• 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

Thanks for your service, but WTF does that have to do with the hypocrisy from the Left, and my questions about whether we will see Leftists demand he go to Congress... if not will they scream, rant and call him a war monger?

Will we see protests in the streets?

Will we hear about the cost of such actions?

Will we hear about how it will piss off Muslims?

Will we hear about the leadership vacuum and who will fill it?

Try answering the questions. You... like most leftists have a talent for deflection... as your coy little bit of chit regarding your "good deed of the day" post, and the above post illustrate.

Well, now that we have already proven not all "the left" is the same, so your claim of hypocrisy has already failed, you still forget that different events are different, so your hypocrisy claim fails even more.
 
Technically the president doesnt need to have congressional approval to launch a military strike unless that military strike continues for more than 60 days he just has to notify congress. However saying that i think this resolution needs to be repealed. But technically POTUS does not need congressional approval unless the action continues up to 60 days or more.

And of course Leftists wouldn't say PEEP if Bush43 did this. ROTFLOL. I'd love to see your post if Bush43 was at the helm and this was happening.

You see... the Leftists are hypocrites. On the one hand they vote to send troops to war, then stab them in the back for political expediency. They protest for America to enter conflicts we have no national interest in and where there is the might and brighty Europeans looking at it in their very own backyard.

I look at this, and remember clearly the anti-American Left and their behavior. I just would like to see some consistency, or some sober reflection. BUT... this won't happen because you folks have a moral compass that is like a cartoon clock zipping around at light speed.
 
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.
 
Maybe in your world, but in the US there is.......now.




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
 
Remember it as in lived at that time or simply remember what you read/heard about it?

A cruise missle (as used in Iraq) has a far different blast radius and is not a nuclear weapon.

l remember what l have seen.
 
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.

LOL !! That " propaganda " started in 1998 with Clinton warning that we may have to use force if Saddam Hussein continues with his WMD escalation...
 
Many good points! And, to add to that, where are all the flag waving war dogs that were backing Bush when he started his war with lies and manipulations?
Bush didn't lie or manipulate. Remember a lot of Demokrats came forward warning about Saddam's WMD. Remember Bob Woodward wrote in his book that George Tenet stated to Bush43 after his grilling him (that's right) that "it was a slam dunk".

Why are they not on the Obama war band wagon as well? Why, all of a sudden, are they "anti-war?" I think we all know the answer to that.
Who says we are not on the Obama bandwagon.
I HAVE NOT STATED I AM AGAINST SUCH ACTION.
What I have done is confront THE IDIOT LEFT and their previous behaviors, and asked if there would be consistency.

War is war no matter what color the president is. One would think America would have learned it's lesson by now.
Sometimes it is necessary. After 911 the idiots and despots of the world looked at Bush43 and wondered if he would be as weak as finger wagging Felonious Bill Clinton.

We stopped a nuclear blackmarket, we got Libya's WMD program, and Saddam is no longer a threat to his people, the region, and the western world.

I am sorely disappointed in Obama. He turned out to be not much better than G.W. Bush, IMO. When America, the people who elected him to represent them, is so against any action in Syria, how could Obama only hear the cries of the war dogs? This has the makings of a start to a global war. Syria is not worth it. They burn American flags over there. Remember?
Isolationism would be ideal, but unrealistic.

Obama's failure to lead... or that laughable phrase... lead from behind hasn't worked very well. Our enemies do not fear us and our allies do not trust us. That is Obama's doing. He is a child in a man's job.
 
So you think carpet bombing a civilian population is the way to go then? :stooges

Uhh, no? Both of those platforms generally use precision weaponry.
 
Uhh, no? Both of those platforms generally use precision weaponry.

Not precise enough not to hit civilians. Ask the residents of the West Bank. It is all asymmetrical now.
 
Not precise enough not to hit civilians. Ask the residents of the West Bank. It is all asymmetrical now.

Nice backpedal away from implying someone supported "carpet bombing" of civilians. Are you going to apologize to that poster for that implication?
 
And of course Leftists wouldn't say PEEP if Bush43 did this. ROTFLOL. I'd love to see your post if Bush43 was at the helm and this was happening.
Did you even read my second to last sentence?

You see... the Leftists are hypocrites. On the one hand they vote to send troops to war, then stab them in the back for political expediency. They protest for America to enter conflicts we have no national interest in and where there is the might and brighty Europeans looking at it in their very own backyard.
Uhhhhh.... The same could be said about you..

I look at this, and remember clearly the anti-American Left and their behavior. I just would like to see some consistency, or some sober reflection. BUT... this won't happen because you folks have a moral compass that is like a cartoon clock zipping around at light speed.
2gvj8cg.jpg
 
Nice backpedal away from implying someone supported "carpet bombing" of civilians. Are you going to apologize to that poster for that implication?

No because that is what they implied. There is no way to effectively target people who are hidden amongst civilians from air with little to no chance of creating collateral damage. You may be able to hit a training camp, or a government compound, but you are not going to end a multi-faction civil war with airstrikes unless you are willing to kill a hell of a lot of civilians in the process.
 
Not our problem....I sympathize with the people being hurt, but in no way should we get involved.

We've been through way too many armed conflicts in the past decade....enough is enough. We have a 16 Trillion dollar deficit...that is far more important than what some other country is doing across the globe.
 
So much stupid, so little time. I will just make one brief comment that is going to make your rant look really really really stupid...I am a Gulf War vet.

Doesn't make his "rant" look stupid. You think you are the only gulf war vet out there? Re-think things if so.
 
Given the fact the choice was an invasion of the Japanese home islands or using the atomic bomb, we picked the option that saved the most lives

That's hindsight reasoning, though. At the time, nobody in the high levels of US military command was talking about that.
 
No because that is what they implied. There is no way to effectively target people who are hidden amongst civilians from air with little to no chance of creating collateral damage. You may be able to hit a training camp, or a government compound, but you are not going to end a multi-faction civil war with airstrikes unless you are willing to kill a hell of a lot of civilians in the process.

I figured it out: You have no idea what "carpet bombing" means.
 
I figured it out: You have no idea what "carpet bombing" means.

I figure it out that you have no idea what an "accusation" means since I asked them if that is what they supported without accusing them of anything. Feel free to troll someone else--that is your Constitutional Right :2wave:
 
Doesn't make his "rant" look stupid. You think you are the only gulf war vet out there? Re-think things if so.

Good thing I never claimed or suggested it. In fact my point had nothing to do with what you are saying.
 
None of which has anything to do with what any one is talking about here.

It has everything to do with it in my opinion of the thread topic. If they shoot down a couple US jetliners - here or anywhere - we'll spend another trillion on wars and lose even more civil liberties and privacy. Since it is known to the Syrian government leader and top military and civilian leadership they will be killed as likely will all their family once we start attacking, that is the only retaliation and threat they have.
 
That's hindsight reasoning, though. At the time, nobody in the high levels of US military command was talking about that.

After our losses in Okinawa and the option of nuclear weapons after their testing, we had no other option.
 
Back
Top Bottom