that Syrian Civil War is NO JOKE VOL. over 1300 dead after alleged Nerve gas attack

[createdestroy]

View media item 563287

When you join the military you sign a document that you understand your duty to follow orders..... they agreed to follow their commander in chief.

If they had shown their face instead of covering it there would be 0% chance of being sent to Syria...why didn't they just do that if it's so serious to them?

 

[wr]

When you join the military you sign a document that you understand your duty to follow orders..... they agreed to follow their commander in chief.

If they had shown their face instead of covering it there would be 0% chance of being sent to Syria...why didn't they just do that if it's so serious to them?

What's your take on the Oath Keepers?

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

 

[createdestroy]

When you join the military you sign a document that you understand your duty to follow orders..... they agreed to follow their commander in chief.

If they had shown their face instead of covering it there would be 0% chance of being sent to Syria...why didn't they just do that if it's so serious to them?

What's your take on the Oath Keepers?

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

^That makes sense.... but going to Syria whether by congressional or executive orders wouldn't be against the constitution...

 

[wr]

^That makes sense.... but going to Syria whether by congressional or executive orders wouldn't be against the constitution...

I see.

I heard about them during Katrina when citizens guns were being confiscated.

 

[reggiekiller]

When you join the military you sign a document that you understand your duty to follow orders..... they agreed to follow their commander in chief.

If they had shown their face instead of covering it there would be 0% chance of being sent to Syria...why didn't they just do that if it's so serious to them?

What's your take on the Oath Keepers?

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

why join the military then?  And if you're about to say "to protect this country", thats what the national guard and Dept of Homeland Security are for.  Neither the Navy, nor the Regular Army serve that purpose

You don't think they had any idea that they would have to fight a country on foreign soil?  

They took the same oath I did, to obey all orders from all superior officers, and the commander and chief

 

[me love nutella]

When you join the military you sign a document that you understand your duty to follow orders..... they agreed to follow their commander in chief.

If they had shown their face instead of covering it there would be 0% chance of being sent to Syria...why didn't they just do that if it's so serious to them?

Can someone please tell me where this bullcrap fighting for Al Qaeda is coming from? ?? My gosh Assad and the propaganda he is spewing and it is being picked up by the media. I am disagreeing with the U.S. to intervene but let's not twist what is going on in this war.

 

[rell826]

The Pentagon said that we can't afford any intervention in Syria because of defense cuts.

I'm against getting involved in this bubbling civil war.

Let them pound each other into the sand.

 

[wr]

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." - Winston Churchill

ME diplomacy is so sloppy that it only makes sense for the confusion to be intentionally done.

 

[bandit country]

Can someone please tell me where this bullcrap fighting for Al Qaeda is coming from? ?? My gosh Assad and the propaganda he is spewing and it is being picked up by the media. I am disagreeing with the U.S. to intervene but let's not twist what is going on in this war.

probably because AQ jihadi elements have infiltrated the resistance.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

When you join the military you sign a document that you understand your duty to follow orders..... they agreed to follow their commander in chief.

If they had shown their face instead of covering it there would be 0% chance of being sent to Syria...why didn't they just do that if it's so serious to them?

Can someone please tell me where this bullcrap fighting for Al Qaeda is coming from? ?? My gosh Assad and the propaganda he is spewing and it is being picked up by the media. I am disagreeing with the U.S. to intervene but let's not twist what is going on in this war.

Syrian citizens have been saying for months that AQ took over the rebellion as soon as they had a chance.

 

[wr]

So have citizens of uprisings going on in other parts of the region as well. We have yet to see the fallout of the Arab Spring

It's crazy how Egypt fell completely off the radar, and everybody got they arms up over something that happened in the 1st quarter of the year. We are at the end of the third quarter.

Egypt Judges Recommend Dissolving the Brotherhood
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypts-morsi-inciting-violence-20131561

A panel of Egyptian judges recommended Monday the dissolution of the Muslim Brotherhood, adding momentum to a push by authorities to ban the ousted president's main backer and a pillar of political Islam in the region.

Since the military deposed Mohammed Morsi in a July 3 coup, it has steadily intensified a crackdown on the Brotherhood, Egypt's largest political organization. Hundreds of its members are in detention and facing prosecution, many on charges of inciting violence.

Morsi himself has been held in an undisclosed location since his ouster. On Sunday, state prosecutors charged him with inciting the murder of his opponents. A date has yet to be set for the trial, in which 14 leading Brotherhood members are also charged.

In its recommendation to Egypt's administrative court, the panel of judges accused the Brotherhood of operating outside the law. It also recommended the closure of its Cairo headquarters.

The recommendation is nonbinding for the court, which holds its next hearing on Nov. 12.

Both state and private Egyptian media have adopted the interim government's line on dealing with the Brotherhood since the coup, repeatedly describing the group's actions and those of other Morsi supporters as acts of "terrorism."

The 85-year-old organization had faced legal challenges even before Morsi's ouster. Officially banned for most of its existence, it flourished as a major provider of social services to the country's poor and eventually won seats in parliament and union leadership.

But its lack of legal status, as well as its secretive organization and funding had left it open to recurrent crackdowns by the government over the years. Thousands of its members had been imprisoned on charges ranging from endangering national security to belonging to an illegal organization.

The Brotherhood rose to the forefront of Egyptian politics however after the 2011 popular uprising that forced longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak from power. The group then formed a political party and won majority seats in the parliament. Its candidate, Morsi, became the country's first Islamist president.

The distinction between the religious-based Brotherhood and its political party however remained unclear, raising questions about financing and legal status and driving many opponents to file lawsuits seeking Brotherhood's dissolution.

A similar recommendation by a panel of judges was issued in March ahead of a court decision on the group's legal status. Only then, the Brotherhood declared it had registered itself as a non-governmental organization.

Critics questioned the hastened registration. Approval by the ministry overseeing such groups usually takes up to two months and requires review of applicants' records and accounting.

The non-governmental organization status also entails disengagement from political activities, such as backing candidates or campaigning before elections. Most observers doubted such a position would be possible for the Brotherhood, saying the distinction between the structure and funding of the group and its political party, Freedom and Justice, were opaque. Critics also charged that Morsi relied on the Brotherhood's leadership in his decision making.

Legal expert Nasser Amin said the court is likely to judge the Brotherhood in violation of the non-governmental organization status.

"It clearly had political programs and endorsed candidates in violation of the law," he said. "It also engaged in armed operations" when its members defended its headquarters building from protesters in a Cairo suburb at a time when nearly a half dozen Brotherhood offices were being torched.

At the time, Morsi blamed thugs for the political violence and accused the opposition of providing political cover for them. The largely secular opposition denied the charge, saying it did not condone violence.

Some in Egypt fear banning the Brotherhood and its political party would simply force it to again operate underground.

In a recent interview, interim Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi said such a ban would not be a solution. He also warned against taking such dramatic decisions during turbulent times, and suggested government monitoring of political parties as a more reasonable alternative.

Mohammed Zaree, a civil and political rights campaigner with the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that although the Brotherhood's sudden registration as an organization left many questions unanswered, the current drive to ban it was more likely a move to appease a hostile public opinion and punish the group. Millions had demonstrated ahead of the coup demanding Morsi's resignation, accusing him and his group of abuse of power.

Doing so however would only drive it underground, Zaree said. "It was banned before. It never vanished ... Repression and security crackdowns never kill an idea — they only aggravate the problem."

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Wild situation. Yeah people completely forgot about Egypt, but its not surprising considering its no longer considered "news" here.

Seems like wherever the "rebels", uprisings, whatever go, AQ follows.

 

[menacin methods]

Did USA win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm asking because of the "bring the troops home" campaign. Was it a draw? Meaning no victory? If so, how can the most powerful country not win against the rebels?

Assad and his Amy will lose to the rebels with or without the help of USA. You can't win against guys who are fights for a cause vs an army (USA) that is required to fight when they don't really want to be there in the first place.

 

[rare]

Did USA win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm asking because of the "bring the troops home" campaign. Was it a draw? Meaning no victory? If so, how can the most powerful country not win against the rebels?

Assad and his Amy will lose to the rebels with or without the help of USA. You can't win against guys who are fights for a cause vs an army (USA) that is required to fight when they don't really want to be there in the first place.

We took out Iraq's regime within the month of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the war was a victory and lasted 11 years. After we took out the regime, we were faced with placing a democratic government in Iraq and fighting off small insurgent factions. Now for Afghanistan, that's still ongoing as there's still presence in Taliban/Al-Qaeda forces in the northern Afghan/Pakistani border. Trust me, we can win against the rebels, a country like Syria isn't even a problem.



Our Navy ships are already in position to fire missiles, "The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other ships in its strike group moved into the Red Sea early on Monday, U.S. defense officials said, describing the move as "prudent planning" in case the ships are needed for military action against Syria.

The officials said the Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 a.m. EDT (1000 GMT), but the strike group had not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, where five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship, the USS San Antonio, remain poised for possible cruise missile strikes against Syria."

http://news.yahoo.com/uss-nimitz-carrier-moves-red-sea-134600633.html

 

[SoleByThePound]

have you been keeping up with the last 20 years?  Suicide bombers arent going anywhere

My question was directed at the article that RIP sleazyy posted. "Syrian army may use kamikaze pilots against west, Assad officer claims"

The video CreateDestroy posted was the first thing that came to mind. I know we have such an advance anti-aircraft system that I wasn't sure if Syrian pilots would really risk not even getting close to our aircraft carriers.

How useful/effective were they in WW2?

You're absolutely right because the U.S. has the same exact military technology as it did in 1941.

 

[reggiekiller]

Did USA win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm asking because of the "bring the troops home" campaign. Was it a draw? Meaning no victory? If so, how can the most powerful country not win against the rebels?

Assad and his Amy will lose to the rebels with or without the help of USA. You can't win against guys who are fights for a cause vs an army (USA) that is required to fight when they don't really want to be there in the first place.

It wasn't a war to win or lose.

The goal was to quell the insurgents, then prepare the ANA, and ANP to take over the country themselves.  We trained up the ANA to a level where we felt like it was ok for us to fall back, so thats what happened.

 

[solidus snake]

                                                                                                                                                          You're absolutely right because the U.S. has the same exact military technology as it did in 1941.

Jesus Christ, I wasn't implying that at all. Once sleazzy mentioned possible kamikazes, I wondered how effective they actually were.

 

[reggiekiller]

                                                                                                                                                          You're absolutely right because the U.S. has the same exact military technology as it did in 1941.

Jesus Christ, I wasn't implying that at all. Once sleazzy mentioned possible kamikazes, I wondered how effective they actually were.

completely uncommon.  We haven't fought a military with air assets since the Gulf War, and since we were fighting on their soil, there was no need for kamikaze attacks.

They have been replaced in modern times with the suicide bomber, who IMO is much more effective

 

[solidus snake]

completely uncommon.  We haven't fought a military with air assets since the Gulf War, and since we were fighting on their soil, there was no need for kamikaze attacks.

They have been replaced in modern times with the suicide bomber, who IMO is much more effective

See, this guy understood my question.

 

[SoleByThePound]

Jesus Christ, I wasn't implying that at all. Once sleazzy mentioned possible kamikazes, I wondered how effective they actually were.

You asked how useful/effective they were in WWII. I am sure you are aware of how extremely effective that tactic was at Pearl Harbor.

ReggieKILLER, why are you bringing up suicide bombers when the article was specifically about pilots?

 

[solidus snake]

You asked how useful/effective they were in WWII. I am sure you are aware of how extremely effective that tactic was at Pearl Harbor.

Yes, in that one incident.

I wanted to see how as an overall tactic, how effective they were.

 

[SoleByThePound]

Yes, in that one incident.

I wanted to see how as an overall tactic, how effective they were.

Japanese fighters, bombers and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers.[sup][14][/sup] All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four being sunk. Two of these were later raised, and with the remaining four repaired, six battleships returned to service later in the war. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship,[sup][nb 5][/sup] and one minelayer. 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,402 Americans were killed[sup][16][/sup] and 1,282 wounded. Important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light: 29 aircraft and five ****** submarines lost, and 65 servicemen killed or wounded. One Japanese sailor was captured.

I would say pretty damn successful.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Jesus Christ, I wasn't implying that at all. Once sleazzy mentioned possible kamikazes, I wondered how effective they actually were.

You asked how useful/effective they were in WWII. I am sure you are aware of how extremely effective that tactic was at Pearl Harbor.

ReggieKILLER, why are you bringing up suicide bombers when the article was specifically about pilots?

The article mentioned suicide martyrs, its not off balance to assume they're talking about more than pilots.

I've seen numerous times that civilians are willing to be martyrs for their country. They're definitely not flying anything.

 

[createdestroy]

Yes, in that one incident.

I wanted to see how as an overall tactic, how effective they were.

[QUOTE url="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier[/URL]"]
Japanese fighters, bombers and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers.[SUP][14][/SUP] All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four being sunk. Two of these were later raised, and with the remaining four repaired, six battleships returned to service later in the war. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship,[SUP][nb 5][/SUP] and one minelayer. 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,402 Americans were killed[SUP][16][/SUP] and 1,282 wounded. Important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light: 29 aircraft and five ****** submarines lost, and 65 servicemen killed or wounded. One Japanese sailor was captured.

I would say pretty damn successful.
[/quote]

the attack on pearl harbor was not a kamikaze mission.....

 

[SoleByThePound]

the attack on pearl harbor was not a kamikaze mission.....

You are correct that they didn't use them at Peal Harbor; however these are stats from WWII

• 7,465 Kamikazes flew to their deaths
• 120 US ships were sunk, with many more damaged
• 3,048 allied sailors were killed and anther 6,025 wounded

http://www.airgroup4.com/kamikaze.htm