Good news: More airstrikes hit the ISIS, one was conducted on a truck firing on civilians. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Seith;45647999]Hamas wants the same thing as ISIS according to him. They're just facing a bigger opponent... So how come US response is any better suited than Israel's, when it's consequences are probably going to be the same?[/QUOTE] Do you have to compare everything to Israel vs. the Hamas in literally every thread?

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45648392]Do you have to compare everything to Israel vs. the Hamas in literally every thread?[/QUOTE] He does. Literally.

Time for the terrorists to feel what it is like to be terrorised [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Polonium9;45647715]I swear, I hear Billy Mays after the strike.[/QUOTE] No, thats Tom Hanks

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;45646717]We've gotten congressional approval on every "police action" we've taken though.[/QUOTE] Rather hard to not approve[I] after[/I] the president had already sent troops in or sent planes out to bomb.

[QUOTE=OvB;45646364]Are you seriously against bombing a truck actively shooting at civilians? [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] Are you one of those people that take their phones out and records someone getting mugged for youtube? [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] But yeah, lets ask the dudes that preside over the territory we're bombing. They seem pretty cool with it to me.[/QUOTE] Yea because I said that. Playing this game, are you one of those people that agrees with the US invading every country and overthrowing every government at a whim and assassinating people we don't like? Because this is exactly where this sort of thing is heading again. Like I said, there needs to be boundaries and right now[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki"] there isn't[/URL]. [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;45646717]We've gotten congressional approval on every "police action" we've taken though.[/QUOTE] Yes, because Congress really can't stop it. What are they going to do, just say "No we aren't going to give you the funding for this war" once everyone has boots on the ground? "Sorry guys but unless you withdraw now then you're just going to be stuck there without any supply and no way home."

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];45648804']Yes, because Congress really can't stop it. What are they going to do, just say "No we aren't going to give you the funding for this war" once everyone has boots on the ground? "Sorry guys but unless you withdraw now then you're just going to be stuck there without any supply and no way home."[/QUOTE] So you believe that in every war from Korea until now the President has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and use the military while poor little congress has been helpless? I'm sorry but that is laughably false. From Korea to Iraq congress has overwhelmingly supported the president's decision to go to war.

[QUOTE] Playing this game, are you one of those people that agrees with the US invading every country and overthrowing every government at a whim and assassinating people we don't like? Because this is exactly where this sort of thing is heading again. Like I said, there needs to be boundaries and right now there isn't.[/QUOTE] Chill dude, they don't even know what the School of the Americas is...

[QUOTE=Gentry;45644850]fear is powerful[/QUOTE] Love is more powerful than fear

[QUOTE=TestECull;45645004]Irrational public paranoia and/or fear brought on by media bullshit if I was to guess.[/QUOTE] Once you work in the security sector, you see that fear is absolutely rational...

[QUOTE=Aide;45646917]A-10's are for CAS. You have someone on the ground guiding you on to target. Making you as a pilot aware of friendlies, enemies, and civilians. I love the A-10 but is not exactly suited for coordinating these types of air strikes and air strikes in general.[/QUOTE] There probably are people on the ground, the strikes have been pretty accurate.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;45650447]So you believe that in every war from Korea until now the President has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and use the military while poor little congress has been helpless? I'm sorry but that is laughably false. From Korea to Iraq congress has overwhelmingly supported the president's decision to go to war.[/QUOTE] Never said that. Of course they have, but they can't not. If there was ever a situation where Congress would not, then they couldn't do anything about it anyhow. No Congressman is going to be the one to publicly vote to cut off funding for half the armed forces sitting in the middle of Iraq. The president could send troops into Canada and Congress would still vote in favor of it because they reasonably can't. This contention is the reasoning that Congress to this day still denies that the President has the ability to make war without Congressional approval but every president holds that they do. It's because when it comes down to it the president can't be stopped so long as he has the ability to put us into war.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];45651396']Never said that. Of course they have, but they can't not. If there was ever a situation where Congress would not, then they couldn't do anything about it anyhow. No Congressman is going to be the one to publicly vote to cut off funding for half the armed forces sitting in the middle of Iraq. The president could send troops into Canada and Congress would still vote in favor of it because they reasonably can't. This contention is the reasoning that Congress to this day still denies that the President has the ability to make war without Congressional approval but every president holds that they do. It's because when it comes down to it the president can't be stopped so long as he has the ability to put us into war.[/QUOTE] You're looking at this way too simplistically. Do you seriously think there would be a president who would continue a war after congress told him not to? Do you think that congress would willingly fund a military operation that the majority disagrees with?

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;45647638]I'm kind of confused by the massive war boner everyone is having here compared to the usual SH reaction to everything that happens in Gaza. Sure, ISIS is worse than Hamas by orders of magnitude, but you guys do realize that when America gets involved then like in every military operation, especially a prolonged one, there [B]are[/B] going to be lots and lots of civilian casualties, right?b I mean, Afghanistan? Ring any bells? Or the last couple of times America went to Iraq?[/QUOTE] I don't support ISIS or Israel's attempts at genocide

I feel like for the first time, the US is doing something that is legitimately good work. ISIL is very dangerous, and nobody in Iraq can stop them from continuing their (proven and well documented) mass murders and other attacks without outside help. What will happen after they are stopped, though? Who is going to pick up the pieces? We already know that no matter how hard it tried, the US and the NATO forces could never make piece last. Destroying ISIL is a very clear goal, everything afterwards is going to be the same problem as last time. I guess we'll have to wait and see, until then, go 'murica.

[QUOTE=Thlis;45644912]I think that's the gist of it but it's a dumb argument. The same could be said of cannons -> guns -> sniper rifles -> Artillery -> Aircraft -> Missiles.[/QUOTE] Obviously the only solution is melee combat. Bring back the claymores!

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;45654507]Obviously the only solution is melee combat. Bring back the claymores![/QUOTE] Frankly I think we made it too easy to violate the sovereignty of other nations by developing the idea of standing armies in the first place. Bring back feudal levy armies pls.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;45653428]You're looking at this way too simplistically. Do you seriously think there would be a president who would continue a war after congress told him not to? Do you think that congress would willingly fund a military operation that the majority disagrees with?[/QUOTE] Not willingly, and that's the point. Because of the constraints put on Congress, they more or less have to, due to public pressure, fund wars that the public would find reprehensible up to a certain point because presidential police actions have the ability to put several hundreds thousand people across the world before we have money to pay for it in full. This is a known issue that comes to national debate every time we have military action. Go ahead, letter your congressmen/women, ask them about it, I'm sure they'll tell you all about it because it's kinda a big deal. If Congress refused funding the president couldn't continue the war, however the logistics of withdrawing a military force is extremely expensive and no congressperson is going to be the one to say no and fuck the troops on the ground.

[QUOTE=Gentry;45648384]You're the guy who openly said you supported ethnically cleansing Palestine to make room for the Jews a few days ago. You're a bigger support of atrocities than Hamas ever will be.[/QUOTE] You got an answer to my question or... ?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];45654830']Not willingly, and that's the point. Because of the constraints put on Congress, they more or less have to, due to public pressure, fund wars that the public would find reprehensible up to a certain point because presidential police actions have the ability to put several hundreds thousand people across the world before we have money to pay for it in full. This is a known issue that comes to national debate every time we have military action. Go ahead, letter your congressmen/women, ask them about it, I'm sure they'll tell you all about it because it's kinda a big deal. If Congress refused funding the president couldn't continue the war, however the logistics of withdrawing a military force is extremely expensive and no congressperson is going to be the one to say no and fuck the troops on the ground.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;45653428]Do you seriously think there would be a president who would continue a war after congress told him not to? Do you think that congress would willingly fund a military operation that the majority disagrees with?[/QUOTE]