World War 3 begins. US, UK, France about to bomb Syria and Russian assets there

[Spurtacular]

All of them?

There are several disparate groups that could be described as Syrian rebels, so you'll have to be more specific.

You didn't think there was just one group, did you?

As a conglomerate are they good or bad? Is their leadership good or bad? Are the soldiers good or bad?

[Chris]

Bombing another country is warring, bro.

It was a missile strike and it was designed to take out chemical weapons and development centers that Assad and John Kerry sweared "doesn't exist". It was a flex not a declaration of war.

[Pavlov]

As a conglomerate are they good or bad? Is their leadership good or bad? Are the soldiers good or bad?

Again, you'll have to be more specific.

Apparently you're laboring under the impression they are all the same. That isn't true.

[Spurtacular]

Again, you'll have to be more specific.

Apparently you're laboring under the impression they are all the same. That isn't true.

You're running. Par.

This false flag operation was never a secret.

[Spurtacular]

It was a missile strike and it was designed to take out chemical weapons and development centers that Assad and John Kerry sweared "doesn't exist". It was a flex not a declaration of war.

You have to put forth significant justification to bomb a country. We have not done so. Bombing is not okay just cos you "trust Mattis."

[Chris]

You have to put forth significant justification to bomb a country. We have not done so. Bombing is not okay just cos you "trust Mattis."

...And we've come full circle back to classified intelligence. We can disagree on the integrity of General Mattis.

[Spurtacular]

...And we've come full circle back to classified intelligence. We can disagree on the integrity of General Mattis.

It's war, bro. And there's a reason that the founders said war had to be enacted by Congress and not by the arbitrary judgement of some idiot nicknamed Mad Dog.

[Chris]

It's war, bro. And there's a reason that the founders said war had to be enacted by Congress and not by the arbitrary judgement of some idiot nicknamed Mad Dog.

The President has the authority under article II of the Cons ution to use military force overseas to defend important US National interests. Again - we haven't declared war thus, no Congress.

[Spurtacular]

The President has the authority under article II of the Cons ution to use military force overseas to defend important US National interests. Again - we haven't declared war thus, no Congress.

Nope. Nothing in the Cons ution states that the president can engage in war without a declaration of war from Congress first.

[pgardn]

You think I'm doing a research paper here, bro? You tell me why they're good. Show me their mission statement if you find this to be disputable.

Mission statement...

What a crock of .
Actions.
Was there gas used in Syria?

Have all the other UN recognized gas attacks been Western attacks?
You are a total wack job. What you choose to believe depends totally on your idealogical makeup and nothing to do with finding any truth. You only will believe what fits your world view so you will continually be wrong.

[Chris]

Nope. Nothing in the Cons ution states that the president can engage in war without a declaration of war from Congress first.

Congress passed the 2001 AUMF, finding the president has, “’authority under the Cons ution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

The 2002 AUMF gives the president authority to, “’defend the national security of the United States."

Article II authority, reinforced by the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, has been used to take action against al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and associated forces.

[Spurtacular]

Mission statement...

What a crock of .
Actions.
Was there gas used in Syria?

Have all the other UN recognized gas attacks been Western attacks?
You are a total wack job. What you choose to believe depends totally on your idealogical makeup and nothing to do with finding any truth. You only will believe what fits your world view so you will continually be wrong.

Tell me what you "believe" on those matters.

[Spurtacular]

Congress passed the 2001 AUMF, finding the president has, “’authority under the Cons ution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

The 2002 AUMF gives the president authority to, “’defend the national security of the United States."

Article II authority, reinforced by the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, has been used to take action against al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and associated forces.

Yes, government has had no problem ignoring the Cons ution with such acts.

[pgardn]

Tell me what you "believe" on those matters.

I believe Assad used gas just like he has done before.
His father was the same type of Butcher.
Read about the city of Hama and you will understand from way back this entire family has used extermination of its own people who don’t fall into line as a method to stay in power. It’s just not that unusual for dictators and authoritarians, they will use killing to produce fear in their own unstable country. Is very effective for minority dictators. Same with Saddam and Khaddaffi quack and the Shah of Iran. The problem comes when they get on the wrong side of the US.

[Spurtacular]

I believe Assad used gas just like he has done before.
His father was the same type of Butcher.

It was a false flag operation both times. Assad had no reason to gas citizens and bring further decimation to his infrastructure. You may notice that we hear no real stories about it; we just get propaganda videos of people washing themselves with a hose; we don't even know the alleged severity to be justifying all this war.

[Chris]

Yes, government has had no problem ignoring the Cons ution with such acts.

On the contrary they are utilizing the cons ution but we can disagree on that as well.

[pgardn]

It was a false flag operation both times. Assad had no reason to gas citizens and bring further decimation to his infrastructure. You may notice that we hear no real stories about it; we just get propaganda videos of people washing themselves with a hose; we don't even know the alleged severity to be justifying all this war.

He had every reason to use gas. He is running out of men to do the toughest fighting in the last holdout region where his toughest enemies hide among a population that just wants to be left alone and has to constantly change sides depending on who is in power at the moment. He has done it before, and he will likely do it again.

[pgardn]

It was a false flag operation both times. Assad had no reason to gas citizens and bring further decimation to his infrastructure. You may notice that we hear no real stories about it; we just get propaganda videos of people washing themselves with a hose; we don't even know the alleged severity to be justifying all this war.

So there was no gas?

Or there was gas and it was used by whom?

And gas is used as it does not damage infrastructure ya dumb ass. But in this case the infrastructure was largely rubble. It’s an inaccurate way to get rid of or disperse large groups of people from a larger area where the infrastructure provides shelter.

The justification for US bombing them is a whole different debate.

[Spurtacular]

On the contrary they are utilizing the cons ution but we can disagree on that as well.

The Cons ution is clear about warring only after Congress has declared war.

[Spurtacular]

So there was no gas?

Or there was gas and it was used by whom?

And gas is used as it does not damage infrastructure ya dumb ass. But in this case the infrastructure was largely rubble. It’s an inaccurate way to get rid of or disperse large groups of people from a larger area where the infrastructure provides shelter.

The justification for US bombing them is a whole different debate.

Gas was by whom is a good question. Certainly there has been no credible proof put forth that it was from Assad. The decimation is from the resulting war, "dumbass".

..............

"The justification for US bombing them is a whole different debate."

Dafuq?

That is the justification, bro. It was a militaristic "response."

[Spurtacular]

He had every reason to use gas. He is running out of men to do the toughest fighting in the last holdout region where his toughest enemies hide among a population that just wants to be left alone and has to constantly change sides depending on who is in power at the moment. He has done it before, and he will likely do it again.

Assad knows the world is watching. He's not gonna do that counter-productive move, dude. You've been eating up all the propaganda about how bad Assad is that you've never stopped to think how bad the people are that want to get a stake in Syria are.

[pgardn]

Gas was by whom is a good question. Certainly there has been no credible proof put forth that it was from Assad. The decimation is from the resulting war, "dumbass".

..............

"The justification for US bombing them is a whole different debate."

Dafuq?

That is the justification, bro. It was a militaristic "response."

Its a whole different subject fathead.

Question: Who used this gas, was it even used what’s the truth?

Question: Is it’s the US responsiblility to respond militarily if a ruler gases his own innocent people?

They are entirely different debates.
Dont be an idiot.

[ducks]

Any body with a brain knows who used the gas

[pgardn]

Assad knows the world is watching. He's not gonna do that counter-productive move, dude. You've been eating up all the propaganda about how bad Assad is that you've never stopped to think how bad the people are that want to get a stake in Syria are.

The world is watching? Are you fckn kidding? You just said a bunch of people washing themselves with hoses proves nothing. You are the one not believing the medical heroes on neither side that are just trying to help people from suffering.

And You dare to use the word propaganda when you slurp it is like your mother’s milk... dude...
Dont tell me he is not gonna do that counter productive move, dude. This guy is a desperate man totally relying on makeshift forces and unknown allegiance to keep a small part of his tattered world. You can’t even begin to think like him because you have no fckn clue what kind of position he is in.

[Spurtacular]

Its a whole different subject fathead.

Question: Who used this gas, was it even used what’s the truth?

Question: Is it’s the US responsiblility to respond militarily if a ruler gases his own innocent people?

They are entirely different debates.
Dont be an idiot.

You're making no sense whatsoever. Your idiotic conclusion isn't even supported by rational thinking. The bombing was literally a "response" to the gassing, bro.