• 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!

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Putin wants to prove he's tough and rebuilt the Russian military - with the oil $$ now to do it. A proxy war with the USA in Syria would be just the ticket his and our "military industrial complex" both need for a new major arms race.

The really cool thing is in a country such as Syria it can all be done technologically with super outrageously expensive weapons and little to no American or Russian casualties. Rather, only Syrians on both sides die - although maybe we'll get will lucky and some spill over to other countries to stage for the next one.

Maybe, just maybe, if things go right, we can spark more "insurgencies" in numerous countries in that region.
 
Does anybody think the timing of announcing last week that Bush would be excused for his war actions seems a little suspect considering what we are talking about today?
 
When did Assad bomb his own people with chemical weapons? How is that connected to President Bush-43? Would you hire General Powell as a special consultant to defense affairs? Is the world an ever more complicated place that we must referee or deal with the consequences?
 
joko104 said:
Are the Russian aircraft carriers like ours that aircraft can land on? :roll: (from the presidential debate)
Click to expand...

The Russian navy is only operating one carrier but it's more like a cruiser/ aircraft carrier that also can operate as a surface warfare cruiser armed with long range anti ship missiles and anti aircraft missiles. It's primary role is different than American carriers. It's intended to support and defend strategic missile-carrying submarines, surface ships, and maritime missile-carrying aircraft of the Russian fleet.

The Russian Navy has developed a new maritime warfare strategy where the Russian Navy will still be a blue water navy capable of operating anywhere in the worlds oceans but it's ships will be designed for certain regions of the world.

New classes of warships for the Russians Navy's AOR in the Eastern Pacific. Different classes of ships for the Russians AOR in the Middle east, Mediterranean Sea AOR and different classes of warships for the Atlantic AOR.

The Russian bear has come out of hibernation and are in the process of building a new Navy with all new warships and support ships to be able to operate 12,000 miles from Russia's shores.
 
Knowing what you know about our forces and where they are currently deployed; knowing the machinations behind what is happening right now between Obama, his people, and the congressionals; what would you do?
APACHERAT said:
I hope these Navy Tomawk cruise missiles aren't from the Clinton era. If Obama orders an attack and one of these Tomahawks ends up hitting the Russian Embassy or the Russians forward naval base at Tartus, Obama will have gotten us in a shooting war with Russia.

And for the first time in sixty years there are more Russian warships in the Mediterranean Sea than American warships. Most of Obama's Navy is incapable to putting to sea and being able to fight.

Why isn't there an American Carrier Strike Group in the 6th Fleet AOR ? That's right, it's Obama's PC Navy.
Click to expand...
 
Medusa said:
USA's long term plans never change from president to president




but in my world only if you are right winger you may have a love affair with both wings of the western imperialism
Click to expand...

Hey, looks like the long term plans of the jihadists don't change from terrorist group to terrorist group. They just kill, their own people and their enemies.
 
Redress said:
Good thing I never claimed or suggested it. In fact my point had nothing to do with what you are saying.
Click to expand...

What exactly was your point then?

That you were in the military and had to do things you didn't agree with, just like everybody else that's ever served? Or that you would have been in the thick of demonstrations, rallies and such except you were not allowed? Or that you were deployed and couldn't possibly attend any such events? Or that because you served in the gulf, your opinion counts more than anybody else's?

Your point wasn't very pointed.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
What exactly was your point then?

That you were in the military and had to do things you didn't agree with, just like everybody else that's ever served? Or that you would have been in the thick of demonstrations, rallies and such except you were not allowed? Or that you were deployed and couldn't possibly attend any such events? Or that because you served in the gulf, your opinion counts more than anybody else's?

Your point wasn't very pointed.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the post I was replying to, asking where I was when...
 
disneydude said:
Well...there is a huge difference. Namely, IF Obama and the US strike Syria, it will have been without a huge propoganda campaign like we saw where the Bush administration tried to link Iraq over and over and over to 911. Obama has also not labled himself "A War President", like GWB did immediately after taking office.

BTW...I don't support a military strike on Syria based on what I know at this time. I think it would be premature.
Click to expand...

So you have proof? And furthermore, what does it matter what Bush did. Obama said he could do it better, would do it better. He's been a disaster and ten kinds of ****ed up on foreign policy. He did one single thing right, he killed OBL. And his supposed foreign policy expert, Joe "Foot-in-mouth" Biden has been no where.
 
Redress said:
Maybe you should read the post I was replying to, asking where I was when...
Click to expand...

Oh, I read it. That's why I asked those other questions of you. Your "point" was near pointless.
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
Knowing what you know about our forces and where they are currently deployed; knowing the machinations behind what is happening right now between Obama, his people, and the congressionals; what would you do?
Click to expand...

Nothing.

America no longer has any credibility in the Middle east and many other parts of the world because of Obama's failed foreign affairs policies. How many times has Obama moved the line in Syria ? Obama has already has replaced American military leaders who were warriors and replaced them with PC "yes men" who don't have the cajones to do the right thing, they are just going through the procedure of punching their cards so they can retire hoping they aren't next on Obama's hit list. Obama is redefining the purpose and culture of our military by using social engineering.

Obama abandoned the Middle East soon after he became POTUS. Obama has thrown American allies under the bus, one who helped keep the peace in the Middle East and protected Israels southern flank. In less than four years the entire Middle East has become a basket case.

When Obama abandoned the Middle East and supported the Arab Spring he created a vacuum and Russia took the advantage to fill that vacuum. Even the Egyptian military are considering to turning too the Russians.

As for Syria, it's not a civil war but a religious war, Sunni and Shia killing each other and fighting for political control. It doesn't matter who wins, it will be a lose lose situation for America and the Western world. Things would have been better with the status quo of how things were back in 2008 in the Middle East and North Africa.
 
Red_Dave said:
Operation Provide Comfort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Of course it would have helped if we did'nt sell Saddam the gas but I'm a glass half full kind of guy. The point is the the imminent mass slaughter of the type that is faced today in Syria had long passed by the time of the 2003 invasion, and a piss poor explanation of its motivation
Click to expand...

By chance do your friends call you "stretch"? Because what you are trying to do is one heck of a stretch. it's as silly as "Bush lied". Maybe even more so.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
By chance do your friends call you "stretch"? Because what you are trying to do is one heck of a stretch. it's as silly as "Bush lied". Maybe even more so.
Click to expand...

Not as much as a stretch as justifying an invasion in 2003 for a genocide took place in 1991 and was averted by 1996 then comparing it to mass slaughter that is taking place as we speak.
 
APACHERAT said:
Nothing.

America no longer has any credibility in the Middle east and many other parts of the world because of Obama's failed foreign affairs policies. How many times has Obama moved the line in Syria ? Obama has already has replaced American military leaders who were warriors and replaced them with PC "yes men" who don't have the cajones to do the right thing, they are just going through the procedure of punching their cards so they can retire hoping they aren't next on Obama's hit list. Obama is redefining the purpose and culture of our military by using social engineering.

Obama abandoned the Middle East soon after he became POTUS. Obama has thrown American allies under the bus, one who helped keep the peace in the Middle East and protected Israels southern flank. In less than four years the entire Middle East has become a basket case.

When Obama abandoned the Middle East and supported the Arab Spring he created a vacuum and Russia took the advantage to fill that vacuum. Even the Egyptian military are considering to turning too the Russians.

As for Syria, it's not a civil war but a religious war, Sunni and Shia killing each other and fighting for political control. It doesn't matter who wins, it will be a lose lose situation for America and the Western world. Things would have been better with the status quo of how things were back in 2008 in the Middle East and North Africa.
Click to expand...


Bush replaced a lot of generals before he had what he needed to conduct his illegal war. Not defending Obama, just saying.
 
Red_Dave said:
Not as much as a stretch as justifying an invasion in 2003 for a genocide took place in 1991 and was averted by 1996 then comparing it to mass slaughter that is taking place as we speak.
Click to expand...

There is no statute of limitations on any murder. Much less genocide. Heck, they still find and convict war criminals from WW2.

That stretch ain't working.
 
Canell said:
Well, that's too bad for America. I thought you were a democracy, not monarchy...:roll:
Click to expand...

It's not just america, first off, as the R2P initiative was ratified by the UNSC and GA, so there's that.

Let's not forget Clinton's missile strikes in Africa, Afghanistan and the Kosovo War bombing campaign, all done without congressional approval iirc.
 
Why!? Oh Christ in Heaven why the **** are we getting involved in another ****ing war!! WHY!!! What in the **** is wrong with AMERICA!! Seriously... this **** is just idiotic.
 
I told disneydude to get some proof, not go poof. :lol:
 
ItAin'tFree said:
There is no statute of limitations on any murder. Much less genocide. Heck, they still find and convict war criminals from WW2.

That stretch ain't working.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying we should invade Syria to solely to bring Assad to justice, the argument is that we should invade it due to the current and worsening humanitarian situation. Maybe we should invade France to avenge the revolutionary terror.
 
Last edited:
The debate as to what Navy assets should be in the region is really irrelevent when you take knto account the possible locations of our Subs.

And that includes the Boomers.

They' let us in on what they want seen and the same with the Ruskies.
 
joko104 said:
Maybe, just maybe, if things go right, we can spark more "insurgencies" in numerous countries in that region.
Click to expand...

The way iran does? The day that assad began running a terrorist insurgency in iraq from syria, was the first day towards the end of his regime. There was no way the US would allow assad to allow his country to be used as a safe haven for those killing americans in iraq, just not going to happen.

Anything that hurts iran, like losing the syrian client state as a source of terrorism to be used against other countries, is a positive. My only complaint in '03 was not going after iran, attacking saddam was pointless.
 
madisonr said:
It's
not just america, first off, as the R2P initiative was ratified by the UNSC and GA, so there's that.

Let's not forget Clinton's missile strikes in Africa, Afghanistan and the Kosovo War bombing campaign, all done without congressional approval iirc.
Click to expand...

Kosovo, where Halliburton got their first no bid contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom