• 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!

1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

:tongue4:
a sort of Con broken record.
hey it's your guy that is large and in charge.
He's the One wanting to fire off a few Tomahawks to save face, not us Cons :tongue4:
 
Obama must be a genius when it comes to fighting a war. Order 1/5th of your surface warships in the Mediterranean Sea to return home before the shooting starts.


"<The guided missile destroyer USS Mahan (DDG-72) has left the Eastern Mediterranean en route to its homeport at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., according to several press reports.

Mahan’s departure leaves four destroyers left to undertake an anticipated limited strike on Syria.


Mahan had a planned ballistic missile defense (BMD) deployment extended in the U.S. 6th fleet area of operations while it waited for the U.S. to take action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad for an alleged chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21.

Four destroyers — USS Stout (DDG-55), USS Ramage (DDG-61), USS Barry (DDG-52) and USS Gravely (DDG-107) — are left in Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) in range of Syrian targets.

There are also likely U.S. submarines in the region to assist in the attack, although the Navy does not typically discuss the positions of its submarine force. '<

Continue.-> Destroyer USS Mahan Leaves Eastern Mediterranean | USNI News

If I'm not mistaken, Russia, with a naval base in Syria, has 12 surface or undersurface naval assets in the Mediterranian now as well. That being the case, I don't think the numbers of ships America has on site now is indicative of less ability to carry out the suggested actions in Syria and I doubt that the Russians are going to engage American battleships in the Mediterranian if they should start attacking Syrian facilities, but you never know.
 
Oh...my...god...

Hint: a moving carrier makes wind and compensates for a lack of wind or wind in the wrong direction by doing things like accelerating. You can conduct fullscale carrier ops in both the Red Sea and the Gulf.

What if you have a 30 knot wind at your stern ? It's as if there is no wind if you're moving at 30 kts. in the same direction as the wind. It's as if the carrier is at a dead stop with no wind.

How long does it take to put an entire carrier air wing into the air ? How many miles will have the carrier traveled ? Then you have to retrieve those aircraft.

But then again, if things are still the same as they have been for the past three years, 50 % of the aircraft on the Nimitz are incapable of flying because of Obama's defense cuts before the Obama sequestration. The lack of funds for spare parts and maintance.
 
If I'm not mistaken, Russia, with a naval base in Syria, has 12 surface or undersurface naval assets in the Mediterranian now as well. That being the case, I don't think the numbers of ships America has on site now is indicative of less ability to carry out the suggested actions in Syria and I doubt that the Russians are going to engage American battleships in the Mediterranian if they should start attacking Syrian facilities, but you never know.

Look at how one of the worlds most stupidest wars began, the First World War.
 
Look at how one of the worlds most stupidest wars began, the First World War.

This is very true - I'm not suggesting all the assets in the Mediterranian is a good idea nor is an attack on Syria, just that there's a lot there on both sides and I'm sure, if the US assets are attacked by Russia or the Syrians, the British assets there as well as other NATO assets in the Red Sea and/or Persian Gulf will hot foot it over for a great big mess.
 
Syria and their supporters just lay there and take it like a cheap hooker?

In all honesty, that's exactly what I would bet they do. No country wants to directly go toe to tow with the U.S. military. I would imagine groups like Hezbolah will increase cowardly attacks against Israel, but then again they do that anyway.

my 2 cents... either you do nothing or you do something big enough to convince everyone that you are not bull****ting around. a half-assed "token" strike isn't going to accomplish anything except piss people off.

My problem with this operation that Obama will do is exactly what you put here. It's not going to accomplish anything and it costs us in the long run in regards to credibility around the world and the cost of the weapons. I really doubt Iran or Russia is going to directly do anything militarily to the U.S. in response, they aren't that stupid. And the terrorist groups go after Israel regardless of what they or we do anyway so no, I'm not concerned there either.

I don't think we should go in there when the rest of the U.N. doesn't give a **** about the place either. Either we go there under a directive of the U.N. with other countries support, moneyand troops to kick out Assad and (as a whole world group) go in for nation building or we shouldn't do ****.

This operation Obama is proposing is half-assed and not worth going through with in it's current from without U.N. support of money and troops.
 
Look at how one of the worlds most stupidest wars began, the First World War.

Different time, different attitudes, and different techonology. While I don't agree with Obama's proposal, I don't think it's going to start WW3 either.
 
Funny thing about that pesky duya 3 no one ever saw it coming, the fall of the house of Saud was so unexpected
 
I have never said we have to invade. your boy, Obama, said a token/limited strike with a handful of cruise missiles is NOT enormous consequences

First things first-
I know cons have little respect for The President- how ever using the term 'your boy' is just piss ignorant.

Next, no one said the consequences end with a limited strike. But the President isn't a King- no matter how many times Cons say so. He will need the support of Congress for truly enormous consequences, but to my mind even a limited strike is enormous to a nation like Syria locked in a civil war. Strike a dozen command centers- which are detected by electronic emissions not just 'Google Earth' and that could be of enormous consequences. The consequences could be very 'enormous' to the high command of Syria.

There are other options available if Assad uses more chemical weapons. You believe in jump big or do nothing... others believe in scaling the response to the situation. What you call token may very well be far more impressive. Odd you can tell the effect of a strike that has not happened yet. :roll:
 
:tongue4:hey it's your guy that is large and in charge.
He's the One wanting to fire off a few Tomahawks to save face, not us Cons :tongue4:

OH PLAHEEEEEASE... Cons have been demanding far stronger intervention for over a year now. You REALLY don't pay much attention do you? There are some cons want to just sit and watch, some have been chomping at the bit to get in there.

More con games.... :roll:
 
First things first-
I know cons have little respect for The President- how ever using the term 'your boy' is just piss ignorant.

please tell me you are not one of "those" people who are blissfully ignorant of the context and meaning of the phrase "your boy"
 
Cons have been demanding far stronger intervention for over a year now.
If you don't know the difference between a rino and a Conservative how is that any of my concern?
 
They don't need to sink any U.S. Navy ships, all they need to do is sink any merchant ship in the Suez Canal to #### everything up more than it already is.

It was Obama who abandoned the Middle East and North Africa with his lead from behind. It was Obama who supported the Arab Spring. It was all of Obama's failed foreign policies why the Middle East is a complete basket case today.

There is no polite answer to such Obama hate. Irrationality will never accept reality
 
There is no polite answer to such Obama hate. Irrationality will never accept reality

Where do you come up with hate ?

You're as bad a few others on this thread when they discover basic math that 1/5th or 20 % of 5 units is 1 unit.

Has our schools been dumbed down that much ?
 
What if you have a 30 knot wind at your stern ? It's as if there is no wind if you're moving at 30 kts. in the same direction as the wind. It's as if the carrier is at a dead stop with no wind.

How long does it take to put an entire carrier air wing into the air ? How many miles will have the carrier traveled ? Then you have to retrieve those aircraft.

But then again, if things are still the same as they have been for the past three years, 50 % of the aircraft on the Nimitz are incapable of flying because of Obama's defense cuts before the Obama sequestration. The lack of funds for spare parts and maintance.

Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. If the wind is from the stern...you turn. This is not rocket surgery. The navy was able to conduct ops with little trouble in both the Red Sea and the gulf. Your ignorance is not going to change that.
 
Where do you come up with hate ?

You're as bad a few others on this thread when they discover basic math that 1/5th or 20 % of 5 units is 1 unit.

Has our schools been dumbed down that much ?

You are much worse however, not understanding things you try and talk like an expert on, and then sticking your fingers in your ears when the real world can answer all your stupid objections.
 
Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. If the wind is from the stern...you turn. This is not rocket surgery. The navy was able to conduct ops with little trouble in both the Red Sea and the gulf. Your ignorance is not going to change that.

"Rocket surgery." I gotta remember that one.
 
It would be SO cute if the Syrians could actually nail a carrier with one of those Rooskie anti-ship missiles?
Them things look like they'd be easy to shoot down?
 
Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. If the wind is from the stern...you turn. This is not rocket surgery. The navy was able to conduct ops with little trouble in both the Red Sea and the gulf. Your ignorance is not going to change that.

All right, you win. I'm ignorant and there were no trouble in both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.

After over thirty five years membership with the USNI I've canceled my membership and will never read another issue of "Proceedings" again.

>" ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN THE PERSIAN GULF — Desert dust blew over the flight deck of this aircraft carrier in powdery milk-colored waves, clogging plane engines, air intake valves, sight scopes and nostrils. Mixed with the slick residue of dripping hydraulic oil and grease from arresting cables, the landing surface was slippery enough to entice maintenance hands into body surfing.

The fierce sandstorms that have slowed military operations in the Iraqi desert this week are also affecting air and naval operations. The sand, it seems, gets in everything, even ships at sea.

In the dark, windowless Tactical Flag Command Center, Rear Adm. John M. Kelly removed his glasses and rubbed his eyes. Illuminated by the glow of intelligence read-outs and a muted television, Kelly listened grimly to his aides.

"The Connie's deck is really getting clobbered," Cmdr. Larry Martin told his relief of conditions on the nearby USS Constellation, so lashed by wind and sand that one of its planes had just landed on the Lincoln instead. He rattled off names of airports in friendly Persian Gulf nations where carrier aircraft would be allowed to land if they got shut out by the increasingly foul weather.

A few jets returned from airstrikes with damage to their canopies and engines. Shaken by the extended sorties over dust-shrouded enemy territory, pilots told of harrowing winds and whiteouts through which they would never have flown if there weren't ground troops in need of their cover.

"We're maneuvering the carriers to get away from it as much as we can but sometimes there's no place to run," the admiral conceded. Six cycles of launches and recoveries had to be canceled on the three carriers, grounded by airborne grit, lightning and wind shear..."<
Sandstorm Complicates Operations On Carriers - Sun Sentinel
 
It would be SO cute if the Syrians could actually nail a carrier with one of those Rooskie anti-ship missiles?
Them things look like they'd be easy to shoot down?

As soon as Obama orders just one Tomahawk missile to be launched against any target with in the sovereign territory of Syria, Obama has declared war against Syria and under international law Syria can launch those anti ship missiles against our ships.
 
That is my take on the dealio and since them things will be on the list of first strike targets they might as well use em or lose em.
 
Jordan and Israel

Don't be so sure. Jordan is not a given and Israel is not interested in opening their skies for a half assed destabilization effort. Both countries would have to believe that the sorties would actually help stabilize their neighbor rather than create a rogue state on their border.
 
Back
Top Bottom