are times that the POTUS should use his Constitutional authority.  But what Obama did was use the ruse of Congressional approval to attempt to deflect the rightful criticism he was receiving.  And as a political tool to point out the GOPs obstructionism.  He cartainly wasnt sitting in the Oval saying "Man!  I really want to do something about Syria ignoring my red line, but dangit, cant do it. because Congress said no"

 

We see people on both sides agreeing with Trump and both sides disagreeing with Trump regarding his bombing in Syria.  I personally thought it was a feckless theatrical gesture.  

 

But dropping this bomb?  meh.  who cares?  The ones with crocodile tears who, after 8 years of drone strikes NOW have a moral compass?  Spare me.

 

 

[Dan T.]

2 hours ago, Rskins06 said:

You don't think she fully supported what he was doing at the time?  If you believe that, you really don't understand the culture.  Yes, I know she wishes it didn't happen, we all do,  but I GUARANTEE you she understands WHY he went.  I wish I hadn't lost 3 good friends of mine while there, but we all knew (as our families did) the risks and possibilities.  Doesn't mean we are happy to send our loved ones into dangerous areas or situations.

 

Pres Trump was right to spotlight her, her husband was a hero and died serving something greater than himself and she deserved to be recognized for her support of his service and ultimate sacrifice.  We all wish we didn't lose families and friends and no one ever had to go into harms way, but it isn't reality.  And just so you know, a drone would not have accomplished the mission on that, it was an intelligence gathering mission, that is why it had to be someone on the ground.

 

You really didn't understand the premise of the question.

[nonniey]

19 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

"Well we had it just sitting in the back"

 

But seriously we went 14 years without using it... Curious about what the situation was that dictated using the largest conventional weapon in our arsenal. Or if it was just Trump "we're gonna blow the **** out of them." Suspect the latter.

How about the Air Force saying lets get some use out of these instead of just scrapping them.

[Rskins06]

Just now, Dan T. said:

 

You really didn't understand the basis of the question.

No, I did understand the basis.  No one would want to send their loved ones into a dangerous situation if they knew they would not return.  We all wish we could replace humans with drones, but that is not possible every time.

[nonniey]

55 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

Yes, absolutely 100 times yes.  I say that as a father who has multiple combat deployments and has a son who is also serving.  No, I don't like war, it sucks and is not like the movies or video games, it's much worse.  HOWEVER,  if us going there means the safety of my family here, I will do it every time, as would most.  Most of us joined understanding that, my parents hated me joining, but they understood it, they hated my first deployment, but they understood it.  My wife and kids hated it, but understood it when I went to Iraq, then again to Afghanistan.  I would hate to see my sons deploy, but would understand it.  Have 3 more yrs remaining till retirement, but if asked to deploy again, will do it.

You missed the point. Burg want's military missions to be more dangerous for our side and the question was would he feel this way if it was his family carrying out these missions. 

[goskins10]

21 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

There certainly are times that the POTUS should use his Constitutional authority.  But what Obama did was use the ruse of Congressional approval to attempt to deflect the rightful criticism he was receiving.  And as a political tool to point out the GOPs obstructionism.  He cartainly wasnt sitting in the Oval saying "Man!  I really want to do something about Syria ignoring my red line, but dangit, cant do it. because Congress said no"

 

We see people on both sides agreeing with Trump and both sides disagreeing with Trump regarding his bombing in Syria.  I personally thought it was a feckless theatrical gesture.  

 

But dropping this bomb?  meh.  who cares?  The ones with crocodile tears who, after 8 years of drone strikes NOW have a moral compass?  Spare me.

 

 

 

 

That is just your opinion - one driven by a narrative. It's the same double standard that if he follows the constitution he is using it to advantage and if goes it alone he is breaking the law. 

 

Also, I did not support the drones any more than I support the bombing of Syria or dropping this bomb. And the drone program started under President Bush. It was expanded under President Obama. Not at all saying that makes it right at all. But it was more than just 8 yrs under President Obama. What's wrong is wrong no matter which president does or does not do it.

 

 

[nonniey]

35 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

No, I did understand the basis.  No one would want to send their loved ones into a dangerous situation if they knew they would not return.  We all wish we could replace humans with drones, but that is not possible every time.

No you actually didn't understand the basis of the question. Burg wants military missions to be more dangerous than they have to be to US military personnel (actually much more dangerous he want's them messy - ie he wants a lot more US casualties) and would he feel this way if it was his family in the military.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Did he go to Congress for approval on every military action he took as POTUS?  Or just the one for which he wanted an excuse for not executing?

 

He went to Congress to seek approval to militarily strike another Country's military. Obama said he could have ordered strike against Syria wout seeking approval but he wanted approval (which many think he knew he wouldnt get so it gave him an out).  

 

Bush, Obama and Trump dont need approval to strike terrorist groups like in Yemen or ISIS or Al Qaeda. 

 

There is a difference btw striking a country vs a terrorist organization. 

 

Ive read up on this and democrats wanted the president to have a clearly defined limited approval of what he could and could not do. The president request contained limiting language on executive authority. Some republicans opposed bc they didnt think a president should be limited militarily for this military request or any future request and some repubs opposed bc it was obama.  

 

Obamas over all policy of limiting our troops on ground and exposure should not be criticized imo. He seemed to really value every soldiers life. He probably saved a bunch of US lives by going the drone route vs boots on ground. 

 

 

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

How about the Air Force saying lets get some use out of these instead of just scrapping them.

 

Or maybe the military is kinda embarrassed that only 23 of 60 tomahawk missiles actually hit their target. That was a poor showing on our part imo and not lost on China and Russia or potential buyers like India.

 

I think we should be using these weapons in live combat to see if they actually work.

 

This MOAD cost about 17 Mil .. but if its in a remote part of a desert where only bad guys are ... use it. Apparently we have 19 more MOABs.   

[Bang]

21 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

"Well we had it just sitting in the back"

 

But seriously we went 14 years without using it... Curious about what the situation was that dictated using the largest conventional weapon in our arsenal. Or if it was just Trump "we're gonna blow the **** out of them." Suspect the latter.

 

I think it probably has to do with the fact it's used on a complex of caves. they aren't bunkers and go willy nilly all over underground. Since there's not likely to be heavy reinforced 2 foot think concrete holding the roof up this big thing probably collapsed the hell out of it pretty effectively. For destroying a cave system, it's probably the best weapon to use. 

 

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

27 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

He went to Congress to seek approval to militarily strike another Country's military. Obama said he could have ordered strike against Syria wout seeking approval but he wanted approval (which many think he knew he wouldnt get so it gave him an out).  

 

Bush, Obama and Trump dont need approval to strike terrorist groups like in Yemen or ISIS or Al Qaeda. 

 

There is a difference btw striking a country vs a terrorist organization. 

 

Ive read up on this and democrats wanted the president to have a clearly defined limited approval of what he could and could not do. The president request contained limiting language on executive authority. Some republicans opposed bc they didnt think a president should be limited militarily for this military request or any future request and some repubs opposed bc it was obama.  

 

Obamas over all policy of limiting our troops on ground and exposure should not be criticized imo. He seemed to really value every soldiers life. He probably saved a bunch of US lives by going the drone route vs boots on ground. 

 

 

 

Or maybe the military is kinda embarrassed that only 23 of 60 tomahawk missiles actually hit their target. That was a poor showing on our part imo and not lost on China and Russia or potential buyers like India.

 

I think we should be using these weapons in live combat to see if they actually work.

 

This MOAD cost about 17 Mil .. but if its in a remote part of a desert where only bad guys are ... use it. Apparently we have 19 more MOABs.   

Thank you.  I actually had never put that together that way.   That changes my opinion somewhat.

 

Who knew.  I can learn on Fridays........

[twa]

39 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

 

Or maybe the military is kinda embarrassed that only 23 of 60 tomahawk missiles actually hit their target. That was a poor showing on our part imo and not lost on China and Russia or potential buyers like India.

 

I think we should be using these weapons in live combat to see if they actually work.

 

This MOAD cost about 17 Mil .. but if its in a remote part of a desert where only bad guys are ... use it. Apparently we have 19 more MOABs.   

So you believe the Russians over our military? 

 

Tomahawks are old tech

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

35 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Thank you.  I actually had never put that together that way.   That changes my opinion somewhat.

 

Who knew.  I can learn on Fridays........

 

I encourage you to read up on it yourself ... i feel like if im not direct quoting from sources, my memory is about 75% accurate. Technically, congress never even had a vote. I was surprised to find some republicans wanted obama to have unlimited power but maybe that was grandstanding as they knew it would never be voted on anyway. 

 

ends up I was somewhat inaccurate.

-----

 

Even Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, two Republicans who have pressed Mr. Obama to intervene more aggressively in Syria, said Saturday that they might vote no because the president’s plan was too limited. “We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield,” they said in a statement.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

 

^^ kinda long but a good clear article from 2013. 

[Bang]

I must say, my respect for Lindsey Graham has gone up considerably over the last several months.

He actually seems to be about country over party nowadays.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

25 minutes ago, Bang said:

I must say, my respect for Lindsey Graham has gone up considerably over the last several months.

He actually seems to be about country over party nowadays.

 

~Bang

 

Is he about country over party?  Or party over Trump?  

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, twa said:

So you believe the Russians over our military? 

 

Tomahawks are old tech

 

I believe the Russians about as much as I believe Donald J. Trump. Both have a long track record. 

[RedskinsMayne]

The party not the president will always be upset and make a huge deal out of the president doing a strike without voting on it. However, I think despite making a stink over it in the end both parties are fine to let senators not have the associated voting record, which is why nothing ever comes of the noise...

[Larry]

1 hour ago, twa said:

So you believe the Russians over our military? 

 

I seem to remember, about a year ago, when our military was saying that Russia was engaging in cyber warfare against the US election, and Russia was saying that they weren't.  

 

And I seem to remember a couple of long standing ES posters with well earned reputations of one-sided political cheerleading arguing that it wasn't happening.  

 

But you wouldn't have been one of those, would you?  

 

 

[Bang]

28 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Is he about country over party?  Or party over Trump?  

At this point they might be one in the same. I support the answers he's demanding and the things he's asking of the admin. if it means he's come to his senses and recognized how far things could go, great.. if it means he's just playing politico,,it looks like the  right things are what he's trying to get accomplished in the process. And, he's from south carolina,, he isn't earning any friends bucking the neo cons. The state is historically crazy.

 

the most i hope for as far as any positive of the Trump admin is that the party reforms after what i figure is going to continue to be a disaster, and gets the fringes back to the edge where it belongs. If Graham wants to carry the flag, fine by me. we need a real conservative voice in our system, not one governed by hardline religion and 'social agendas".

 

I think the SUPER hard right swing of the party has caused the entire pendulum to move right, and he seems to be coming off more as a moderate.

There's still the far left Bernie-crats and communists just like always, but i think most of what was once known as conservative is now moderate as a result of the shift, and likewise the classic liberal has been pulled right towards what used to be called moderate by the distance of the swing.

 

If that makes any sense outside of my own head, that is.

 

~Bang

[GhostofSparta]

11 minutes ago, Bang said:

At this point they might be one in the same.

 

I think the SUPER hard right swing of the party has caused the entire pendulum to move right, and he seems to be coming off more as a moderate.

There's still the far left, but i think most of what was once known as conservative is now moderate as a result of the shift, and likewise the classic liberal has been pulled right towards what used to be called moderate by the distance of the swing.

 

If that makes any sense outside of my own head, that is.

 

~Bang

I'm pretty conservative as a whole, but damn. The last year, I've realized I'm too liberal for the Republican party. I'm still a registered R because at this point I'm desperate to throw my vote away in primaries to try and drag this party kicking and screaming back toward sanity (like I did in the 2016 primary. PA's primary was essentially Trump waiting to be crowned vs. a no-chance-in-hell Kasich, and I still went down and voted for Kasich because I felt I needed to do so, despite the forgone conclusion).

 

Trump really has been a great wedge for the R's, trying to help divide the far-right from the moderate-right.

 

At this point, I'm a Republican who's voted 3rd party since I registered in 2004 (mostly Libertarian, shocker I'm sure), but I'm suddenly finding myself having to seriously consider voting Dem over 3rd party in 2018 just because of Trump.