Turkey shooting down Russian planes

[*bfine32*]

(11-25-2015, 01:27 AM)Benton Wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/middleeast/warplane-crashes-near-syria-turkey-border/

Ok, counter question. Since the bull crap is aside (everybody but Russia is saying the plane was in Turkish air space), what would you do if that was a bomber from a historically hostile country advancing in US air space? 

I would pull out a globe and see where the countries are. I would not shoot them down if they were in our airspace for "30 seconds or less" and displayed no hostile intent toward us. 

I could send fighters up to "escort" them out of our air space but they were only there for "30 seconds or less" they were not there even long enough to be shot down in it. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-25-2015, 01:34 AM)Benton Wrote: They were warned for several minutes they were in or approaching Turkish air space. They ignored it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/middleeast/warplane-crashes-near-syria-turkey-border/

This would be akin to Russia being at war with Canada and bombing Eskimos in Alaska just in case. 

Except they weren't bombing there. 

It would be more akin to Russia at war with Canada and we shoot them down because the skirt Alaskan Air Space enroute. 

[Benton]

(11-25-2015, 01:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I would pull out a globe and see where the countries are. I would not shoot them down if they were in our airspace for "30 seconds or less" and displayed no hostile intent toward us. 

I could send fighters up to "escort" them out of our air space but they were only there for "30 seconds or less" they were not there even long enough to be shot down in it. 

Well... apparently there were.

Jets go pretty fast. 800 miles per hour in the case of the SU-24. Turkish F-16s attempted to defer the SU-24 away from their air space. They spent several minutes attempting to keep them out. When the Russian pilots declined, they were fired upon. 

As far as "no hostile intent" it's Russia. You cant get moist about how strong and powerful Putin is because of his unfounded reputation, but then get upset when people prefer not to be victims of letting him shoot first.

[Benton]

(11-25-2015, 01:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Except they weren't bombing there. 

It would be more akin to Russia at war with Canada and we shoot them down because the skirt Alaskan Air Space enroute. 

Turkey's responsibility to judge the payload or intent would be negated if Russia was responsible with their planes.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-24-2015, 11:47 PM)Benton Wrote: eh, you send mixed signals when you say neither, then go on to praise only one.

by the by, Putin lied his butt off in dealing with public relations. That's neither firm nor admirable.

True on mixed signals I guess . The way I see it ... Obama is a failure in policy and in showing strength to the world. Putin is also a failure in policy but at least he carries himself like he has a backbone and a set of balls.

[*bfine32*]

(11-25-2015, 01:44 AM)Benton Wrote: Well... apparently there were.

Jets go pretty fast. 800 miles per hour in the case of the SU-24. Turkish F-16s attempted to defer the SU-24 away from their air space. They spent several minutes attempting to keep them out. When the Russian pilots declined, they were fired upon. 

As far as "no hostile intent" it's Russia. You cant get moist about how strong and powerful Putin is because of his unfounded reputation, but then get upset when people prefer not to be victims of letting him shoot first.

1st... No they were not. The plane was not shot down in Turkey.

Pat said it best, this was nothing more than Turkey showing they have the bigger Richard. The bully got punched in the mouth. 

I'm not "moist" over Putin, but as far as Russian leaders go; he's a saint.  

[StLucieBengal]

https://www.rt.com/news/323240-russia-turkey-warplane-downed/

I know this is Russia government news. But they cite a Reuters story.

Quote:01:02 GMT
The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official said that assessment was based on detection of the heat signature of the jet.

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/24/rubio-us-should-respond-and-defend-turkey-if-it-is-attacked-by-russia/

And of course Rubio wants to defend turkey from Russia.

[Bengalzona]

(11-24-2015, 10:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would you the liberals want the US to do if ISIL bombed a US passenger plane killing 100s and then Turkey shot down one of our fighters going to retaliate?

Personally, I got no problem with Russia bombing them. This will lead to the U.S., Russia, Europe, Iran, Assad's regime and possibly a rebel coalition (yeah, ikr... ) sitting down at a table and working out some kind of peace that everyone can like... so they all can get together to tag team ISIS.

There is a lot of 'win' in that for every one... except ISIS, that is.

Obama and Putin be like:

[fredtoast]

(11-25-2015, 01:49 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: True on mixed signals I guess .  

Don't you define any Muslim who has mixed feelings about Bin Laden a radical?

That is a direct quote from the Shapiro video you love so much.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-25-2015, 02:29 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Personally, I got no problem with Russia bombing them. This will lead to the U.S., Russia, Europe, Iran, Assad's regime and possibly a rebel coalition (yeah, ikr... ) sitting down at a table and working out some kind of peace that everyone can like... so they all can get together to tag team ISIS.

There is a lot of 'win' in that for every one... except ISIS, that is.

Obama and Putin be like:

I have said for a while there will be a coalition . but this will happen once some changes are made politically in Europe.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-25-2015, 04:18 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't you define any Muslim who has mixed feelings about Bin Laden a radical?

That is a direct quote from the Shapiro video you love so much.

Yeah that can be counted as well. I'm fine with that.

[fredtoast]

(11-25-2015, 04:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah that can be counted as well.  I'm fine with that.

Then that means you are a radical Putin supporter.

[GMDino]

(11-24-2015, 03:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not sure why you think we like Putin.    

He has terrible policies .  But it's easy to respect his toughness and strength.   How you think that equates to a romance is beyond me .

(In referring to the "right"'s fawning over Putin):

(10-13-2015, 09:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Privately you are probably right.  However they want to use Putin's "manliness and strength" as a mirror to Obama's "weakness".

Whether it is true or not and whether either one is successful with their strategy or not.  The Right has put themselves in a corner where they have to appear "strong" and all times.

Shall we continue?

(10-13-2015, 03:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Who likes Putin?  

His policies are terrible.   I do respect his toughness, and his ability to always make Obama look like a schmuck.  But that's the difference between a man's man and well Obama.    He doesn't take any crap and we can respect that, but his policies are losers.

[*michaelsean*]

Meh...Libs loved Gorbachev over Reagan. But actually I have no respect for Putin. Whooopee he swims in ice cold water. If I caught my kid doing that, I'd smack him upside the head and call him a moron, not praise how tough he is.

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-25-2015, 10:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Meh...Libs loved Gorbachev over Reagan.  But actually I have no respect for Putin.  Whooopee  he swims in ice cold water.  If I caught my kid doing that, I'd smack him upside the head and call him a moron, not praise how tough he is.

Yes, yes, yes.  That's all well and good.  Have you seen him riding a horse.  Majestic!!!



Pretty sure this is the image that gets Lucie off....

[GMDino]

(11-25-2015, 10:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Meh...Libs loved Gorbachev over Reagan.  But actually I have no respect for Putin.  Whooopee  he swims in ice cold water.  If I caught my kid doing that, I'd smack him upside the head and call him a moron, not praise how tough he is.

I was still fairly young at that point, but I remember liking Gorbachev because he was willing to work with the US and try to move the Soviets toward a more "Western" attitude.  Not that he was "better" than Reagan.

Despite the bad things Reagan did and despite the way the right has made him a saint (when they'd vilify his policies today) I always liked him.  And for the same reason I liked Clinton despite all his flaws (personal and political):  They were both good politicians in the sense that if they had to get with the other side they'd do it.  And if the other side wanted to get something done they didn't just offhandedly dismiss it but rather let things go through sometimes.

[6andcounting]

(11-25-2015, 12:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't choose between Obama and Putin as America's leader?

Why am i not surprised by this?

Is it safe to say that you and Lucy have "mixed feelings" abut Putin?

I wouldn't want to give either of those two control over my life or the life of others. They were the two people you named, but the same goes for anyone else you could possibly name. C'mon, you literally had to delete my very next sentence to make your point. Maybe it wasn't that good of a point.

[6andcounting]

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-25-2015, 11:15 AM)6andcounting Wrote:

Today I learned, exposing female breasts to Putin, causes him to turn into Bob Dole.