• 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!

Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria.....

MMC said:
Mornin CPW. :2wave: Yeah I heard.....but how about this one?



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.
Click to expand...

That sounds like typical state-messaging. Vague, horrible, very bad things will happen in a non-particularly-well-defined manner if you do what I don't want you to do, so that no matter what happens or what I decide to do, I can still be right.

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.
Click to expand...

Yup.

- 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.
Click to expand...

Russian missile move into Syria. Russian missiles are delivered. Russian missiles explode thanks to a Tomahawk. :)

Also CPW.....care to Elaborate on what US National Security Interest Assad attacked of ours? Other than by association of Proxy, what physical security interests of ours has Assad attacked?
Click to expand...

Well I tend to consider the Marines and Sailors that we lost in Fallujah thanks to Assads' enabling of AQI among our 'interests'. Additional reasons for striking the Assad regime as I have suggested are that the Assad regime serves as a protective blanket for Iran - Syria's radar placement can provide early warning of an airstrike into Iran, and offers Iran a second-strike capability in the form of an attack on Israel and enabling Hezbollah to engage in world-wide ops. Additionally, as the regime continues to be unable to demonstrate control over its space, the risk of its CW capabilities falling into the wrong hands increases day by day.
 
bubbabgone said:
... and that'd be lookin' pretty good now, huh.
Where you been, boy?
Click to expand...

actually, when I wrote that I forgot we had already invaded Mexico and had taken half of their land ... my bad ...
 
cpwill said:
Meh. Sort of. U.S. Policy towards the Iraq-Iran war was pretty well wrapped up by Kissinger: "It's too bad they both can't lose". Similar to our approach to the current conflict in Syria.



:yawn: standard boilerplate.



Yup and then during WWI the Arabs revolted against the Ottoman Empire, and the attempt by Britain after WWI (Iran had remained neutral, although some of its' people had fought on the side of the Germans) to turn it into a semi-protectorate was first rejected by the Majles and then ended when Reza Khan took over, establishing his own dynasty.



This is all more boilerplate. Nowhere do you demonstrate that U.S. policy is to destabilize the Middle East. Quite the opposite, you make an impressive case for us having a powerful incentive in stabilizing the middle east in order to guarantee access to its oil reserves.

Is trying to defend Saddam's invasion of Kuwait really what you are going to try to use to argue that the United States seeks to destabilize the Middle East?

:lol: man, that's even a dumber argument than the one I thought you were going to make.



well, because, in our desire to stabilize the middle east we supported - implicitly or explicitly - abusive dictatorships such as the Mubaraks and Sauds of the world. That's why the U.S. has a higher favorability in Iran, where we didn't, but where their abusive dictatorship is of their own making.
Click to expand...



I appreciate your opinions and yawns and casual dismissal of things you disagree with. You're free to (mis) interpret historical facts however you need to while offering nothing of substance as a counterpoint.

*yawn* it's contagious.
 
The only way them folks can be 'governed' for the foreseeable future is by an authoritarian dictator with an iron fist.
I was talking to an Iraqi the other day. He had served three tours with the US army as a terp
(prolly lives here cuz he'd kilt there inna New York minute eh?)
When I asked him about the current situation, you could see he was horribly conflicted (prolly has PTSD too ?)
I tried but really couldn't get a straight answer out of him but understanding the situation it is understandable.

THe one thing that did come through loud and clear is that right now they are killing each other
by the busload on a daily basis at a level to rival Syria.

If they are being ruled by a mostly secular strongman at least it is relatively peaceful for the average Joe.
Anyone that thinks those countries are capable of supporting a 'Constitutional Republic' is dangerously naive.
hah I'm reminded of this.
 
cpwill said:
That sounds like typical state-messaging. Vague, horrible, very bad things will happen in a non-particularly-well-defined manner if you do what I don't want you to do, so that no matter what happens or what I decide to do, I can still be right.



Yup.



Russian missile move into Syria. Russian missiles are delivered. Russian missiles explode thanks to a Tomahawk. :)



Well I tend to consider the Marines and Sailors that we lost in Fallujah thanks to Assads' enabling of AQI among our 'interests'. Additional reasons for striking the Assad regime as I have suggested are that the Assad regime serves as a protective blanket for Iran - Syria's radar placement can provide early warning of an airstrike into Iran, and offers Iran a second-strike capability in the form of an attack on Israel and enabling Hezbollah to engage in world-wide ops. Additionally, as the regime continues to be unable to demonstrate control over its space, the risk of its CW capabilities falling into the wrong hands increases day by day.
Click to expand...


Well, you do understand that the Shia as a people are Holding that Crescent due to the Regions they live in. Which transcends those Countries Borders.

Russian P800s do explode.....which is why the Brits never confirmed the Israeli Strike on them. Hoping that Russian Tech will fail.....is never a good start.

So other than by Proxy.....Assad hasn't attacked any US interests since the start of the insurrection, correct?
 
cpwill said:
Meh. Sort of. U.S. Policy towards the Iraq-Iran war was pretty well wrapped up by Kissinger: "It's too bad they both can't lose". Similar to our approach to the current conflict in Syria.



:yawn: standard boilerplate.



Yup and then during WWI the Arabs revolted against the Ottoman Empire, and the attempt by Britain after WWI (Iran had remained neutral, although some of its' people had fought on the side of the Germans) to turn it into a semi-protectorate was first rejected by the Majles and then ended when Reza Khan took over, establishing his own dynasty.



This is all more boilerplate. Nowhere do you demonstrate that U.S. policy is to destabilize the Middle East. Quite the opposite, you make an impressive case for us having a powerful incentive in stabilizing the middle east in order to guarantee access to its oil reserves.

Is trying to defend Saddam's invasion of Kuwait really what you are going to try to use to argue that the United States seeks to destabilize the Middle East?

:lol: man, that's even a dumber argument than the one I thought you were going to make.



well, because, in our desire to stabilize the middle east we supported - implicitly or explicitly - abusive dictatorships such as the Mubaraks and Sauds of the world. That's why the U.S. has a higher favorability in Iran, where we didn't, but where their abusive dictatorship is of their own making.
Click to expand...

Must be real comfortable in your vacuum. When a country arms both sides in war, including chemical weapon precursors, and supplies satellite intelligence, it might be considered destabilizing, but on the other hand, in your world this is stabilizing. I see. I see. Check for hallucinogens in the vacuum.
 
windowdressing said:
actually, when I wrote that I forgot we had already invaded Mexico and had taken half of their land ... my bad ...
Click to expand...
hah yeah and those in the half we left alone can't seem to try to get over here fast enough?
 
MMC why'd you have too bring up Russian P-800 Oniks
yer such a party pooper
Oh Bummer's supposed to be able to sit our ships off the coast and pull this silliness of with impunity
but yer right them things to go supersonic in the terminal phase making them a biotch to knock down
 
AngryOldGuy said:
hah yeah and those in the half we left alone can't seem to try to get over here fast enough?
Click to expand...

and there's a reason for that, isn't there? are you a student of history? read up on the impact that our policies have had on Mexico, and the region in fact ... but here's the kicker "hah" - between 2000 and 2010, Latinos accounted for over 50% of the population in the U.S. ... BTW, I get the impression that you're not at all upset about the fact that we invaded another country and took half their land ...
 
yup 'we' are the root cause of all that might ever be wrong in the world I've read that leftie drivel
 
windowdressing said:
actually, when I wrote that I forgot we had already invaded Mexico and had taken half of their land ... my bad ...
Click to expand...
God, how I missed you.
Ya know I've been thinkin' 'boutcha.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It does solve the issue of them thar folks ever having to take responsibility for their own lives, don't it?
 
P. Kersey said:
I appreciate your opinions and yawns and casual dismissal of things you disagree with. You're free to (mis) interpret historical facts however you need to while offering nothing of substance as a counterpoint.

*yawn* it's contagious.
Click to expand...

No historical fact you presented was disputed. Merely your ridiculous claim that the US seeks to destabilize the ME, which you utterly failed to demonstrate.
 
THE mistake that was made was that when the Arabs took over the oil fields we and the British created
we didn't waltz right in then and there and declare Democracy ;)
 
DaveFagan said:
Must be real comfortable in your vacuum. When a country arms both sides in war, including chemical weapon precursors, and supplies satellite intelligence, it might be considered destabilizing, but on the other hand, in your world this is stabilizing. I see. I see. Check for hallucinogens in the vacuum.
Click to expand...

:lol: now that's ironic.
 
windowdressing said:
I clicked on it, but what was I supposed to see?

gotta head out to work ... as always, those of us on the left do the heavy lifting so that you cons can spend the day on these threads complaining about what the March on Washington wrought ... we're happy to do it ...
Click to expand...

You were featured on that page.
Have a good day ... oh ... and thanks for the Southwest and all that heavy lifting.
 
cpwill said:
No historical fact you presented was disputed. Merely your ridiculous claim that the US seeks to destabilize the ME, which you utterly failed to demonstrate.
Click to expand...

Since WW1 US actions in the ME have been destabilising.
 
bubbabgone said:
You were featured on that page.
Have a good day ... oh ... and thanks for the Southwest and all that heavy lifting.
Click to expand...

de nada (I'll check that link again later - I missed it the first time -- can you be more specific?) ...
 
cpwill said:
No historical fact you presented was disputed. Merely your ridiculous claim that the US seeks to destabilize the ME, which you utterly failed to demonstrate.
Click to expand...

I disagree..
The proof is right there and you admitted it. The history is correct but you purposely are mischaracterizing it.
Installing and propping up ruthless dictators every 10 or 20 years (who their own people hate for their oppression and human rights violations ) supplying them with weapons to attack other nations, but then when it's convenient and we have no more use for them, we orchestrate THEIR downfall doesn't tend to stabilize anything anywhere. That's why we're generally despised in the whole area.
 
Montecresto said:
Since WW1 US actions in the ME have been destabilising.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Given the distinct lack of war between Israel and Egypt since the 1970s, I would say that is not correct. However, that is a discussion of effect. What the individual above is arguing is intent. The United States (according to him) seeks to control the oil supply and simultaneously to threaten its' own ability to guarantee access to the oil supply :roll:.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: Given the distinct lack of war between Israel and Egypt since the 1970s, I would say that is not correct. However, that is a discussion of effect. What the individual above is arguing is intent. The United States (according to him) seeks to control the oil supply and simultaneously to threaten its' own ability to guarantee access to the oil supply :roll:.
Click to expand...

Ignoring what we've done in iran, iraq, libya, egypt, afghan..etc..for generations..and you admitted it's true..(you had no choice, of course..I showed you the facts).and claiming that no war between egypt and israel proves we aren't destabilizing the middle east is...childish and disingenuous...
anyone over the age of about 16 knows what's going on..are you over 16?
 
P. Kersey said:
I disagree..
The proof is right there and you admitted it. The history is correct but you purposely are mischaracterizing it.
Installing and propping up ruthless dictators every 10 or 20 years (who their own people hate for their oppression and human rights violations ) supplying them with weapons to attack other nations, but then when it's convenient and we have no more use for them, we orchestrate THEIR downfall doesn't tend to stabilize anything anywhere. That's why we're generally despised in the whole area.
Click to expand...

You are confusing "being despised" with "lack of stability".


tell you what - you tell me. which is less stable: Egypt under Mubarak, or Egypt under the Brotherhood? Easier version: which was less stable: The middle east during the 1950s 60s and 70s when nation-on-nation war was a constant occurrence, or the middle east in the 90s once we turned the arab states into client states, and the single big conflict was us v Iraq and then isralies and palestinians bickering? Was Egypt more likely to go to war with Israel and Saudi Arabia under Nasser? Or Mubarak after we decided to start supporting him? ;)

For that matter, which is less stable: Jordan, under our ally the king, or Gaza, where the Palestinians rule themselves?

Which is less stable: Saudi Arabia, whom we have poured massive resources into? Or Yemen, where we haven't?


The single example of Iraq actually makes my argument - the only reason we supplied Saddam is because we wanted to stop the destabilizing force of Shia Islamist Revolution from spreading to other Shia-dominant areas (such as Bahrain). We backed Saddam at the time because that was the stabilizing option in the ME.


You'll get no argument from me that our policy of supporting abusive governments is a large part of why we are hated. Agreed. But arguing that dictators aren't generally capable of controlling their space doesn't match the historical record. It's a relatively short term (it only lasts for a generation or three) solution; but it is a solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom