Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Syria--To Bomb or Not To Bomb


  • Please log in to reply
294 replies to this topic

#131 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,929
  • Reputation: 1,459
HUDDLER

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:49 PM

Even if they are, the Russian navy has nothing on what we have:

 

1307473767392.gif

 

Look at the entire U.S. Naval Fleet:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ted_States_Navy

 

Now look at the Russian Naval Fleet:

 

http://en.wikipedia....sian_Navy_ships

 

Russia's fleet is not only smaller, it is also older and less sophisticated.

 

Our naval strength cannot be matched.

 

The Russian navy was designed with one primary purpose in mind, at least irt conventional war.  To defend the homeland from NATO naval power and hold its on at Sea, therebye giving time to the Army to win a war in Europe.  The Army was suppose to be the aggressive force, while the Navy was built to be primarily defensive in nature.  Thats why they never developed the logistical capabilities to operate large fleets far from home as we can do.  They really haven't changed except that they are smaller. 

 

Our own forces were designed with just the opposite in mind.  The Army in Europe was to hold on until reinforcements arrived from the US while the Navy was to be aggressive and go after the Russians.   

 

Even without the cold war, both sides have maintained relatively similar philosophies. 



#132 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
  • LocationPleiades
HUDDLER

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:57 PM

Its disgusting how much of a military powerhouse we are. Tis a nice reflection of the psychological degeneration we've endured as a culture.



#133 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,885
  • Reputation: 3,405
  • LocationShallotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 29 August 2013 - 05:17 PM

 Anyone who will use chemical weapons on another person is a savage. 

 

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry was more emphatic in stressing the ethical basis for intervention. 

"Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity." 

The obscenity of such attacks is a reality Kerry is all too familiar with, as the decorated war veteran served at a time when the US was engaged in a decade of chemical warfare in Vietnam. 

From 1962 to 1971, the US military sprayed an estimated 20 million gallons of defoliants and herbicides over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in a bid to deprive the Vietcong of food and cover. 

The Vietnamese government estimates that 400,000 people were killed or maimed and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of the so-called 'rainbow herbicides.' 

Christopher Busby, an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation and Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, said it was important to make the distinction that defoliants such as Agent Orange are not anti-personnel weapons designed to kill or deform people, and are thus "not quite the same as using a nerve gas or something that is intended against personnel." 

"But nevertheless, it had a very serious effect, and they shouldn't have used it because they must have known that it would have these side-effects," Busby said. "At least, when they were using it they must have learned that there would be these side-effects, and they should have stopped using them at this or that point. But they didn't." 

A similar legacy was left by the deployment of white phosphorous and depleted uranium following the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

Busby said that while the genotoxic effects of white phosphorous were debatable, the deadliness of depleted uranium was beyond question. 

"All of the genetic damage effects that we see in Iraq, in my opinion, were caused by... depleted uranium weapons. And also [non]-depleted uranium weapons of a new type. And these are really terrible weapons. These are weapons whic have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq," he said. 

The people of Fallujah, where some of the most intense fighting during the Iraq war took place, have since suffered a veritable health crisis. 

Four studies on the health crisis in the city were published in 2012. Busby, an author and co-author of two of them, described Fallujah as having "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied." 

There is a case to be made that in terms of Agent Orange, White Phosphorous and depleted uranium, the often deadly consequences have been a side-effect rather than the goal of their deployment. 

While Washington currently argues that the use of chemical weapons is a "red line" that requires a swift and immediate military response to deter future crimes against humanity, the US has a checkered record on the issue, said former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, citing the time when then-US ally Saddam Hussein deployed chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War - with US knowledge

"We had the famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein," McGovern told RT. "That happened the day after the first public announcement that the Iraqis had used mustard gas against the Iranians. So [turning a] blind eye, yeah, in spades." 

"The problem is that we knew what was going on, and there is a Geneva Convention against the use of chemical warfare. Our top leaders knew it," McGovern continued. "The question is: had they no conscience, had they no shame?"

 

 

http://rt.com/news/u...s-portnaya-152/

 

And this is all post Geneva Convention, you know, the thing that was enacted at the end of the Second World War. During the first world war there was a veritable gas arms race between Germany and England to figure out who could kill each other better with chemical weapons. This lead to the development of "Mustard Gas". 



#134 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,376
  • Reputation: 2,007
  • LocationAlaska
HUDDLER

Posted 29 August 2013 - 05:38 PM

Even if they are, the Russian navy has nothing on what we have:

 

1307473767392.gif

 

Look at the entire U.S. Naval Fleet:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ted_States_Navy

 

Now look at the Russian Naval Fleet:

 

http://en.wikipedia....sian_Navy_ships

 

Russia's fleet is not only smaller, it is also older and less sophisticated.

 

Our naval strength cannot be matched.

 

 

Thank you Ronald Reagan?

 

Rant on//

 

Not sure even Ron would endorse this gargantuan waste of US resources on the military. Taking him at his word, I would hope not.  "Government isn't the solution to our problems, government is the problem."

 

When he authorized an increase to our military budget during the nineteen eighties, it was in response to rebuilding an eviscerated military post Vietnam.  It was about providing those serving in the military with a decent paycheck, allowing them to get off of welfare and food stamps.  It was about giving our military the tools they needed to stand toe to toe with the Rooskies.

 

What this graphic shows is a radically different world from the one President Reagan knew.  Where all but two of these navies are considered friendly, if not allies, and that the Chinese and Russians, are at best, little more than regional seagoing powers.

 

If the biggest threat to US national security today were included on this graphic, the ship's size alone would make the rest of these vessels appear to be little more than a child's tinker toys.  This naval vessel, if it were built, would cost the US taxpayer something a little north of sixteen trillion dollars and it would likely be named the USS Titanic National Deficit.

 

This graphic, even without the USS TND, is very effective at demonstrating an important point:  How insanely wasteful and out of control our nation's military spending has become. 

 

The Military Industrial Complex thanks you, the American taxpayer, for your endless contributions to their corporate welfare.

 

//Rant off



#135 P.I.A

P.I.A

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 12-October 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 522
  • Reputation: 285
  • LocationFinally Home!
HUDDLER

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:41 PM

I mean, I'm sort of at a loss for what point you were trying to make here. It's almost as if you're arguing that caring about this sort of thing is pointless because,...... well I don't know why?

I think his arguement is that nothing is going to happen. 



#136 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 30 August 2013 - 11:41 AM

Can't wait for the timetable/target list Obama/Kerry will provide to Assad...



#137 P.I.A

P.I.A

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 12-October 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 522
  • Reputation: 285
  • LocationFinally Home!
HUDDLER

Posted 30 August 2013 - 12:17 PM

All this talk of projection of naval power reminds me of the Gunboat policies of the late 1890s during the beginning of the spanish-american war. And venom, I don't think being a military power is a bad thing. Its an expensive thing, but would you rather be dominated, or be the dominator ?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app



#138 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,899
  • Reputation: 8,793
SUPPORTER

Posted 30 August 2013 - 12:24 PM

This is a difficult decision for Obama.  I haven't read all of this thread so perhaps someone has already had this opinion, but on one hand it is hard to justify doing nothing, but unless you go after a full regime change you aren't really accomplishing a whole lot.

 

We as a nation can't afford another war emotionally or financially, but you don't want to just stand by and let guys use chemical weapons on his own people.



#139 Sean Payton's Vicodin

Sean Payton's Vicodin

    TAKE IT IN THE POOPER FOR COOPER

  • Joined: 27-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,122
  • Reputation: 2,421
HUDDLER

Posted 30 August 2013 - 12:40 PM

at least powell had grainy satellite pics of trucks. It's like kerry's not even trying.

 



#140 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:18 PM

Where's the coalition...

 

Just running through all the normal Iraq speak.  Madea Benjamin seems to be out of money now as well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users