Here it comes: Syria [Archive] - Page 5

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 19:07

Broadsword:

What has happened in Damascus is a challenge to our humanity.What is it with you liberals and "humanity"... Your stupid "humanity" has caused millions and millions of deaths of humans since time began, perhaps billions. Quit trying to pretend you actually care so you can have some feeling of moral superiority, you don't. You are weak minded and weak willed. You'll sit there saying "something must be done" comfortable in the knowledge that it will be someone else getting off their arse and placing that arese in danger while you sit on yours watching them on the telly. In fact, you are the kind of "humanity" that the smarter of us fear the most. If you feel such moral outrage why don't you get together with all your left leaning friends that feel the need to "do something" and send a strongly worded letter to Assad. When that falls flat on it's stupid face you can all book tickets to Damascus via the USA and we'll give you the guns you need as you pass through... :ugh:

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 19:10

What is it with you liberals and "humanity"... Your stupid "humanity" has caused millions and millions of deaths of humans since time began, perhaps billions. Quit trying to pretend you actually care so you can have some feeling of moral superiority, you don't. You are weak minded and weak willed. You'll sit there saying "something must be done" comfortable in the knowledge that it will be someone else getting off their arse and placing that arese in danger while you sit on yours watching them on the telly. In fact, you are the kind of "humanity" that the smarter of us fear the most. If you feel such moral outrage why don't you get together with all your left leaning friends that feel the need to "do something" and send a strongly worded letter to Assad. When that falls flat on it's stupid face you can all book tickets to Damascus via the USA and we'll give you the guns you need as you pass through...

See? He's eaten Popcorn. The tummy cramps make you angry and irrational.

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 19:57

Why is it, when the Americans become involved in anything, it always goes to hell in a handbasket?

Personally, I think they eat too much popcorn. It's bad for the bowels.

Oh dear, I laughed so hard at this I think I may have just shat myself.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2013, 20:17

Oh dear, I laughed so hard at this I think I may have just shat myself.
Might want to lay off the popcorn, then, as it's fairly high in roughage. :eek:

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 20:20

Oh dear, I laughed so hard at this I think I may have just shat myself

That's probably the only exercise your arse gets...

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 20:30

You ate another packet, didn't you?

Roland Pulfrew

3rd Sep 2013, 20:36

Airborne Aircrew

Well said. :D:D

I note that some 300 Egyptians died recent clashes or, depending upon preferred reporting, somewhere between a fifth and the same number of casualties as the latest Syrian "chemical" attack and what has the west done about that? Cancelled an exercise. Issued some hard words. But otherwise, ignored it.

Why should we be getting involved in a civil war, where the bad guys are probably worse than the status quo, where some chemical weapons may (or may not) have been used, by a country that, as far as I know, is not a signatory to the chemical weapons ban (so arguably has not broken "international law")? And the West decides we are going to seek to punish the regime in favour of the FSA (Al Qaida). :ugh::ugh:

The bleeding heart liberals have backed the wrong side - again!

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 20:36

Hanoi:

I'm English, I don't eat popcorn. Keep up or shut up... ;)

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 20:40

I know you're English. I read the fishy thread.

But if you're English, and you don't like popcorn, why so grumpy?

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 20:43

HanoiJane

If you think that is grumpy, you are in for a shock.

Wait until he really gets grumpy :O

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 20:45

It's OK, 500N. Houses on lakes don't drive me into a envious rage.

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 20:48

Danny Boy calling Broadsword, Danny Boy calling Broadsword, Come in Broadsword...

Oh dear, I laughed so hard at this I think I may have just shat myself. Nice to see you can drop in to make jokes but actual discussion of reality and your ill conceived, uneducated, weak thought processes seems to be something you avoid... It says a lot about you as a person... :ok:

Hanoi:

I'm grumpy because I'm fed up of spineless, stupid, egotists sending good men and women into harms way to make them feel that their worthless life isn't just a sojourn into the nether regions of the cesspool....

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2013, 20:50

AA, two thoughts:
1. Don't sugar coat it, tell us how you really feel. :E

2. What President Obama proposes doesn't put a lot of people into harms way. It mostly blows a few things up to send a message, and then ... well, look at how Clintonian diplomacy via Tomahawk with Iraq worked out.

Not much changed.

I don't see boots on ground in Syria any time soon.

Here's a thought:

What if the intent is one of those Rummy-style decapitation strikes? As Reagan tried with the Mad Colonel in Libya, and it didn't quite go off as planned, President Obama may be trying to set up a brief rain of high explosives that, when the dust clears, finds B Assad in a body bag.

Given his hunger for the surgical strike and drone warfare for the past five years, the TLAMs may be a red herring, as would be the SEAD effort in support of them, while a few Reapers or Preds drop by for a present delivered in their usual way.

That would send a message of a completely different sort than we are used to seeing. No idea if such a COA is what's on tap, but it would be different than the same old same old ... and we would have, of course, done Al Q in Syria's dirty work for them. :mad: That's the part I am very much not happy about, in all this talk about taking Assad down.

Who do you think follows that asshole?

500N

3rd Sep 2013, 20:52

AA

You forgot something at the end of this sentance.

"I'm grumpy because I'm fed up of spineless, stupid, egotists sending good men and women into harms way to make them feel that their worthless life isn't just a sojourn into the nether regions of the cesspool...."

... with one hand tied behind their back, ROE that are fcuking stupid and
hinder them achieving the mission at the same time as getting them killed !

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 20:54

I'm grumpy because I'm fed up of spineless, stupid, egotists sending good men and women into harms way to make them feel that their worthless life isn't just a sojourn into the nether regions of the cesspool....

Sometimes life sucks. Get used to it.

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 20:59

Quote:
What has happened in Damascus is a challenge to our humanity.

What is it with you liberals and "humanity"... Your stupid "humanity" has caused millions and millions of deaths of humans since time began, perhaps billions. Quit trying to pretend you actually care so you can have some feeling of moral superiority, you don't. You are weak minded and weak willed. You'll sit there saying "something must be done" comfortable in the knowledge that it will be someone else getting off their arse and placing that arese in danger while you sit on yours watching them on the telly. In fact, you are the kind of "humanity" that the smarter of us fear the most. If you feel such moral outrage why don't you get together with all your left leaning friends that feel the need to "do something" and send a strongly worded letter to Assad. When that falls flat on it's stupid face you can all book tickets to Damascus via the USA and we'll give you the guns you need as you pass through...

As I made pretty clear, the quote is not mine, it is Lord (Paddy) Ashdown's, but I am very happy to be associated with it.

Here is part of his biog:

Ashdown passed the naval scholarship examination to pay for his school fees, but left before taking A-levels and joined the Royal Marines in 1959. He served in Borneo during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation and the Persian Gulf before training as a Swimmer Canoeist in 1965, after which he joined the elite Special Boat Section (which became the Special Boat Service in the 1980s) and commanded a Section in the Far East. He then went to Hong Kong in 1967 to undertake a full-time interpreter's course in Chinese and returned to Britain in 1970 when he was given command of a Commando Company in Belfast.

I cannot claim as distinguished a military career as his, but I certainly did my bit for over 25 years and in a few hot and sandy places. So, before you start accusing anyone of being 'weak minded and weak willed', you might want to get your head out of your arse.

high spirits

3rd Sep 2013, 21:00

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 21:06

Couldn't agree more, high spirits.

And doing anything which conceivably help AQ after everything that's gone on post 9/11 isn't just ironic, it's moronic.

Easy Street

3rd Sep 2013, 21:07

With all this talk of Assad dispersing his forces in reponse to Obama's threats, it's got me wondering whether that's actually the US plan - presumably the regime forces are more vulnerable to rebel "interference" if they are spread out and away from barracks? Although quite why we want to help the rebels is anyone's guess.

Do you think if we could wind the clock back to 2011, we'd tell the restive Syrian populace to sit tight and enjoy the relative stability of life in their police state? I think we just might.

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 21:09

Lonewolf:

2. What President Obama proposes doesn't put a lot of people into harms way.It will... No matter how you cut it the 14th century retards somewhere will use it as an excuse to keep going. They'll kill people who don't deserve to be killed in the name of some sky pixie and we'll be forced to put boots down somewhere eventually. In the end our worthless politicians only end up killing good people when they begin addressing foreign policy. Personally, I'd rather have the direct approach. Go firmly to war with any country that does not turn over all their Islamists to us immediately, no equivocation. And yes, for people like Broadsword, if they'll have me, I'll volunteer.

Broadsword:

Flying over people, fixing and loading aircraft or stacking blankets doesn't really count. Bullets winging by and IED's would get my respect.

High Spirits:

Along with the belief in a supreme being the fallacy that human life matters is just that, a fallacy.... Ask any hungry bear, tiger or shark.

SASless

3rd Sep 2013, 21:14

What has happened in Damascus is a challenge to our humanity.

What is going on in Washington DC is an insult to our intelligence.

Mssrs Clausewitz and Tsu understood there was exactly one message to be sent to your Enemies. Surrender or Die. What other message do we need to send.

Every time we have ignored the teachings of those two.....we lose.

Here we go again!

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 21:20

Go firmly to war with any country that does not turn over all their Islamists to us immediately, no equivocation.

I think someone was reading a little too much 'Richard the Lionheart' when he was younger. Crusades are so High Middle Ages. Though I guess they were fun. I have dibs on the Cross of St George ceramic armour plates!

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 21:22

Broadsword:

Flying over people, fixing and loading aircraft or stacking blankets doesn't really count. Bullets winging by and IED's would get my respect.

Sorry I can't fulfil your jerk-off fantasies.

Toadstool

3rd Sep 2013, 21:31

Flying over people, fixing and loading aircraft or stacking blankets doesn't really count.

Wow, that just dismissed the contribution from a large proportion of our military.

Archimedes

3rd Sep 2013, 21:39

Where were the 'I want military action because i have such a strong moral compass' brigade when a million people were killed in Rwanda in the nineties.......

Doesn't stack up to me. Either human life matters, or it doesn't.

Forgive me for singling you out, HS, but the answer to this oft-repeated question for a significant number of the political players is 'watching with horror, saying "this must never, ever happen again" and coming up with nascent ideas pertaining to Responsibility to Protect and liberal interventionism.'

The inaction in Rwanda can't be used as a comparison - we did nothing then, so why now?- because of what it led to; it helped to create many of the current 'I want military action' brigade, who contended that human life really did matter, and that we mustn't be found wanting again. Circumstance (spelt 'P-U-T-I-N') might be said to have prevented anything being done until now, but crossing the threshold of using a weapon type barred by international treaty seems to have given the would-be interventionists the foundation for arguing that the responsibility to protect has reached the point where UNSC Resolutions, etc, have to be regarded as 'nice to have', since there's now an imperative to intervene that was lacking before.

That's not me justifying intervention, BTW, merely endeavouring to offer a view on why there is a body of opinion which strongly endorses the idea, including some people whose political opinions appear to make them unlikely members of such a corpus.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2013, 21:39

AA:

It may play out as you say, boots on ground, or it may not. The political will to "put boots on ground" in Syria is not merely weak, my analysis of the latest round of posturing is that it is utterly absent.

What is going on smacks of Clintonian (and futile) lobbing of high explosives to send a message. The message is "we sort of care, here's how much" and then ... silence?

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 21:39

Hanoijane:

I say, how crass... Henry V old chap, Henry V... If it isn't Shakespeare it's mere fiction...

Broadsword:

I might have a "little stroking" thing over an actual broadsword for it is a weapon of war to be used judiciously in the overall policy of a country... The moment you started typing you came up wanting...

Toadstool:

A large proportion of the military contribute in a fine way yet from a position of safety. My comments are not designed to denigrate anyone's service but rather to shed light on the armchair warriors like Broadsword who would happily send men and women into combat, (a place they avoided), to give their leftist feeling of worth some twisted credibility....

SASless

3rd Sep 2013, 21:52

For over a year I have been harping about General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff....suggesting he is a buffoon of the lowest order.

I was criticized by most for taking ol' Martin....who I consider to be Obama's Boy....but perhaps this exchange today when he was testifying about our strategic goals in Syria....but was unable to say what it was we were actually trying to accomplish.

This is our most Senior Military Leader in the county.....he is the Top Dog....and when called before Congress.....this is the very best answer the Moron can come up with as we seem to be getting ready to go to War with Syria?

Jesus....this is getting so sad it makes one want to cry.....or Shoulder Pitch Forks and drag out some Fence Rails after gathering up a bucket of Tar and a bag of feathers.

Dempsey Can't Say What U.S. is Seeking in Syria | Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/dempsey-cant-say-what-u-s-is-seeking-in-syria/)

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 22:00

A large proportion of the military contribute in a fine way yet from a position of safety. My comments are not designed to denigrate anyone's service but rather to shed light on the armchair warriors like Broadsword who would happily send men and women into combat, (a place they avoided), to give their leftist feeling of worth some twisted credibility....

Keep digging AA. The only thing you've shed light on is your own ignorance and stupidity.

tartare

3rd Sep 2013, 22:03

Well - looks like it's going to be a yes vote now that Pelosi, Boehner, McCain et al have swung in behind Obama.

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 22:03

AA,

Your thoughts 'are as two grains of wheat hidden in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search'.

Not from Henry V but seem appropriate nevertheless...

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 22:06

Well - looks like it's going to be a yes vote now that Pelosi, Boehner, McCain et al have swung in behind Obama.

Damn those armchair warriors, especially that McCain guy!

TomJoad

3rd Sep 2013, 22:07

They'll kill people who don't deserve to be killed in the name of some sky pixie and we'll be forced to put boots down somewhere eventually.

Along with the belief in a supreme being the fallacy that human life matters is just that, a fallacy.... Ask any hungry bear, tiger or shark.

Flying over people, fixing and loading aircraft or stacking blankets doesn't really count. Bullets winging by and IED's would get my respect.

Utter utter nonsense, never mind the contradiction in the philosophy.

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 22:10

Utter utter nonsense, never mind the contradiction in the philosophy.

Oh, leave him be. Whether he admits it or not, he's been gorging on popcorn.

TomJoad

3rd Sep 2013, 22:12

Suprised the Ruskies are not intervening.

It is isn't it. I may be so wrong on this but don't they have a history of making a lot of noise but hold off getting involved. Like I say I may be wrong, and stand by to be corrected, but when was the last time they actually intervened in an op we were involved in. Kosovo- Pristina?

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 22:29

Much as they would like to keep their foothold in the Med, the Russians can probably see the writing on the wall. The evidence regarding chemical weapons and who used them is becoming pretty overwhelming. In the circs, they can hardly keep saying 'nyet' and remain credible, let alone contemplate taking any military action in Assad's favour.

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 22:29

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 22:34

AA.

I knew you'd get it. Just for fun, huh? :-)

Airborne Aircrew

3rd Sep 2013, 22:36

Hanoi:

I have to admit my weakness for Billy S.... :ok:

Ronald Reagan

3rd Sep 2013, 22:38

TomJoad, back in the 1990s the Russians had a fool of a leader, now they have possibly the strongest and most effective leader in the world.
I don't think the Russians would get involved in this militarily though they would be within in their rights to defend Syria if they wished.
But any military intervention in Syria will sour the west-Russian relationship even further. But most importantly it will likely encourage Russia to build her military forces up even more, it will also encourage China to build her forces up and likely encourage Iran and North Korea with their nuclear programmes. The more little wars we engage in the more we force the other nations to be stronger in case its ever them next. I fully expect China will in time become so strong they could take on the world, with Russia as their main partner that's going to be a very powerful force. I would so much rather be working with these two superpowers than against them. This is far bigger than Syria, or Iran or North Korea, its the future of the world. I wonder what kind of future our nations have, terminal economic and military decline is the only future I see.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2013, 22:42

BS, if I may make a suggestion:
Much as they would like to keep their foothold in the Med, the Russians can probably see the writing on the wall. The evidence regarding chemical weapons and who used them is becoming pretty overwhelming. In the circs, they can hardly keep saying 'nyet' and remain credible, let alone contemplate taking any military action in Assad's favour.
Don't measure Russian wheat with your bushel.

Per the bolded part: credible with whom?

Whose opinion does Vlad Putin give a flying fart about?

A thought:

The Russians and the U.S. have a major shared interest, which is combatting the Islamist/Salaafist movement that has caused both our nations no small amount of trouble. That this common ground cannot be a place to begin agreements on a shared policy with that in minds is a disappointment, but it is not fatal. In the longer term, we may be able to use that common interest as a way to get past a few of the latest dick measuring escapades that have passed for negotiations and diplomacy.

Back to Syria:
The Russians have modest skin in this game, if any, but also have very little risk in the game. They don't need to do much to help Assad remain in power, regardless of what weapons he has or has not used.

But, if it is convenient for them to do so, they can drop him like a hot potato with minimal cost or risk to their position.

TomJoad

3rd Sep 2013, 22:44

Hanoi:

Merchant of Venice... A fine play... ;)

Tom:

No-one "deserves to be killed" until they start doing nasty things to others... But, in the end, human life is irrelevant in the "superior to all other creatures" way many see ourselves. You need to learn to separate your feelings from logic and good sense, you look such a twit when you "think" with your heart.

Broadsword:

My ignorance and stupidity is rife in the mind of the likes of you... Without saying, up front, what it was you did for 25 years you have all the credibility of the armchair warrior you seem to be... Fess up or shut up... It's that simple.... anything else makes you look evasive and, frankly, childish.

AA:

Your arguments are those of the playground, where personal insults are the last refuge of failure. Please, if you are going to continue, raise your game and desist from your petty nonsense. You may have some valid contribution to make but it certainly is not coming across fella. As for your advice, thanks, I will think about that.:ok:

hanoijane

3rd Sep 2013, 22:49

Your arguments are those of the playground

My God! You mean this ISN'T a playground? Messrs Obama & Co are actually reading here seeking logical argument?

We're all doomed...

TomJoad

3rd Sep 2013, 22:59

Your arguments are those of the playground

My God! You mean this ISN'T a playground? Messrs Obama & Co are actually reading here seeking logical argument?

We're all doomed...

Yes indeed:D:D:D

Wur Doomed, Entombed & Marooned... - YouTube

Broadsword***

3rd Sep 2013, 23:04

Don't measure Russian wheat with your bushel.

Per the bolded part: credible with whom?

Whose opinion does Vlad Putin give a flying fart about?

Credible with the rest of the G8 (save China) perhaps. I don't think even Putin can keep up his spoilt teenager routine for ever.

Putin may be, as Max Hastings described him, "Stalin's spiritual heir", but even Stalin chose not to intervene in the Greek Civil War and did not invade Yugoslavia when it broke from Moscow.

tartare

3rd Sep 2013, 23:48

Putin credible? A strong, effective leader???? :rolleyes:
The Russian's aren't going to do anything significant.
They wouldn't dare.

Easy Street

3rd Sep 2013, 23:49

Crusades are so High Middle Ages.There is a long history of the Western world trying to understand the Middle East, what motivates its people, how we should deal with them, how we can play the various peoples off against each other. Occasionally we break all their stuff and change their rulers for them.

Having studied the Middle East at school, in military service, and through reading the works of the legions of highly-experienced journalists who try to make sense of it, I have largely given up on trying to understand it from a rational standpoint. Instead, I offer the following 2 simple insights, which I hope will help the casual reader better to understand the dynamics of the region:

1) Monty Python's "The Life of Brian", making the following subsitutions:
Romans = Americans
Judean People's Front = Shia
People's Front of Judea = Sunni
e.g. "We must unite against the common enemy" - "What, the Americans?" - "No, the bloody Shia".

2) CE 2013 = Islamic year 1434.

In the mid-15th century we'd just burned the (Catholic) Joan of Arc at the stake, and witch-hunts were becoming fashionable, so we can hardly get upset about sectarian intolerance or the oppression of women - it must just be a phase! Looking ahead a bit, there's bad news to come.... the Spanish Inquisition was established in the late 15th century. I'd like to think the region will have settled down a bit by Islamic year 2013; perhaps by then they'll be conducting humanitarian interventions on us?

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 00:04

Tart,

Now who would have guessed Obama would be taking us into yet another War in an attempt to save Face?

Don't be too surprised things are going to happen in any kind of sane logical manner.

What kind of Treaty agreements do the Russians and Syrians have you wonder?

WWI got started over almost as silly a reason as is being proffered currently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fv5I2rmtuU

500N

4th Sep 2013, 00:08

Tart

"They wouldn't dare."

Not sure Putin is someone you try to bluff.

Obama has already lost out a few times.

" The Russian's aren't going to do anything significant."
They don't need to, they can and will make Obama's
life uncomfortable anyway.

tartare

4th Sep 2013, 00:29

So - I wonder how this plays out?
TLAM (or French equivalent) strikes destroy much of the SAAF, and most of the air defence network.
Putin screams blue murder but in reality does nothing overt.
Likewise Iran.
Both massively increase aid, advice, weapons to what remains of the Assad regime.
Proxy war looks like starting.
Despite Alawite advice, Hezbollah can't help themselves and start to use a new toy or two to attack Israel, as well as lash out with renewed vigour against the insurgency.
Israel hits back massively as it did in Lebanon.
Power balance stabilised - albeit temporarily?

500N

4th Sep 2013, 01:18

" TLAM (or French equivalent) strikes destroy much of the SAAF, and most of the air defence network."

Do you think it will be that big ?

That is nearly 700 aircraft, up to 300+ fighters / bombers and god knows how many location for the SAAF and Air defence network ?

tartare

4th Sep 2013, 01:46

500N - don't know.
For that very reason, tried to total up the number of weapons the US Navy et al had in theatre at the moment.
Others correct me if I'm wrong - there's 5 Arleigh Burkes and 2? Ohio class boats?
Back of the fag packet calc:
5x90 TLAMs = 450 from the destroyers
2x154 TLAMs = 308 from the subs

means the US alone could theoretically put 758 warheads on foreheads.
Now - I assume that each ship/boat may not necessarily carry a full load out - and that also doesn't account for anything fired from other French platforms, or from forces in the gulf (would they really shoot overland from the south to hit Syria?)
A quick and dirty Wikipedia search shows 700+ were fired at the start of the Iraq war.
So, are they likely to shoot that many this time? No, probably not - low value targets, very expensive ($1.4m ea) missile.
Take down or degrade the air defence radars/C&C centres enough with TLAMs to get in some Predators, Reapers etc to plink the rest of the AA assets?
I reckon they won't fly in a Batmobile or two from Whiteman - too risky.
If you're not wanting to put soldiers and airmen/women in harms way - what else can you use?
Just interested as to the game plan.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 01:54

Understand and interesting discussion.

That still doesn't take out the SAAF, especially if widely dispersed
recently although I have no doubt the US can get up to date intel.

Note - I may have made a slight miscalculation on the aircraft of the SAAF.

tartare

4th Sep 2013, 01:57

Without wanting to enrage the NSA (who are no doubt reading this as well - hello guys and gals) or tip off the Syrians, do any of our state-side friends have any theories?

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 02:18

Don't forget the B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's!

They carry Cruise Missiles as well.

tartare

4th Sep 2013, 02:24

Batmobile = B2; grunt nickname.
Yes - suppose a Buff could make the long, slow haul up from Guam - stand off and send in some pain.
And the Bone from Incirlik...?

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 03:50

It is not a long haul from Italy.

In reality....for B-52's....it is not a terribly long flight from the USA and back what as we do have AAR assets sufficient to support large Strike missions. don't let facts get in your way.

GreenKnight121

4th Sep 2013, 03:57

Diego Garcia is much closer to Syria than Guam... and B-52s and B-1s were based there during Desert Storm and the Afghan & Iraqi primary campaigns.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 04:00

It would be an interesting route in from Diego Garcia !

BEagle

4th Sep 2013, 04:03

Some of you lot really are itching for another war, it seems.....:rolleyes:

Why?

Let's hope the US Congress has as much sense as the UK Parliament did and that lunatic cowboy mentality doesn't prevail this time.

I saw McCain on TV recently; he really needs psychiatric help....

Armchair theorists discussing strategic bombing form their comfortable keyboards in California or New Zealand should remember that any US attack is bound to cause casualties - and it isn't a simple good guys vs. bad guys issue in Syria, no matter what the White House simpleton and his hawkish advisors might imagine.

West Coast

4th Sep 2013, 04:08

Figuring out what it may look like is a far cry from itching for it to happen.

Calm yourself.

tartare

4th Sep 2013, 04:11

With the greatest respect to your experience and service; it's a military forum BEagle - just asking questions.
Yes - I'm behind a keyboard, and the New South Wales afternoon sun is quite warm and peaceful thanks.
And yes - strategic bombing means blood, brains, bone fragments and burning flesh will be spread everywhere and people will be killed - acknowledged.
That's not going to stop me and other contributors from attempting to understand how the job might be done.
Sorry if that offends you.

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 04:38

Damn Beags.....you and McCain have a lot in common.

Senility must afflict many of his generation these days.

Steady on old fellow.....before you post you need to jot down some notes while you read the posts here so you can remember what it was you read in the past few minutes as your short term memory seems to be tracking a bit slower than your typing skills.

I am not aware of a single American that has posted anything that would even remotely support any kind of military action against Syria.

As has been pointed out to you.....the Cowboy as you call him has been out of office for over Five years....where you been?

West Coast

4th Sep 2013, 04:45

Many died on both sides liberating some windswept islands, yet Beag's is quite comfy dredging up those memories.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 04:51

"Some of you lot really are itching for another war, it seems.....:rolleyes:"

Actually Beags, this is probably one of the first times in my life
I am in the don't go to war camp.

BEagle

4th Sep 2013, 05:01

Yes, the UK went to war to repel invasion of its territorial soil - even though ownership is in dispute. We also went war in 1991 to repel an unlawful invasion of an ally.

But GW2 and Afghanistan have had about as much legitimacy and success as did the US war in Viet Nam.

As for Syria, why isn't Obama pressing for all-party talks at the UN?

fergineer

4th Sep 2013, 05:51

And me in NZ is against it too

Pontius Navigator

4th Sep 2013, 06:49

I see there is now an AIM. Always good if you are going to start a war.

According to the Torygraph, the revered leader says 'we will strike at Syria to end war'.

Now the US is firmly on the side of the opposition - not rebels I note - end the conflict and free them from the terrible civil war.

Hail the would be conquering hero.

Once Job Done

what next?

Eclectic

4th Sep 2013, 07:13

A summary of the intelligence: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world/middleeast/allies-intelligence-on-syria-all-points-to-assad-forces.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

A post mortem of Iraq bunker busting (which was largely ineffective) lead to the development of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57A/B, a 30 ton bomb that can only be carried by the B2.

This is a very important interim weapon because most high value targets in North Korea and Iran are deep underground.

So America is very likely to use this weapon, which means using B2s. Firstly to get Assad's bunkers. Secondly to send a message to the world about this capability. And thirdly to see how it works in the real world.

MOP in B2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/MOP_in_the_B-2_bomb_bay.jpg/398px-MOP_in_the_B-2_bomb_bay.jpg

LT Selfridge

4th Sep 2013, 07:15

You have GOT to be kidding.

Sunfish

4th Sep 2013, 07:37

Eclectic is an aviation onanist. Assad has already dispersed his assets among civilian population centres, thereby maximising the civilian loss of life an attack will cause for the purpose of propaganda.

I hope you all have thick blankets thiS winter for when Putin turned off Europes gas supplies.

The current situation reminds me of August 1914, complete with jingoistic crap from those who think this is some great adventure that they can vicariously share.

As a P.S., what happens if Putin moves an air defence regiment to Damascus next week? What would the cheese eating surrender monkeys on the quai Dorsey do then?

langleybaston

4th Sep 2013, 07:51

Blankets?

In these sophisticated isles, we have been under duvets for 50 years.

LT Selfridge

4th Sep 2013, 07:53

Merde their pantaloons peut-être?

I agree - Eclectic can you leave the war porn to the gun runners?

Party Animal

4th Sep 2013, 07:53

Diego Garcia is much closer to Syria than Guam... and B-52s and B-1s were based there during Desert Storm and the Afghan & Iraqi primary campaigns.

Very true - but for our American cousins, if you have any maps that stretch outside of CONUS, you may notice that DG is a British Territory. In other words, it may not be useable this time round.

ORAC

4th Sep 2013, 07:57

I like this, well thought through, sobering conclusion.

Syria: Sitrep (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/08/syria-sitrep.html)

LT Selfridge

4th Sep 2013, 08:12

'It began when it was revealed that Syrian government military forces used chemical weapons in Damascus during a military operation on August 21, 2013.'

Why read on ORAC?

ORAC

4th Sep 2013, 08:14

Why read on ORAC? Read it to the end and find out....

LT Selfridge

4th Sep 2013, 08:26

Yeah okay... thanks.

Pontius Navigator

4th Sep 2013, 08:39

The article would also appear to be a little out of date. Is Akrotiri going to be available?

And the latest reports say that the mission if to stop the war which requires rather more than the limited chastisement previously discussed.

Eclectic

4th Sep 2013, 08:39

Forensic examination of the CW attack: SYRIA: [PUBLIC] Geolocation of alleged chemical rockets in East Ghouta - August 28 - StoryfulPro (http://storyful.com/stories/63271)

Citizen journalism at its best.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 10:31

Eclectic

Busting bunkers for the sake of busting bunkers is pointless.

As I have said and others, Assad has almost certainly dispersed
everything in Syria.

I can't honestly see that being used on a low value target
unless the US has a high value target in mind.

We will see in a week or two.

tartare

4th Sep 2013, 10:47

Eclectic - wouldn't it be very surprising if they sent a B2 in on an overflight?
Maybe a standoff launch of cruise missiles - but to risk such a high value aircraft to drop a MOAB?
Just an observation from the comfort of my armchair...

langleybaston

4th Sep 2013, 10:54

Here is a thought perhaps not thunk before.

Surely, by dispersing, the Syrian regime and military is/are already to a degree degraded/incapacitated? I assume there is/was a military reason to be NOT dispersed?

Principles of war and all that?

hanoijane

4th Sep 2013, 10:55

Can we be CERTAIN that McCain was playing poker during the debate?

I think he was actually on PPRuNe, posting as SASless. They seem to share some personality traits...

500N

4th Sep 2013, 11:05

langley

Re Principles of War

Are you thinking of the Concentration of force one ?

Applies if you are attacking someone and in some cases defense.

By dispersing, I was thinking Command and Control,
Weapons like AA / Missiles etc.

tartare
I was thinking the same thing, using a high value bomber over Syria ???

dead_pan

4th Sep 2013, 11:32

Can we be CERTAIN that McCain was playing poker during the debate?

I did wonder whether some of posters hereabouts were present at yesterday's Senate hearing, given the, ahem, demographic of the people who got thrown out. It was suspiciously quiet on both threads last night...

Ronald Reagan

4th Sep 2013, 11:52

Putin: Only UNSC can sanction military action against Syria govt - YouTube (http://youtu.be/NzF2T70CLao)

French demand vote on Syria strike as Hollande hawkish - YouTube (http://youtu.be/OHvgI6znYBk)

Ronald Reagan

4th Sep 2013, 12:11

» Video: Female Veteran Violently Arrested By Feds At Syria Protest Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/video-female-veteran-violently-arrested-by-feds-at-syria-protest/)

Ron Paul Gets Cut Off During Interview With Wolf Blitzer - YouTube (http://youtu.be/TnKFX3PtZfA)

Hangarshuffle

4th Sep 2013, 15:53

maxred

4th Sep 2013, 16:08

I must be jaded

Nah, just getting a dose of reality, which of course, stinks..

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2013, 16:15

Friday the 6th or Saturday the 7th for the night of the attack if I goes ahead at all now. No moon and will be as black as a witches hat. Also gives him time to cut some sort of compromise or permission beforehand with Putin and Xi Jinping or their representatives at whatever G(7 or 20) meeting they are now just about gathering to.
As good a guess as I've seen in a while.
Any practical effect of these attacks for the common good of saving the innocents will be slight.
Agreed, though that depends on how much strking is done and on what.
More a face saver now for the US President than anything else if he does strike. He has to attack, he's played himself into a corner. Played a very poor hand really, very publically lost an (the) key allie with the UK, hasn't really looked decisive.
He can save face if Congress tells him to FO ... well, some of it. He already has egg on his.
I still find his whole tone towards the UK very patronising and at times actually offensive, so I am a little jaundiced towards him of course.
Don't blame you, he's a bit tone deaf to our best allies. His diplomacy bitch Hillary, first term, was far too cosy with the bitch from Argentina in re their bellowing about Las Malvinas. :mad:
From sending the head back to the Smithsonian, to BP, to stiffing the Queen at the Normandy thing, to his comments about the UK military in Afghanistan - you can read him like a bad book, and deep down this man is not a friend to the UK at all. He doesn't need us but yet he did seem to need us,it must rile him even more.
He doesn't grasp the benefit of the special relationship.
Egypt and the very recent military coup (with hundreds of civilians gunned down by the military and police) now faded off the TV completely (even here in the Middle East, its just faded out, let alone UK). No one from the west speaks about attacking the military there of course.

It's still close enough to stable to be smart not to intervene.
Sad but I found myself actually agreeing more with Putin today and recently than my own PM or the so called leader of the free world.:confused: I must be jaded.
Just because he's president doesn't mean he's always right. That's part of why we have that balance of powers thing over here: it is at times a curb on bad ideas getting too much momentum. Not saying it always works, but it does sometimes.

Your post had a lot of good meat in it. Thanks. :ok:

EDIT:
Whomever posted this analysis (http://storyful.com/stories/63271): thank you. Folks are trying to put the puzzle pieces together. Not an easy job when bullets and bombs are a daily bit of the environment.

ORAC

4th Sep 2013, 16:43

Busting bunkers for the sake of busting bunkers is pointless. As I have said and others, Assad has almost certainly dispersed everything in Syria. The Good News about Syria and Sarin (http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/09/the-good-news-about-syria-and-sarin/)

NutLoose

4th Sep 2013, 17:01

During Hagel testifying to the House Panel on Syria, anyone notice the person behind him holding up his hands painted red, probably to symbolise Hagel has blood on his.
Indeed several people had he same, Kerry, the dude with the bad wig is wittering on about other Countries offering to pay for any action even if it was similar to those they have already done.. Saudi?

Bit like glorified mercenaries then.

.

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 17:17

http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af177/sirhrmechanic/syria_zps08312863.jpg

How incisive...

Ronald Reagan

4th Sep 2013, 17:43

Cannon Fodder: Syrians form human shields around 'US strike targets' - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Kj8vfsjQKLU)
This could be a real problem for any western attack. Won't be good PR for Obama or Hollander if there are lots of dead civilians from missile strikes.

They look like a great bunch of people and they support Assad.

Broadsword***

4th Sep 2013, 18:37

http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af177/sirhrmechanic/syria_zps08312863.jpg

How counterfactual.

henra

4th Sep 2013, 18:50

How counterfactual.

Hmmm, even if it may be a bit simplistic, do you really think there is not some truth to it?

Ronald Reagan

4th Sep 2013, 18:52

Ted Cruz On Syria: U.S. Shouldn't Be 'Al Qaeda's Air Force' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/ted-cruz-syria_n_3867006.html)

hanoijane

4th Sep 2013, 18:57

How counterfactual.

How little you seem to know of what's happening in Syria.

It may be simplistic, but it's also fairly accurate.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 19:05

"I still find his whole tone towards the UK very patronising and
at times actually offensive,"

And not just to the UK. Old Europe ???

Reagan might have gone week at the knees occasionally but I can't think
of any other recent US President that has "put down" so many other
countries.

It is petty BS.

So much for a special relationship.

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2013, 19:19

Ted makes a few good points in that article.

My trouble with him is that he looks like a cross between Bill Murray and Mark Cuban, and I can't get the Murray references out of my head whenever I see him talking.

"It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter ..."
"Cannonball!"
"It's in the hole, it's in the hole"

Really makes taking him seriously difficult.

NutLoose

4th Sep 2013, 19:22

The more this goes on the more of a farce it all becomes, sad really because at the end of the day some poor guy minding his own business and trying to earn a living is going to end up dead somewhere in Syria..

And why? Simply because someone authorised an attack he neither knew about nor was involved in, an attack that has killed peanuts in the scheme of things.

You have Obama seemingly on a massive power trip simply because he couldn't keep his mouth shut and made his Red Line statement. So to simply save face he is willing to kill Tens... Hundreds.... Thousands..

And to back him up you have the Senate, whose members couldn't agree on anything in the past. Indeed, whilst the Country debates war, one of them couldn't even be arsed to put his phone game down and take seriously what they were about to do...

Then you have the French, with a population that appears to agree with the feelings in the UK polls..

Funnily I always thought these so called leaders were elected by the people to serve the people. From what I've seen they seem to be simply serving their own agenda.

However things turn out I am truely glad this Country is out of it and that another vote will not take place.. And as for us being kicked out of meetings, so what, live with it.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 19:50

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2013, 20:04

Re the Red Line.

I just read a US newspaper.

Obama says that the International Community made the Red Line when
they declared CW abhorrent and made a treaty and Congress declared a Red Line when they ratified the treaty.

Talk about trying to spread the blame !!!
500:
I think it's an illustration of the level of contempt in which he holds the public. He thinks people are dumb enough to buy this line.

Given how he got nominated, elected, and re-elected, maybe his contempt is well founded. :p

Ronald Reagan

4th Sep 2013, 20:10

Al-Qaeda Linked Syrian Rebels Attack Christian Village (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/04/Syria-rebels-attack-regime-held-Christian-village)

500N

4th Sep 2013, 20:15

Lonewolf

I agree.

smujsmith

4th Sep 2013, 20:29

Nutloose,

"However things turn out I am truly glad this Country is out of it and that another vote will not take place.. And as for us being kicked out of meetings, so what, live with it."

Totally agree with you. I look forward to seeing how little being "out of it" might shock people into seeing that the "special" relationship may have been a bit exaggerated, or only special for British PMs.

Smudge:ok:

500N

4th Sep 2013, 20:34

Sunfish

4th Sep 2013, 20:48

I'm 2500 km from home right now and I just bought fuel containers to get me home. They will be filled as soon as Congress votes yes to attacking Syria.

To the jingoists and warmongers here, please understand that you have my complete contempt. This is potentially a " guns of August" moment and stupid, Lilly livered twits like you can't see it.

As a much wiser correspondent said about bombing Syria: "there are much more things that can go wrong with this idea than things that can go right".

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 20:55

Won't be good PR for Obama or Hollander if there are lots of dead civilians from missile strikes.

Far be it from me to play the cynic but dead civilians can be made dead during the actual attack or afterwards for the benefit of the cameras... What's the betting there will be piles of bodies that we can't quite feel how warm they are from the horrific pictures?

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 20:57

Broadsword:

How counterfactual.

T's better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. Congratulations, you made believers of everyone with that comment. :ugh:

500N

4th Sep 2013, 20:59

AA

You can be sure of it !!!

The bodies are already frozen, ready to be delivered !

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2013, 21:11

The bodies are already frozen, ready to be delivered !

Some probably even have residual traces of gas in their tissue, just to be sure that the "Obama Drops Gas Bombs on Syria" is the first headline ...

Broadsword***

4th Sep 2013, 21:41

Hmmm, even if it may be a bit simplistic, do you really think there is not some truth to it?

Simplistic and disingenuous. It is an attempt at distraction by those who wish to divert attention from punishing the most horrendous breach of international law in recent history.

It is rather like arguing that Op Desert Fox (which, in terms of scale and planned effect, is probably the best recent comparison to what is proposed here) had the object, above all else, of helping radical Islamists.

Of course al-Qaeda (just one of an array of armed opposition groups operating in Syria) may benefit from a weakening of Assad's forces, but that is not the object here. Indeed, it makes it even more important that any military campaign should be calibrated so that it punishes the regime without precipitating its immediate downfall.

Of course there are uncertainties, but if you cannot stomach uncertainties, then why bother having Armed Forces at all?

smujsmith

4th Sep 2013, 21:43

I'm thinking this falls into the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" category. Whatever happens, we will see the thousands killed by " western unjustified aggression", all will be women and children, and none will be regime members. If they don't bomb, we are already hearing noises off (Saudi, UAE and Qatari) saying they must do it. I heard a piece on TV last night explaining that from a Saudi/UAE/Qatar position, US tomahawks arriving in Damascus would push the price of oil up hugely. Now, if that's the case the logic says (to me anyway), oil price increases, governments (USA, British, French et al) tax take increases. In the UK of course the energy companies will use this to hike their prices further. Leading to even more tax for governments. All I see is that an Attack on Syria looks good for western governments tax income, not so good for the public. That seems to fit the current reality vis a vis political attitude vs public opinion.

Smudge

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2013, 21:44

Indeed, it makes it even more important that any military campaign should be calibrated so that it punishes the regime without precipitating its immediate downfall.
Can you give me some examples of operations that did just that, and what effect they had on said regimes?

Clinton's example of missile lobbing here and there (Desert Fox included air strikes IIRC) had the sum total effect of .. not much.

Broadsword***

4th Sep 2013, 21:57

Can you give me some examples of operations that did just that, and what effect they had on said regimes?

Clinton's example of missile lobbing here and there (Desert Fox included air strikes IIRC) had the sum total effect of .. not much.

I'm not aware air strikes have been ruled out.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 22:01

Air strikes, missiles, it's just a method of delivery.

Does it matter of a B52 drops a missile or it is fired from a ship ?

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 22:02

Broadsword:

Simplistic and disingenuous. It is an attempt at distraction by those who wish to divert attention from punishing the most horrendous breach of international law in recent history.Your arguments are worse than "disingenuous"... It is against international law to target civilians, (though how you manage that in a civil war I'm at a loss), but around 10 times the number have died by conventional means that died by unconventional ones but I didn't see you bleating then... I suppose, in your mind, it's ok to shred a few civvies and their kids with shrapnel yet leave them alive or maybe your preference is the horrendous burns inflicted on the same. Either way we heard bugger all from you about it over the last 2 1/2 years... Funny how thay outrage works eh?

Like Egypt and Libya, sometimes having a dictator in place that is either pro your country's interests or at least scared to get into conflict with you is better for them, better for their people and better for the region. As we have seen in Egypt and Libya when the dictator is simply removed the vacuum is usually filled by the group you least wanted, the people really don't need and the region detests...

You keep going in that silly, weak, socialist utopia of yours. The rest of us would prefer that you take yourself off to the quiet corner for a long time... :ok:

racedo

4th Sep 2013, 22:13

So Secretary Kerry is now saying that the US cost of military action will be paid for by Arabs.........................So now US Military is GCC's Bitch and just a load of Mercaneries sold to highest bidder.

Can Kerry get much worse ?

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 22:21

I am totally diabused of the stupid assed notion Wars are about sending messages, firing shots across the bow, diminishing the military of a nation, leveling the playing field between two warring parties, acting as warning to a Third Nation, reminding Despots of International Accords, and all this other crap the Lefties, Liberals, Progressive Ding Dongs keep running out to justify the use of their nation's or some other nation's military when they think it is the cool thing to do.

War is a simple concept and has exactly one singular purpose.....to kick your opponents ass until he is either dead, rendered incapable or unwilling to resist. You do that by the use of unlimited, unrestrained violence, mayhem, and destruction of his People, Resources, Assets, belongings, and motivation.

Every time we do other than that.....we lose.

If the dummies in Washington vote to attack Syria....then we should go at it Hammer and Tongs....and see just how many of them we can kill, wound, and maim.....destroy every bit of their infrastructure, government, economy, and just plain lay waste to as much of the Country we can.

We do that....thumb our nose at the rest of the World....tell them if they don't like it....we got plenty of Nukes laying around idle that we can light off in their neighborhoods.

If the Arabs want to pay us to be Mercenaries then lets take their money and when we finish with their enemies....we turn on them and do them in too.

Way too much talk folks.....lets just roll up our sleeves and get after it!

The problem really is that War is not fought these days as Wars have been fought in the past. We somehow think War can be limited, humane, nice neat and orderly.

Sadly, it cannot. It is a terrible business that once started for whatever reasons given....it always takes unintended paths and escapes from the cage we had hoped to keep it contained inside.

This thing in Syria is going to turn ugly if we do what the Obama Administration wants us to do.

Nothing good shall come of this.....Nothing.

You Nimrods that are all for this.....I pity you as you simply lack any commonsense.

So please....stop bothering us with the rant we "must" do something about those who were gassed. That was their bad luck....as horrible as it was....but their being murdered by their own government does not require "Us" to do anything.

We should punish Assad and his Regime for that horrible atrocity....and all the other atrocities that have been committed....but likewise the Insurgents do not have clean hands either.....so we should hold them accountable exactly as we do the Syrian Government.

Let the UN form a War Crimes Commission....start gathering evidence....at some point one side or the other will win....peace of sorts will take hold....then the UN can investigate, arrest, and put on Trial....those who are culpable of War Crimes.

Going to War is not the way to handle this.

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 22:26

SAS:

so we should hold them accountable exactly as we do the Syrian Government

So... Really... You're just recommending nuking the whole damned place...

I can live with that and it sends the right message to the rest of them... :ok:

Roland Pulfrew

4th Sep 2013, 22:26

the most horrendous breach of international law in recent history.

Oh please!! Really? What about Rwanda? And even if it was the regime that used CW (still to be proven) they can always claim they targeted the 50 or 60 rebels reportedly killed in the alleged attack, everyone else was collateral damage (and there are going to be more of them if Obama gets to play with his weapons).

And I'm not sure which is more horrendous, killing a few hundred from over 100000 deaths just because one particular type of weapon was used? Or perhaps the execution, by beheading, of POWs and Christian clerics? Or perhaps the ethnic cleansing that is going on all over Syria?

And Obama sure looks like he's trying to spread the responsibility for his red line in the sand (I wonder if I kept a copy of the cartoon of Obama painting an ever retreating red line in the sand from last year?).

And as Syria are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons ban how can they be breaking "international law"?

AtomKraft

4th Sep 2013, 22:28

Just ask yourself:

What can America actually achieve, by bombing Syria?

Now ask- how could this go wrong, and 'are the yanks doing this to avoid losing face?

These cnuts should be locked up.

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 22:31

These cnuts should be locked up.

Pansy!!!! Shoot the bastards... :E

AtomKraft

4th Sep 2013, 22:34

Hey SAS.

I buy into your 'total war' concept.

Only thing is- they done nothing to you.:)

So, if you bring the 'TW' thing to them, without them doing a sweet thing to you- then you are the aggressor- and the world (that's not the US btw) will turn on you.:uhoh:

smujsmith

4th Sep 2013, 22:35

Blimey No,

Uniform, boots, weapon and out the back of Albert on a static line. DZ Damascus. All of em. They want war. Let them have some. Maybe the rest won't be so keen then.:oh:

Smudge

AtomKraft

4th Sep 2013, 22:36

Airbone.

Glad to hear from Detroit.

Thought it was a goner....;)

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 22:42

Thought it was a goner....;)

We in the suburbs are keeping our heads above water... Ammunition is low but we have a lake to drink from and a septic tank, (quiet in the cheap seats... ;) ), to sustain us. If I send a lat/long can you send a C-130 of ammo and beer... It would be much appreciated... Oh, and ice... Need he ice for the beer... :ok:

Still living the dream... :E

10Watt

4th Sep 2013, 22:43

Airborne Aircrew

4th Sep 2013, 22:49

So what`s the interest here ? it`s certainly not humanitarian, ye gods,

there are enough peoples around the world being roughed up with no

interest from western media.

A little bit far from the oilfields, but very close to lsrael.

It's perfect...

No accusations of stealing oil. O'Bummer has shown his contempt for Israel so no problem there. Western media seem to "care"...

It's the perfect opportunity to add the word "strong" to his existing "Messiah" label...

Slam dunk really... :rolleyes:

Archimedes

4th Sep 2013, 23:00

Not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, Roland, but just because they're not signatories doesn't mean that they can't be considered in breach of international law; the argument (and the lawyers will argue...) is that it is customary international law, since the majority of states have agreed, either in declaratory or tacit form that CW are beyond the pale and thus illegal.

The difficulty, of course, is that international law is not quite the fixed, immovable corpus that some assume it to be; it evolves through precedent, custom, treaty, agreement, etc, etc. This is why you have the debate about Responsibility To Protect: is it part of international law, or is it a legitimate approach which may - on occasion - appear to conflict with international law (arguably see Kosovo).

If Assad did use CW, he can't say that the use was aimed against the rebels and that the other 300, 400, however many that figure is now were collateral damage; indeed, that argument falls over under Additional Protocol 1 (1977) to the 1949 Convention. It doesn't fit in with Articles 51 and 57, since CW lack the discrimination required under those articles:

Article 51...

...4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction...

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Article 57...

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

I suggest that CW fail to meet 57:2:ii and are insufficiently discriminating as the context of their use in Syria meant that it was almost certain that civilians were going to be gassed as part of the process, and the users of the CW failed to meet their responsibilities.

That doesn't necessarily mean that this demands the appearance of a large number of TLAMs in Syria airspace, though, simply that there are at least reasonable grounds to contend that the use of CW is a clear breach of the 1949 Convention and Additional Protocol 1.

The point, as you note, though, is that a case can be made to say that a number of elements of the civil war that did not see the use of CW contravene the Convention and AP1.

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/46.gif [Devil's Advocate]
To which some might claim that intervention should've occurred some time ago and that measured against the Convention, AP1 and the notions of R2P, the UN and international community have fallen down on their obligations and that Putin and to a lesser extent the Chinese have been particularly egregious in not living up to what they are expected to do...
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/46.gif [\Devil's Advocate]

10Watt

4th Sep 2013, 23:09

The only thing we haven`t had so far is a definitive statement from

Putin.

lt`s not looking good. Not good at all.

Broadsword***

4th Sep 2013, 23:13

The rest of us would prefer that you take yourself off to the quiet corner for a long time...

Self-appointed forum president for life are we, AA? Now simmer down and get back to your favourite Sarah Palin tome (signed, of course).

500N

4th Sep 2013, 23:16

As I was driving to vote, here was Obama on the radio

"when something happens in the world, everyone asks
what the US is going to do about it. Be it Bosnia, Rwanda,
Sierra Leone (+ a couple more) .......

I nearly had a crash.

WTF did the US do in Rwanda and Sierra Leone ?

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 23:19

AK.....that is exactly my point....or hoped you would understand that was anyway.

Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?

That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks.

I wrote the first part somewhat tongue in cheek trying to suggest that if we as a Nation decide to wage War....then we as a Nation....should gear up for it....go on a Total War footing. Mobilize the Reserves, start conscription, convert our manufacturing to strictly military goods and only those absolutely necessary consumer goods, enact rationing, and then....focus our every effort on wreaking havoc upon the Enemy whoever and where ever they are.

Here is a video of yesterdays Senate Hearings....actually one small segment.

General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (sounds of spitting heard), was unable to answer the question "What is our Objective for this Attack the President wants us to authorize (or words to that effect)?". His response....."I don't know.".

Kerry, Hagel, and Dempsey made like the Three Stooges yesterday....and they are Obama's A-Team?

Rand Paul's Epic Showdown with John Kerry - Fox Nation (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/03/rand-pauls-epic-showdown-john-kerry)

One key comment by Senator Paul.....he mentions "Not one American has told me they support a Military Attack of any kind on Syria!".

My Democrat Senator's Facebook page had over 500 posts on it....and less than five offered any support for an attack and none called outright for an attack.

The American People are not for this....not at all....it is the Democrat Party Party and the Obama Regime pushing for it. Most Democrats shall vote for the Resolution Authorizing the Attack simply because they cannot bear to see Obama embarrassed over this. He fecked it up when he made the Red Line comments, did not start developing a Coalition, did not take it to foreign leaders, and then Assad opted for the "Or Else" and Obama was caught flat footed between bases. Right now he is doing that old Baseball Run Down thing....and no matter how he tries....he is going to lose....either in Congress or in the eyes of the American People.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 23:23

"General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (sounds of spitting heard), was unable to answer the question "What is our Objective for this Attack the President wants us to authorize (or words to that effect)?". His response....."I don't know."."

SaSless

That is PISS WEAK, No if's or buts about it.

Sorry.

Like you,
"Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?
That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks."

Exactly what I have been saying.

Archimedes

4th Sep 2013, 23:23

SASless - I think I'm right in saying that you don't rate Dempsey as the sharpest knife in the draw, but is there any chance that this might have been a pointed 'I have no idea what it is that the administration is trying to get us embroiled in, Sir, but it will be a CF if you let them'? Or is that too sophisticated a gambit for him? (Genuine question - I've been lax in reading anything about Dempsey)

500N

4th Sep 2013, 23:25

Archi

That is a very interesting question - and how he can get a message
across without contradicting Obama.

Interesting thought.

Like you, I haven't read much about Dempsey.

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 23:29

Read up on Dempsey.....you will find he lacks Wedding Tackle when it would be quite useful for the Troops if he did.

The place for Dempsey and others in the Military to contradict Obama is in very private, secure locations. They should be quite willing to stand up and tell the unqualified truth to Obama. That is their job....to ensure the President makes decisions based upon as much accurate information as possible.

Think about this for a minute.

Due to Budget cuts before Sequestration.....the US DOD made the decision to limit our Strategy of fighting Two Wars simultaneously to just a single War. Add in Sequestration Cuts, that Single War strategy is degraded to some extent.

We are engaged in a War in Afghanistan yet....and despite Obama declaring the War on Terror being over....that "War" continues.

Here we are pushing for an Attack on Syria....which is backed by Iran directly, and Russia directly. Is there anyone who doubts our Attack on Syria will not provoke Iran, Hezbollah, and even perhaps Russia to expand their support of Syria and even for Iran and Hezbollah to attack Israeli and American interests and people?

If this attack provokes and escalation of hostilities in the Middle East....is the US Military capable of responding adequately?

Dempsey of all people in the United States should have been able to clearly lay out the case for the Tactical and Strategic Objectives for this Attack. Even if he did not believe in them himself....he should have been able to articulate the Objectives ....because if you cannot do that....how in the hell do you think you know what you are doing?

No...in my View Dempsey is way out of his water....just as is Hagel and Kerry.

This situation scares me no end.

500N

4th Sep 2013, 23:33

I will.

I have read Wiki which is never a great source for military people IMHO
but provides links.

I notice he command 1 Armoured in Iraq / just as the insurgency took off
as they say did a good job in difficult circumstances.

West Coast

4th Sep 2013, 23:42

I imagine Dempsey is a good soldier. Sucks when your boss is the President and that people hang on every word looking for some hidden meaning or agenda. He has spoken his peace regarding Syria, and it falls in line with what seems to be the prevailing consensus here on the prune. Yet, he has his marching orders and I would imagine he will do exactly what he is told to the best of his capabilities despite his stated misgivings.

I see no need to trample on the General for following orders.

TomJoad

4th Sep 2013, 23:58

"special" relationship"

When the US wants it to be. The rest of the time, fcuk the UK,
we'll do whatever we want regardless of history, law etc.

Falklands being a good recent example.

"And as for us being kicked out of meetings, so what, live with it."

The US will still come up with the same solution, regardless
of British military officers being involved.

Wholeheartedly agree. I cringe whenever our media roll out that horrid platitude. Yes let's work together as we always have on common interests. But it really is time to ditch that meaningless phrase , serves no purpose, actually hinders.

SASless

4th Sep 2013, 23:58

Westy,

Befehl is Befehl!

Read McMaster's book...."Dereliction of Duty".

Now think about this....McCain had put a "Hold" on Dempsey's Nomination for a Second Term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff....but just recently released that Hold so the General can have his second term.

It would appear Dempsey in the recent past was very much against what is being proposed and by saying so ran afoul of McCain....thus the "Hold".

Now....we see Dempsey going with the flow....the "Hold" is off....and we are headed to War.

We, who served in Vietnam were sold out by our Senior Military Leadership....and as far as I am concerned our current generation are not being served much better by the current bunch.

McCain has been pushing for more involvement in Syria.

Until very recently Dempsey was against it before he became for it.

You reckon Vietnam might have turned out for the better if we would have had some Generals that would have refused to obey LBJ's orders and when it came to a crisis.....looked LBJ in the eye and tell him...."Mr. President, that is not an order I can carry out and live with myself afterwards....get yourself someone else....I Resign!". How many would it have taken before he did find someone....and how long would it have taken for the Media and his opposition to catch on to what was happening.

The way I see it....Martin Dempsey is in exactly that situation and he opted for four more years as Chairman....just as the Vietnam era Chiefs did.

McCain calls Dempsey's warning against attack on Syria 'disingenuous' | JPost | Israel News (http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/McCain-calls-Dempseys-warning-against-attack-on-Syria-disingenuous-321858)

500N

5th Sep 2013, 00:03

SaSless

I know this is the upper echelons of the US mil but frankly,
if I was President, I would want someone who would speak
their mind and say what is what without fear and then once
i had made a decision, carry it out.

If you have a Chairman who is afraid to speak his mind,
then i reckon you are not getting the best advice.

Yes, their are ways to do it and some do it better than others
but it still needs saying.

Just my HO.

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 00:15

No doubt it's a tough job, part of wearing a uniform is being a chameleon and Dempsey is stuck doing that. He has spoken in public about his misgivings, something that I would think cost him some political capital.

Really doesn't matter what you or I think of him. He is the man wearing the uniform and helping to shape the response for better or worse. We can work within that reality or bitch about some theoretical path under some other JCS.

I'm usually with you SAS, but I'm not going to trample on Dempsey. I've heard less than stellar things about McMaster as well, I believe the egos at the 3-4 star level make for some ugly politics that make the belt ways games look childish. I recognize heaping praise on someone doesn't sell books, crapping on someone does.

Airborne Aircrew

5th Sep 2013, 00:17

Broadsword:

Self-appointed forum president for life are we, AA?An entirely predicable response... Ignore the subject matter completely, just go for the man... I applaud your scintillating intellect... :rolleyes:

West Coast:

I imagine Dempsey is a good soldier.I'm sure Dempsey was a good soldier. The problem with good soldiers is that they end up getting promoted to a point where their future can be controlled by pricks of enormous magnitude. By which time they have so much invested in their lives and careers that they can rarely do anything but follow the direction of their craphead civilian "leaders". Sad, but an honest interpretation of reality...

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 00:21

AA

Give me specific, unbiased, credible evidence and I'll reconsider. He has said this isn't a good direction to take. What would you have him do? What else can a JCS do within the powers they have?

Airborne Aircrew

5th Sep 2013, 00:40

West:

I can say "This is stupid, the administration are idiots and this course of action must not be taken". I can also say "This action is not a good direction to take"...

Where I JCS which do you think I'd say to protect my future? Which do you think I'd say if I were several layers down the totem pole with less reliance and investment in the system?

No "evidence" is needed. The guarded phraseology says it all...

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 00:45

AA said:
An entirely predicable response... Ignore the subject matter completely, just go for the man... I applaud your scintillating intellect...

I believe I was discussing the subject matter when you butted-in with your personal insults and your declaration that you speak for the entire forum. Some might say your behaviour mirrors that of a delusional hypocrite. I, of course, would never suggest such a thing.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 00:50

Broadsword

The mods are getting very hot about personal attacks.

Argue the point, not the man is all I can say having learn't
from previous mistakes !

10Watt

5th Sep 2013, 00:52

Certainly the Great British Public seem to have spoken out this time -

and nobody enjoys a good punch up more than us given half a chance.

My gut feeling is that we so mistrust well shod, smug, public ( privately

educated ) schoolboys who have never earned a quid/buck in their lives

that intervention won`t happen.

Look at Tony Blair, a middle east peace envoy - don`t laugh - who

as British P.M. took us to war with lraq on the strength of WMD that

could strike us within 45 minutes.

When in reality sometime later he moved into a £6 million home in

the centre of the target area. Not bad on £140k/yr.

These money people must think we`re stupid.

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 00:53

AA

How do you know that behind closed doors he hasn't pressed a stronger argument? With all due respect you don't.

Behind closed doors is the appropriate method for a subordinate to provide his or her's unvarnished opinion. He would never have the access to anyone above a janitor to help shape policy if he was bombastic. Should he even try, the focus is then on the personality conflict and the issue is lost in the noise. Followed quickly by his desire to retire to spend more time with the family.

Commando Cody

5th Sep 2013, 00:54

500N:

That's the way it should be, but in modern day Washington that's not the way it is. There are all too many who are so convinced of their own magnificence that they simply are not interested in hearing any opinion or information that does not agree with their pre-conceived notions. In fact in some cases they can't even conceive of how anyone could not agree with them. In other cases, they feel that since they're the smartest person in whatever room they're in, by definition there's no point in anyone else having any other views. And there're always those that feel it's their subordinates job to agree with them so there's no reason to consult with or explain to them.

Maybe Gen. Dempsey is just being honest.

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 00:58

500N

Thanks for the tip. Fixed.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 01:00

I understand where you are coming from.

Respect has a lot to do with it and how you interact.

"And there're always those that feel it's their subordinates job to agree with them so there's no reason to consult with or explain to them."

I think it was Stormin' Norman who said in his book when he became
a Brig General, "once you become a Brig General, your sense of humour
improves markedly" :O (As in everyone laughs at your jokes !)

NutLoose

5th Sep 2013, 01:08

I still think this is all a road to disaster,
It's ok Obama saying we need to do this to discourage terrorists using chemical weapons etc, but that begs the question, if in the future a suicide terrorist used the damn stuff say in Washington, then what, trace where he / she came from and then bomb that city / country?
The nutters in Tokyo that dispersed Sarin in the underground, what do you do there?
It's alright saying we will go after a Country to stop the proliferation, but how does that work when you have a couple of nutters and terrorists involved?

I watched Obama in Sweden saying the international credibility as well as America's and Congress's credibility is on the line, he looked like he was trying to convince himself.

..

Airborne Aircrew

5th Sep 2013, 01:16

West:

Should he even try, the focus is then on the personality conflict and the issue is lost in the noise. Followed quickly by his desire to retire to spend more time with the family.

We are actually agreeing here... But I see it as a problem that if he makes noise it is automatically seen as a personality conflict rather than what it truly is. That being a man who has devoted his life to war and the making of such telling a career, (albeit a very short career), politician who shuns the military that his ill advised "plans" are bull$hit. O'Bummer may be "Commander-in Chief" but in reality he's being a schoolyard bully with a Chicago gang backing him up and even the gang can see the Emperor has no clothes.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 01:19

And someone like Obama needs MORE frank advice than most pollies
who have never served in the military.

Just my HO.

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 01:28

AA

Again, how do you know he hasn't in anything but clear language expressed his opinion about his opposition in private to the President and his leadership? He has in public, it would follow he was behind closed doors as well.

If the President says thanks for your input but shut up and give me targeting options, he gives him targeting options or he retires on the spot.

Falling in your sword is the only way forward. Anybody who has a boss understands you win some and you lose some. Granted the stakes are higher, but the fundamentals remain the same.

I don't like the President much, but he and other leaders should have the expectation that subordinates wil act in an expected manner. In addition to being the appropriate path, it's the one that offers the advantage that his counsel is considered.

NutLoose

5th Sep 2013, 01:33

Trouble is the do what your told and don't question it attitude didn't work out well for 'itlers mob post war.

When you get to the status of 4 stars you would be a fool not to take onboard their comments and advice, after all a yes man is doing you no favours at all..

..

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 01:43

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 01:45

Westy,

This is not "Business" where it is a financial loss that is the result of wrong headed thinking.

In the Military the Troops have a legal obligation to refuse Unlawful Orders....at the Four Star level you have a Moral obligation to refuse to carry out patently wrong orders.

As I said....if you are given marching orders by the President and you know in your Heart they shall lead to an ugly end.....you stand up, resign on the spot, Salute, do an About Face and march smartly off to clean out your desk on your way home on your first day of Retirement.

As a Four Star you owe it to the Troops to do the absolute right thing even if it means ending your career on the spot.

Otherwise.....the entire house collapses from Rot.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 01:54

And it wasn't that long ago that a British general (Mike Jackson) refused to carry
out Wesley Clarkes order to attack the Russians at the airport.

So it is not unheard of.

Re his speaking out in public, in some ways I think frank and forthright
discussion and in some ways opinions should be held behind doors.

His comment at the hearing, the most diplomatic way of handling it
that he could ? Or as someone said, to send a message ?

Commando Cody

5th Sep 2013, 02:00

Nutloose:

It wasn't 4 stars I was talking about...

Roadster280

5th Sep 2013, 02:01

General Sir Michael Jackson. Not Rose.

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 02:09

Following illegal orders isn't a 4 star issue alone but i disgress. You need to prove this is an illegal order to begin with. That is very much in the air depending on who your favorite politician is. He has a boatload of DoD lawyers available to provide opinion and while not privy to the procedural process I would have to think legally vetting a course of action is standard faire. Anything that's gray is going to fall in the Presidents favor.

I'm sure you see this as illegal, and that's fine. I think we've drug this particular tentacle of the larger argument out as far as it can go.

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 02:23

You did not read the post accurately.

I said the Troops had a legal obligation and the Four Stars....a Moral obligation.

They are hugely different.

Would you have a Four Star not stand up when it was the right thing to do but merely STFU, salute, and carry out those Orders he knew were wrong....and would surely result in grave harm to his troops and his country?

AT this point I do not believe the President has the legal authority to order a military strike against Syria. I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but my understanding of the 1973 War Powers Act and the Constitution, in consideration of the facts of this situation.....the President must seek authority from Congress.

I also question whether Congress can authorize a military strike as envisioned without officially Declaring War on Syria.

That is a separate issue to the what we are talking about. I see Dempsey being in a position that tells him attacking Syria is not the best or correct course of action to take. I also see him realizing 80% of the American People are adamantly opposed to any use of military force against Syria. I would assume, if he does feel the attack is unwise, he has conveyed that to the President in private.

All that being said.....if the Congress refuses the authority....and the President does as he has said he would do.....goes ahead and orders the Attack.....then Dempsey must make the decision I am talking about. Either he believes in what he is telling the President or he does not. If he does....he can only refuse to carry out that order. Whether he gets fired or he Resigns....is the only thing he as to decide really.

By the way what happened to General Ham and that Navy Admiral that got the sudden retirements immediately after Benghazi happened a year ago?

You reckon something along those lines happened?

500N

5th Sep 2013, 02:36

"By the way what happened to General Ham and that Navy Admiral that got the sudden retirements immediately after Benghazi happened a year ago?"

Didn't general Ham try to launch something - ie refused the order to NOT do something to help rescue and his deputy relieved him ?

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 02:41

A PFC humping a -60 over hill and dale has the same moral obligation. You will not convince me otherwise of this point.

But to the meat of our disagreement...

You state you don't know if this is a legal order or not. Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people. Thus I am not going to pass judgement on the good General short of a definitive answer.

If in the face of a clearly illegal order obvious to even to those of us who don't practice law for a living, then yes, I would agree any service member subject to the UCMJ should balk.

Edited to address General Ham, I hope he writes a New York Times best seller, tell all that sends she Clinton into retirement.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 02:47

I thought most US decisions were already run past legal people anyway who pass an opinion.

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 02:51

I would think so as well.

GreenKnight121

5th Sep 2013, 04:00

And The Shrub's* legal advisers told him that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc weren't torture, and that he could wiretap without warrants.

Both were later found by the actual legal authorities in the US to be verboten, and were shut down.

Sometimes your legal people give very bad advice.

* Shrub = small Bush

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 04:15

Who were those legal authorities?

Other lawyers?

500N

5th Sep 2013, 04:17

I thought the lawyers in the military were military lawyers.

I doubt Bushy et al would use them, they would be too black and white
for the pollies and not give them the answer they wanted !!!

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 04:41

Watching the crap that this administration gets away with because of a Media that adores him.....is sheer torture as well! That is not a legal opinion but is just as accurate and unbiased as what the lawyers throw out at us.

West Coast

5th Sep 2013, 04:47

500

Not true.

Department of the Navy, Office of the General Counsel - Attorney & Lawyer Careers (http://ogc.navy.mil/careers/)

high spirits

5th Sep 2013, 06:15

I looked at POTUS body language when he spoke in Sweden. I'm no expert, but he looked very sheepish when he tried to dilute the red line by the ' it's the worlds red line' thing. He looked like he was testing the water as to how that 'line' would be received.

In the immortal words of Blackadder 'He looks as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo'...

Chugalug2

5th Sep 2013, 07:57

re the refusing to obey an illegal order, this is a given in the UK Armed Forces, and I'm sure in the USA ones as well, for all ranks from private to Field Marshal. By definition it has to be your decision, thus you immediately go out on a limb, report the order up your CoC, and await developments.

They will come down fast about your head, and given past precedent in the UK, it will be you that is in the poo and not the superior who issued you the order. Tough! You have done your duty and must now take the consequences. When the order is a life and death one, whether it be about subverting airworthiness regulations or pouring down "limited" TLAMs on another country without Security Council authorisation, you will at least be able to live with yourself in your suddenly leisure filled retirement. Many others at the receiving end of the "limited" action won't.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 08:04

"pouring down "limited" TLAMs on another country
without Security Council authorisation"

Is that illegal ?

What about what Clinton did in trying to kill Osama with TLAMS ?

It raises some interesting questions.

What about Firing 3 Torpedos at the Belgrano ?
(I haven't read the legalistic BS behind this so don't jump on me)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

5th Sep 2013, 08:21

He has spoken his peace regarding Syria

Was that "in our time"?

Sorry; couldn't resist it. :ok:

Chugalug2

5th Sep 2013, 08:57

500N, my point is that it is your decision as to whether the order you receive is legal or illegal and that almost certainly it will be deemed subsequently legal anyway.

As to the Belgrano, given that British territory had been invaded by Argentina it would seem that a de facto state of war existed, though of course no such declaration had been made. Given that its mere presence (and of its escorts) constituted a direct threat to our Forces, never mind Exclusion Zones or Headings, if I had received the order I would have obeyed it. Again, it's a personal decision, it's never easy, which is how it should be. It's called doing your duty, and it's what you're paid for.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 09:01

Yes, I would have obeyed it as well.

Re the Belgrano, I was only referring to no state of war being declared,
I have read both sides and both agree it was OK.

One of the reasons I am not sure the ICC is good for all because
you can be hauled up at a later date !

Sunfish

5th Sep 2013, 09:02

And what happens when Obama jettisons international law? Russia, China and Iran then do likewise...

Iran closes the straits of Hormuz, china issues an ultimatum to Taiwan, Russia deploys an air defence regiment to Damascus and shoves Three armoured divisions towards the Polish border and goes to defcon one. the Black Sea fleet closes the Turkish shore. The Russian supply routes out of Afghanistan are closed and the Taliban get supplied Russian MANPADS.

Are any of you aware from Wikileaks that Americas air superiority is contingent on an absence of MANPADS in terrorist hands? are you aware that any chunk of MANPADS is worth $3000 in cash, no questions asked, at any American establishment around the world?

As for Russian gas supplies to Western Europe, are you aware that the same hip pocket crap about economics deterring war was hauled out before both WWI AND WWII?

"The Russians, Germans French etc. will never go to war because it doesn't make economic sense, their economies are entangled, blah blah" guess what?

There is a great deal China and Russia can do, or as you should know if any of you are commissioned, your charges can make more trouble for you, than you can for them. God help America if they go through with this.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 09:06

Sunfish

Re "are you aware that any chunk of MANPADS is worth $3000 in cash, no questions asked,
at any American establishment around the world?"

Are you saying that you can BUY a Manpad from any US establishment
OR (as I think you are saying) the US will pay $3000 if you deliver to them
a Manpad or part there of ?

Sunfish

5th Sep 2013, 09:20

Via the Wikileaks cables, America has a long standing program to buy up any MANPADS, "surplus to requirements" or time expired, made by anyone, anywhere, to ensure they are kept out of the black market. the figure from memory was $3000 per unit, and bought from anyone, government or individual, no questions asked, just to keep them out of terrorist hands.

To put that another way, everyone knows how ubiquitous the RPG 7 system is. Ever wondered why the same assholes doNt have (much ) access to MANPADS?

To put that yet another way, what happens to RPT aviation if say, ten MANPADS were loose in jihadis hands in Britain?

What happens if Russia and China decide to do a little "rebel supporting" of their own? How do you think Britain would react if a Russian was seen wining and dining members of the real IRA or whatever it's called?

500N

5th Sep 2013, 09:28

It is a good idea of the US.

Aviation would be stuffed.

We have a few 66mm Rocket Launchers on the loose in Aus
that were knocked off by some soldier a few years ago.
I think they have only found 1 or 2 and it shytes the daylights
out of the Gov't that they are still out there.

IF Russia and China do as you say - and I don't think they would,
the West is in serious trouble.

A bit like when Libya sent a heap of Semtex / C4 and Weapons to the IRA.

Onceapilot

5th Sep 2013, 09:37

One should never assume that political leaders are blessed with gifts of common sense. Indeed, almost all seem to be blinded by ego, some twisted form of idealogy and/or self promotion to achieve wealth and status, to the extent that they are unable to resolve moral dilemas that a debating group of intelligent 18 year-olds would make a good stab at.
On another issue, Service personel should be in no doubt about the position they hold in the eye of the "Law". The "Law" is a total ass! You are expected to have total knowledge of LOAC, the Geneva Convention and all laws. It also helps if you are fighting on the winning side and are never captured by your enemy.

OAP

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 09:52

Read up on Dempsey.....you will find he lacks Wedding Tackle when it would be quite useful for the Troops if he did.

Smear tactics. Very noble.

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 10:02

Service personel should be in no doubt about the position they hold in the eye of the "Law". The "Law" is a total ass! You are expected to have total knowledge of LOAC, the Geneva Convention and all laws. It also helps if you are fighting on the winning side and are never captured by your enemy.

It is part of their job to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of LOAC, most of which is based on common sense (e.g. Don't abuse POWs).

500N

5th Sep 2013, 10:11

Onceapilot

We, at least in the Aust Army had quite a few lesson in Geneva,
ROE etc and I know that before the last 10 years of war it was
well covered abut what was what.

Even in the Reserves we had Red and Yellow ROE cards
and we we kicked hard if we moved away from the wording
etc.

Airborne Aircrew

5th Sep 2013, 10:42

Chugs:

They will come down fast about your head, and given past precedent in the UK, it will be you that is in the poo and not the superior who issued you the order. Tough!

It is worth noting that all superiors have a duty not to issue an order to their subordinates that they know to be illegal. I believe the it may also be true in the British military that they must not issue an order they know will not be obeyed but I stand to be corrected on that.

Pontius Navigator

5th Sep 2013, 10:49

It also helps if you are fighting on the winning side and are never captured by your enemy.

OAP

Wise words. We didn't need much imagination had we miraculously survived a nuclear strike, landed in some uncontaminated area, and been asked what our mission had been.

I don't think the bug four would have got you very far. As for sheltering behind the Geneva Convention . . .

I actually think that prisoners in Iraq during GW1 were outstandingly lucky.

racedo

5th Sep 2013, 12:14

As I said....if you are given marching orders by the President and you know in your Heart they shall lead to an ugly end.....you stand up, resign on the spot, Salute, do an About Face and march smartly off to clean out your desk on your way home on your first day of Retirement.

As a Four Star you owe it to the Troops to do the absolute right thing even if it means ending your career on the spot.

Otherwise.....the entire house collapses from Rot.

:D

Worth reposting.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 12:15

AA

"It is worth noting that all superiors have a duty not to issue an order to their subordinates that they know to be illegal. I believe the it may also be true in the British military that they must not issue an order they know will not be obeyed but I stand to be corrected on that."

Not just the UK, Australia as well. Your post reminded me from my training
about the issue of illegal orders to my troops.

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 13:18

The Japanese conducted a limited Air Strike only.....no Boots on the Ground attack a while back at a place called Pearl Harbor as I recall.

I spent the evening watching the Senate Committee hearing that led to the 10/7 Vote. I also watched the Committee debate amendments to the Senate Resolution.

Rand Paul and some others made very good arguments.....Menedez quite plainly is manipulating the process to favor Obama. He tabled an Amendment that would have forced a debate on exactly what powers a President has re initiating Military Attacks and if it is possible to engage in War like activities without Declaring War on the Nation being attacked.

The Democrats very much do not want to go there.....as that would effectively kill this proposed venture by Obama.

https://sphotos-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544897_574061915989263_868212877_n.jpg

Fox3WheresMyBanana

5th Sep 2013, 13:21

"As President Obama argues in favour of a punitive strike on Syria, the issue of the moment in Washington is whether America's credibility and reputation are imperiled. Neil Macdonald says that to talk seriously about American credibility, especially in the Middle East, requires both a disassociation from history and an utter absence of irony.":D:D:D

Obama's indecision on Syria strains U.S. credibility: Neil Macdonald - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/04/f-vp-obama-congress-syria-missile-strike-neil-macdonald.html)

Lonewolf_50

5th Sep 2013, 14:17

The general contempt for international law here suggests a rather disturbing trend. One can only hope this attitude predominates only among jaded veterans and is not prevalent among those still serving, especially those with any sort of command responsibility.
You need to understand, Broadsword***, that International Law is only as good as the norms it grows from, and its enforcement, like any other body of law. It's a bit less clear than the local statute against dumping hazmat in the local reservoir. Sadly, since you don't understand that, you seem to have put "international law" up on a pedastal in an ivory tower. Of course you are going to be disappointed ... you've set yourself up for it. Some people are under fewer illusions about what international law is, and how it gets established or followed.

Neil Macdonaldof the CBC
More than two years ago, Obama and his officials began declaring that Assad must go. Now, fearing who might come next, “regime change” in Syria is out, and “containment” is in. Any military strikes will somehow be limited to deterring use of chemical weapons without influencing the outcome of the civil war — as though such a thing is possible.
He put his finger right on the G spot there ...
He then goes on to endorse the idea that America must accept the Muslim world's blame for the Crusades, and all other colonial malfeasance in the Mid East by the west's varoius powers, as a valid guilt by association.

Well, **** him, and **** every cnut who takes that position.

I don't blame the Egyptians for what Saddam did to the Kurds, because I am not an idiot. I also don't blame the Ayatollah today for what the Persians did to the Greeks back before Alexander's time, because, again, I am not an idiot.
But America singles itself out. And, of course, so did Barack Obama. He was going to be so different. It would appear he’s not.

Whilst I appreciate Neil's frustration with American exceptionalism, since I guess it makes his Canadian dick smaller (???), even though that very principle has been an immense benefit to Canada since about 1917, and a lot of the world thanks to American Exceptionalism's influence on the UN being started, sustained, and funded for about 70 years ... **** him again.

Neil wrote a pretty good article, and a good critique of the policy fubars currently in progress. That he could not contain his less brilliant feelings is unfortunate, but not fatal.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

5th Sep 2013, 14:34

But in a region where people remember the betrayal of the Sykes-Picot agreement as though it was yesterday (Great Britain and France secretly carved up the Middle East between them after World War One), and regard the Crusades as though they happened last week, it is the long history of American and other Western actions that burdens the U.S.

Lonewolf I disagree about this implying it was all the US's fault. That the muslims blame us for everything is a burden. Sykes-Picot, propping up the Shah of Iran, Invasion of Iraq etc was 'our' fault, but I don't read this as Neil saying it was all our fault.

Lonewolf_50

5th Sep 2013, 14:37

Fox:
As I read it, he's saying that the blame from there to here, directed at America, to be expected and valid. I don't buy it any more than I buy the idiot line popular around 2002/2003 that somehow Saddam was complicit in 9/11.

The opinions of the ignorant ought not be endorsed, nor apologized for.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

5th Sep 2013, 14:48

I agree about the "expected", but not the "valid".
I do, however, accept your interpretation as possible. Do we know his views from other articles? I'll have a check sometime in the next few days.

Lonewolf_50

5th Sep 2013, 14:51

For all my nagging, his article is a good one, in terms of his policy critique.
As I said, he more or less hit the G spot on that one.

air pig

5th Sep 2013, 15:37

After watching Sky News early this afternoon of the truck drivers being slaughtered on the grounds of not being the right sect of this terrible religion (not shown due to sensitivities) but seen by Sky's foreign editor Tim Marshall, to my opinion the only answer is nuclear weapons, lots of them in a lillypad formation.

Kill this now before it spreads otherwise this will happen for years and spread like a cancer, and the only way to kill cancer is cut it out, burn it with radiation or poison it, otherwise it kills you.

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 15:56

We discuss Obama's speeches and pressers and what message they are sending......should we not be paying attention to what Putin is saying....and not saying!

Putin calls Kerry a liar on Syria (http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/05/obama-kerry-putin-syria-russia-g-20/2769683/)

Heathrow Harry

5th Sep 2013, 16:02

Of course there are a lot of "undecideds" - these are people who will have to be "incentivised" to come and vote - a bridge here, an airbase saved there, a special tax exemption for green widget makers in another place...........................

Chugalug2

5th Sep 2013, 17:48

AA:-
It is worth noting that all superiors have a duty not to issue an order to their subordinates that they know to be illegal. I believe the it may also be true in the British military that they must not issue an order they know will not be obeyed but I stand to be corrected on that.
Not sure about the last point, AA, other than the futility of giving such an order. As to the former, absolutely correct. It is an offence under UK Military Law both to give and to obey an illegal order.

Catch 22 then applies though, as the higher the rank of the officer issuing the order, the more likely that upon review it is declared legal by his superiors. In the UK that likelihood approaches 100% at or above 2* level. Does that make any difference to your actions? It shouldn't, and that is why everybody in the armed forces should rehearse their own response to receiving a clearly illegal order.

A previous poster said that it was mostly a matter of common sense, ie just don't shoot POWs. If only! Many of the airworthiness threads here centre around the infamous order issued to an IPT team member to ignore the mandated airworthiness regulations (that it was their duty to comply with) but to sign them off as complied with anyway, ie "just" paperwork. Those threads account for 62 deaths in airworthiness related aircraft accidents. That order has been confirmed as legal by succeeding Air Officers, Senior CS's, Ministers and SoS's. It was issued by an RAF 2*. It has been referred to both the Civil and Service Police. No action has been taken. That is what you could also face. A moral as well as a legal dilemma indeed.

Oh, as has also been pointed out, if you take the easy way out and simply obey such an order you might then have to face the ICC, as it lies outside of the all encompassing malevolent shadow of the MOD.

The Frost-Nixon interview has been re-aired on UK TV recently, following the death of David Frost. In it, the latter puts it to President Nixon that he issued an illegal order. "Ah, but if it is issued by the President then it is legal", was the response. It seems that in retrospect he was greatly in error.

downsizer

5th Sep 2013, 18:18

Wow, a connection between a secterian civil war and UK mil airworthiness. Almost like a Godwins Law of pprune nowadays....

Chugalug2

5th Sep 2013, 18:25

Wow, indeed, when the stove pipes get to be kicked down. Airworthiness seems at least to share one thing in common with International Law among some who post here though. Contempt!

Pontius Navigator

5th Sep 2013, 18:30

The Japanese conducted a limited Air Strike only.....no Boots on the Ground attack a while back at a place called Pearl Harbor as I recall.

Not quite sure the point you are making here, I haven't been paying too much attention.

Had they put boots on the ground and succeeded in isolating Hawaii from the Union it would have pushed your forward bases back rather a lot.

Are you suggesting, as I read it, that failure to put boots on the ground ultimately led to failure? Not to put boots on the ground in Syria . . .

OTOH you did put boots on the ground in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lonewolf_50

5th Sep 2013, 18:41

Pontius, what do you mean by boots on the ground in re Iran? If you are referring to the Desert 1 raid, that has BFA to do with anything like Pearl Harbor or Viet Nam. It was a raid/rescue mission. Let's stick with apples to apples, if you please.

Pontius Navigator

5th Sep 2013, 19:01

OK, pushing the point, but what do you think SASLess meant?

Easy Street

5th Sep 2013, 19:39

I thought I was being tongue-in-cheek when I pointed out that we should expect the same from the Islamic world in its 1434th year as we behaved in AD 1434... perhaps AD 1634 is more like it. A good blog by Anatole Kaletsky on Reuters - "Syrian intervention invokes Europe's history" (http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2013/09/05/syrian-intervention-invokes-europes-history/).

Which brings us back to possible parallels with Europe’s Thirty Years’ War. Why did a war apparently motivated by religious differences — not only between Catholics and Protestants but also between Protestant Lutherans and Calvinists — kill more people in Europe than previous conflicts caused by economic interests and territorial disputes?

Partly because religious fanaticism can inspire hatred, legitimize violence, turn cruelty into self-righteousness and devalue the lives of unbelievers. But probably more important was the way that religion could disguise the true motivations — economic, territorial or dynastic — of outside interests exploiting the anarchy in central Europe for their own gains. What prolonged the religious wars in Europe for so many decades was not just spiritual fanaticism. It was the persistent intervention of external powers — Austria, Spain, France, Sweden, the Papacy, Turkey and Denmark — that found irresistible opportunities to fight proxy wars on German territory, instead of their own land.

These external powers created an unstoppable war machine, by feeding in mercenaries, money and weapons into the collapsing German principalities long after their domestic human and economic resources were exhausted. Without external support, the feeble German princes might have fought themselves to a standstill in years or perhaps even months, rather than decades — and would have found it physically impossible to keep fighting after so many of their citizens had been killed. But as long as the money and mercenaries from Madrid, Paris, Vienna or Rome kept flowing, the killing just went on and on.

It was only after all the great powers of Europe had gone bankrupt, that the fighting in Germany gradually subsided and the Peace of Westphalia was agreed. Meanwhile, England, the one major nation that stayed out of the conflict, emerged as the world’s dominant economy and superpower.

It is better to learn from history than to repeat it.

Incidentally, the Peace of Westphalia was the first time that a multilateral diplomatic negotiation had brought about regional peace, and marked the point at which national boundaries in Europe began to reflect the demographic realities rather than the wishes of the ruling emperors. Clearly those boundaries were subject to some to-and-fro over successive centuries but they have broadly stuck. Hopefully we won't have to wait another 200 years for something similar in the Middle East.

Lonewolf_50

5th Sep 2013, 19:43

Pontius:
I think SASless is singing the same tune McCain sang in the early 1990's in re Bosnia. We had a lot of arguments in the US before we finally put our feet down in 1995, under a NATO flag. IIRC he made the same argument in re Kosovo in 1999, but the infamous "we won it all with airpower" operation went off anyway.

The Japanese follow up to Midway was to have been with troops/boots on the ground, which got queered when their fleet suffered a massive defeat. The Pearl Harbor raid, as predicted by Yamamoto, provided a brief advantage for Japan, but Pearl remained the hub of the US fleet in the Pacific. Had boots on the ground been a follow up, US fleet hub moving east might have had a serious negative impact on operations, particularly the submarine force's ops and offensives (all crappy torpedoes considered).

As to Syria, as was shown during the Clinton era vis a vis Saddam, and even the Tomahawk launch on Al Q's ops in Afghanistan, 1998, lobbing Tomahawks doesn't tend to solve your problem. It just makes a bunch of stuff blow up. While that by itself isn't a bad thing, it doesn't do what putting bayonets and boots on the objective does.

The Marines and the Army tend to agree on the old adage:
"You can bomb and strafe all day, but until you put boots on the objective, it isn't yours."

EDIT:
The major exception to that is use of nukes, at which point if you nuke the objective, you don't want it, or at least you don't want to occupy it any time soon. :p
EDIT 2:
Easy Street, loved the linked article. Well put. :ok:

Easy Street

5th Sep 2013, 19:54

As to Syria, as was shown during the Clinton era vis a vis Saddam, and even the Tomahawk launch on Al Q's ops in Afghanistan, 1998, lobbing Tomahawks doesn't tend to solve your problem. It just makes a bunch of stuff blow up. While that by itself isn't a bad thing, it doesn't do what putting bayonets and boots on the objective does.

The Marines and the Army tend to agree on the old adage:
"You can bomb and strafe all day, but until you put boots on the objective, it isn't yours."

Of course the Marines and Army agree on that. They would - it doesn't mean it's always the appropriate action. Have we already discarded the Libya example? Blow stuff up from a safe distance until such time as the indigenous boots on the ground can put themselves on the objective. Much cheaper in blood from our point of view - and the treasure all gets recycled into the economy through the missile manufacturers. Afghanistan was going pretty well with just a few western SF on the ground; it was dumping in all the other "boots on the ground" that sent it pear-shaped.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 20:10

Execution of Syrian Army prisoners by Syrian Rebels, the one's the west want to arm and support.

Stripped, bound and shot in the head: Horrifying fate of Assad¿s soldiers executed on camera by Syrian rebels | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2412700/Stripped-bound-shot-head-Horrifying-fate-Assad-s-soldiers-executed-camera-Syrian-rebels.html)

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 20:16

500N,

Those poor guys were lucky.

Way too many times they merely get their heads hacked off.

Both sides are brutal nasty SOB's.....and more than a few of the Opposition have received such treatment after being captured.

There are websites that show plenty of these kinds of acts by both sides.

The International Media do not show them because they are "Too Graphic".

Easy.......just which set of Boots do you want to wind up "King of the Mountain" in this thing?

Assad....the Butcher.....or the Al Qaeda Butchers?

If we do nothing....one side will finally win.

If we stay out of this....at least we don't give the Radical Islamists yet another rallying cry.

500N

5th Sep 2013, 20:19

Yes, I know both sides do it and I didn't mean to infer
that only the Syrian Rebels do it.

I was just using it as an example.

I do look up the videos and watch them occasionally
and they are very brutal.

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 20:31

It is getting ugly over this Syrian thing.....

https://sphotos-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1239008_574460102616111_1523170871_n.jpg

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 20:38

Strange, I heard he'd just grown a pair.

Easy Street

5th Sep 2013, 20:46

Easy.......just which set of Boots do you want to wind up "King of the Mountain" in this thing?I don't particularly want either of them to win. I wasn't advocating intervention in this case - I agree with the Kaletsky blog I posted earlier. Rather, I was pointing out that in cases where intervention is warranted, there are combat-proven options that don't involve our boots on the ground (at least, not in any politically-significant quantity). Just that the Marines and Army don't like to talk about them!

dead_pan

5th Sep 2013, 20:50

Afghanistan was going pretty well with just a few western SF on the ground; it was dumping in all the other "boots on the ground" that sent it pear-shaped.

Fair comment. I never quite understood why we decided to go beyond this first phase, which seemed to be doing the job admirably for next to no investment in blood.

Airborne Aircrew

5th Sep 2013, 20:54

Strange, I heard he'd just grown a pair.

Ahhh... Yes, the old Balls for Brains Syndrome... The dopey old bastard is a 15 year old run by his hormones again... You and him would be mates... :ok:

Pontius Navigator

5th Sep 2013, 21:00

Lone Wolf, what I suspected and we are of like minds then.

Except you need one helluva lot of boots that western powers don't have and the civil populace doesn't want and the host country hates.

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 21:21

Ahhh... Yes, the old Balls for Brains Syndrome... The dopey old bastard is a 15 year old run by his hormones again... You and him would be mates...

Entirely predictable response... Ignore the balls, just go for the man.

Eclectic

5th Sep 2013, 21:31

There are many rebel groups: Syrian opposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition)
Fighting rebels number about 150,000. Many of which are local militias.
The salafists are mainly in Al Nusra and number 6-7 thousand.
However they weren't extreme enough for many and there was a rift.
The jihadist nutters left to for ISIS, which conducts most of the ethnic cleansing type atrocities. They want to create a Sunni Caliphate.
Because the nutters left Al Nusra it became a lot more moderate and became more friendly with the FSA. Against whom it had sometimes been skirmishing.
ISIS will fight anyone who doesn't support their world view.
Then there is YPG in the north trying to create a de facto Kurdish enclave, which the Turks don't want.
There has been a lot of fighting between the YPG and the jihadists. Today the YPG won three villages back.

The ultimate resource for on the ground news (and propaganda) is: https://twitter.com/PicoBee/syria-english-lang-rpts/members

Good explanatory diagram:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTbdKHVCUAEOwG0.jpg:large

Ronald Reagan

5th Sep 2013, 21:38

» Report: China Sends Warships to Coast of Syria Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/report-china-sends-warships-to-coast-of-syria/)

maxred

5th Sep 2013, 21:46

This is now all shaping up rather nicely...

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 21:50

In a related story, China today toughened its rhetoric on Syria, warning President Barack Obama that, “Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price – it will cause a hike in the oil price.”

Perhaps their sincerity would be more convincing if they sent a warning to the gasser-in-chief of Syria.

SASless

5th Sep 2013, 21:53

We made the exact same mistake in Afghanistan we did in Vietnam....and for the exact same reasons....the US Army focused upon Conventional Warfare, structured itself for Conventional Warfare, and Generals who command Corps and Divisions don't want to be left out of the the fight. Thus....large unwieldy units get shoved in to the mix for intra-Army political reasons and not for Tactical or Strategic reasons.

Both Vietnam and Afghanistan were Insurgencies....and when they were being fought that way....were going along in a reasonable manner.

The North Vietnamese did not begin moving main force NVA units south until we started our Troop Buildup and changed the War from a Insurgency to more of a conventional war.

The NVA were doing quite well with their efforts, but if the Americans had promptly and effectively trained and armed the South Vietnamese, and not gotten involved as we did.....it may very well have turned out much differently than it did. We wasted four full years before we got around to building up the Vietnamese Armed Forces.....and sadly when we did....we built them into a mirror image of our own Conventional Force.

If we look to Syria.....if we are to get stuck in there....why not copy the Afghanistan model but keep our conventional units out of the fight.....and stick to Naval, Air, and SpecOps units....and a very strong CIA Paramilitary presence to ensure the Arms and other support gets to the "good" guys in the opposition.

The question now is what are Russia and China going to do....the Russians seem to be matching our Navy ship for ship (less Carriers) and now the Chinese are showing up with a single surface ship (any guess how many Russian and Chinese Submarines are in the area).

This is beginning to turn into a Big Dick Contest.

Airborne Aircrew

5th Sep 2013, 22:04

Broadsword:

Perhaps their sincerity would be more convincing if they sent a warning to the gasser-in-chief of Syria.Where, exactly, is your proof that Assad did anything more than drop a good fart? Show us all, please, this definitive proof that the government of Syria did this. Then sit back and think of the potential consequences of it being the non-government forces having possession of these weapons...

I really hope the three "stars" behind your aggressive nom de plume does not indicate the pinnacle of your career... Your lack of critical thinking implies that your decision making for those beneath you could be less than beneficial for them.

You've shown several times now that you don't really "grasp" the complex issues being discussed here - and several others have pointed it out to you. Can I suggest, for your own mental health, taking that "quiet corner" I suggested earlier...

Just a thought... :ok:

Broadsword***

5th Sep 2013, 22:15

Where, exactly, is your proof that Assad did anything more than drop a good fart? Show us all, please, this definitive proof that the government of Syria did this.

Really? At least with China and Russia, the 'prove he did it' posturing is for geopolitical reasons. What's your excuse?

Airborne Aircrew

6th Sep 2013, 00:43

Really? At least with China and Russia, the 'prove he did it' posturing is for geopolitical reasons. What's your excuse? You're really short aren't you? I ask because most, quite simple stuff, seems to be going far over your head...

My "posturing" is because I don't know who farted... Was it Assad or was it one of the numerous "funnies" that we probably don't want to be associated with? Until you know that teeny little detail you really don't know who to bomb do you? Unless you, the great three star Broadsword, has information you are keeping from us...

Pray tell, oh great one... Illuminate us.... Grant us the benefit of your godlike knowledge...

I think I just found a sandal...Is it Broadsword's? No, his mummy says we should leave him alone - he's a naughty little boy... :rolleyes:

Toadstool

6th Sep 2013, 00:50

So more pieces to the puzzle.

BBC News - UK has new Syria chemical evidence - David Cameron (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030)

IMHO, this actually adds nothing to the debate which is based on one one of the following scenarios:

1. There was no chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
2. The Regime forces used chemical weapons against the rebels.
3. A Regime Commander used chemical weapons against the rebels without the authority of Al Assad.
4. The rebel forces used chemical weapons either by accident or on purpose.

The possibilities and outcomes of these scenarios, again IMHO are:

1. There was a chemical weapons attack in Damascus. The fact that we are awaiting the results from Porton Down or from the UN Weapons Inspectors is almost superfluous. The fact that there was some sort of chemical weapons attack has never really been in doubt. I suppose the US and those clamouring for action are trying to strengthen the case for military action of some sort by building up the evidence piece by piece.
2. This appears to be the stance by those advocating some sort of response against the Al Assad regime. The Germans, who want action but will not act themselves, have evidence of a Hizbollah commander reporting to Iran that Al Assad panicked and ordered this attack in response to attacks against Regime forces in Damascus. Hearsay or more evidence? The French, against all public opinion in France are ready to act with the US. The US are willing to act, partly based on Israeli intercept of a panicked Syrian MOD phone call asking a chemical weapons unit WTF just happened. This could be evidence of Al Assad ordering an attack without the MOD knowing .....or....
3. I imagine that Al Assad would have sole responsibility to order such an attack which makes the rogue officer scenario unlikely. That said, if this was a rogue officer interpreting orders incorrectly, does this make the case for military action against the regime?
4. There are just as many reports out there which suggest that this may have been mishandling of chemical weapons by rebel forces. There are fewer reports which indicate that rebel forces may have used these weapons on purpose.Either way, given this nightmare scenario, how would the world act?

Which ever way you look at it, with the US fleet, Russian fleet and now the possible arrival of a Chinese vessel, things are certainly hotting up. I do not envy Barrack Obama. That said, I certainly don't envy the Syrian people who are the losers whatever happens, unless we actually think that a surgical strike would somehow enable a regime change leading to democratic elections and a peaceful Syria. Somehow I can't see this happening in the short term.