PhillyDeac
Well-known member
also, I don't see where Obama said 'We are going to take our their air force'
No he didn't. He threw a few chemical bombs last year and nothing was done. The west has done nothing ion Syria. He thought he was home free and was protected by Russia.
This is not all like either Iraq or Libya.
My point was that you want us to make an example of Syria to deter others. Are you nuts? In Iraq, we literally destroyed an entire nations' military in like a week, overthrew and occupied it for YEARS b/c of the possible existence of chemical weapons. Didn't deter shit.
But that's the point that some are making. We need to wipe out Syria's chemical weapon capability to show Iran that we mean business. Or something.
If we take out Assad's air force, others won't use chemical weapons.
also, I don't see where Obama said 'We are going to take our their air force'
Won't happen without boots on the ground. An air/missile strike is pointless. It's a waste of resources.
Sorry. I think I understand that for the most part. I was parroting the pundits.
No. I don't either. But that's what RJ wants I guess.
Besides, that might act as a deterrent to further use in Syria if the weapons could only be delivered by jet fighter. But it's going to take more than a couple of days to destroy an air force. And it wouldn't serve as much of a deterrent to a county like Iran.
What "others"? There are only 5 countries in the world that have them: Libya, Russia, the US, Syria, and North Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon#Japan Libya, Russia, and the US are in the process of destroying their stockpiles.
Out of that group, who are we deterring? In what possible scenario does blowing up Assad's air force deter Russia or North Korea from doing whatever the hell they want?
If we really want to take out their air force, it will be taken out inside a week. But I think it's irrelevant as I strongly suspect that most of the chemical weapons are artillery shells.
Yeah, maybe, but that gets complicated from a search and destroy standpoint when you're hunting fighter jets. I know we have the capability, but I'd hate for a US fighter jet to be shot down or crash over Syria because we felt it necessary to engage in air combat. Wouldn't they immediately scramble their jets?
Yeah, maybe, but that gets complicated from a search and destroy standpoint when you're hunting fighter jets. I know we have the capability, but I'd hate for a US fighter jet to be shot down or crash over Syria because we felt it necessary to engage in air combat. Wouldn't they immediately scramble their jets?
Yeah, maybe, but that gets complicated from a search and destroy standpoint when you're hunting fighter jets. I know we have the capability, but I'd hate for a US fighter jet to be shot down or crash over Syria because we felt it necessary to engage in air combat. Wouldn't they immediately scramble their jets?
Yeah, maybe, but that gets complicated from a search and destroy standpoint when you're hunting fighter jets. I know we have the capability, but I'd hate for a US fighter jet to be shot down or crash over Syria because we felt it necessary to engage in air combat. Wouldn't they immediately scramble their jets?
Exactly...we've gone a couple pages without mentioning Russia's willingness to fight on their behalf. We are talking about 'should we', and forgeting the Russia right now has ships on their way to the mediterranian.... Does anyone think they are just going to hang out while we fire cruise missiles?
Yes, I do.
Russia likes selling arms to Syria but they're not going to get in a shooting war with the US for Assad.