Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
A pretty aggressive and hypocritical interview when talking to a man that's fighting a civil war that's been propped up with foreign aid and foreign fighters.
I'm pretty sure the BBC doesn't have anything to do with the war other than reporting on it, so how are they hypocritical?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I'm sure he was referring to Assad. Not BBC.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
That was entertaining. So if a Neo Nazi, KKK, Red Necks, or any Christian USA military killed anybody like Blacks, gays, Mexican, etc.. just hate crimes death in general or Christian military service men who killed ISIL or Al Quedia .. the "crusader" will pay $100?
OK so I'm a little bit confuse here... I thought we should kill more ISIL.. so he wanted to loose more money? I think at least 1,000 ISIL, Taliban, Hamas, etc... will be killed this there by Christian... he will pay 100,000...he is a freaking idiot. I doubt that 100,000 christian will be killed by ISIL or IS fanatics.
What about ISIL who killed other muslim in Iraq? would that count against them?
I dunno, the way it's phrased the one being hypocritical is talking to "a man that's fighting a civil war that's been proppedup with foreign aid and foreign fighters", and I don't think that description fits the BBC. I could just have misunderstood though, it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
A pretty aggressive and hypocritical interview when talking to a man that's fighting a civil war that's been propped up with foreign aid and foreign fighters.
I'm pretty sure the BBC doesn't have anything to do with the war other than reporting on it, so how are they hypocritical?
That was entertaining. So if a Neo Nazi, KKK, Red Necks, or any Christian USA military killed anybody like Blacks, gays, Mexican, etc.. just hate crimes death in general or Christian military service men who killed ISIL or Al Quedia .. the "crusader" will pay $100?
OK so I'm a little bit confuse here... I thought we should kill more ISIL.. so he wanted to loose more money? I think at least 1,000 ISIL, Taliban, Hamas, etc... will be killed this there by Christian... he will pay 100,000...he is a freaking idiot. I doubt that 100,000 christian will be killed by ISIL or IS fanatics.
What about ISIL who killed other muslim in Iraq? would that count against them?
If I'm hearing him right, that dude (Graham" is going to set aside $100 for “every death committed in the name of fundamentalist Christianity” in 2015. Anyone else who is willing to put up rather than shutting up needs to agree to put up one dollar for every person killed in the name of Islamist fundamentalism and violent jihad. At the end of the year they will add up the total figures. If the difference is that more money for all of the people killed by "Christian fundamentalist" at 100-to-1 ratio, the youtube dude will donate it to the charity of the winner's choice. If it works out that the money for everyone killed by Muslim terrorists is larger (remember, at 1-to-100 ratio), the winner must donate it to his charity of choice (The Salvation Army).
What constitute as a "Fundamentalist Christian™" that's killing folks these days? Some African groups?
That was entertaining. So if a Neo Nazi, KKK, Red Necks, or any Christian USA military killed anybody like Blacks, gays, Mexican, etc.. just hate crimes death in general or Christian military service men who killed ISIL or Al Quedia .. the "crusader" will pay $100?
OK so I'm a little bit confuse here... I thought we should kill more ISIL.. so he wanted to loose more money? I think at least 1,000 ISIL, Taliban, Hamas, etc... will be killed this there by Christian... he will pay 100,000...he is a freaking idiot. I doubt that 100,000 christian will be killed by ISIL or IS fanatics.
What about ISIL who killed other muslim in Iraq? would that count against them?
If I'm hearing him right, that dude (Graham" is going to set aside $100 for “every death committed in the name of fundamentalist Christianity” in 2015. Anyone else who is willing to put up rather than shutting up needs to agree to put up one dollar for every person killed in the name of Islamist fundamentalism and violent jihad. At the end of the year they will add up the total figures. If the difference is that more money for all of the people killed by "Christian fundamentalist" at 100-to-1 ratio, the youtube dude will donate it to the charity of the winner's choice. If it works out that the money for everyone killed by Muslim terrorists is larger (remember, at 1-to-100 ratio), the winner must donate it to his charity of choice (The Salvation Army).
What constitute as a "Fundamentalist Christian™" that's killing folks these days? Some African groups?
I wouldn't count a mixture of Christianity and African religions as being fundamentalist. I also dislike fundamentalist being used like its a bad word.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
That was entertaining. So if a Neo Nazi, KKK, Red Necks, or any Christian USA military killed anybody like Blacks, gays, Mexican, etc.. just hate crimes death in general or Christian military service men who killed ISIL or Al Quedia .. the "crusader" will pay $100?
OK so I'm a little bit confuse here... I thought we should kill more ISIL.. so he wanted to loose more money? I think at least 1,000 ISIL, Taliban, Hamas, etc... will be killed this there by Christian... he will pay 100,000...he is a freaking idiot. I doubt that 100,000 christian will be killed by ISIL or IS fanatics.
What about ISIL who killed other muslim in Iraq? would that count against them?
If I'm hearing him right, that dude (Graham" is going to set aside $100 for “every death committed in the name of fundamentalist Christianity” in 2015. Anyone else who is willing to put up rather than shutting up needs to agree to put up one dollar for every person killed in the name of Islamist fundamentalism and violent jihad. At the end of the year they will add up the total figures. If the difference is that more money for all of the people killed by "Christian fundamentalist" at 100-to-1 ratio, the youtube dude will donate it to the charity of the winner's choice. If it works out that the money for everyone killed by Muslim terrorists is larger (remember, at 1-to-100 ratio), the winner must donate it to his charity of choice (The Salvation Army).
What constitute as a "Fundamentalist Christian™" that's killing folks these days? Some African groups?
I wouldn't count a mixture of Christianity and African religions as being fundamentalist. I also dislike fundamentalist being used like its a bad word.
I gist I get from him is the violent Islamic extremism vs any violent Christian extremism.
A pretty aggressive and hypocritical interview when talking to a man that's fighting a civil war that's been propped up with foreign aid and foreign fighters.
I'm pretty sure the BBC doesn't have anything to do with the war other than reporting on it, so how are they hypocritical?
Did you watch the interview?
I did not watch all of it, no (only the first 15-ish minutes), but just for clarification's sake, who is being hypocritical? The post I quoted from you is less than clear on that point.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Well that was poorly worded. Probably would have proven his point better if he set the two as x amount for every individual killed in the name of a faith by an organized group. As it stands, he's paying $100 for every bat-gak crazy SoB who kills any old person while Obama, or whoever, is paying a buck for every individual killed in the name of a specific type of superstitious feth-wittery. Seems like he's screwed himself, really.
I mean, yes, Islam is behind the eight ball when it comes to organized reform, I agree; however, I'm not entirely sure a bet is the best was of demonstrating that.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Time to let loose Frazz Weiner Legions into the ice caps with flame throwers
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote: Time to let loose Frazz Weiner Legions into the ice caps with flame throwers
But won't someone think of the Polar bears??
We will IN OUR TUMMIES! muahahahah
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Also, going back to the story posted earlier about Jordan's usefulness in bombing targets with dummy bombs.
I talked to a friend of mine, 17 year veteran on the flight line, dealing with F-16 armaments. He told me (like I guessed), that the guidance units are not attached until after the bombs are loaded. That means that all of the pictures taken while the aircraft are just chilling, just means they were taken before that step.
I wouldn't be so sure. I know one of the guys doing targeteering for the combined effort, and he says not all coalition partners are using guided munitions and they are having to targeteer their missions accordingly.
Exactly as my friend said. It all depends on the mission. If you watch that video, the majority of the clips show guided bombs. GBU's were the most prevalent. There were a couple of scenes with MK 82's, but it was hardly the majority, even a significant minority. And I'd be our aircraft that are dropping bombs are dropping the occasional dumb bomb as well. The dude was grasping at conspiracy theory straws with that article.
Wait, did Quze just come within spitting distance of admitting I've been on to something for the last..... almost two years now?
Next thing you know, Frazz will complain that the US didn't invade sooner....
After more study and whatnot, I'm of the opinion that Bush Jr. really screwed the pooch by removing and killing Saddam.... Daddy Bush realized the power behind "the enemy I know is better than the enemy I don't know" and beat Saddam back into submission, but didn't remove him. Even though Saddam was an unsavory sort, he provided stability in a region where, as we now see... needs "Strong" leadership to force others into submission. The people of that region don't seem to respond well to "get out and vote, it's YOUR destiny" so much as they do, "I am the Boss, now kneel before me!"
Naaaa....
The real problem is three fold in my book.
1. We should have never dismantled the Iraqi Army after we defeated them. We took career soldiers and put them out of a job, on their ass. Many of the insurgents were former soldiers, and taught others how to make bombs etc etc. We should have kept them as a army, and re structured the leadership. They could have filled a crucial role in combating the AQ types pouring in from the borders. Also would have saved us a ton of money in re-training a army.
2. We dismantled the administrative...idk...sector...when we toppled the goverment. The folks who did the mundane yet nessesary stuff in maintaining a government I.E. Finance, transportation etc etc. The fear was that their were too many baathist party members in power, but instead of trying to work with them (under ultimatiums of course, the iraq law system is pretty brutal) we threw the baby out with the bathwater. This caused all kinds of chaos.
3. We installed a Shia PM who was clearly bias in favor of the Shia majority, he completely alienated the sunni and purged sunni leadership from the military and administrative ranks. This really pissed off the sunni...who of course happen to be the same sect as the ISIL. Maybe a Bi-partison executive position would have been better (I. E. sharded powers between 2 PM's)
I kind of agree with you, but this is all hindsight theory in a way.
Bush and the last administration intention was not to cause this effect. The theory was the democracy and "freedom" will take care itself. The old "guards" must be removed because of their connection to the old ways.
So if Bush did what you suggested... we don't know what could have happens. What Bush thought could happens was...(to go point to point from your statement)
1 - The old army guys will become the new Sadam type it they stays in power. What is the point in taking out guy number 1 to 5, but leave the 6th in there? The 6th guy is just as bad as #1, so Bush went down the list... maybe he wen't too far down.. but that happy number is kind of hard to detect.
2 - Same as 1
3 - The Shia PM could have been a good PM... but he didn't.
My point is, everybody though the solution they used was the best. This was not the outcome intention.
However, I do some what agree with you.
The key to all your points solution was to get the right guy for the job. But we backed or pick the wrong guys or guys who were not competence enough. Like everything, the picking part is one of the hardest part. When it work, it is great. Example.... Western Germany after WW2 and Japan after WW2. They key success of those two countries.. they didn't have other factions powerful enough to challenge the new administration. Iraq had many factions and around that region were many factions ready to take new leadership. You remove one and other none USA interest faction will likely take over.
I really think that the best course of action in the middle east is, first let the out come be what it may be. Yes even if that means, we let ISIL to be an establish nation worst than NAZI Germany. Then if that nation refuse to act as a "good" nation, the we declare war and go from there. We take out ISIL as a nation and hope this time it will turn out good like in Western Germany.
There are many example where we left them alone and the region took care of it self. Because in the end of the day... people are people and all people want peace and love and prosperity. The Viet con did the same to Vietnam and looked very bad from the USA interest. 30 years later, Vietnam is not some crazy place that USA thought it was going to be. Vietnam is ok and doing well, they love USA and the old reds are ok too. Once they have peace... the rifle is put away and people pick up flowers.
At worst, I think ISIL will have a nation... then other nations around it will have walls to block them. There will be a stability (kind of) then ISIL govt. will realize that their way to control a country will not work... and people are not paying taxes to a fanatic govt like that and the country will fall and new better system will take place or the ISIL govt will just change. Kind of like Russia, Vietnam, China, Germany and Japan.
Or at the very worst, it becomes like another North Korea. But in all fairness, I think NK is on life support... it won't last another 50 years. It must change for the better or the people will rise up eventually.
Of course hindsight is 20/20 I mean theres no way anyone could have known that things would go down like they have. Still, I imagine there must have been some advisors that would have had this much common sense anyway.
A pretty aggressive and hypocritical interview when talking to a man that's fighting a civil war that's been propped up with foreign aid and foreign fighters.
I'm pretty sure the BBC doesn't have anything to do with the war other than reporting on it, so how are they hypocritical?
The interviewer wasn't reporting on it, he was interrogating the Syrian President over why specific weapons were used by the Syrian military. It seems the interviewer had spent a lot of time talking with the Syrian opposition and very little time talking with pro-government people.
These aren't soldiers the government is fighting, they're civilians who've taken up arms against the government. That makes it rather difficult for the army to work out who is still just a civilian and who is a civilian engaged in armed revolt.
An interviewer should be impartial which this guy was not.
As for ISIS, they just want to become another Saudi Arabia. What ISIS is doing now is how islam was able to spread to become the only religion in Arabia. There used to be jews and christians living in Arabia, now islam is the only religion allowed in most of the region.
Because an advantage of a centralized command is heirarchy of command. Kill the leader(s) and there's something in place to compensate for it. Unless you literally kill all of them at once and break the hierarchy it wouldn't work.
That and it more centralized than AQ doesn't mean we have access to who or where the leaders are. It's a lot like Hezbollah or Hamas. We know who many of the leaders are, but getting rid of them just isn't as simple as dropping a bomb on them.
LordofHats wrote: Because an advantage of a centralized command is heirarchy of command. Kill the leader(s) and there's something in place to compensate for it. Unless you literally kill all of them at once and break the hierarchy it wouldn't work.
That and it more centralized than AQ doesn't mean we have access to who or where the leaders are. It's a lot like Hezbollah or Hamas. We know who many of the leaders are, but getting rid of them just isn't as simple as dropping a bomb on them.
If ISIS command structure is much more central (compared to older AQI), why doesn't someone just bomb their upper echelon?
Is it because they don't know where they are? I'm assuming Mosul, Raqqua, etc.?
Or, are they already bombing those locations with little success in actually taking out their command?
Thanks for the info. News doesn't explain much about that specific topic.
You make a good point. An assassination of the Caliphate and it is over. Unlike AQ, they have a Caliphate.
A Caliphate is like the POPE for them, This is the head leader of their religion and military boss. The Caliphate is Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. This is what make ISIL "weak" and "Strong". ISIL clams that all Muslim in the world must worship and obey It's Caliphate. Of Course many Muslim countries like Jordan, Turkey, etc... do not agree that Abu Bakr is the true Caliphate. A Caliphate is not pick like the pope, it is claim by Allah. So if the current Caliphate is dead... they just can't get the 2nd in command and make him Caliphate. But, of course they will do that and claim that he was picked by Allah. However, this is their religion... many who believe Abu Bakr as a Caliphate (really believe picked by Allah) might not believe the next one... so ISIL will fracture for sure.
The Caliphate is ISIL strength and weakness. They have large follower because many muslim are rejoicing that the Caliphate is here and finally things will change for them. It is like if Jesus is here. Hence, why all the ISIL is stronger than ever before. KILL the Caliphate!
Quick note: (I might be mistaken here). There was a always one Caliphate in all of Muslim history until about 100 years (don't remember when) he was dead and that was it. The religion never had a True Caliphate anymore. Till now.
LordofHats wrote: Because an advantage of a centralized command is heirarchy of command. Kill the leader(s) and there's something in place to compensate for it. Unless you literally kill all of them at once and break the hierarchy it wouldn't work.
That and it more centralized than AQ doesn't mean we have access to who or where the leaders are. It's a lot like Hezbollah or Hamas. We know who many of the leaders are, but getting rid of them just isn't as simple as dropping a bomb on them.
You here lol! You have no idea what you are talking about....
If ISIS command structure is much more central (compared to older AQI), why doesn't someone just bomb their upper echelon?
Is it because they don't know where they are? I'm assuming Mosul, Raqqua, etc.?
Or, are they already bombing those locations with little success in actually taking out their command?
Thanks for the info. News doesn't explain much about that specific topic.
You make a good point. An assassination of the Caliphate and it is over. Unlike AQ, they have a Caliphate.
A Caliphate is like the POPE for them, This is the head leader of their religion and military boss. The Caliphate is Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. This is what make ISIL "weak" and "Strong". ISIL clams that all Muslim in the world must worship and obey It's Caliphate. Of Course many Muslim countries like Jordan, Turkey, etc... do not agree that Abu Bakr is the true Caliphate. A Caliphate is not pick like the pope, it is claim by Allah. So if the current Caliphate is dead... they just can't get the 2nd in command and make him Caliphate. But, of course they will do that and claim that he was picked by Allah. However, this is their religion... many who believe Abu Bakr as a Caliphate (really believe picked by Allah) might not believe the next one... so ISIL will fracture for sure.
The Caliphate is ISIL strength and weakness. They have large follower because many muslim are rejoicing that the Caliphate is here and finally things will change for them. It is like if Jesus is here. Hence, why all the ISIL is stronger than ever before. KILL the Caliphate!
Quick note: (I might be mistaken here). There was a always one Caliphate in all of Muslim history until about 100 years (don't remember when) he was dead and that was it. The religion never had a True Caliphate anymore. Till now.
I wonder why the media and USA govt. are not speaking or educating the public to make everybody understand what a Caliphate is and the reason why Muslim Jihadist and Muslim terrorist are at the highest level of danger and fanaticism in modern history. Those who belief in the ISIL ideology is because of the Caliphate. It would be like if Christians have their Jesus here and now! Remember there hasn't been a Caliphate for almost 100 years... the Muslim are at crazy fever to wage wars. They got their Caliphate and it is working... look at how much ISIL is taking over and wining lands. This is truly a dangerous time.
We need to kill Abu Bakr their Caliphate.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/11 06:43:29
No, no it's not. Let me ask a question: (politics aside) If someone murders the president of the United States, does America go away, or does the VP take over (and possibly have a very large body of the public highly pissed off at you on top that)?
LoH points out the obvious: shoot the guy in charge, and his second in command takes over. or third, or fourth, or twenty seventh....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/11 11:41:12
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
But logistics, supply lines, fuel, support, to keeps troops in the field if reduced is weakening them. If they want to use heavier weaponry it needs support. Not cut basic guys with a pick up but guys with a pickup are easier for Kurds etc to deal with.
There tanks will require huge logistical support, artillary needs movers and support trucks carrying ammo.
Cut there logistics and you reduce there ability to bring in heavier firepower. They do have captured hevey weapons.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
No, no it's not. Let me ask a question: (politics aside) If someone murders the president of the United States, does America go away, or does the VP take over (and possibly have a very large body of the public highly pissed off at you on top that)?
LoH points out the obvious: shoot the guy in charge, and his second in command takes over. or third, or fourth, or twenty seventh....
Did you read my comment what a calliphate is?
This is a religious army lead by a caliphate, he is picked by God. Ther is no 2 nd place or VP. You kill the head snake. There is no 2nd caliphate that will be agree by all ISIL. The army will fracture declare who is the new caliphate.
No, no it's not. Let me ask a question: (politics aside) If someone murders the president of the United States, does America go away, or does the VP take over (and possibly have a very large body of the public highly pissed off at you on top that)?
LoH points out the obvious: shoot the guy in charge, and his second in command takes over. or third, or fourth, or twenty seventh....
Did you read my comment what a calliphate is?
This is a religious army lead by a caliphate, he is picked by God. Ther is no 2 nd place or VP. You kill the head snake. There is no 2nd caliphate that will be agree by all ISIL. The army will fracture declare who is the new caliphate.
Right... there totally won't be a possibility that someone else will step up, and say the "Caliph" chose him to be the successor.
Yes, I realize that killing the Caliph 'command' won't guarantee that ISIS ends but I'm assuming it will have some significant impact.
So I'm wondering why they haven't done so.
The more I think about it, I'm guessing that Mosul and Raqqua are large cities and nobody knows exactly where within those places they are hiding. And, that they probably move around.
Guess we will see if Iraq ever gets their act together to push ground forces into the city.
The White House will ask Congress to approve military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that bans “enduring offensive ground operations.”
Administration officials briefed lawmakers on Tuesday about the emerging language, which is intended to win over Republicans.
GOP lawmakers had balked at earlier language considered by a Senate panel in December that banned ground troops in combat operations with some exceptions, such as self-defense and rescue missions.
What is unclear is whether Democrats wary of voting for a new war will withhold their support for the updated language, which even some Republicans acknowledge is vague.
“It’d be interesting to know exactly what that ‘enduring’ means, but I have to see it,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has called for language that would allow ground troops in order to give the military maximum flexibility to go after ISIS.
One congressional aide familiar with the new language acknowledged it could be a difficult sell with Democrats.
“That’s the whole debate on flexibility … that is the rub,” the aide said.
The White House briefed House Democratic leaders Tuesday evening, but rank-and-file members, including liberals critical of language approving ground forces, were keeping their powder dry as they awaited the final details.
The debate is being inflamed by ISIS’s recent actions.
One week after the release of a video showing a Jordanian hostage being burned alive, ISIS sent photographs to the parents of U.S. hostage Kayla Mueller said to prove she had died in captivity. The photos were authenticated and deemed credible by the U.S. intelligence committee, a representative for the 26-year-old’s family told The New York Times.
“No matter how long it takes, the United States will find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible for Kayla’s captivity and death,” President Obama said in a statement.
ISIS claimed Mueller was killed by airstrikes from Jordan carried out after ISIS’s execution of the Jordanian prisoner. The White House cast doubt on that account Tuesday while arguing ISIS was responsible.
“They are responsible for her safety and her well being, and they are therefore responsible for her death,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Asked if Mueller’s death would solidify support for a war authorization request, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said there was “a bipartisan desire to work with the president to have this as a collaborative decision of both the executive branch and Congress.”
“So I think it’s important, and it’s very, very serious,” he said.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the language at issue “comes down to a phrase or two.”
The administration is expected to send its formal authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to Capitol Hill as soon as Wednesday.
Congressional aides on Tuesday provided a few details.
They said it would last three years and impose no geographic restrictions on the fight, allowing the military to pursue the terror group wherever it goes.
It would not repeal the 2001 AUMF against al Qaeda and associated forces but would repeal a 2002 AUMF used for the Iraq War.
The White House and several congressional Democrats have previously said they thought the 2001 AUMF was too broad and should be refined.
The language is largely similar to a force authorization considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year, though that measure banned ground troops in combat operations and repealed both the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
Some key GOP voices offered support for the language.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who opposes banning the use of U.S. troops in ground combat, told reporters he could “live with” the language banning “enduring” ground operations. McCain said that a time limit on the authorization was “agreeable.”
And Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he would welcome the lack of geographic restrictions.
“I know in the beginning people were talking about Iraq and Syria, but they’re in eight countries today,” said Corker.
“Basically, if it was geography specific, what you’d be saying to ISIS is, ‘If you’re not in these places, you’re safe.’ So it absolutely has to be very flexible relative to geography,” he added.
Durbin said that he was encouraged by the draft and that he liked the three-year time frame. He also said this would mean Obama’s successor “has to start thinking immediately about the renewal” of the authorization.
Graham said he was concerned the language would prevent U.S. troops from engaging in combat with forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. The U.S. has been training and equipping moderate rebels in Syria battling both the Assad regime and ISIS.
Maybe ya'll can change my mind, but what's wrong with the mission being:
"The total destruction of our enemies and all who support them.”
If you don’t want a war to drag on, that’s probably the best way to do it...
Right?
And oh, can we get some assurances that The Patriot Act won't get extend past it's 06/2015 expiration date?
1500pt
2500pt 
