• 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!

Iranian Official: Israel to Be ‘First Victim’ of U.S. Attack on Syria

They may be expensive but just think how much safer we will be, as a nation, after blowing up stuff in Syria. ;)

Heya Ttwtt.....I am still waiting to find out what US National Security Interest Assad broke attacking Rebels in a civil war in his own borders? Or what US Physical Interest was attacked?
 
Heya Ttwtt.....I am still waiting to find out what US National Security Interest Assad broke attacking Rebels in a civil war in his own borders? Or what US Physical Interest was attacked?

He was said to have crossed Obama's "red line" and that alone makes it an issue that requires "consequences".
 
He was said to have crossed Obama's "red line" and that alone makes it an issue that requires "consequences".

Yell.....well before, Obama said Assad had to go. Told him to Step down. Now he is saying this isn't about Regime Change.
 
Yell.....well before, Obama said Assad had to go. Told him to Step down. Now he is saying this isn't about Regime Change.

Its about doing "something" so long as that will not require boots on the ground. By creating enough chaos and destruction (shock and awe?) in Syria the odds that someone, not necessarily the right someone, will get rid of Assad are greatly improved. Meanwhile, back in DC, Obama will then have reason not to push for immediate defense cuts - so long as the republicants agree not to mess with his borrow and spend "budget". All congress critters, and Obama, can then say that they tried (to do whatever) yet were "forced" to compromise due to the "current global situation" or some such nonsense. ;)
 
What happens in Syria is a major headache for Russia. Unlike in Libya, Russia has some major interests in Syria. Any military action would demonstrate Russia's weakness to prevent such attacks. Russia feels its credibility is somewhat on the line. Given the interests involved and the balance of power, Russia will probably respond short of direct military intervention. Arms deliveries to Syria (perhaps at a scale to tilt the sectarian conflict decidedly in Assad's favor, sophisticated systems to make future military responses more costly, and possibly covert action), suspension of cooperation on Iran (maybe even full withdrawal from the international talks (P5+1 framework), and possible new arms deals with Tehran to make military strikes there more difficult are some options that are probably in the mix.

Finally, as I've stated in numerous threads, I do not support U.S. military intervention in Syria's civil war. Aside from the fact that no major U.S. interests are involved, neither party to the sectarian conflict has demonstrated much regard for civilian protections. No matter the outcome, Syria is not likely to pursue policies that are significantly more compatible with U.S. interests. The anti-Assad movement's continuing failure to outline future policy goals vis-à-vis U.S. interests over a more than two-year period since the conflict erupted speaks volumes. That the movement passed up ample opportunity to articulate its goals and aims is not, in my view, accidental. It is deliberate.
This is not being given enough attention, IMO. It's possible, if not probable, that any new regime would be just as bad, only the sides would be flipped. Really, I can't see where we even have moral reasons to go in. I see no point in exchanging one bad for another bad.
 
Yell.....well before, Obama said Assad had to go. Told him to Step down. Now he is saying this isn't about Regime Change.

soetoro is allowed to unilaterally invent new definitions of words if he wants. What are you, a RACIST? LMAO
 
Woot Holy Wars! These always turn out great.
 
Google is not an excuse to not provide a source, you can literally google anything but it doesn't make it true.
You can also literally go to the google link listed and see the newspapers and sources that cited the story.
 
You can also literally go to the google link listed and see the newspapers and sources that cited the story.

I see a lot of blogs and other crap sources, "Iranian.com," "WND.com"

What's your source, don't just point me in the direction of a hundred sources what's the one you're using because the ones I see are junk.
 
Yell.....well before, Obama said Assad had to go. Told him to Step down. Now he is saying this isn't about Regime Change.

Yeah. Why are Obama supporters going to let him get away with this? I hate partisan politics.
 

I found a different one: Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria - Telegraph

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria.

allegedly
allegedly
allegedly
allegedly
allegedly

And on your source: Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria | EUTimes.net

Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed this amazing threat against Russia saying that Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord by stating: “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

Ok A lebanese newspaper, cool.

According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.

Nameless "Kremlin sources," very reliable.

And lastly as you can see at the bottom of your source a hyperlink called "source" links to "whatdoesitmean.com" which is a junk news site.


Sorry Vance, your information is garbage. I'll wait until its verified and not alleged and I'll stay away from the blogs thanks.
 
I found a different one: Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria - Telegraph





allegedly
allegedly
allegedly
allegedly
allegedly

And on your source: Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria | EUTimes.net



Ok A lebanese newspaper, cool.



Nameless "Kremlin sources," very reliable.

And lastly as you can see at the bottom of your source a hyperlink called "source" links to "whatdoesitmean.com" which is a junk news site.


Sorry Vance, your information is garbage. I'll wait until its verified and not alleged and I'll stay away from the blogs thanks.
:lamo

You funny....

"The EU papers reported that Putin has declared Russia will attack Saudi Arabia if the US attacks Syria."

Now...pray tell which part of that indicates an exhaustive investigative process with proof? I stated that an EU paper had reported it. And...sunuvagun...they DID. Whether they WILL? Who knows. Putin thinks Obama is a punk. He is also a bit of a wingnut. WOuld I put it past him? But then...I have as much 'proof' that Russia is going to attack Saudi Arabia as you do over which moderate rebel groups you are clamoring to support or how those groups are going to fare better than Al Aqaida and the other extremist groups there. Actually...since I have the actual source i cited Id say that puts me one up and you with nothing but an empty cup.
 
I found a different one: Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria - Telegraph



allegedly
allegedly
allegedly
allegedly
allegedly

And on your source: Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria | EUTimes.net



Ok A lebanese newspaper, cool.



Nameless "Kremlin sources," very reliable.

And lastly as you can see at the bottom of your source a hyperlink called "source" links to "whatdoesitmean.com" which is a junk news site.


Sorry Vance, your information is garbage. I'll wait until its verified and not alleged and I'll stay away from the blogs thanks.



And I found another that said he was offered a Range of Incentives.
Range
Range
Range
Range


Saudi Arabia Tries to Bribe Russia to Abandon Syria | World News Curator

Except this time you just cant use excuses about Newsources. As now Rueters and HUFF PO, Plus USA are all on top of it.
 
:lamo

You funny....

"The EU papers reported that Putin has declared Russia will attack Saudi Arabia if the US attacks Syria."

Now...pray tell which part of that indicates an exhaustive investigative process with proof? I stated that an EU paper had reported it. And...sunuvagun...they DID. Whether they WILL? Who knows. Putin thinks Obama is a punk. He is also a bit of a wingnut. WOuld I put it past him? But then...I have as much 'proof' that Russia is going to attack Saudi Arabia as you do over which moderate rebel groups you are clamoring to support or how those groups are going to fare better than Al Aqaida and the other extremist groups there. Actually...since I have the actual source i cited Id say that puts me one up and you with nothing but an empty cup.

Fair enough you just said "reported" you didn't check to make sure the source was worth anything though.
 
Fair enough you just said "reported" you didn't check to make sure the source was worth anything though.
Please dont tell you think CNN is any less biased or more credible than that site. people report based on their bias. People read what they want to read.
 
Russia has now made clear that it will not respond militarily to a U.S./Western military operation against Syria. From Bloomberg.com:

Any military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law,” Lavrov told reporters in Moscow today. He ruled out a Russian military response.

Syria Is Headed for Western Strike, Russia Says - Bloomberg

As had been noted earlier, speculation in some publications of Russian military retaliation against Saudi Arabia amounted to reckless journalism. Russia's interests would preclude such a scenario unless Russia were irrational, and it isn't.
 
Russia has now made clear that it will not respond militarily to a U.S./Western military operation against Syria. From Bloomberg.com:

Any military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law,” Lavrov told reporters in Moscow today. He ruled out a Russian military response.

Syria Is Headed for Western Strike, Russia Says - Bloomberg

As had been noted earlier, speculation in some publications of Russian military retaliation against Saudi Arabia amounted to reckless journalism. Russia's interests would preclude such a scenario unless Russia were irrational, and it isn't.

Heya DS.....think Russians took the deal from the Sauds? On the gas for the EU? Plus the Egyptians offered Russia a Military base inside Egypt.

Well Russia had said they would attack Qatar and Saudi Arabia at the end of June. So its not like it would have been the First time.
 
Heya DS.....think Russians took the deal from the Sauds? On the gas for the EU? Plus the Egyptians offered Russia a Military base inside Egypt.

Well Russia had said they would attack Qatar and Saudi Arabia at the end of June. So its not like it would have been the First time.

I'm not aware of any deal having been reached between Russia and Saudi Arabia. In terms of Egypt, the new post-Morsi government is less supportive of regime change in Syria than the former government was. There may be openings for Russia to rebuild a relationship with Egypt down the road if the U.S. continues to lack a coherent policy approach toward Egypt. That's probably still in the future, as the transitional Egyptian government is continuing to work toward stability.
 
I'm not aware of any deal having been reached between Russia and Saudi Arabia. In terms of Egypt, the new post-Morsi government is less supportive of regime change in Syria than the former government was. There may be openings for Russia to rebuild a relationship with Egypt down the road if the U.S. continues to lack a coherent policy approach toward Egypt. That's probably still in the future, as the transitional Egyptian government is continuing to work toward stability.

Yeah, this goes with what you were saying what some of Russia can do.

Russia warns of Mideast suffering if U.S. strikes Syria

As U.S. ships and British warplanes neared the shores of its last remaining ally in the Middle East, Russia warned again Tuesday that any military intervention in Syria would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said that launching a military strike without seeking approval from the United Nations Security Council would cause "new suffering and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," according to the Russian TV station RT.

Russia has vowed to veto any Security Council attempts to approve a military attack on Syria, and it is arming Syria as well, which is why the United States is considering a unilateral attack with the help of the United Kingdom and other nations.

"The Russians are extremely mad and there's sort of pre-war frenzy in Moscow," Cohen said. "I think in reality their options are limited but dangerous."

While the Russians are unlikely to oppose U.S. forces in the fields, Cohen listed other things they can do:

- The Russians could also send Assad their supersonic P800 long-range anti-ship missile, which is capable of sinking NATO ships with a single strike. U.S. officials reported that Israel attempted to destroy such missiles in Latakia during a July 5 air strike, though it was unclear if the strike was successful, according to the Guardian newspaper.

- The Russians could expand sales to Iran of weapons and nuclear technology that has both nuclear and civilian functions. Iran's nuclear program is considered a threat by Iran's rivals Israel and Gulf Arab states.

- Russian could pursue plans to deploy a large permanent naval task force and expand its number of bases in the Mediterranean.

The Egyptian military has offered Russia a military base in recent months, and is seeking expanded relations with Russia for weapons and wheat sales, Cohen said.....snip~

Russia warns of Mideast suffering if U.S. strikes Syria
 
Any papers making such claims are engaging in reckless journalism. Russia will not attack Saudi Arabia. Its interests simply don't justify such an attack and Russia is not an irrational actor. It very likely will take measures, but an attack on Saudi Arabia is not one of those measures, unless Russia were irrational (and it isn't).

I've been reading all those articles, all the threats, coming from "fairly legitimate" sources. Frankly, it scared the crap out of me. I must have more faith in you than in any of the world's governments, because just reading your posts in this thread has calmed me down, and resparked rational thinking. I agree, Russia would have to be bit**** insane to attack Saudi Arabia. But then I remember... Putin is in charge of Russia. Putin!!

I'm still nervous about the direction we're going, because I think we would be bat**** insane to attack Syria, but you've made me see that even if UK, France, USA, Germany, and allies deliver a measured strike on Syria, it is not automatically the beginning of WW3. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom