Meanwhile in Iraq & Syria

[C-Mag]

From the Department of Hilarity:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/worl ... .html?_r=0

After months of warning the masses of the absolute danger Americans face due to Trumps close relationship with Ruissia, the NYT is now hand-wringing over how the Syria strike is endangering our relationship with Russia.

By Jove, it's almost as if they're dead set on bitching, panicking, and blaming no matter which direction the wind blows.

+1

[Fife]

For the record, our last president who did not use military action in the Middle East was Gerald Ford; 40 years ago.

Rand Paul has issued a statement that Trump needs to come before congress if he wants to continue military action in Syria.

It's the standard fare, but it fits, same as always.

Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Trump and another unconstitutional rush to war

Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates – that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

Before any act of war, we should have a serious and thoughtful debate over the ramifications.

In Syria – what is our goal? What happens if we depose Assad? Will the Islamist rebels, as they have threatened, turn their weapons and attention elsewhere, including Israel next door?

[C-Mag]

For the record, our last president who did not use military action in the Middle East was Gerald Ford; 40 years ago.

Rand Paul has issued a statement that Trump needs to come before congress if he wants to continue military action in Syria.

It's the standard fare, but it fits, same as always.

Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Trump and another unconstitutional rush to war

Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates – that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

Before any act of war, we should have a serious and thoughtful debate over the ramifications.

In Syria – what is our goal? What happens if we depose Assad? Will the Islamist rebels, as they have threatened, turn their weapons and attention elsewhere, including Israel next door?

It is standard fair, but it shouldn't be. I've been harping on people not supporting Trumps campaign points about pulling back from this shit, ridiculed Dan about it. IMO, had people jumped on these Trump talking points hard during the campaign, we wouldn't be dealing with this. When we fail to support smart policy, we are more likely to get dumb policy.

........... and props to Rand.

[kybkh]

Bolivia absolutely lights up the USA.

https://www.rt.com/on-air/383940-un-syr ... -briefing/

Strange how little press is afforded to our foreign adversaries.

[kybkh]

[TheReal_ND]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

LOLOLOLOL

[Speaker to Animals]

Thank God Brian Williams survived the chemical weapons attack.

[kybkh]

[C-Mag]

It's amazing, all these people thought Trump was crazy, until he attacks Syria, WTF.

Michael Savage who has been as big a Trump supporter as there is, torched Trump for this.

[Smitty-48]

The reason for my doubt about Assad using Sarin is that it doesn't make any strategic sense at all.

Fair enough.

I actually dropped into the forums under the misguided hope that Smitty had something intelligent to say about the strike.
Love that guy's military analysis when he's on point, but today is not the day, eh?

Well, sorry to dissapoint, but, from a military analytical standpoint, it's farcical, blatantly a politcal stunt, entirely for domestic American consumption, entirely related to the partisan bun fight, Monica Lewinski drill, to the point of being cliche, I can't make it into a sound and operationally relevant military operation with any purpose other than that, when its clearly not. It's so silly, that trying to take it seriously would be silly in of itself. /shrugs