Syria

[Montauk17]

Obama says Syria is responsible for these chemical weapon attacks on civilians, but people in the middle east are reporting that it's rebels armed by Obama who are responsible. What's the truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfHSPLW63Gg

http://benswann.com/how-america-reac...yrus-vs-syria/

[Goooh]

The roman road

He is going in. I say leave it alone, but on the other hand it is a beautiful day to see him doing exactly what the libs hated bush for.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by Goooh

The roman road

He is going in. I say leave it alone, but on the other hand it is a beautiful day to see him doing exactly what the libs hated bush for.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

All govt is the same!

They all play off each other to keep their power in office.
Libertarian viewpoint on foreign involvement is the only way to avoid war. We have McCain (RINO) over here wanting to give the opposition weapons (look what happened with Afghanistan and Bin Laden). The U.S., G.B. and France VS Syria, Russia, Iran and China? Yeah, we lose. Lot's of people are going to die if it happens. Not trying to start anything, but if the worst case scenario does unfold, I'll bet they reinstate the draft. Of course, that's worst case scenario.

[Matt G]

There are times when war is necessary. It is necessary now.......... For Syria. Let them fight their own war. Arm the rebels? Maybe, but look how that turned out in A-stan when we armed the mujahideen to fight the Russians. Now those same weapons are killing Americans. We need to realize that the whole damn world hates us and no amount of international aid or policing we do will help that. F the world and keep our money here.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

All govt is the same!

They all play off each other to keep their power in office.
Libertarian viewpoint on foreign involvement is the only way to avoid war. We have McCain (RINO) over here wanting to give the opposition weapons (look what happened with Afghanistan and Bin Laden). The U.S., G.B. and France VS Syria, Russia, Iran and China? Yeah, we lose. Lot's of people are going to die if it happens. Not trying to start anything, but if the worst case scenario does unfold, I'll bet they reinstate the draft. Of course, that's worst case scenario.

Yep. We ain't got the money to go flexing over there anyway, besides that let those idiots kill themselves. Just think, going to war against a country that owns you.

Going to war with China would be similar to fighting the north in the civil war, they'd just cut our a$$es off. We lose big time.

How about a nice nuke or 2 here in the oil and gas Mecca for the U.S.? We are a huge target on the coast.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Top Dawg]

Russia ain't got enough artillery to last a month.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

Russia ain't got enough artillery to last a month.

You sure? Call that bluff!

[MathGeek]

There is no justification for US entry into the conflict in Syria. We are not the world's police force. They have not attacked nor threatened direct attack on the US.

Do we really want to set a precedent of jumping into a conflict any time nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons are used anywhere in the world? Why tempt the losing side in these quagmires to lobby for our entry by faking to be victims of chemical weapon use?

There is no clear goal that can be quickly reached with US involvement. There is no clear exit strategy. Entry suggests that we would be signing up for another long term nation building deal that would make our soldiers over there sitting ducks for a long time.

We need to sit this one out on three fronts: 1. No direct military action (boots on the ground or air support.) 2. No weapons assistance. 3. No advisory or intelligence assistance.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

You sure? Call that bluff!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

Don't know what you're trying to present here other than a website that can be edited by people like you and me.

[Top Dawg]

True. But the Russian military wouldn't make a pimple on our military's azz.

[ironworker]

The Russian Navy has suffered severely since the dissolution of the Soviet Union due to insufficient maintenance, lack of funding and thereby training of personnel and timely replacement of equipment. Another setback is attributed to Russia's domestic shipbuilding industry which is reported to have been in decline as to their capabilities of constructing contemporary hardware efficiently. Some analysts even say that because of this Russia's naval capabilities have been facing a slow but certain "irreversible collapse".[4][5] But other analysts say that because of the recent rise in mineral prices have enabled a sort of 'Renaissance of the Russian Navy' due to increased available funds, allowing Russia to begin 'developing the capacity to once again become a maritime threat to Western naval power'.[6]

[Purple Back]

I say we go to war! And I hope China, Russia, Syria, etc all come get some! Our country needs a reminder of what is important, Faith, Family, Freedom! Every time there is a mojor world war this country remembers what their priorities are.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

True. But the Russian military wouldn't make a pimple on our military's azz.

Hitler thought the same

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There is no justification for US entry into the conflict in Syria. We are not the world's police force. They have not attacked nor threatened direct attack on the US.

Do we really want to set a precedent of jumping into a conflict any time nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons are used anywhere in the world? Why tempt the losing side in these quagmires to lobby for our entry by faking to be victims of chemical weapon use?

There is no clear goal that can be quickly reached with US involvement. There is no clear exit strategy. Entry suggests that we would be signing up for another long term nation building deal that would make our soldiers over there sitting ducks for a long time.

We need to sit this one out on three fronts: 1. No direct military action (boots on the ground or air support.) 2. No weapons assistance. 3. No advisory or intelligence assistance.

Well I guess we can agree on something.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[southern151]

Originally Posted by Purple Back

I say we go to war! And I hope China, Russia, Syria, etc all come get some! Our country needs a reminder of what is important, Faith, Family, Freedom! Every time there is a mojor world war this country remembers what their priorities are.

The men that fought in the first two world wars don't exist in huge quantities today, like they did then. There are too damn many slugs that don't care whose rule we fall under so long as they still get their free stuff.

We need to stay the heck away from this deal! Like MG said, we aren't the world's police. We can't hold the hand of every nation.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by southern151

The men that fought in the first two world wars don't exist in huge quantities today, like they did then. There are too damn many slugs that don't care whose rule we fall under so long as they still get their free stuff.

We need to stay the heck away from this deal! Like MG said, we aren't the world's police. We can't hold the hand of every nation.

PUTTING THE F BACK IN FREEDOM

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

True. But the Russian military wouldn't make a pimple on our military's azz.

look up russian army vs us army while your at it. And don't kid yourself about capability.

The russian ground force capability, and in particular the excellent and very large artillery were the main reasons why US doctrine in the Fulda gap was solely based on tactical nukes. Our leaders knew that even with air superiority(which is not a guaranteed thing, russia excels in surface to air tech as well), and a technical advantage we could not beat them without use of tactical nukes.

To be blunt some of the newer weapon systems that russia has recently developed are pretty damned impressive. The newer T90 MBT are at the least on equal footing with the Abrams, Merkava, leopard 2, etc...

There not just playing the old "overwhelming" numbers game.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There is no justification for US entry into the conflict in Syria. We are not the world's police force. They have not attacked nor threatened direct attack on the US.

Do we really want to set a precedent of jumping into a conflict any time nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons are used anywhere in the world? Why tempt the losing side in these quagmires to lobby for our entry by faking to be victims of chemical weapon use?

There is no clear goal that can be quickly reached with US involvement. There is no clear exit strategy. Entry suggests that we would be signing up for another long term nation building deal that would make our soldiers over there sitting ducks for a long time.

We need to sit this one out on three fronts: 1. No direct military action (boots on the ground or air support.) 2. No weapons assistance. 3. No advisory or intelligence assistance.

A very libertarian attitude if i do say so myself. Agreed 100%, sadly neither the republicans nor the democrats will ever take this positioning.

[CajunSteelsetter]

I don't want to end up in some hot sandy place to get blown up because Syria wants to fight with itself. They tell me "go", and I sure as heck will, but I'm not for getting involved in more pointless wars.