• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria strik

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

You always side with Putin. He's your idol.

Wrong is wrong and right is right. Unlike liberals who all of a sudden are in love with nation-building in the M.E. and engaging in unnecessary wars. My beliefs have remained consistent and don't change depending on who's in charge. Liberals never questioned a single thing Obama or HIllary did, they just supported them blindly, even if it meant doing a complete 180 on their beliefs.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

All U.S. operations in Syria are illegal. Just like in Iraq and Libya, the U.S. is wrong. It's a shame that I have to side with Iran and Hezbollah on stuff like this but I'm not a "my country right or wrong" type of person.

I'm with you Pat Buchanan & Tulsi Gabbert. Stay away from the Middle East entanglements. Trump was appealing to voters for many reasons
among the most important was the "America First" mentality he championed. All of a sudden the 'Nevertrumpers & neocons' are praising Trump's
using our military power and worse yet are demanding even more entrusion into the fray! No money for the wall but wasting money shooting
Tomahawk missiles into Assad's Air Force or in other words becoming the air force for Al-Quida & ISIS islamic fundamentalists. Not good!!!
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

You may be onto something here

If one fake news story pops up all the other news servies report it as fact

The dumbest thing here imo, is that people been discussing this for something like 8 pages now and nobody even cared to check the veracity of these supposed statements or their original source.

Fallen.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

And N. Korea is more likely to feel they need to hold on to their nuclear weapons....

What the vile degenerate who runs that hellhole feels about anything does not interest me.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

The Syria action was nothing. Trump warned the Russians, who warned to Syrians, to get their people out of their. The air strips were up and running in a few hours after the strike. The Russians and Syrians learned something they could not have possibly known before, the effectiveness of our missiles. We had more missiles off target than on target.
Twenty-three hits out of 50 launched.
The Russian should be happy with our doing what we did. We showed some of our hand.

What do you mean by "rebuild" our military, Henny-Penny? Do we need any more nuclear armament, troops, conventional armament? If so, why? We are going much more towards cyber warfare where battle contact is less obvious to call the other side out and have true military intervention. Our military budget is nearly 3x that of #2 China. Maybe we just need to make better use of our money and not let the military budget be one ginourmous pork barrel.

I believe the actual numbers are 57 targets hit out of 59 launched. That's impressive.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s


And russias budget woes are even worse for maintenance and upkeep, yet that is not the issue. We have taken nearly every strategic advantage fom russia in an expansionist effort to deny russia any leverage, to expand nato to it's borders. We have gained an advantage over them since the cold war, what you see now is russia pushing back, as it;s last buffers are under threat by the us.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

You cannot wage war here with me, you need my permission or there will be war!

Your comment confuses me sir.

It is not confusing, by internation laws set by the un, any invasion not approved by the security council is a violation of international law, as is supporting rebels to interfer politically and regime change. Self defense is approved by the un charter, meaning the country invaded has zero obligation to seek approval from the un to retaliate, while a country especially a un country who attacks another without council approval is in direct violation of un charter.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Russia and Iran are rogue states run by dictators.

But as allies they are strong enough to be a real threat to the United States military.

We need better weapons and training to bring America back to where it was pre 911

This is the time to lay low and let the syrians, iranians and russians alone in syria.

But its also the best reason to not allow any more muslims from syria and iran into the US either.

You do know rogue state was a term coined by reagan right? There is no definition of rogue state in international law, and the us is almost exclusively they only country to use that term. 4 factors are used to determine what is a rogue state in us policy, ONE OF THEM IS CRITICIZING US FOREIGN POLICY! The others include things like supporting terrorism and other factors.

Given that international law does not aknowledge rogue states as a thing existing, there is not much to go on about. How can you be a rogue state, is it just that they are rogue by not abiding by us policy?
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Is this the same beerftw? I remember your writing style differently in the past. Regardless, if it is or isn't.. I find your posts throughout, knowledgable and more or less, in alignment with the information I have on ME affairs right now.

Regardless of what happens, I hope the Kurds don't get completely forgotten by the United States. The Kurds have given us immeasurable aid in the area, and I'm afraid that we are going to use them up, and let Turkey have their way with them when we're finished with them. I'm rooting for the Kurds anyway.

The kurds are valuable but I would not trust them fully either, in the past when turkey was not committing genocide against kurds, turkey and the kurds were teaming up to commit genocide against the assyrians.

In my opinion though, even though the iranian backed terrorists groups are much milder by leaps and bounds than the sunni based ones, they are still terrorists none the less. I think we should atleast short term look the other way, as they are beating al quaeda and isis in combination with the kurds and shia militias.

After the major threat is eliminated we can go back to dealing with hamas hezbollah etc, but for now they are ants in a room full of elephants, and we need to focus on the bigger target.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

we are not occupying anything so you would be wrong.

Our soldiers are there training the kurds and fighting isis, and we assaulted their base recently, unless the syrian govt permitted it, it is an illegal occupation.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

And russias budget woes are even worse for maintenance and upkeep, yet that is not the issue. We have taken nearly every strategic advantage fom russia in an expansionist effort to deny russia any leverage, to expand nato to it's borders. We have gained an advantage over them since the cold war, what you see now is russia pushing back, as it;s last buffers are under threat by the us.

With all due respect, 8 years of Obama has decimated our defenses. Russia has modernized their nuclear arsenal, while ours has aged into obselescence. I realize these aren't easy facts to face, but reality can be a real bitch.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

With all due respect, 8 years of Obama has decimated our defenses. Russia has modernized their nuclear arsenal, while ours has aged into obselescence. I realize these aren't easy facts to face, but reality can be a real bitch.

You fail to understand the differences between our nuclear arsenals then.


Even with * years, russias nukes are miles behind ours, they never intended to compete with our tech there and never will, they just update theirs when possible, while ours are still above theirs. The us has an accuracy policy, our nukes can hit the center of a dime no issue, so we can accurately hit our targets.

Russian nukes are less accurate, even with modern upgrades however russia has compensated for that at the start of the cold war. Their nukes have bigger payloads, rather than a small nuke hitting it's target, they have a nuke that might miss by 20-30 miles so the make the payload so big it destroys it's target anyways.

This is why russian nukes are often multitudes higher in payload than american nukes, it is how they conduct business, and it works so outside of reasonable costs they are not going to change that setup.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

You fail to understand the differences between our nuclear arsenals then.


Even with * years, russias nukes are miles behind ours, they never intended to compete with our tech there and never will, they just update theirs when possible, while ours are still above theirs. The us has an accuracy policy, our nukes can hit the center of a dime no issue, so we can accurately hit our targets.

Russian nukes are less accurate, even with modern upgrades however russia has compensated for that at the start of the cold war. Their nukes have bigger payloads, rather than a small nuke hitting it's target, they have a nuke that might miss by 20-30 miles so the make the payload so big it destroys it's target anyways.

This is why russian nukes are often multitudes higher in payload than american nukes, it is how they conduct business, and it works so outside of reasonable costs they are not going to change that setup.

I fail to understand nothing. Their arsenal is modernized, ours is aging. Period, end of story. :shrug:

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=our+aging+nuclear+arsenal

And again, like I said before, much of our conventional weaponry is inoperable. Obama is a traitorous POS.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

I feel better knowing that our Energy Secretary, who thought that meant oil, is on the job.

Don't you?
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

I fail to understand nothing. Their arsenal is modernized, ours is aging. Period, end of story. :shrug:

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=our+aging+nuclear+arsenal

And again, like I said before, much of our conventional weaponry is inoperable. Obama is a traitorous POS.

Their modernized nukes are still behind ours, They need more time to even catch uo to us. Either way how modern a nuke is matters none, even if russia and america fought it out with their oldest icbm's the entire earth would be obliterated and the human populations would drop to millions worldwide instead of billions, and only could thrive in certain regions.

That is called mad, or mutual assured destruction, as long as both sides carry nukes, there is no winner, just world destruction.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

The right wing has made a fetish of fear

I thought they were obedient Russian stooges licking Putin's feet

Oh, that was yesterday, when we were at war with Oceania...
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

World War 3 fears - Russia and Iran threaten to respond to 'US aggression' | World | News | Express.co.uk




This is a serious development that in my opinion is a direct result of 8 years of obama weakness and pandering toward iran

The US better launch a crash program to rebuilt our military because we are going to need it

Imagine if you will, a reality in which all Americans & all Russians could eliminate our gov'ts and simply speak to each other man to man or woman to man, etc .. would we still think about destroying each other?

I think we are simply watching puppets (Putin & Trump) with the Windsor family (Queen Elizabeth, Rothschild / Illuminati) pulling the strings.

They want to reduce the population, as they did with the first two world wars.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

I thought they were obedient Russian stooges licking Putin's feet

Oh, that was yesterday, when we were at war with Oceania...

No sane leader of either Russia or U.S.A would attack knowing how many Nuclear missiles are pointed at each other (unless one of the two has some secret plan - like emb to stop the other's nuclear missiles from being fired... or something)
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Our soldiers are there training the kurds and fighting isis, and we assaulted their base recently, unless the syrian govt permitted it, it is an illegal occupation.

ok so thanks for admitting that we are not occupying anything.
Actually it isn't illegal.

The president has the power to use short term military strikes in the protection of US interests.

why are you so worried about what a dictator that gasses his own people thinks?
you should be worried that he is dropping bombs on people fill with gas.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

ok so thanks for admitting that we are not occupying anything.
Actually it isn't illegal.

The president has the power to use short term military strikes in the protection of US interests.

why are you so worried about what a dictator that gasses his own people thinks?
you should be worried that he is dropping bombs on people fill with gas.

And a country has a right to defend it's sovereignity and control it's borders. Sending troops to a country without their permission or staying after they revoke permission is an invasion. In terms of international law, if they attacked our troops they would be in compliance of un charter, while us currently being there is not.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

I believe the actual numbers are 57 targets hit out of 59 launched. That's impressive.


Further to my last post, I "googled' and found this"

https://www.theburningplatform.com/...-a-cost-benefit-battle-damage-assessment-bda/

I'm not taking sides on this. Numbers count here, though what I don't know. Maybe our intelligence says our numbers are better. What if Russian intelligence thought worse but came out better? I don't know. It's only my dumb math that is bringing this point to discussion. In complete contradiction of what you've posted. Without meaning to challenge you, give me your source as I give you mine (not that we should send our children out to war):

https://www.theburningplatform.com/...-a-cost-benefit-battle-damage-assessment-bda/
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

And a country has a right to defend it's sovereignity and control it's borders. Sending troops to a country without their permission or staying after they revoke permission is an invasion. In terms of international law, if they attacked our troops they would be in compliance of un charter, while us currently being there is not.

so I guess you were opposed to WW1 and WW2 as well then.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

And a country has a right to defend it's sovereignity and control it's borders. Sending troops to a country without their permission or staying after they revoke permission is an invasion. In terms of international law, if they attacked our troops they would be in compliance of un charter, while us currently being there is not.

Which is where you begin to see the difference between legality and morality. But to be fair

1. Many jurisdictions excuse people for commiting a crime if it prevents a greater crime from being commited

2. The FSA/ SDF is recognized as the legitimate government of Syria by a number of countries, arguably any action in their favour would be entirely justifiable.

What this eventually boils down to is what gives Assad soverignty, divine right of kings?
 
Last edited:
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

World War 3 fears - Russia and Iran threaten to respond to 'US aggression' | World | News | Express.co.uk




This is a serious development that in my opinion is a direct result of 8 years of obama weakness and pandering toward iran

The US better launch a crash program to rebuilt our military because we are going to need it

Oh...for Christ's sake.


America currently outspends both Russia and Iran COMBINED by over 10 times militarily.

Defense Budget by Country


Your 'rebuilding America's military' garbage is NOTHING but neocon paranoia and complete and utter nonsense.
 
Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

It is not confusing, by internation laws set by the un, any invasion not approved by the security council is a violation of international law, as is supporting rebels to interfer politically and regime change. Self defense is approved by the un charter, meaning the country invaded has zero obligation to seek approval from the un to retaliate, while a country especially a un country who attacks another without council approval is in direct violation of un charter.

Yea a law says it, doesn't mean it makes sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom