• 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!

A U.S. aircraft has shot down a Syrian government jet over northern Syria

Tigerace117 said:
Assad used chemical weapons on civvies again. It woke the Donald up for once.
Click to expand...

That's not true and the USA prevented an investigation that would prove who used the weapons.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
Lessee now. The US just shot down a Syrian jet in the Nation of Syria. People fighting against the government of Syria in Syria are terrorists. That's pretty simple. The USA is not authorized by Syria or the UN to be in Syria, the USA is an invader. The USA is absolutely wrong in Syria. We should be helping the people of Syria, not killing them, nor supporting any group that is killing them. Syria is 6,000 miles away and has neither threatened nor attacked the USA. We are the filthy, scumbag invaders supporting terrorists a/k/a al Qeda, Nusra Front, Jabhat al Sham, SDFor whatever name we chose to identify the terrorists that we fund, arm and train to wreak havoc, chaos, destruction and death upon the helpless citizens of Syria. I repeat; we are the invaders. It's about energy resources and pipeling R.O.W.s across Syria. Also, the biggest business in the USA, and bigger than the Auto industry, is the War business. "War is good business and business is good."
/
Click to expand...

The US gets to invade other countries with immunity. Funny thing too since the US doesn't much care for Russia doing the same exact thing.

US: Hey you can't violate other countries sovereignty, Russia.

Russia: Ah...you do it all the time, so....

US: That's totally different! Those countries are meanies!

Russia: Invading countries is invading countries, so...
 
Last edited:
Every time I read threads like these I'm reminded why I'm glad DP users don't dictate foreign policy.
 
Deuce said:
It's weird when right-wingers suggest Obama was just as aggressive on the use of military force as Bush ever was. Usually right-wingers are complaining because Obama is a giant wussy.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was "just as aggressive". America was still at war during the Obama years, right?
 
Tigerace117 said:
Clearly not, seeing as they've been fighting him for more than five years now.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The vast majority of Syrians support Assad. The terrorists funded, armed, trained, and supported by the USA are the opposition to Assad. Many of those are ISIS with foreign fighters. We are supporting the bad guys, but no surprise since we are invading Syria, we are the bad guys,
/
 
Josie said:
I didn't say he was "just as aggressive". America was still at war during the Obama years, right?
Click to expand...

A common criticism of Obama's choices is the drawdown and withdrawal from those wars.

Are you telling me you're confused that people who protested full-scale invasion and occupation of two nations would protest less when we... stopped occupying those nations?
 
DaveFagan said:
Wrong again. The vast majority of Syrians support Assad. The terrorists funded, armed, trained, and supported by the USA are the opposition to Assad. Many of those are ISIS with foreign fighters. We are supporting the bad guys, but no surprise since we are invading Syria, we are the bad guys,
/
Click to expand...

The US never supports the bad guys. You know, other than pretty much every single time it gets involved in these kind of things.
 
Henrin said:
The US never supports the bad guys. You know, other than pretty much every single time it gets involved in these kind of things.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think of a time we did that and it turned out well.

It's almost like people are never actually thrilled when a foreign country meddles in their nation's future.
 
Deuce said:
A common criticism of Obama's choices is the drawdown and withdrawal from those wars.

Are you telling me you're confused that people who protested full-scale invasion and occupation of two nations would protest less when we... stopped occupying those nations?
Click to expand...

So the anti-war protesters during Bush's admin weren't against all war, just what he did? A little war is okay with them?
 
Josie said:
So the anti-war protesters during Bush's admin weren't against all war, just what he did? A little war is okay with them?
Click to expand...

People are capable of distinguishing greater nuance than "war" and "no war ever for any reason."

Even if they were absolutely anti-war for any reason, people protest less when they believe things are moving in the right direction and I don't see how this could possibly be difficult to grasp.

Do you believe these protestors would have been in the streets after Pearl Harbor? Do you really believe they are against all fighting, of any scale, for any reason?
 
DaveFagan said:
Wrong again. The vast majority of Syrians support Assad. The terrorists funded, armed, trained, and supported by the USA are the opposition to Assad. Many of those are ISIS with foreign fighters. We are supporting the bad guys, but no surprise since we are invading Syria, we are the bad guys,
/
Click to expand...

And I'm sure you have plenty of RT links to back up those claims.
 
Deuce said:
I'm trying to think of a time we did that and it turned out well.

It's almost like people are never actually thrilled when a foreign country meddles in their nation's future.
Click to expand...

What? No way! People love when foreign aggressors come in and bomb their countries. It's the best thing to ever happen to them.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I don't know. The far right's love for dictators may outweigh their knee jerk Trump worship.
Click to expand...

Obama went around Congress to fly 400 million USD to Switzerland where it could be laundered, and then flown to Tehran, to the largest State sponsor of terror in the world.

Who loves dictators ?
 
Deuce said:
A common criticism of Obama's choices is the drawdown and withdrawal from those wars.

Are you telling me you're confused that people who protested full-scale invasion and occupation of two nations would protest less when we... stopped occupying those nations?
Click to expand...

There's no "confusion." A lot of people just no longer gave a **** when Obama was in office.

They didn't care about his massive escalation of drone warfare and massive expansion of the countries they were used in.

They didn't care about the nearly 27,000 bombs dropped by the US in 2016 alone.

So no, there's no confusion. They're simply ridiculous hypocrites.
 
Tigerace117 said:
He's the one that ordered the missile strikes after it happened.

This is a democracy. Do you actually think people Americans elected can be that coherent in their choices?
Click to expand...

Ah, you were referring to that strike a few weeks ago. I thought you meant this engagement.
If there's one thing that betrays incompetence in a commander, it's indecision. If the government of Syria is your enemy in this conflict, say so and do what has to be done to win. If they're not your enemy, don't engage their forces.
Or let them make the decision. Is it wise, though, to let Assad decide American policy? If I was Assad, it'd be an opportunity to engage in some manipulation, considering the Putin factor.
 
Gonna step in here real quick:

This does represent a serious escalation by directly involved US forces in the fight for Raqqa, and is the fourth time in the past month US forces have fired upon Syrian government forces. While not outside the ROE the US has established, continued attacks against Assad's forces could lead to Russian reprisal against US-backed militants.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Gonna step in here real quick:

This does represent a serious escalation by directly involved US forces in the fight for Raqqa, and is the fourth time in the past month US forces have fired upon Syrian government forces. While not outside the ROE the US has established, continued attacks against Assad's forces could lead to Russian reprisal against US-backed militants.
Click to expand...

I think war with the russians is a high possibility if attacks against syrian force continue, syria is a russian ally and has vested interest in protecting it's assets there.

By technichality under international law, the united states is illegally invading and occupying syria, and the us troops have been allowed to stay there because russia and syria allow it, so long as their focus is isis and not the govt. I can imagine they can revoke that privelage quite readily, as after the cruise missile strike and before the de escalation channel re opened russian was threatening to attack us forces there.
 
Deuce said:
People are capable of distinguishing greater nuance than "war" and "no war ever for any reason."

Even if they were absolutely anti-war for any reason, people protest less when they believe things are moving in the right direction and I don't see how this could possibly be difficult to grasp.
Click to expand...

No, people protest less when "their guy" is in charge.

Deuce said:
Do you believe these protestors would have been in the streets after Pearl Harbor? Do you really believe they are against all fighting, of any scale, for any reason?
Click to expand...

"These protesters"? No. They would've been children or not born at all. There were many anti-war protests during WW2.

Do I think some people are against any fighting at all? Yep.

Do I think a large number of people who say they're pacifists aren't really? Yep.

Do I think most of the Bush protests were because he was a Republican taking us to war? Hell yep.
 
It will be interesting/nerve-wracking to see if either the Syrians or the Russians (who have a formal defensive alliance with the Syrians) will contrive a way to reciprocate the shoot-down. Perhaps US forward bases in Syria will come under missile, long-range rocket or long-range artillery fire. This might be done to lure US aircraft into an anti-aircraft kill zone with S-300 or S-400 SAMs moved from around Latakia to jump the Americans. Then the US Department of Defence would have some very tricky explaining to do. How do you respond to a shoot-down by a country defending its own sovereign territory and airspace when you are not at war with it or its ally, but are violating its sovereignty illegally. This could be quite a can of worms and wiser heads would see the effecacy of leaving Syria and letting Syrians and Russians die fighting ISIL, al-Qaeda, and all the other usual suspects. I hope I'm wrong about the SAM trap.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
None of this would be happening if the Elite had not decided that Trump is not allowed to do deals with Putin.
 
reinoe said:
Syrians are supporting Assad.
Click to expand...

Yes, over 4.8 million voted with their feet by leaving the country, 6 million internally displaced
They are called refugees
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Gonna step in here real quick:

This does represent a serious escalation by directly involved US forces in the fight for Raqqa, and is the fourth time in the past month US forces have fired upon Syrian government forces. While not outside the ROE the US has established, continued attacks against Assad's forces could lead to Russian reprisal against US-backed militants.
Click to expand...

The U.S. establishment is willing to start WW3 in order to support terrorists.
 
JANFU said:
Yes, over 4.8 million voted with their feet by leaving the country, 6 million internally displaced
They are called refugees
Click to expand...

That is from people fleeing the civil war, not from them fleeing assad. Fyi assad did not start the civil war there, and even took numerous steps to reform the govt to appease it's people and other countries. That civil war broke out because the us as well as many other countries including saudi arabia and turkey funded rebels to try and overthrow the syrian govt.

The people of syria still support assad, people fighting him from tunisia bahrain saudi arabia turkey etc seem to make up quite a large amount of his opposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom