• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran-flagged ship targets U.S. Navy with laser

Montecresto said:
We haven't heard Iran's version. At any rate, nobody was hurt, no equipment damaged. ;)
Click to expand...

Speculation:

Infidels were targeted with our G54-Top Cursing Laser Gun repeatedly today. Both army personnel and their puny equipment were targeted. The infidel were incapable of comprehending what our weapon did to them. What is more important, they cannot retaliate even if they did.
 
flogger said:
What purpose does this ally serve other than to embroil you in its conflicts with its neighbours ?
Click to expand...

Why! The purpose is money spent into US lobbies, of course! And its poor ISIS that suffers the consequences! ;)
 
flogger said:
Do you really believe it was just a coincidence in the very same year ...... really ?



Painting something with a laser RF isn't any kind of security threat to anyone however much the US would like to talk it up as such
Click to expand...

To the first: Maybe.
To #2: Aiming a weapon is a threat.
 
DDD said:
Why! The purpose is money spent into US lobbies, of course! And its poor ISIS that suffers the consequences! ;)
Click to expand...

One could argue that both modern day Israel and ISIS are a product of misguided US foreign policy in this region spanning decades
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, I mean why do you paint something with a laser? In classrooms, it's like a pointer. Can you think of a reason that warships use it?
Click to expand...

Allegedly it was a merchant ship. ;)
 
Montecresto said:
You mean you're an advocate for the UN to become militarized so as to be able to enforce the will of the UNSC.
Click to expand...

I think we would have to work on the checks&balances a little and on legitimization and all. Don't you?
 
Anthony60 said:
You realize Israel is an ally, don't you? And Iran is an enemy. Obama seems to look at it the other way around.
Click to expand...

There's no need for Iran to be an enemy. But toppling their government, arming their enemy with WMD that was used on them, waging economic warfare on them, giving Israel bunker busters to use on them...........I guess you can create yourself quite the enemy. As for Israel, Obama and Carter seem the only two so far willing to hold them at least somewhat accountable.
 
joG said:
I think we would have to work on the checks&balances a little and on legitimization and all. Don't you?
Click to expand...

I think that like its predecessor, the UN was created to keep the peace, not be used as a place to go to seek permission to wage one gratuitous war after the other. I'm frankly glad to see Russia and China opposing the US on the UNSC in this regard.
 
DDD said:
Speculation:

Infidels were targeted with our G54-Top Cursing Laser Gun repeatedly today. Both army personnel and their puny equipment were targeted. The infidel were incapable of comprehending what our weapon did to them. What is more important, they cannot retaliate even if they did.
Click to expand...

Obviously it's just speculation.
 
joG said:
I think we would have to work on the checks&balances a little and on legitimization and all. Don't you?
Click to expand...

Do you mean stuff like rubber-stamping the second invasion of Iraq after the fact?
 
If we look at the larger pictures, it's clear that US enemies don't fear or respect this particular president.

We have Putin and Russia and their actions in the Ukraine, as well as Russian military aircraft instigating confrontations, reminiscent of the cold war, this time off of the coastal US.

We have Iran, who is engaged with the US in diplomatic talks on nuclear arms, also taking provocative actions.

Can you imagine any of these things happening had Regan been president? Bush 2 being president?

I'm thinking not.

Obama has in fact put the US in a far weaker international stance the ever before in our country's history. That's hard to argue against.
 
Montecresto said:
I think that like its predecessor, the UN was created to keep the peace, not be used as a place to go to seek permission to wage one gratuitous war after the other. I'm frankly glad to see Russia and China opposing the US on the UNSC in this regard.
Click to expand...

Like domestically security must be robustly enforced in the international theater. You cannot keep peace without force.
 
eohrnberger said:
If we look at the larger pictures, it's clear that US enemies don't fear or respect this particular president.

We have Putin and Russia and their actions in the Ukraine, as well as Russian military aircraft instigating confrontations, reminiscent of the cold war, this time off of the coastal US.

We have Iran, who is engaged with the US in diplomatic talks on nuclear arms, also taking provocative actions.

Can you imagine any of these things happening had Regan been president? Bush 2 being president?

I'm thinking not.

Obama has in fact put the US in a far weaker international stance the ever before in our country's history. That's hard to argue against.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we'd be embroiled in war with Russia right now, perhaps to your delight. But we fought radical Islamists in the Middle East near nonstop since late 2001 and the buggers are bigger, more sophisticated, and have wrested swaths of territory from governments, as well as humvees, tanks and god knows what else. And taking on Putin May be a win in the end, but it doesn't look anything like taking on Hussein or Gaddafi. ;)
 
Manc Skipper said:
Do you mean stuff like rubber-stamping the second invasion of Iraq after the fact?
Click to expand...

No. And I hold you in high enough regard to believe that you know that. ;)
 
Montecresto said:
Yeah, we'd be embroiled in war with Russia right now, perhaps to your delight.
Click to expand...
No (we wouldn't be), and no (I wouldn't be delighted - project much?). It's not a bad thing to have the respect of your enemies and / or challengers on the international stage.
Montecresto said:
But we fought radical Islamists in the Middle East near nonstop since late 2001 and the buggers are bigger, more sophisticated, and have wrested swaths of territory from governments, as well as humvees, tanks and god knows what else.
Click to expand...
This because Obama wasn't able / wanted to / see the significance of the SoF with Iraq and Afghanistan. Had we the SoF and in country precense, unlikely that ISIS would have achieved what they did.
Montecresto said:
And taking on Putin May be a win in the end, but it doesn't look anything like taking on Hussein or Gaddafi. ;)
Click to expand...
No one is advocating military conflict with Russia. Their respect is all that's desired, and it's clear right now, we don't have it.
 
joG said:
Like domestically security must be robustly enforced in the international theater. You cannot keep peace without force.
Click to expand...

Well and when a conservative hears force, he singularly thinks bombs and missiles. Foreign policy is (should be) vastly larger than that, and bombs and missiles should be the last step of diplomacy. While the same ideology will refuse to acknowledge it, far too many times, war has been pulled off the shelf far ahead of the true hard work of talented statesmen who know how to work diplomacy were ever deployed.
 
eohrnberger said:
No (we wouldn't be), and no (I wouldn't be delighted - project much?). It's not a bad thing to have the respect of your enemies and / or challengers on the international stage.

This because Obama wasn't able / wanted to / see the significance of the SoF with Iraq and Afghanistan. Had we the SoF and in country precense, unlikely that ISIS would have achieved what they did.

No one is advocating military conflict with Russia. Their respect is all that's desired, and it's clear right now, we don't have it.
Click to expand...

It's not a bad thing to not have enemies, agreed. It's a better thing to not create them to begin with.

And yes, that tired, blame the failures in the ME entirely on Obama. :roll:

You don't deserve Russia's respect. That's not beat out of people it's earned the old fashion way. America hasn't thought about that, at least since becoming sole superpower.
 
Montecresto said:
Well and when a conservative hears force, he singularly thinks bombs and missiles. Foreign policy is (should be) vastly larger than that, and bombs and missiles should be the last step of diplomacy. While the same ideology will refuse to acknowledge it, far too many times, war has been pulled off the shelf far ahead of the true hard work of talented statesmen who know how to work diplomacy were ever deployed.
Click to expand...

Talented statesman are often successful. Think of Hitler. He was very talented.
 
joG said:
Talented statesman are often successful. Think of Hitler. He was very talented.
Click to expand...

Ok, now you're diminishing the importance of applying quality hard work on the diplomatic level, even mocking it by pointing to Hitler, very nice.
 
Montecresto said:
It's not a bad thing to not have enemies, agreed. It's a better thing to not create them to begin with.
Click to expand...
Of course, however, sometimes (most often) your enemies don't really give you much of a choice, now do they?
Montecresto said:
And yes, that tired, blame the failures in the ME entirely on Obama. :roll:
Click to expand...
If you care to notice, I didn't. However, the lack of SoF agreements, the lack of Obama's emphasis in achieving them, is coming home to roost.
Montecresto said:
You don't deserve Russia's respect. That's not beat out of people it's earned the old fashion way. America hasn't thought about that, at least since becoming sole superpower.
Click to expand...
Eh?

The US doesn't deserve Russian's respect? No, I think the US does. What's certain is that this president hasn't earned Russia's respect, being as weak as he in on international affairs.

If you don't believe that the US deserve's Russia's respect, then you must have a case of self-loathing and national loathing you need to overcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom