[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Absolutely nothing. And Assad has had nearly two weeks to move around anything critical he doesn't want bombed.deeliman
That would put him in a weak position though. How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military.
Actually you will probably get higher taxes.. and they might get some oil and import it.. raising the cost of gas to cover the costs. Basically the only ones to benefit domestically from a strike are the tomahawk missile makers.
If you listened to the hearing, which went about for more than 2 hours, they stated repeatedly what supposedly the US is to gain from an attack on Syria.
If you listened to the hearing, which went about for more than 2 hours, they stated repeatedly what supposedly the US is to gain from an attack on Syria. Master_Live
They talked a lot, as usual, and gave a piss poor answer of what we gain.
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Absolutely nothing. And Assad has had nearly two weeks to move around anything critical he doesn't want bombed.KC_Hokie
That would put him in a weak position though. How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military. If he moves valuable military assets in bunkers, he can't use them against the rebels. And what are they planning on targeting then if not his conventional army?
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Absolutely nothing. And Assad has had nearly two weeks to move around anything critical he doesn't want bombed.KC_Hokie
That would put him in a weak position though. How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military. The plan is taking out methods of delivery like planes and artillery...
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="deeliman"] That would put him in a weak position though.deeliman
How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military. If he moves valuable military assets in bunkers, he can't use them against the rebels. And what are they planning on targeting then if not his conventional army?So he will move his chemical weapons out of bunkers AFTER the stupid little symbolic missile strike then use them. Might even use them on Israel, Jordan, etc. as retaliation.
And there are no plans to attack his conventional military. They might go after command and control centers but those either have redundancy or can be quickly replaced.
Obama's strike will be symbolic at best and Syria, Iran and Russia will love the propaganda that they survived Obama's stupid little strike.
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="deeliman"] That would put him in a weak position though. How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military. The plan is taking out methods of delivery like planes and artillery... Highly doubt we go after his air force and artillery. They've only discussed certain missiles that can carry those weapons. And so they've just been moved around temporarily.
But since I know many of the people here didn't bother to watch it here is the gist:
Â
"Preserving" an international norm of not ussing chemical weapons, Secretary Kerry noted that even countries like Russia and Iran have sign that treaty.
Preserving the crediility of the US, basically saying that Obama made a red line and would look like an idiot if the US doesn't act.
Degrading the chemical weapon capability of Assad (they mentioned this like a 100).
Sending a message to Iran that use or development of WMD is unnanceptable and will be enforce by force if necessary.
No boots on the ground.
Except for Special force/cover ops ect.
General Dempsey repeatedly stated the fact that of waiting for Congressional approval won't affect the ability of the US military of degrading Assad' stash of chemical weapons.
Arms and training for "vetted" or moderate rebels force.
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military.KC_Hokie
If he moves valuable military assets in bunkers, he can't use them against the rebels. And what are they planning on targeting then if not his conventional army?So he will move his chemical weapons out of bunkers AFTER the stupid little symbolic missile strike then use them. Might even use them on Israel, Jordan, etc. as retaliation.
And there are no plans to attack his conventional military. They might go after command and control centers but those either have redundancy or can be quickly replaced.
Obama's strike will be symbolic at best and Syria, Iran and Russia will love the propaganda that they survived Obama's stupid little strike.
Oh, so Obama has shared his plan with you? Isn't that neat.
But since I know many of the people here didn't bother to watch it here is the gist:
Â
"Preserving" an international norm of not ussing chemical weapons, Secretary Kerry noted that even countries like Russia and Iran have sign that treaty.
Preserving the crediility of the US, basically saying that Obama made a red line and would look like an idiot if the US doesn't act.
Degrading the chemical weapon capability of Assad (they mentioned this like a 100).
Sending a message to Iran that use or development of WMD is unnanceptable and will be enforce by force if necessary.
No boots on the ground.
Except for Special force/cover ops ect.
General Dempsey repeatedly stated the fact that of waiting for Congressional approval won't affect the ability of the US military of degrading Assad' stash of chemical weapons.
Arms and training for "vetted" or moderate rebels force.
Master_Live
Those are all some of the dumbest. broadest reasons to get involved in a conflict that has nothing to do with us.
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military.KC_Hokie
If he moves valuable military assets in bunkers, he can't use them against the rebels. And what are they planning on targeting then if not his conventional army?So he will move his chemical weapons out of bunkers AFTER the stupid little symbolic missile strike then use them. Might even use them on Israel, Jordan, etc. as retaliation. That doesn't matter since they aren't planning to directly hit the stash of chemical weapons.
But since I know many of the people here didn't bother to watch it here is the gist:
Â
"Preserving" an international norm of not ussing chemical weapons, Secretary Kerry noted that even countries like Russia and Iran have sign that treaty.
Preserving the crediility of the US, basically saying that Obama made a red line and would look like an idiot if the US doesn't act.
Degrading the chemical weapon capability of Assad (they mentioned this like a 100).
Sending a message to Iran that use or development of WMD is unnanceptable and will be enforce by force if necessary.
No boots on the ground.
Except for Special force/cover ops ect.
General Dempsey repeatedly stated the fact that of waiting for Congressional approval won't affect the ability of the US military of degrading Assad' stash of chemical weapons.
Arms and training for "vetted" or moderate rebels force.
Master_Live
Â
I did watch it.....for 10 minutes. It was too fvcking boring. I was waiting for something like that^.
[QUOTE="deeliman"] If he moves valuable military assets in bunkers, he can't use them against the rebels. And what are they planning on targeting then if not his conventional army?deeliman
So he will move his chemical weapons out of bunkers AFTER the stupid little symbolic missile strike then use them. Might even use them on Israel, Jordan, etc. as retaliation.
And there are no plans to attack his conventional military. They might go after command and control centers but those either have redundancy or can be quickly replaced.
Obama's strike will be symbolic at best and Syria, Iran and Russia will love the propaganda that they survived Obama's stupid little strike.
Oh, so Obama has shared his plan with you? Isn't that neat.Administration officials have already discussed what they aren't willing to do. And targeting his conventional military is highly unlikely.
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] How does moving around stuff and putting them in bunkers temporarily hurt him? They aren't even planning on targeting his conventional military.KC_Hokie
The plan is taking out methods of delivery like planes and artillery... Highly doubt we go after his air force and artillery. They've only discussed certain missiles that can carry those weapons. And so they've just been moved around temporarily. That and/or command and control are the two most likely things to attack. Especially artillery since that is what was used in the most recent attack.
[QUOTE="deeliman"] If he moves valuable military assets in bunkers, he can't use them against the rebels. And what are they planning on targeting then if not his conventional army?Master_Live
So he will move his chemical weapons out of bunkers AFTER the stupid little symbolic missile strike then use them. Might even use them on Israel, Jordan, etc. as retaliation. That doesn't matter since they aren't planning to directly hit the stash of chemical weapons. The missiles are being moved around to under ground bunkers and under overpasses ,etc. That's why the attacks are going to be more symbolic than anything and a complete waste of money.
Also, the 3 of them used the "that question would better be answer on private hearing (they are holding one of those later this week)" or any of its variations dozen of times.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Person0"] The plan is taking out methods of delivery like planes and artillery...Person0
Highly doubt we go after his air force and artillery. They've only discussed certain missiles that can carry those weapons. And so they've just been moved around temporarily. That and/or command and control are the two most likely things to attack. Especially artillery since that is what was used in the most recent attack. And the command and control attacks are more symbolic as well since they already have redundancy or the Iranians/Russians will repair it in a week.
Also, the 3 of them used the "that question would better be answer on private hearing (they are holding one of those later this week)" or any of its variations dozen of times. Master_Live
Oh great...the 'trust us' answer. That doesn't get the U.S. in trouble...lol!
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Highly doubt we go after his air force and artillery. They've only discussed certain missiles that can carry those weapons. And so they've just been moved around temporarily.KC_Hokie
That and/or command and control are the two most likely things to attack. Especially artillery since that is what was used in the most recent attack. And the command and control attacks are more symbolic as well since they already have redundancy or the Iranians/Russians will repair it in a week. If the us hits a large amount of command and control along with artillery and planes that will be a big hit to Assad's already disorganized forces.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Person0"] That and/or command and control are the two most likely things to attack. Especially artillery since that is what was used in the most recent attack.
Person0
And the command and control attacks are more symbolic as well since they already have redundancy or the Iranians/Russians will repair it in a week. If the us hits a large amount of command and control along with artillery and planes that will be a big hit to Assad's already disorganized forces. Since when are they targeting artillery and planes. Those are conventional targets and the Obama administration has already stated that is going too far. Obama just wants a 'limited strike'.
Also, gotta say, Senator Barbara Boxer was horrible in her questioning. So superficial, just offering platitudes and overtly advancing the Administration arguments.
Also, gotta say, Senator Barbara Boxer was horrible in her questioning. So superficial, just offering platitudes and overtly advancing the Administration arguments. Master_Live
Just heard what Rand Paul said. He is simply awesome and right. Ripped Kerry a new one.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] And the command and control attacks are more symbolic as well since they already have redundancy or the Iranians/Russians will repair it in a week.KC_Hokie
If the us hits a large amount of command and control along with artillery and planes that will be a big hit to Assad's already disorganized forces. Since when are they targeting artillery and planes. Those are conventional targets and the Obama administration has already stated that is going too far. Obama just wants a 'limited strike'. Either go all the way or don't do anything at all, is what I think.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] And the command and control attacks are more symbolic as well since they already have redundancy or the Iranians/Russians will repair it in a week.KC_Hokie
If the us hits a large amount of command and control along with artillery and planes that will be a big hit to Assad's already disorganized forces. Since when are they targeting artillery and planes. Those are conventional targets and the Obama administration has already stated that is going too far. Obama just wants a 'limited strike'. Since those are the delivery methods of chemical weapons and we can't actually hit the stock piles themselves.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Person0"] If the us hits a large amount of command and control along with artillery and planes that will be a big hit to Assad's already disorganized forces.deeliman
Since when are they targeting artillery and planes. Those are conventional targets and the Obama administration has already stated that is going too far. Obama just wants a 'limited strike'. Either go all the way or don't do anything at all, is what I think.Exactly. Obama's plan is all show and will be used by our enemies as propaganda. The 'rebels' will be demoralized if that's all Obama does.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Person0"] If the us hits a large amount of command and control along with artillery and planes that will be a big hit to Assad's already disorganized forces.Person0
Since when are they targeting artillery and planes. Those are conventional targets and the Obama administration has already stated that is going too far. Obama just wants a 'limited strike'. Since those are the delivery methods of chemical weapons and we can't actually hit the stock piles themselves.It's rocket artillery/SKUD missiles. They are conventional artillery. And the same fighters he uses for bombing he used for chemical weapons. And they aren't going after his air force.
We're sending a message with the use of military missles. We're not even invading. It's just like what was going on with Libya except Obama is asking for permission from Congress.
We're sending a message with the use of military missles. We're not even invading. It's just like what was going on with Libya except Obama is asking for permission from Congress.
leviathan91
And watch Assad respond to that message with his own.
We're sending a message with the use of military missles. We're not even invading. It's just like what was going on with Libya except Obama is asking for permission from Congress.
KC_Hokie
And watch Assad respond to that message with his own.
We're sending a message with the use of military missles. We're not even invading. It's just like what was going on with Libya except Obama is asking for permission from Congress.
Jebus213
And watch Assad respond to that message with his own.
Â
Moar gas?
Of course. Maybe even against Israel or Jordan the next time.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And watch Assad respond to that message with his own. KC_Hokie
Â
Moar gas?
Of course. Maybe even against Israel or Jordan the next time. They probably won't target Isreal, He doesn't need them to deal the finishing blow to him.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Since when are they targeting artillery and planes. Those are conventional targets and the Obama administration has already stated that is going too far. Obama just wants a 'limited strike'. Since those are the delivery methods of chemical weapons and we can't actually hit the stock piles themselves.It's rocket artillery/SKUD missiles. They are conventional artillery. And the same fighters he uses for bombing he used for chemical weapons. And they aren't going after his air force. From what I have read from experts there are 3 main things we would go after.airbases, artillery and command and control. What about skud missiles and fighters?
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Person0"] Since those are the delivery methods of chemical weapons and we can't actually hit the stock piles themselves.It's rocket artillery/SKUD missiles. They are conventional artillery. And the same fighters he uses for bombing he used for chemical weapons. And they aren't going after his air force. From what I have read from experts there are 3 main things we would go after.airbases, artillery and command and control. What about skud missiles and fighters?Those were guesses and they gave several plans (the 'experts'). What the administration and generals have said is extremely limited not even going after conventional forces.
Log in to comment