Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    19 Jun '17 02:50
    It must have crossed a red line.
  2. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56240
    19 Jun '17 04:09
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It must have crossed a red line.
    Trigger happy, and dumb as nails.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Jun '17 07:14
    Fantastic. I think proxy wars are immoral. Let the sponsors fight directly rather than giving weapons to others and letting them die on their behalf.
    The US should decide whether it is, or isn't at war with the Syrian regime, and if it is, win the war, if it isn't then decide who they are at war against. The US has enough of an army to win any war in the region within a month or so - unless they are really fighting Russia.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    19 Jun '17 14:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Fantastic. I think proxy wars are immoral. Let the sponsors fight directly rather than giving weapons to others and letting them die on their behalf.
    The US should decide whether it is, or isn't at war with the Syrian regime, and if it is, win the war, if it isn't then decide who they are at war against. The US has enough of an army to win any war in the region within a month or so - unless they are really fighting Russia.
    What exactly would a US military "win" look like in Syria? Something like the "win" in Iraq?

    Anyway, the Russians aren't being subtle in response:

    “All flying objects, including planes and drones of the international coalition, detected west of the Euphrates, will be followed by Russian air defense systems as targets,” the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/world/middleeast/russia-syria.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    19 Jun '17 14:51
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    ... unless they are really fighting Russia.
    ... which they (the US) will if they (the US) are not communicating properly with the other participants.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Jun '17 15:09
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What exactly would a US military "win" look like in Syria? Something like the "win" in Iraq?
    No. But the current status quo is most definitely NOT a win for anyone.

    The US loves to provide weapons then sit back and watch as people from other nations die. If they are part of the war they should get involved and get it over quickly and establish some sort of government. If they are not part of the war they should stay the hell out militarily. If they wish to provide humanitarian assistance then I would support that.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    19 Jun '17 15:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No. But the current status quo is most definitely NOT a win for anyone.

    The US loves to provide weapons then sit back and watch as people from other nations die. If they are part of the war they should get involved and get it over quickly and establish some sort of government. If they are not part of the war they should stay the hell out militarily. If they wish to provide humanitarian assistance then I would support that.
    While I agree the US should not be involved militarily in Syria, I disagree that anything it could possibly do would "get it over quickly". Assuming the Russians stood down (an unlikely assumption but for the sake of argument I'll accept it), the US could defeat the Syrian regime's conventional forces and install a puppet government, but as Iraq showed that is hardly the end of it. The rebellion in Syria predated foreign military involvement and a different government even if maintained by US forces would not resolve the situation. Violence would continue.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    19 Jun '17 15:17
    I'm afraid that there will be a major war, perhaps one with Russia, during the presidency of Trump.
    I'm afraid that the first nuclear bomb against people will be used, during the presidency of Trump.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    19 Jun '17 15:38
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I'm afraid that there will be a major war, perhaps one with Russia, during the presidency of Trump.
    I'm afraid that the first nuclear bomb against people will be used, during the presidency of Trump.
    Nuclear bombs were already used against people.

    I doubt that this will escalate to that degree.
  10. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56240
    19 Jun '17 17:01
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I'm afraid that there will be a major war, perhaps one with Russia, during the presidency of Trump.
    I'm afraid that the first nuclear bomb against people will be used, during the presidency of Trump.
    This reminds me of that US historian being interviewed on the BBC who said: "the Americans don't understand, because we've never had an armed conflict on our shores."
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52849
    19 Jun '17 17:48
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I'm afraid that there will be a major war, perhaps one with Russia, during the presidency of Trump.
    I'm afraid that the first nuclear bomb against people will be used, during the presidency of Trump.
    Russia knows full well what a major war with the US means. The jet taken out by the US was Syrian not Russian so it is no immediate sweat off Russia's nose.

    Syria also knows full well not to start some kind of air combat with the US

    So if war happens I don't think it would be in either Russian or Syrian best interest to up the ante like that. As far as I know (I may be mistaken) this is the first Syrian jet downed by the US so is a one off affair.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    19 Jun '17 17:50
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I'm afraid that there will be a major war, perhaps one with Russia, during the presidency of Trump.
    I'm afraid that the first nuclear bomb against people will be used, during the presidency of Trump.
    Looks like the US quickly blinked:

    The American-led military coalition in Syria said it’s repositioned aircraft after Russia threatened to treat its warplanes as targets in response to the U.S. downing of a Syrian government jet.

    While air support to U.S.-backed fighters against Islamic State will go on, “as a result of recent encounters involving pro-Syrian Regime and Russian forces, we have taken prudent measures to reposition aircraft over Syria,” U.S. Army Col. Ryan Dillon, a coalition spokesman, said Monday. Coalition aircraft will continue operations against Islamic State targets “while ensuring the safety of our aircrew given known threats in the battlespace,” he said.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    “The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend Coalition or partner forces from any threat,” it said.

    The Defense Ministry’s response doesn’t mean there’ll be war with the U.S., though it’s a “pretty serious” signal that Russia won’t accept acts of aggression against Syria, said Frants Klintsevich, deputy head of the defense committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament.

    U.S.-led aircraft in Syria may face “destruction” if they threaten the lives of Russian pilots, Viktor Ozerov, the defense committee’s chairman, said Monday, according to the Interfax news service. While Russia hopes it won’t have to take such action, “we won’t allow anyone to do what happened to the Syrian plane to our pilots,” he said.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-19/russia-threatens-to-target-u-s-jets-after-syria-warplane-downed

    A pretty strong response from the Russians and an attempt to placate them from the US.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Jun '17 19:26
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It must have crossed a red line.
    The Syrian pilot killed by the USA was flying in Syrian air space, following what he
    believed were the lawful orders of his commander and his government.

    His Sukhoi Su-22 (an export variant of the Su-17, which first flew in 1966) was no threat
    to the much more advanced Boeing F-18 Super Hornet that shot it down.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    19 Jun '17 20:19
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The Syrian pilot killed by the USA was flying in Syrian air space, following what he
    believed were the lawful orders of his commander and his government.

    His Sukhoi Su-22 (an export variant of the Su-17, which first flew in 1966) was no threat
    to the much more advanced Boeing F-18 Super Hornet that shot it down.
    I don't know about "no threat" - Syrian SU-22 normally have two underwing launch rails which can carry R-60 air to air missiles which, while dated, are still widely used by MiGs.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-17
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-60_(missile)

    A dogfight between the SU-22, a obsolescent ground attack aircraft, and an F-18 fighter would be considered a mismatch but I wouldn't say an SU-22 posed "no threat" at all.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Jun '17 20:293 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I don't know about "no threat" - Syrian SU-22 normally have two underwing launch rails which can carry R-60 air to air missiles which, while dated, are still widely used by MiGs.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-17
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-60_(missile)

    A dogfight between the SU-22, a obsolescent ground attack aircraft, and an F-18 fighter would be considered a mismatch but I wouldn't say an SU-22 posed "no threat" at all.
    Even the US military has *not* claimed that the Syrian Sukhoi Su-22 was shot down
    *because* it posed any threat to American aircraft.

    No1Marauder fails to consider the *mission* for which the Sukhoi Su-22 was configured.
    The Su-22 was executing a ground attack mission. In order to carry the maximum ordnance
    for its mission, the Su-22 likely would not have been carrying any air-to-air missiles.
    Air-to-air missiles would have been useless weight given that the anti-Assad forces lack
    any aircraft as potential targets for them.

    Does No1Marauder absurdly fantasize that a *solitary* Sukhoi Su-22 pilot would have
    received orders to engage in combat with much more advanced American fighter aircraft?
    Even in Syria's Air Force, a basic rule would be never to attempt to engage *alone* in combat against a fighter.
    Fighter pilots are trained to engage in combat when at least in pairs (with a wingman).

    I suppose that No1Marauder might argue that, even if lacking air-to-air missiles, the
    Sukhoi Su-22 could have attempted to ram the much more agile Boeing F-18 Super Hornet.
    After all, one of the US Navy's most advanced destroyers was almost sunk when it
    recently was rammed in a 'sneak attack' (sarcasm) by a much slower Filipino cargo ship.

    Does No1Marauder still like to claim that President Hillary Clinton would have been much
    more likely than President Trump to intervene militarily in the Middle East?
Back to Top