US shoots down Syrian warplane

[SSGSAD]

Does anyone else think that war with Russia is inevitable? They have to know there is no win for them to come of it so why are they doing what they are doing? Do they think we will not reapond Just like Obama failed to do for 8 years? I'm really trying to understand what they are thinking.

I don't know, but I think, either N Korea, or Syria, will start something,

to see if we, can handle a "war" on 2 different "fronts" .....

Prez., Trump, has not had enough time, to rebuild the Military,

after bho, destroyed it .....

JMHO ..... YMMV .....

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't know, but I think, either N Korea, or Syria, will start something,

to see if we, can handle a "war" on 2 different "fronts" .....

Prez., Trump, has not had enough time, to rebuild the Military,

after bho, destroyed it .....

JMHO ..... YMMV .....

I'm not really sure I'm following your logic. You think N. Korea or Syria with "start something?" Syria is in no position to start a fight. They'd have their hands full if they tried to take on Iceland, with the Icelanders lobbing ice spears at them. N. Korea, is a traditional "look at me, look at me" nation that hasn't the resources to wage a sustained offensive campaign. Now if by "start something," you mean the United States looking for an excuse to mix it up with either, then yeah, that's a possibility.
And I'm really not sure what you meant when you said BHO destroyed the military. What's the litmus test for destroyed? What is the criteria that qualifies that belief?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not really sure I'm following your logic. You think N. Korea or Syria with "start something?" Syria is in no position to start a fight. They'd have their hands full if they tried to take on Iceland, with the Icelanders lobbing ice spears at them. N. Korea, is a traditional "look at me, look at me" nation that hasn't the resources to wage a sustained offensive campaign. Now if by "start something," you mean the United States looking for an excuse to mix it up with either, then yeah, that's a possibility.
And I'm really not sure what you meant when you said BHO destroyed the military. What's the litmus test for destroyed? What is the criteria that qualifies that belief?

I would say that you are generally right, but see a couple of caveats. Little Kim is just nutty enough to think he could get away with starting some crap and living to tell about it, and Syria may not be in a position to start something with us per se, but is definitely in a position that it could fail to prevent something from getting started as the fallout from failure to get things under control could expand.

 

[Thor]

Russia may not want to get involved with us in Syria, but everyone they are supporting certainly does and wouldn't be above starting it for them.

As for BHO destroying the military...he wasn't much worse than Carter in that respect. He just made sure that our forces were depleted enough to make some folks thinking taking us on might be an option they could survive. He made the US military the department of everything, social engineering, green energy, cultural outreach, whatever the distraction of the day was...oh yes, and the forever conflict not caring to win so much as wanting to bleed those he was always too cowardly to join. He certainly didn't focus on Defense.

 

[T.Lex]

Russia may not want to get involved with us in Syria, but everyone they are supporting certainly does and wouldn't be above starting it for them.

As for BHO destroying the military...he wasn't much worse than Carter in that respect. He just made sure that our forces were depleted enough to make some folks thinking taking us on might be an option they could survive. He made the US military the department of everything, social engineering, green energy, cultural outreach, whatever the distraction of the day was...oh yes, and the forever conflict not caring to win so much as wanting to bleed those he was always too cowardly to join. He certainly didn't focus on Defense.

While I think BHO certainly bears the bulk of the blame, I believe it also trickles down to the top brass (which, I will also concede, served at his pleasure). We re-designed for counterterrorism/guerilla warfare, but lost track of conventional means to fight wars. The aircraft carrier debacle looms large, IMHO.

 

[printcraft]

The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy

 

[SSGSAD]

I'm not really sure I'm following your logic. You think N. Korea or Syria with "start something?" Syria is in no position to start a fight. They'd have their hands full if they tried to take on Iceland, with the Icelanders lobbing ice spears at them. N. Korea, is a traditional "look at me, look at me" nation that hasn't the resources to wage a sustained offensive campaign. Now if by "start something," you mean the United States looking for an excuse to mix it up with either, then yeah, that's a possibility.
And I'm really not sure what you meant when you said BHO destroyed the military. What's the litmus test for destroyed? What is the criteria that qualifies that belief?

Small raises, cut this and that, shelved a lot of weapons, planes, etc .....

 

[SSGSAD]

I would say that you are generally right, but see a couple of caveats. Little Kim is just nutty enough to think he could get away with starting some crap and living to tell about it, and Syria may not be in a position to start something with us per se, but is definitely in a position that it could fail to prevent something from getting started as the fallout from failure to get things under control could expand.

Agreed !!!!!

 

[NKBJ]

Wm. Guy Carr appears to have nailed it because we have been living it.
But are we going to keep on living it? I think yes.

 

[T.Lex]

Syria chemical attack may be being prepared, US warns
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40413563


This might be Trump's "red line" moment.

He added that if "Mr Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price".

As spokesman for a millionaire-businessman-turned-POTUS, Spicer might want to consider a different "tough guy" phrase. One that doesn't invoke profit motive as a possible reason for the action.

 

[BugI02]

As spokesman for a millionaire-businessman-turned-POTUS, Spicer might want to consider a different "tough guy" phrase. One that doesn't invoke profit motive as a possible reason for the action.

To plagiarize a Kutism - Not sure if Serious

It seems plain to me that the 'price' potentially to be paid is the same one paid by Dr Faustus

'What are thou,[STRIKE] Faustus[/STRIKE] [Assad], but a man condemned to die'

How deep a bunker is 'deep enough'

 

[T.Lex]

To plagiarize a Kutism - Not sure if Serious

It seems plain to me that the 'price' potentially to be paid is the same one paid by Dr Faustus

'What are thou,[STRIKE] Faustus[/STRIKE] [Assad], but a man condemned to die'

How deep a bunker is 'deep enough'

Oh, I don't disagree with the Putin-esque tone, struck. More a stylistic quibble with the euphemism, particularly when there are many other euphemisms available.

 

[Thor]

Russian commentators are saying that an S-300 SAM system has downed a Global Hawk...unconfirmed at this point.

As in April, the rebels have a stronger motive to blame a NBC strike on the Syrians than the Syrians have for using one. It would draw us further into the fight. If what the Russians are saying above is true it wouldn't even be needed. If it is true Russia's bases in Syria will not be a safe place.