• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's air strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria

RJKarl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HeavyPetter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Won't happen without boots on the ground. An air/missile strike is pointless. It's a waste of resources.
 
RJKarl said:
If we take out Assad's air force, others won't use chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

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?
 
PhillyDeac said:
also, I don't see where Obama said 'We are going to take our their air force'
Click to expand...

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.
 
This is just too good. 2013 RJ with Obama in charge is essentially the exact opposite of 2003 RJ with Bush in charge. If a time machine happened to be invented and we brought 2003 RJ to meet 2013 RJ who would win in the slap fight?
 
HeavyPetter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Is there a country on earth, where the population wants the US to launch missiles against Syria, especially in such a muddled situtation? Obama needs to back away from the button and try to save face somehow. He needs a clearer situation and better backing for a strike. What do we hope to accomplish with a strike anyway?
 
Deacon923 said:
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?
Click to expand...

If it's OK to use them NK, Iran and Syria would certainly think about selling them.
 
Deacon923 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
HeavyPetter said:
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?
Click to expand...

it's their fancy Russian surface to air missile systems we have to worry about, not their jets.
 
HeavyPetter said:
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?
Click to expand...

It would end up making a killer sequel to Top Gun.
 
HeavyPetter said:
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?
Click to expand...

We don't need to put birds in the air over Syria to annihilate the air force. We just send cruise missiles to blow up the hangers, the fuel, the repair depots, and put big ass holes in the runways. Maybe some high altitude stealth bombers to help out. Sure, they can scramble in the first hours, but so what? Now they have nowhere to land, refuel, or rearm. So we blow them up in the second wave, or like Saddam's they fly to another country and land cause they don't feel like dying for Assad.
 
HeavyPetter said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
PhillyDeac said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top