Hordini wrote:
The good old days never existed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, China has around 80% (IIRC) of the world's known Tungsten deposits. Becoming entirely dependant on a political rival for ammunition for your new superweapon might not be very clever.

Tibbsy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, China has around 80% (IIRC) of the world's known Tungsten deposits. Becoming entirely dependant on a political rival for ammunition for your new superweapon might not be very clever.

Look at the SR-71; built to spy on the Soviet Union and made almost entirely from Titanium, sourced directly from the world's largest supplier.

The Soviet Union!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for American tax payers on this site:

Given that we know ISIL captured lots of equipment from the Iraqi army, and given that we know that equipment was paid for by American taxpayers, my question is this:

Are you happy that missiles, paid for by your taxes, are being used to destroy stuff that your taxes originally paid for?

WASHINGTON — The United States and allies launched airstrikes against Sunni militants in Syria early Tuesday, unleashing a torrent of cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs from the air and sea on the militants’ de facto capital of Raqqa and along the porous Iraq border.

American fighter jets and armed Predator and Reaper drones, flying alongside warplanes from several Arab allies, struck a broad array of targets in territory controlled by the militants, known as the Islamic State. American defense officials said the targets included weapons supplies, depots, barracks and buildings the militants use for command and control. Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from United States Navy ships in the region.

The strikes are a major turning point in President Obama’s war against the Islamic State and open up a risky new stage of the American military campaign. Until now, the administration had bombed Islamic State targets only in Iraq, and had suggested it would be weeks if not months before the start of a bombing campaign against Islamic State targets in Syria.

Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates took part in the strikes, American officials said, although the Arab governments were not expected to announce their participation until later Tuesday. The new coalition’s makeup is significant because the United States was able to recruit Sunni governments to take action against the Sunni militants of the Islamic State. The operation also unites the squabbling states of the Persian Gulf.

The strikes came less than two weeks after Mr. Obama announced in an address to the nation that he was authorizing an expansion of the military campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Unlike American strikes in Iraq over the past month, which have been small-bore bombings of mostly individual Islamic State targets — patrol boats and trucks — the salvo on Tuesday in Syria was the beginning of what was expected to be a sustained, hourslong bombardment at targets in the militant headquarters in Raqqa and on the border.

The strikes began after years of debate within the Obama administration about whether the United States should intervene militarily or should avoid another entanglement in a complex war in the Middle East. But the Islamic State controls a broad swath of land across both Iraq and Syria.

Defense officials said the goal of the air campaign was to deprive the Islamic State of the safe havens it enjoys in Syria. The administration’s ultimate goal, as set forth in the address Mr. Obama delivered on Sept. 10, is to recruit a global coalition to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the militants, even as Mr. Obama warned that “eradicating a cancer” like the Islamic State was a long-term challenge that would put some American troops at risk.

American warplanes had been conducting surveillance flights over Syria for more than a month in anticipation of airstrikes, but it had been unclear just how much intelligence the Pentagon had managed to gather about the movements of the Sunni militant group in Syria. Unlike Iraq, whose airspace is controlled by the United States, Syria has its own aerial defense system, so American planes have had to rely on sometimes jamming the country’s defenses when crossing into Syria.

The strikes in Syria occurred without the approval of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, whose government, unlike Iraq, did not ask the United States for help against the Sunni militant group. Mr. Obama has repeatedly called on Mr. Assad to step down because of chemical weapons attacks and violence against his own people, and defense officials said Mr. Assad had not been told in advance of the strikes.

But administration officials acknowledge that American efforts to roll back the Sunni militant group in Syria cannot help but aid Mr. Assad, whose government is also a target of the Islamic State.

The United Arab Emirates announced three weeks ago that it was willing to participate in the campaign against the Islamic State, and administration officials have also said they expect the Iraqi military to take part in strikes both in Iraq and Syria. If both nations are in fact participants, the strikes on Tuesday could mark a rare instance when the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military has cooperated in a military operation with its Sunni Arab neighbors.

Combined with a French airstrike last week on a logistics depot held by Islamic State militants in northeastern Iraq, the allied participation in the strikes allows Mr. Obama to make the case that his plan to target the Islamic State has international cooperation.

In addition, Saudi Arabia recently agreed to a training facility for moderate members of the Syrian opposition, whom the United States hopes to train, equip and send back to Syria to fight both Mr. Assad and Islamic State militants.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama is expected to speak of the international coalition in an address to the United Nations General Assembly.

In his Sept. 10 speech to the nation, Mr. Obama drew a distinction between the military action he was ordering and the two wars begun by his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush. He likened this campaign to the selective airstrikes that the United States has carried out for years against suspected terrorists in Yemen and Somalia, few of which have been made public.

The airstrikes in Syria, so far, come without the benefit of a large ground force to capitalize on gains they make. While some Syrian opposition groups fighting the Islamic State militants may be able to move into a few cleared areas, administration officials acknowledged on Monday that it was doubtful that the Free Syrian Army, the opposition group most preferred by the United States, would be able to take control of major sections of Islamic State territory, at least not until it has been better trained — which will take place over the next year.

That could leave the forces of Mr. Assad in perhaps the best position to take advantage of any American bombardment. An administration official on Monday acknowledged that that was a worry, but said, “We don’t plan to make it easy for Assad to reclaim territory.” He declined to say what methods the United States would use to prevent the Syrian leader from capitalizing on the American aerial bombardment.

Although the full scope of the airstrikes was not immediately clear, they followed an urgent appeal from Hadi al-Bahra, the president of the Syrian Opposition Coalition, for American military action. He said the United States needed to act quickly to stop militants from the Islamic State from pressing their attack against the Kurdish communities near the Syrian border town of Ayn-al-Arab, as it is known by Arabs, or Kobani, as it is called by the Kurds.

And Representative Eliot L. Engel, a New York Democrat who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement urging “targeted American airstrikes” to protect the Syrian Kurds and prevent a “potential massacre.”

Obama administration officials asserted that they were having success building an international coalition to confront the Islamic State, but Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said on Monday that France would limit its military operations to Iraq.

“The French president has said we do not have intention to do the same in Syria, I mean by air,” Mr. Fabius said in an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, adding that France would support the moderate Syrian opposition.

“I can confirm that U.S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles,” said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, using an alternate name for the Islamic State.

“Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time,” Admiral Kirby said in a statement Monday night in Washington. “The decision to conduct these strikes was made earlier today by the U.S. Central Command commander under authorization granted him by the commander in chief. We will provide more details later as operationally appropriate.”

 Ouze wrote:
I do not believe there is a constitutionally-based authorization to perform any combat operations against ISIL.

PhantomViper wrote:
Why does that article refers to your president almost exclusively as Mr. Obama instead of calling him the president? Was he making all of those declarations and announcements as a private citizen instead of speaking on behalf of his office?

PhantomViper wrote:
Why does that article refers to your president almost exclusively as Mr. Obama instead of calling him the president? Was he making all of those declarations and announcements as a private citizen instead of speaking on behalf of his office?

 whembly wrote:

Not even a congressional authorization?

I thought we've moved past the idea that one could declare war on non-state actors.

 Ouze wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Why does that article refers to your president almost exclusively as Mr. Obama instead of calling him the president? Was he making all of those declarations and announcements as a private citizen instead of speaking on behalf of his office?

this article is old, but answers your question.

 Ouze wrote:


I am unaware of any congressional authorization that would cover ISIL. The Al-Qaeda AUMF most certainly does not.

 Ouze wrote:
I do not believe there is a constitutionally-based authorization to perform any combat operations against ISIL.

Barack Obama's Q&A
[Q] In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

[A] The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military shot down a Syrian fighter jet that infiltrated its airspace over the Golan Heights on Tuesday morning — the first such downing in decades, heightening tensions in the volatile plateau.

The military said a "Syrian aircraft infiltrated into Israeli air space" in the morning hours and that the military "intercepted the aircraft in mid-flight, using the Patriot air defense system."

The military would not say what type of aircraft was downed and said the circumstances of the incident were "unclear."

A defense official identified the downed aircraft as a Sukhoi Su-24 Russian fighter plane. Perviously, it was reported to have been a MiG aircraft. He said the Syrian jet penetrated 800 meters (2,600 feet) into Israeli air space and tried to return to Syria after the Patriot missile was fired.

The crew managed to abandon the plane in time and landed in Syrian territory, the Israeli official said.

It was the first such incident since the war with Lebanon in 1982, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Israel has largely stayed on the sidelines of Syria's civil war raging across the border. But Israeli leaders appear increasingly nervous about the possibility of al-Qaida-linked fighters occupying the Golan's high ground over northern Israel.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said the aircraft had crossed into Israel in a "threatening way" and vowed to retaliate to any similar attempts in the future.

"We will not any allow element, whether it is a terror group or a state, to threaten our security and breach our sovereignty," he said. "We are committed first and foremost to ensure the security of the Israel's citizens and we will use all means at our disposal to do so," he said.

Israel has avoided taking sides in the three-year civil war in Syria, though Israeli troops have responded to occasional mortar fire that has landed on the Israeli side of the Golan. Israel says some of the attacks have been accidental spillover, while others have been intentionally aimed at Israeli civilians and soldiers. It has always held Syria responsible for any cross-border fire.

Israel and Syria are bitter enemies who have fought several wars.

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed the strategic area in a move that has never been internationally recognized.

While relations are hostile, the ruling Assad family in Syria has kept the border area with Israel quiet for most of the past 40 years. Israel is concerned that Assad's ouster could push the country into the hands of Islamic State extremists or other al-Qaida linked militants, or plunge the region further into sectarian warfare.

The Syrian government confirmed that Israel shot down one of its planes.

In August, Israel shot down a drone that had entered its side of the Golan Heights from Syria.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Barack Obama's Q&A
[Q] In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

[A] The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

 Ouze wrote:
I agree. However, he does have authority to act to stop an imminent thread, and in fact, there was a second, separate attack this morning aimed at another group using just such phrasing - an imminent threat.

In my opinion the President is required to seek congressional approval within 60 days for these operations.

 Easy E wrote:
So, he has 60 days to get Congress on board thanks to that terrible War Powers Act?

U.S. Denies Syria Government Given Prior Notice of Airstrikes
State Department Doesn't Comment on Claims by Syrian Opposition It Was Told of Attack Plans

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, he has 60 days to get Congress on board thanks to that terrible War Powers Act?

I don't think the War Powers Resolution is terrible at all. I think the framers were absolutely crystal clear that while it was to the President to prosecute war, it was for the legislative to to decide if we fought at all. Pursuant to that I think the Resolution is a great bridge that allows the Executive to act in cases of exigency without unduly impinging on Congress's ultimate authority on this matter.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, he has 60 days to get Congress on board thanks to that terrible War Powers Act?

I don't think the War Powers Resolution is terrible at all. I think the framers were absolutely crystal clear that while it was to the President to prosecute war, it was for the legislative to to decide if we fought at all. Pursuant to that I think the Resolution is a great bridge that allows the Executive to act in cases of exigency without unduly impinging on Congress's ultimate authority on this matter.

Maybe Obama is technically overstepping his authority & powers, but really, are we going to seriously nitpick when it's clear this threat goes well beyond even Nazi ideology?

 Jihadin wrote:
Admiral Kirby (Pentagon Spokesman) clearly seems to be more informed and well knowledgeable concerning this