• 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

ttwtt78640 said:
Then let Turkey lead and tell them that we (meaning all of NATO) have their back. Using U.S. military resources everytime some foreign moron goes "out of bounds" is getting quite old to me.
Click to expand...

Then pull out of Afghanistan, close your military bases around the world and go home. If you don't want to play anymore stop stepping up to bat.
 
Captain America said:
Did they? Maybe. Maybe not.

Point is, we cannot afford to go into another war half-cocked with incomplete or false information.

America has a super power military. Unless it is our objective to go in and lay waste to the land now known as Syria, we need to keep out of it. Let somebody else deal with the light work from now on. Screw 'em.
Click to expand...

I do not think there is any intention to go into a war. Strikes would be the most likely to happen.
 
Redress said:
The problem is you see inconsistancies where none exist. Let me ask you a simple question: is an invasion and occupation the same thing as air and missile strikes? Careful, this is a trick question and you cannot come out looking good either way you answer.
Click to expand...

Both are acts of war so there isn't much "trick" to it. Unless you are trying to imply that air and missile strikes are cheap, safe and clean. But being Clinton killed as many if not more civilians in Kosovo than "enemy troops" it's tough to even pretend that. On the other hand, if you mean the trick is to take some heat off a President who made a mistake like Clinton and Monica or Obama and his stupid "red line" remark, well that's a "trick". Of course Clinton pulled his "trick" supporting the muslim's and they rewarded us later on with 9/11. Of course today, Obama would attack Assad, who knows maybe kill him and leave who in charge? That's right, radical muslims. They wouldn't say thanks.

So if Obama pulls off this "trick" without an invasion and creates conditions where our sworn enemies thrive, whose better off? Not us. Not free loving people anywhere in the world. I think it would have been much better to have had a competent president who knew better than to have ever made such a stupid remark as our did with his "red line" remark. Or at least one fully prepared to send his nation to war over those type actions.
 
MMC said:
Sure.....neither Iran or Venezuela should be trying to affect our interests in any adverse way. As they are unable to take us on in anything. So they definitely should not be out on the World Stage flapping those tongues. Talking any type of Smack talk.....at all, and definitely not making any threats.


Now we may have been a bad actor thru sheer incompetency. But we have never really tried to be the Bad Guys or the Bad Actors with purpose.
Click to expand...


Wow! I've seen you post valuable material here, but that there is off the rails. Have you ever seen the time line of CIA atrocities in Latin America? And the number of governments there that the US, via the CIA, has toppled, often replacing with dictators that served US multi national corporate interests but were brutal to their citizenry? Do you know anything about Pinochet, or the manipulation of the IMF, and the monetary destruction it caused down there or do you understand WHY Chavez was so disenchanted with the US and encouraged his Latin American neighbours to pay off their loans to the IMF and never do business with them again. Do you remember the US instigating the forced landing of Bolivians airforce one and detainment of their president on the tarmac for 12 hours, because they thought he was smuggling Snowden out of Russia, and they were WRONG? How about invading Iraq, overthrowing their government, occupying their country for a decade, killing a couple hundred thousand civilians, making refugees out of a couple million more, doing billions of dollars damage to the countries infrastructure and leaving it in the ruins it's in now. How about standing idol while Israel waged a 51 day war in Lebanon back in June of 06, while they killed 1,500 civilians, made 750,000 refugees and destroyed 3 billion dollars worth of infrastructure. How about abusing the UN resolution to use military force in Libya to protect the civilians to overthrow the government, without congressional authorisation, defined by Louise Fisher, constitutional expert for forty years at the congressional library as an impeachable act. This is the definition of "bad actor" and I just scratched the surface.
 
Montecresto said:
Wow! I've seen you post valuable material here, but that there is off the rails. Have you ever seen the time line of CIA atrocities in Latin America? And the number of governments there that the US, via the CIA, has toppled, often replacing with dictators that served US multi national corporate interests but were brutal to their citizenry? Do you know anything about Pinochet, or the manipulation of the IMF, and the monetary destruction it caused down there or do you understand WHY Chavez was so disenchanted with the US and encouraged his Latin American neighbours to pay off their loans to the IMF and never do business with them again. Do you remember the US instigating the forced landing of Bolivians airforce one and detainment of their president on the tarmac for 12 hours, because they thought he was smuggling Snowden out of Russia, and they were WRONG? How about invading Iraq, overthrowing their government, occupying their country for a decade, killing a couple hundred thousand civilians, making refugees out of a couple million more, doing billions of dollars damage to the countries infrastructure and leaving it in the ruins it's in now. How about standing idol while Israel waged a 51 day war in Lebanon back in June of 06, while they killed 1,500 civilians, made 750,000 refugees and destroyed 3 billion dollars worth of infrastructure. How about abusing the UN resolution to use military force in Libya to protect the civilians to overthrow the government, without congressional authorisation, defined by Louise Fisher, constitutional expert for forty years at the congressional library as an impeachable act. This is the definition of "bad actor" and I just scratched the surface.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood.....in playing the bad guy and what I meant. My version.....

I meant Really playing the bad guys. Meaning one thing only.....our interests. Doing and taking whatever we want. Meaning when we move out. We always come back with land and treasure. Especially Land.....taken from whomever.....however. Even if it meant tricking them into selling all their land. In effect being bad and not giving a damn about what anyone else thinks.

Now we have never been like that.....ever.
 
Medusa said:
l dont know why assad would poison his people when there are lots of UN ispectors in his country
Click to expand...

And why he would poison civilians who aren't fighting him and according to NATO, support him by a healthy 70%. But we should all understand the advantage of the al Qaida affiliated insurgents in staging the attack with the hopes that it would be blamed on the Assad government. And we can all understand why the US would be eager to blame the Assad government given the long standing goal of regime change.
 
Higgins86 said:
Rebels, Gov forces it matters not because if chemical weapons are being used and we sit back and do nothing then our position will be weakened for decades. What is the point of the UN and Nato if we sit back and allow this bloodbath to continue?
Click to expand...

NATO? What is the point. America was attacked and just about every member except GB did not uphold their end of the treaty. Token support was just about the only help we got from just about all of NATO. Everything was fine as long as it was supposed to be them getting attacked but it didn't work out that way. Time to say good by to NATO and find friends who we can trust. Or at least give the same support that we get.

The UN? Corrupt, near useless organization.
 
Higgins86 said:
Rebels, Gov forces it matters not because if chemical weapons are being used and we sit back and do nothing then our position will be weakened for decades. What is the point of the UN and Nato if we sit back and allow this bloodbath to continue?
Click to expand...

Get out of Assad's way, he crushes the al Qaida affiliated insurgents that we have been propping up, that staged the chemical attack, and the blood bath will be over.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
NATO? What is the point. America was attacked and just about every member except GB did not uphold their end of the treaty. Token support was just about the only help we got from just about all of NATO. Everything was fine as long as it was supposed to be them getting attacked but it didn't work out that way. Time to say good by to NATO and find friends who we can trust. Or at least give the same support that we get.

The UN? Corrupt, near useless organization.
Click to expand...

Really? What Nato member objected to Afghan?
 
DaveFagan said:
The point is that, if we are going to kill somebody, it should be the rebels. It is the rebels that used the chemical weapons.
Click to expand...


Why are they having such difficulty with this?
 
Higgins86 said:
Well given the fact Turkey are a member of Nato and potentially Chemical Weapons are being use on their doorstep I think it might be an issue for them. Nato also enforced a no-flyzone in Libya back in 2011 so what is different in this case?
Click to expand...

What is different in this case is China and Russia. They were tricked in Libya and aren't going to stand for it again.
 
Higgins86 said:
Then pull out of Afghanistan, close your military bases around the world and go home. If you don't want to play anymore stop stepping up to bat.
Click to expand...

We actually have a few rational minds in America that would love to do that, unfortunately, just a few!
 
Higgins86 said:
Really? What Nato member objected to Afghan?
Click to expand...

What military help have they offered? That is the nature of that Treaty... not objecting is a non-issue.
 
Redress said:
I do not think there is any intention to go into a war. Strikes would be the most likely to happen.
Click to expand...

Funny. Maybe you don't call that war, being on the aggressive end and everything.
 
MMC said:
I think you misunderstood.....in playing the bad guy and what I meant. My version.....

I meant Really playing the bad guys. Meaning one thing only.....our interests. Doing and taking whatever we want. Meaning when we move out. We always come back with land and treasure. Especially Land.....taken from whomever.....however. Even if it meant tricking them into selling all their land. In effect being bad and not giving a damn about what anyone else thinks.

Now we have never been like that.....ever.
Click to expand...


Ok buddy, gotcha.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What military help have they offered? That is the nature of that Treaty... not objecting is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

In the initial invasion the UK, Italy, Aussies offered military help!

Since then
France
Germany
Canada
Poland
Spain
Russia

Have all aided and performed combat and policing roles in the region.
 
if we hit them, it won't be with boots on the ground ... it'll be surgical ... BUT, I hope they wait for the U.N. inspection to be completed ... from where I sit, the WH has not handled this Syria mess very well and why make it worse by hitting them and finding out later that Assad had not used chemical weapons ... BUT, from where we all sit, we don't have the best view, so we're just guessing ... I'll wait to see how it all shakes out ...
 
Higgins86 said:
In the initial invasion the UK, Italy, Aussies offered military help!

Since then
France
Germany
Canada
Poland
Spain
Russia

Have all aided and performed combat and policing roles in the region.
Click to expand...

I know New Zealand still has some troops in Afghanistan. Any links about Russia and Germany?
 
Higgins86 said:
5,350 soldiers and policemen from the Germans 54 deaths including one earlier this year who was a member of the German KSK special forces

German Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for Russia from what I gathered they supported the Northern alliance but don't have any links right now.
Click to expand...

I knew about this before but my dumb ass forgot for some retarded reason. You are right. I forgot how many NATO and non-NATO troops actually went too...

47 nations contributed 97,920 troops as of 24 June 2013

ISAF troop number statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks... :)
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Both are acts of war so there isn't much "trick" to it. Unless you are trying to imply that air and missile strikes are cheap, safe and clean. But being Clinton killed as many if not more civilians in Kosovo than "enemy troops" it's tough to even pretend that. On the other hand, if you mean the trick is to take some heat off a President who made a mistake like Clinton and Monica or Obama and his stupid "red line" remark, well that's a "trick". Of course Clinton pulled his "trick" supporting the muslim's and they rewarded us later on with 9/11. Of course today, Obama would attack Assad, who knows maybe kill him and leave who in charge? That's right, radical muslims. They wouldn't say thanks.

So if Obama pulls off this "trick" without an invasion and creates conditions where our sworn enemies thrive, whose better off? Not us. Not free loving people anywhere in the world. I think it would have been much better to have had a competent president who knew better than to have ever made such a stupid remark as our did with his "red line" remark. Or at least one fully prepared to send his nation to war over those type actions.
Click to expand...

Both whales and mice are mammals. They are still very significantly difference.
 
Higgins86 said:
In the initial invasion the UK, Italy, Aussies offered military help!

Since then
France
Germany
Canada
Poland
Spain
Russia

Have all aided and performed combat and policing roles in the region.
Click to expand...

Non-sense. Combat roles , only when attacked for the most part and policing roles, get real. How about going on the offensive, with large quantities of troops and kill a bunch of bad guys. Nope. Candy ass pu**ies, the lot of them. Minus the Brits. Support role this, support role that, stay on the compound, don't risk anything, that was their motto. Screw all of them. They didn't meet their end of the deal. We should return the favor, they should stand alone and we'll cheer them on when their time comes. Or do like some of them did and not even do that.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I knew about this before but my dumb ass forgot for some retarded reason. You are right. I forgot how many NATO and non-NATO troops actually went too...

47 nations contributed 97,920 troops as of 24 June 2013

ISAF troop number statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Thanks... :)
Click to expand...


Obviously doesn't compare to the numbers the US put in or even the UK but for a nation like Germany given its history it was a big step and caused a lot of controversy internally.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Non-sense. Combat roles , only when attacked for the most part and policing roles, get real. How about going on the offensive, with large quantities of troops and kill a bunch of bad guys. Nope. Candy ass pu**ies, the lot of them. Minus the Brits. Support role this, support role that, stay on the compound, don't risk anything, that was their motto. Screw all of them. They didn't meet their end of the deal. We should return the favor, they should stand alone and we'll cheer them on when their time comes. Or do like some of them did and not even do that.
Click to expand...

Out of interest have you served in a combat zone?
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Non-sense. Combat roles , only when attacked for the most part and policing roles, get real. How about going on the offensive, with large quantities of troops and kill a bunch of bad guys. Nope. Candy ass pu**ies, the lot of them. Minus the Brits. Support role this, support role that, stay on the compound, don't risk anything, that was their motto. Screw all of them. They didn't meet their end of the deal. We should return the favor, they should stand alone and we'll cheer them on when their time comes. Or do like some of them did and not even do that.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it the USA that was actually attacked? Why wouldn't we do the majority of the work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom