Latest Breaking News

branford

(4,462 posts)

68. You're really evading . . .

Sun Aug 25, 2013, 11:31 PM

Aug 2013

I also never discussed Russian capabilities, only Russian interests and risks.

In numerous threads, you keep on trying to establish a scenario where Russia attacks Turkey, Jordan or Israel, even preemptively, in order to protect the current Syrian regime, and then claim Russian will carry-out your scenario.

I'm not interested in what Russia purportedly can do, or what you believe it should do. Simply, do you have even the barest scintilla of evidence that Russia actually intends to act as you suggest?

I'm not talking about vague warnings of what would happen if Assad fails, or complaints that we're helping Al Qaeda.

Can you cite to anything remotely credible where the Russian government implies that it would even consider attacking NATO members or allies in order to assist the current government in Syria?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria [View all] ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 OP

I wonder what the situation will be if Russia launches some cruise missiles Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #1

That is what I do not understand yoloisalie Aug 2013 #3

i find it funny iamthebandfanman Aug 2013 #83

He will have basically declared war against the USA and most of Europe. branford Aug 2013 #18

Turkey wouldn't risk going to war with Russia. Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #23

Have you been listening to what's been coming out of Turkey lately? branford Aug 2013 #33

Not to mention that Russia's government is even more a tool of the 1% than ours is. It's entire stevenleser Aug 2013 #90

some awkward moments on the ISS. GreatCaesarsGhost Aug 2013 #70

unconstitutional OKDem08 Aug 2013 #2

It would not be unconstitutional. branford Aug 2013 #22

Democratic processes are so slow, you know.... maybe a bit of consulting ? jakeXT Aug 2013 #50

I think the president has a certain amount of time, a sort of leeway before he has to JDPriestly Aug 2013 #77

I wish there were a viable plan to simply and quickly capture or eliminate the chemical weapons branford Aug 2013 #80

Next stop--Iran. Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 #4

I just read something about the problem in Syria is Iranians. You can bet this is a ramp up. Ed Suspicious Aug 2013 #9

I think China will only offer perfunctory objections. branford Aug 2013 #25

The same way they reacted to the Iraq war and the intervention in Libya. Daniel537 Aug 2013 #39

One thing is majorly different this time. Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #52

If Russia intervened as you previously have suggested, branford Aug 2013 #58

Would we go to the mat to save one of our overseas bases? Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #66

You're really evading . . . branford Aug 2013 #68

I am telling you what my opinions are, I'm not evading anything. Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #69

We are discussing and evaluating American military policy in Syria. branford Aug 2013 #72

Russia would not proceed on a first strike military response Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #74

only if Iran wants iamthebandfanman Aug 2013 #84

I totally support my president. jessie04 Aug 2013 #5

Really? ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #7

Good Point. jessie04 Aug 2013 #11

Would you support boots on the ground? ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #12

No , I would not. jessie04 Aug 2013 #14

One very BIG problem. branford Aug 2013 #27

And the alternative is accepting the use chemical weapons in war. jessie04 Aug 2013 #32

We accepted it when Saddam did it to the Kurds. ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #38

Better question than that... jessie04 Aug 2013 #41

How many innocent people have we killed with drones? ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #51

So it doesn't matter if a country uses biological or nuclear weapons ? jessie04 Aug 2013 #54

Most countries have formally agreed not to use chemical weapons. AtheistCrusader Aug 2013 #56

Good point. jessie04 Aug 2013 #57

Using your standards. ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #59

I assume because we used a nuke 70 years ago? jessie04 Aug 2013 #61

Forgetting about napalm in Vietnam? ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #62

I was having a normal discussion with you and pull that? jessie04 Aug 2013 #63

Pull what? ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #64

Syria is a signed and ratified member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. AtheistCrusader Aug 2013 #73

I'm not certain that military involvement, without the ability or committment branford Aug 2013 #40

I respect your opinion. jessie04 Aug 2013 #43

The Cheneys and other ilk like him send someone else to bleed and die warrant46 Aug 2013 #17

Enlisting? malokvale77 Aug 2013 #31

Who used them? former9thward Aug 2013 #8

Good point.... paleotn Aug 2013 #19

An expert here is saying those chemicals don't appear to be of military origin. Amonester Aug 2013 #53

Yes, and Germans supported Hitler 100% when Poland attacked them. HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #34

+1 Daniel537 Aug 2013 #36

Isn't that analysis just a little too black and white? branford Aug 2013 #42

The fact that some of those rebel elements are Al-Qaida-linked is probably even more of a reason Daniel537 Aug 2013 #44

I don't really know who's in charge of the weapons now. branford Aug 2013 #55

So we remove Assad and then what? ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #60

Are we sure we know who used the chemical weapons? JDPriestly Aug 2013 #78

not about the president.. iamthebandfanman Aug 2013 #85

Thaaaaank you. jessie04 Aug 2013 #88

Why? GeorgeGist Aug 2013 #89

I guess 3 wars, and drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #6

We have elected a neo-con. Ed Suspicious Aug 2013 #10

2002 War Powers Given to Bush RobertEarl Aug 2013 #15

And THAT is why it cannot go unanswered. jessie04 Aug 2013 #16

Yeah so who you going to attack? MyNameGoesHere Aug 2013 #20

" NeoCon Obama" ?? jessie04 Aug 2013 #21

Walks like a duck... paleotn Aug 2013 #30

If the previous players were called neocons MyNameGoesHere Aug 2013 #91

Good Gawd, man! RobertEarl Aug 2013 #24

You'd lose that bet. jessie04 Aug 2013 #26

So RobertEarl Aug 2013 #35

No, not war. jessie04 Aug 2013 #47

Iraq invasion RobertEarl Aug 2013 #67

Against it...your turn jessie04 Aug 2013 #87

And we're still not completely sure... paleotn Aug 2013 #28

Could be Russia, Iran, or Israel too. HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #37

Just like everyone else, I have no idea which of the sides have used defacto7 Aug 2013 #81

I suspect a neo-con (Bush, McCain, Romney) would have attacked months (or years) ago. pampango Aug 2013 #86

k&r for exposure. This is rather important. n/t Laelth Aug 2013 #13

That's too bad. I don't doubt they will soon regret having done so. another_liberal Aug 2013 #29

Drones kill children = collateral damages Amonester Aug 2013 #45

Woohoo! progressoid Aug 2013 #46

This message was self-deleted by its author HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #48

At least someone made their homework jakeXT Aug 2013 #49

An attack will really upset the Venezuelans Zorro Aug 2013 #65

The most important question is this. ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #71

I fully support your President ! Sand Wind Aug 2013 #75

He hasn't even said his intentions yet. ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #79

Al Qaeda really wants Obama to do this. David__77 Aug 2013 #82

This household votes no military intervention.. mountain grammy Aug 2013 #76