Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

---

Where were these guys when Obama's was bombing ISIS? Oh that's right it was Obama and they didn't care then.

---

You might want to sit a few plays out.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/08/27/amash-syria-strike-unquestionably-unconstitutional-without-congressional-approval/?utm_term=.a2450105c614

---

Lol. Go read my post again and try again.

---

Were you not suggesting that the guys in my post (Massie and Amash) that are criticizing unauthorized attacks were silent during the Obama administration? What am I missing?

You said they didn't care when Obama did it...all the evidence is to the contrary.

---

Read my post again but was very clear what I said.

---

I have read your post multiple times.

I posted two tweets. One from Congressman Massie and one from Congressman Amash. Both tweets expressed displeasure regarding potential unauthorized attacks in Syria.

You said, "Where were these guys when Obama's was bombing ISIS? Oh that's right it was Obama and they didn't care then."

I posted links that completely dismantle the notion that they "didn't care" about unauthorized attacks during the Obama administration.

It's ok to just own it and admit you were wrong.

---

You have focused on only one country and bombing.

Look above for evidence they didn't care then.

---

One of the links you posted literally quotes Justin Amash calling out Obama:

"When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected representatives in Congress."

"No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution."

Pretty damn consistent message from Amash regardless of who is in the White House.

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Well at least France and UK stepped up.

Really surprised and pleased France did . They do have a long history/connection with the people of Syria.

Putin is going to respond . He has to or his military alliances will be a laughing stock world wide.

This could explode into WW3 very easily .

Hope our military units are on full alert .

---

Put in responses by getting the hell out of the way. Russia/Iran doesn't stand a chance against US/Saudi/Israel.

---

I realize opinions are a numbers game......get a few million people together and they all think they each have 'it' figured out.

But exactly how do you figure we'd 'beat' Russia so easily. They match us in nukes, have a far larger conventional army.

Only our Navy is clearly superior . Our civilians ? Not the best when times get tough.

---

Numbers of soldiers don't matter when we are able to bomb them at will.

---

Exactly how do you figure the US can ' bomb them at will' ?

The Russian Air Force is the equal to ours.

This is no video game Trump is playing. Millions of people could die......instantly .

---

Russian fighters are crap. They would get destroyed by ours very quickly.

---

You are wrong. Russia's fighters are sophisticated. What's even more pressing is their IADS capability and the sophistication of their 4th Gen main battle tanks.

We may 'win,' but conventional conflict between world powers is really a situation where nobody wins. We just don't die as much.

---

Sorry but I'm right.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-russia-stealth-jets-no-chance-us-f-35-f-22-2017-8

I mean there is no way we are worried about 10 prototype fighters. Ten. Yawn.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18659251/russia-su-57-syria-f-22/

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/24/new-russian-stealth-fighter-jet-revealed.html


Their 4th gen tanks are still in prototype and test phases. Again a massive yawn. The bulk of their tank force is made up of T-72 variants. (The ones we destroyed at will in Iraq)

So while they may have some good stuff in development it isn't in production yet or being produced enough for a war.

---

If only it was as simple as air to air or force on force. First, not having a stealth capability is not the same as incapable. This isn't the Iraqi Air Force; TTPs and training in Russia actually happen. When you say we can bomb troops at will, you completely ignore their IADS (extremely sophisticated) and assume away all risk because of our technology. It's unwise and it's also not accurate. We have 187 F-22s in the inventory give or take. Assuming even decent readiness, you probably have 100 of those that you can fly. Depending on sortie generation and where they launch from, you need tanker support, forward airfields, etc. Let's assume that the F-22 is completely undetectable. Things that aren't: tankers and airfields. You don't need to shoot down an F-22 to make it useless. And every F-22 in our inventory can't generate the sorties to defeat and adversary the size of the Russian Army.

As far as T-72s go, and argue the majority of their inventory is actually T-80s and T-90s, and again, when couple with sophisticated IADS it's hardly shooting fish in a barrel. Additionally, they don't need every unit to be equipped with T-14s (their 4th gen tank). That item is sophisticated enough to make the solution to killing and destroying it extremely complex.

Bottom line is fighting against Ivan isn't a walk in the park and would lead to death totals not seen since the end of WWII. Thats a fact. And it's not something anyone in our country has a true appetite for l, especially in an age when the feedback loop is near instantaneous thanks to social media.

---

You don't like facts much do you?

Here is some simple math. Tell me which is more.

8,900

Or

4,000.

Because the first number is the total T-72 tanks that Russia has.

The second is the other kinds it has.

Th rest of your post is just full of hypotheticals that aren't even close to true. You seem to forget we have bases close to Russia and can refuel there or would be refueling over friendly skies not the middle of Russia.

---

Your ignorance as to how threat systems truly work, the way they're employed, as well as your willingness to assume away legitimate risk is astounding. If I threw the numbers of our F-18 inventory vs our F-22 inventory, would that mean that since one is greater than the other, the lesser of the two should be dismissed? Why then so for tanks?

Never mind that you're looking at their systems myopically vice how they actually employ and integrate everything. Would we win? Yes. At what price? Catastrophic loss of life for both sides. That's a fact.

There's a generation of Sunni's and Afghans who use antiquated and vastly inferior equipment that show the will of the American people can be broken if you just wait long enough. That's childs play to what a war with Russia would look like. But continue to live with your head in the sand if you must.

---

quash said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

---

Where were these guys when Obama's was bombing ISIS? Oh that's right it was Obama and they didn't care then.

---

You might want to sit a few plays out.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/08/27/amash-syria-strike-unquestionably-unconstitutional-without-congressional-approval/?utm_term=.a2450105c614

---

Lol. Go read my post again and try again.

---

Were you not suggesting that the guys in my post (Massie and Amash) that are criticizing unauthorized attacks were silent during the Obama administration? What am I missing?

You said they didn't care when Obama did it...all the evidence is to the contrary.

---

Read my post again but was very clear what I said.

---

I have read your post multiple times.

I posted two tweets. One from Congressman Massie and one from Congressman Amash. Both tweets expressed displeasure regarding potential unauthorized attacks in Syria.

You said, "Where were these guys when Obama's was bombing ISIS? Oh that's right it was Obama and they didn't care then."

I posted links that completely dismantle the notion that they "didn't care" about unauthorized attacks during the Obama administration.

It's ok to just own it and admit you were wrong.

---

You have focused on only one country and bombing.

Look above for evidence they didn't care then.

---

One of the links you posted literally quotes Justin Amash calling out Obama:

"When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected representatives in Congress."

"No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution."

Pretty damn consistent message from Amash regardless of who is in the White House.

---

Amash and Massie are two of a very few who signed the letters from Congress opposing both Obama and Trump.

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Well at least France and UK stepped up.

Really surprised and pleased France did . They do have a long history/connection with the people of Syria.

Putin is going to respond . He has to or his military alliances will be a laughing stock world wide.

This could explode into WW3 very easily .

Hope our military units are on full alert .

---

Put in responses by getting the hell out of the way. Russia/Iran doesn't stand a chance against US/Saudi/Israel.

---

I realize opinions are a numbers game......get a few million people together and they all think they each have 'it' figured out.

But exactly how do you figure we'd 'beat' Russia so easily. They match us in nukes, have a far larger conventional army.

Only our Navy is clearly superior . Our civilians ? Not the best when times get tough.

---

Numbers of soldiers don't matter when we are able to bomb them at will.

---

Exactly how do you figure the US can ' bomb them at will' ?

The Russian Air Force is the equal to ours.

This is no video game Trump is playing. Millions of people could die......instantly .

---

Russian fighters are crap. They would get destroyed by ours very quickly.

---

You are wrong. Russia's fighters are sophisticated. What's even more pressing is their IADS capability and the sophistication of their 4th Gen main battle tanks.

We may 'win,' but conventional conflict between world powers is really a situation where nobody wins. We just don't die as much.

---

Sorry but I'm right.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-russia-stealth-jets-no-chance-us-f-35-f-22-2017-8

I mean there is no way we are worried about 10 prototype fighters. Ten. Yawn.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18659251/russia-su-57-syria-f-22/

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/24/new-russian-stealth-fighter-jet-revealed.html


Their 4th gen tanks are still in prototype and test phases. Again a massive yawn. The bulk of their tank force is made up of T-72 variants. (The ones we destroyed at will in Iraq)

So while they may have some good stuff in development it isn't in production yet or being produced enough for a war.

---

If only it was as simple as air to air or force on force. First, not having a stealth capability is not the same as incapable. This isn't the Iraqi Air Force; TTPs and training in Russia actually happen. When you say we can bomb troops at will, you completely ignore their IADS (extremely sophisticated) and assume away all risk because of our technology. It's unwise and it's also not accurate. We have 187 F-22s in the inventory give or take. Assuming even decent readiness, you probably have 100 of those that you can fly. Depending on sortie generation and where they launch from, you need tanker support, forward airfields, etc. Let's assume that the F-22 is completely undetectable. Things that aren't: tankers and airfields. You don't need to shoot down an F-22 to make it useless. And every F-22 in our inventory can't generate the sorties to defeat and adversary the size of the Russian Army.

As far as T-72s go, and argue the majority of their inventory is actually T-80s and T-90s, and again, when couple with sophisticated IADS it's hardly shooting fish in a barrel. Additionally, they don't need every unit to be equipped with T-14s (their 4th gen tank). That item is sophisticated enough to make the solution to killing and destroying it extremely complex.

Bottom line is fighting against Ivan isn't a walk in the park and would lead to death totals not seen since the end of WWII. Thats a fact. And it's not something anyone in our country has a true appetite for l, especially in an age when the feedback loop is near instantaneous thanks to social media.

---

You don't like facts much do you?

Here is some simple math. Tell me which is more.

8,900

Or

4,000.

Because the first number is the total T-72 tanks that Russia has.

The second is the other kinds it has.

Th rest of your post is just full of hypotheticals that aren't even close to true. You seem to forget we have bases close to Russia and can refuel there or would be refueling over friendly skies not the middle of Russia.

---

Your ignorance as to how threat systems truly work, the way they're employed, as well as your willingness to assume away legitimate risk is astounding. If I threw the numbers of our F-18 inventory vs our F-22 inventory, would that mean that since one is greater than the other, the lesser of the two should be dismissed? Why then so for tanks?

Never mind that you're looking at their systems myopically vice how they actually employ and integrate everything. Would we win? Yes. At what price? Catastrophic loss of life for both sides. That's a fact.

There's a generation of Sunni's and Afghans who use antiquated and vastly inferior equipment that show the will of the American people can be broken if you just wait long enough. That's childs play to what a war with Russia would look like. But continue to live with your head in the sand if you must.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Are we going to hit more tonight? Clearly, this can't be enough.

---

Clearly ? What is 'enough' ?

How many Syrians do we have to kill to suit your standard ?

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Are we going to hit more tonight? Clearly, this can't be enough.

---

Clearly ? What is 'enough' ?

How many Syrians do we have to kill to suit your standard ?

---

None and all. In my mind, hitting me with a chemical weapon or mowing me down from a helicopter are the same amount of suck.

So, if we really care, doesn't it require more then one night guy of bombing every 375 nights?

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Are we going to hit more tonight? Clearly, this can't be enough.

---

Clearly ? What is 'enough' ?

How many Syrians do we have to kill to suit your standard ?

---

None and all. In my mind, hitting me with a chemical weapon or mowing me down from a helicopter are the same amount of suck.

So, if we really care, doesn't it require more then one night guy of bombing every 375 nights?

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Are we going to hit more tonight? Clearly, this can't be enough.

---

Clearly ? What is 'enough' ?

How many Syrians do we have to kill to suit your standard ?

---

None and all. In my mind, hitting me with a chemical weapon or mowing me down from a helicopter are the same amount of suck.

So, if we really care, doesn't it require more then one night guy of bombing every 375 nights?

---

Dubbicans said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Are we going to hit more tonight? Clearly, this can't be enough.

---

Clearly ? What is 'enough' ?

How many Syrians do we have to kill to suit your standard ?

---

None and all. In my mind, hitting me with a chemical weapon or mowing me down from a helicopter are the same amount of suck.

So, if we really care, doesn't it require more then one night guy of bombing every 375 nights?

---

There's a huge difference, even if the end result is you ending up dead. It's why ammunition used isn't allowed to be hollow tipped. It's why troops are prosecuted if they kill enemy combatants who have surrendered. The law of war matters and is a real thing.

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Freedom is coming to Saudi (for women) and slowly to Iranians. All part of the process.

---

quash said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Freedom is coming to Saudi (for women) and slowly to Iranians. All part of the process.

---

A little in Saudi Arabia Very little. I have more hope for Iran.

Both countries could regress if they go to war with each other. The whole region would go nuts. That's why we should GTFO.

---

Jack and DP said:

---

quash said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Freedom is coming to Saudi (for women) and slowly to Iranians. All part of the process.

---

A little in Saudi Arabia Very little. I have more hope for Iran.

Both countries could regress if they go to war with each other. The whole region would go nuts. That's why we should GTFO.

---

So you think Russia would be a more stabilizing force than the US?

---

xiledinok said:

---

Don't you all miss the good old days of a US backed dictator and his wild party boy gangster son running Iraq? They would have been really helpful today.

Do we keep a western educated brutal dictator in charge or do we fight a war with Isis in Syria? We are all getting desensitized to the chemical weapon attacks though not sure nuclear weapons and killing them all won't cause heart ache.
Smart money keeps brutal educated western dictator in charge.

---

Jack and DP said:

---

If we aren't there, Russia will be. Changes are coming in Iran that don't involve a war with Saudi.

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Well at least France and UK stepped up.

Really surprised and pleased France did . They do have a long history/connection with the people of Syria.

Putin is going to respond . He has to or his military alliances will be a laughing stock world wide.

This could explode into WW3 very easily .

Hope our military units are on full alert .

---

Put in responses by getting the hell out of the way. Russia/Iran doesn't stand a chance against US/Saudi/Israel.

---

I realize opinions are a numbers game......get a few million people together and they all think they each have 'it' figured out.

But exactly how do you figure we'd 'beat' Russia so easily. They match us in nukes, have a far larger conventional army.

Only our Navy is clearly superior . Our civilians ? Not the best when times get tough.

---

Numbers of soldiers don't matter when we are able to bomb them at will.

---

Exactly how do you figure the US can ' bomb them at will' ?

The Russian Air Force is the equal to ours.

This is no video game Trump is playing. Millions of people could die......instantly .

---

Russian fighters are crap. They would get destroyed by ours very quickly.

---

You are wrong. Russia's fighters are sophisticated. What's even more pressing is their IADS capability and the sophistication of their 4th Gen main battle tanks.

We may 'win,' but conventional conflict between world powers is really a situation where nobody wins. We just don't die as much.

---

Sorry but I'm right.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-russia-stealth-jets-no-chance-us-f-35-f-22-2017-8

I mean there is no way we are worried about 10 prototype fighters. Ten. Yawn.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18659251/russia-su-57-syria-f-22/

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/24/new-russian-stealth-fighter-jet-revealed.html


Their 4th gen tanks are still in prototype and test phases. Again a massive yawn. The bulk of their tank force is made up of T-72 variants. (The ones we destroyed at will in Iraq)

So while they may have some good stuff in development it isn't in production yet or being produced enough for a war.

---

If only it was as simple as air to air or force on force. First, not having a stealth capability is not the same as incapable. This isn't the Iraqi Air Force; TTPs and training in Russia actually happen. When you say we can bomb troops at will, you completely ignore their IADS (extremely sophisticated) and assume away all risk because of our technology. It's unwise and it's also not accurate. We have 187 F-22s in the inventory give or take. Assuming even decent readiness, you probably have 100 of those that you can fly. Depending on sortie generation and where they launch from, you need tanker support, forward airfields, etc. Let's assume that the F-22 is completely undetectable. Things that aren't: tankers and airfields. You don't need to shoot down an F-22 to make it useless. And every F-22 in our inventory can't generate the sorties to defeat and adversary the size of the Russian Army.

As far as T-72s go, and argue the majority of their inventory is actually T-80s and T-90s, and again, when couple with sophisticated IADS it's hardly shooting fish in a barrel. Additionally, they don't need every unit to be equipped with T-14s (their 4th gen tank). That item is sophisticated enough to make the solution to killing and destroying it extremely complex.

Bottom line is fighting against Ivan isn't a walk in the park and would lead to death totals not seen since the end of WWII. Thats a fact. And it's not something anyone in our country has a true appetite for l, especially in an age when the feedback loop is near instantaneous thanks to social media.

---

You don't like facts much do you?

Here is some simple math. Tell me which is more.

8,900

Or

4,000.

Because the first number is the total T-72 tanks that Russia has.

The second is the other kinds it has.

Th rest of your post is just full of hypotheticals that aren't even close to true. You seem to forget we have bases close to Russia and can refuel there or would be refueling over friendly skies not the middle of Russia.

---

Your ignorance as to how threat systems truly work, the way they're employed, as well as your willingness to assume away legitimate risk is astounding. If I threw the numbers of our F-18 inventory vs our F-22 inventory, would that mean that since one is greater than the other, the lesser of the two should be dismissed? Why then so for tanks?

Never mind that you're looking at their systems myopically vice how they actually employ and integrate everything. Would we win? Yes. At what price? Catastrophic loss of life for both sides. That's a fact.

There's a generation of Sunni's and Afghans who use antiquated and vastly inferior equipment that show the will of the American people can be broken if you just wait long enough. That's childs play to what a war with Russia would look like. But continue to live with your head in the sand if you must.

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Freedom is coming to Saudi (for women) and slowly to Iranians. All part of the process.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Well at least France and UK stepped up.

Really surprised and pleased France did . They do have a long history/connection with the people of Syria.

Putin is going to respond . He has to or his military alliances will be a laughing stock world wide.

This could explode into WW3 very easily .

Hope our military units are on full alert .

---

Put in responses by getting the hell out of the way. Russia/Iran doesn't stand a chance against US/Saudi/Israel.

---

I realize opinions are a numbers game......get a few million people together and they all think they each have 'it' figured out.

But exactly how do you figure we'd 'beat' Russia so easily. They match us in nukes, have a far larger conventional army.

Only our Navy is clearly superior . Our civilians ? Not the best when times get tough.

---

Numbers of soldiers don't matter when we are able to bomb them at will.

---

Nguyen One Soon said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

It seems we want the area stable but without involvement of US troops. Meanwhile, we still need to think about our friends in Israel.

---

We want this part of the world stable, but there have been ongoing wars at one level or another here for thousands of years. It takes more than a mapmaker to make countries here. After the mainly British colonization system broke down, do gooders decided to combine unfriendly tribes with no rhyme or reason. Just like we didn't learn from Vietnam, or Russia from Afghanistan, no amount of our money or lives lost will completely stabilize this area.

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Well at least France and UK stepped up.

Really surprised and pleased France did . They do have a long history/connection with the people of Syria.

Putin is going to respond . He has to or his military alliances will be a laughing stock world wide.

This could explode into WW3 very easily .

Hope our military units are on full alert .

---

Put in responses by getting the hell out of the way. Russia/Iran doesn't stand a chance against US/Saudi/Israel.

---

I realize opinions are a numbers game......get a few million people together and they all think they each have 'it' figured out.

But exactly how do you figure we'd 'beat' Russia so easily. They match us in nukes, have a far larger conventional army.

Only our Navy is clearly superior . Our civilians ? Not the best when times get tough.

---

Numbers of soldiers don't matter when we are able to bomb them at will.

---

This is completely dismissive of any Russian capability. Which I know to be a huge mistake.

Fair enough on the numbers of T-72s vs T-anythingelse. But comparing the way a Russian would use that armor as well as their training to that of the Iraqi battlefield is once again another error in judgement. You can put numbers and articles up here all you want. The O-plan says that Russia is a credible and dangerous threat. Which they are. Nothing would come easy. We could not bomb them 'at will.'

---

trey3216 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Freedom is coming to Saudi (for women) and slowly to Iranians. All part of the process.

---

Iranian women were more free in the early 70's than they are now.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Dubbicans said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Well at least France and UK stepped up.

Really surprised and pleased France did . They do have a long history/connection with the people of Syria.

Putin is going to respond . He has to or his military alliances will be a laughing stock world wide.

This could explode into WW3 very easily .

Hope our military units are on full alert .

---

Put in responses by getting the hell out of the way. Russia/Iran doesn't stand a chance against US/Saudi/Israel.

---

I realize opinions are a numbers game......get a few million people together and they all think they each have 'it' figured out.

But exactly how do you figure we'd 'beat' Russia so easily. They match us in nukes, have a far larger conventional army.

Only our Navy is clearly superior . Our civilians ? Not the best when times get tough.

---

Numbers of soldiers don't matter when we are able to bomb them at will.

---

This is completely dismissive of any Russian capability. Which I know to be a huge mistake.

Fair enough on the numbers of T-72s vs T-anythingelse. But comparing the way a Russian would use that armor as well as their training to that of the Iraqi battlefield is once again another error in judgement. You can put numbers and articles up here all you want. The O-plan says that Russia is a credible and dangerous threat. Which they are. Nothing would come easy. We could not bomb them 'at will.'

---

The point of me mentioning the tanks in Iraq was to point out how poorly they match up to our tanks. Tactics don't matter when their weapons cannot take out our tanks.

You seem to think that by saying at will I meant with zero difficulty. We would have to plan but it wouldn't be difficult to make those plans and wouldn't be hard to bomb them when we wanted.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

It's my understanding that the Russians have VERY formidable anti-aircraft systems. Until you can control the airspace, I would think everything thing else would be that much more difficult.

Our former marine pilot could shed much more light on this than me however.

---