EPTOn April 07 2017 07:20 lastpuritan wrote:
Guys...
Guys...
I'm sure that when they mention that option they will include the consequences of doing that.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7284
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
I'm sure that when they mention that option they will include the consequences of doing that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
President asks for options Military presents options President asks congress for approval for options Congress reviews options Approved or denied The president doesn't go to congress, ask to bomb a country with zero specifics and then congress approves it. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16169 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:23 Plansix wrote: That isn't happening. We can't attack NK and China will never let that take place. NK will continue to be a problem until something internal changes. There is no wiping out their nukes. Once a nation has nukes, they have them. You can't take them away with an airstrike. Seems like something Trump would think, though, although trying to understand what he thinks is really difficult | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45384 Posts
"I think we’ve had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One. ... Friday will mark 11 weeks since Trump was inaugurated as president. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327669-trump-weve-had-one-of-the-most-successful-13-weeks-in-history Facepalm. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:27 Plansix wrote: People need to get the order of operations down. President asks for options Military presents options President asks congress for approval for options Congress reviews options Approved or denied The president doesn't go to congress, ask to bomb a country with zero specifics and then congress approves it. Theres a degree where the president just has to tell the "gang of eight" and can do whatever he wants for 72 hours or so I think but anything past this yeah what p6 said. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote: Also at this point I'm quite convinced that Mattis is the one setting the direction for Trump's FP. The question then is does Mattis want war? I'm sure Trump is open to the idea since he fancies himself a strongman. Crazy to think just a week ago he was all friendly with Assad and Marines were fighting alongside Russians in Syria... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:33 plasmidghost wrote: Seems like something Trump would think, though, although trying to understand what he thinks is really difficult This stuff is super complicated and some very smart people have been trying to think of ways to deal with NK for a long time. Trump is an novice who has never had to really dig into these issues, so he thinks ideas like that are viable. The reason that we have not dealt with NK yet is because Obama/Bush/Clinton/Everyone before him was chicken. Same with Syria. Same with ISIS. Trump is the average voter who thinks things are easy to fix. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:37 On_Slaught wrote: The question then is does Mattis want war? I'm sure Trump is open to the idea since he fancies himself a strongman. Crazy to think just a week ago he was all friendly with Assad and Marines were fighting alongside Russians in Syria... Mattis is a hawk, but he's also not insane. So it's difficult to say. The language from the US side seems particularly pointed right now though, suggesting that they may very well be pushing for an intervention. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:36 Sermokala wrote: Theres a degree where the president just has to tell the "gang of eight" and can do whatever he wants for 72 hours or so I think but anything past this yeah what p6 said. And there are limits on that too. He can't just go HAM and attack the UK for 72 hours. I am not sure an operation against Assad would be covered, since American assets/interests are not directly threatened. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:37 On_Slaught wrote: The question then is does Mattis want war? I'm sure Trump is open to the idea since he fancies himself a strongman. Crazy to think just a week ago he was all friendly with Assad and Marines were fighting alongside Russians in Syria... Anyone here military'ish have any comment on this? In my ignorant view, the entire idea of a solider takes a certain amount of turning your brain off and understanding that you are a piece of the whole and that you are doing it for the good of the country blah blah and other silly bullshit. But if you were stationed in an area, fighting alongside a certain group, does it not seriously fuck with morale to be like "never mind, that dude you made friends with should be shot". I'd imagine it really distorts the brainwashing necessary to convince people to do stuff like that. I don't doubt they would still shoot their friend, but I would imagine it brings down soldier efficiency to have things change like that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23769 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:25 a_flayer wrote: I'm sure that when they mention that option they will include the consequences of doing that. (FMR) Gen. Keane suggested we have the assets in the area to do it with cruise missiles and we could have it done overnight. I don't agree with the guys politics but he knows his shit. He says we could take out all 6 but that sounds like a bit of a stretch without air support. But pretty sure we could use some B-2's with minimal risk. Not sure what comes next after you blow up his air fields. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5070 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:37 Plansix wrote: This stuff is super complicated and some very smart people have been trying to think of ways to deal with NK for a long time. Trump is an novice who has never had to really dig into these issues, so he thinks ideas like that are viable. The reason that we have not dealt with NK yet is because Obama/Bush/Clinton/Everyone before him was chicken. Same with Syria. Same with ISIS. Trump is the average voter who thinks things are easy to fix. I'm pretty sure the "things are super complex" issue is bullshit. It's people on the highest ranks blowing things up to the extreme. Delicate and impactful does not mean complex. No clear solution because either side can't really have a solution doesn't make it complex. It makes it unsolvable. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
Assad is already evacuating assets from his bases. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote: (FMR) Gen. Keane suggested we have the assets in the area to do it with cruise missiles and we could have it done overnight. I don't agree with the guys politics but he knows his shit. He says we could take out all 6 but that sounds like a bit of a stretch without air support. But pretty sure we could use some B-2's with minimal risk. Not sure what comes next after you blow up his air fields. They would be crazy to send US planes in there, IMO. Russia supports Assad and I don't trust them not to fire one of our planes. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:38 LegalLord wrote: Mattis is a hawk, but he's also not insane. So it's difficult to say. The language from the US side seems particularly pointed right now though, suggesting that they may very well be pushing for an intervention. Meanwhile the media is busy manufacturing consent on behalf of military intervention. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:45 Plansix wrote: They would be crazy to send US planes in there, IMO. Russia supports Assad and I don't trust them not to fire one of our planes. Easy then just have Isreal do all the air strikes WCGW? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote: Easy then just have Isreal do all the air strikes WCGW? Pretty much all of the same things that could go wrong in the original scenario. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On April 07 2017 07:51 LegalLord wrote: Pretty much all of the same things that could go wrong in the original scenario. Yeah but they probably have more experience with dealing with russian anti air technology. And how long have they been preparing for taking out all of syrias air bases? Clearly the best party to do the air strikes is Isreal. | ||
| ||
