Here it comes: Syria
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would they go after the air bases or just the Air defence systems ?
Of the 22 air bases, take out any joint civilian / military bases
and any that are close to Chemical weapon storages (just my HO),
what does that leave ?
Then the question is, does the US want to only take out equipment
or also Military people ?
My guess would be take out equipment only as much as possible.
Of the 22 air bases, take out any joint civilian / military bases
and any that are close to Chemical weapon storages (just my HO),
what does that leave ?
Then the question is, does the US want to only take out equipment
or also Military people ?
My guess would be take out equipment only as much as possible.
For once the Daily Mail has got it right:-
Immature advisers, moral indignation and the folly of wading into this bloody morass | Mail Online
Immature advisers, moral indignation and the folly of wading into this bloody morass | Mail Online
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"He has VX which is a whole lot worse. Maybe he is keeping that for Israel."
In view of the fact that Israel has already conducted a very successful pin point
bombing mission into the far side of Syria with no loss, I really don't think Syria is going to risk incurring the wrath of Israel even if they say they will as they have done.
I don't think Israel would hold back if they did.
They have the aircraft, ability to Jam, skill, weapons, bombs and missiles
and I reckon would turn various parts of Syria and it's military into smoking hulks without skipping a heart beat.
Just my HO.
In view of the fact that Israel has already conducted a very successful pin point
bombing mission into the far side of Syria with no loss, I really don't think Syria is going to risk incurring the wrath of Israel even if they say they will as they have done.
I don't think Israel would hold back if they did.
They have the aircraft, ability to Jam, skill, weapons, bombs and missiles
and I reckon would turn various parts of Syria and it's military into smoking hulks without skipping a heart beat.
Just my HO.
Last edited by 500N; 27th Aug 2013 at 08:37.
If he drops anything on Israel, Damascus will be a nice new piece of glass along with the rest of Syria. The Jewish religion and its people have suffered enough in the way of pogroms in the past 100 years, the slaughter of millions in an industrial scale, do you think they would sit back and allow someone to throw Sarin/VX at them.
In the words of the Israeli PM after Operation Yontan in 1982, if we had acceded to the demand s of handing over prisoners, the world would have understood but few respected as it is the world does not understand us but all will respect us. The Israeli state of mind by being surrounded by either enemies or the sea.
Akrotiri movements maybe an APC from the OCU and force dispersal, wouldn't you if the threat from air attack was real.
In the words of the Israeli PM after Operation Yontan in 1982, if we had acceded to the demand s of handing over prisoners, the world would have understood but few respected as it is the world does not understand us but all will respect us. The Israeli state of mind by being surrounded by either enemies or the sea.
Akrotiri movements maybe an APC from the OCU and force dispersal, wouldn't you if the threat from air attack was real.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Washington Post: Syria will require more than cruise missiles
Eliot A. Cohen teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He directed the U.S. Air Force’s Gulf War Air Power Survey from 1991 to 1993.
Eliot A. Cohen teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He directed the U.S. Air Force’s Gulf War Air Power Survey from 1991 to 1993.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eclectic
You keep repeating that statement, but as
it must be true, right? The WH have never lied to the world over their reasons for attacking other countries.
Now I'm really intrigued about your postings. Do you actually believe what you post or are you simply working to an agenda?
I do like the clipping you posted though.
The simple fact is that Assad has been using Sarin, white phosphorous and Scud missiles against civilians since March. All illegal. He must be suprised that the West has suddenly taken notice.
The White House said
Now I'm really intrigued about your postings. Do you actually believe what you post or are you simply working to an agenda?
I do like the clipping you posted though.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask, what is the difference between kids getting gassed to death by either party and kids being shelled to death by either party?
Its the same outcome, why the moralistic line in the sand just because chemical weapons have been used?
Seems a little bit timely all of this, the west stepping in just as Assad is taking the upper hand. All we will end up doing is delaying the stalemate. More death, more suffering.
Its the same outcome, why the moralistic line in the sand just because chemical weapons have been used?
Seems a little bit timely all of this, the west stepping in just as Assad is taking the upper hand. All we will end up doing is delaying the stalemate. More death, more suffering.
I just want to see some proof that the chemical attacks were ordered by the Syrian government. I haven't seen any proof yet - just lots of assumptions and brash statements by western governments, whipped up by some press outlets.
Also, I would like to see what the objectives of any action are, and what planning for the aftermath is in place.
Also, I would like to see what the objectives of any action are, and what planning for the aftermath is in place.
So, Call-me-Dave is drawing up military options, we hear...
Perhaps some surveillance Nimrods to Souda or Akrotiri and Invincible with Sea Harriers in the Eastern Med.....
Perhaps some surveillance Nimrods to Souda or Akrotiri and Invincible with Sea Harriers in the Eastern Med.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Cameron, Hague, Hollander and Obama do engage in military action I hope they will all be removed come the next election, I hope the Democrats lose badly in the midterms, that's about the only way he can be punished!
Shame Cameron and Hague will likely retain their seats as MPs, they do not deserve to! They do deserve to lose power though. Labour are no better what with their war record.
I would imagine Hollander will lose anyhow.
If they do engage in military action without full UN backing they should be arrested and charged with war crimes.
Shame Cameron and Hague will likely retain their seats as MPs, they do not deserve to! They do deserve to lose power though. Labour are no better what with their war record.
I would imagine Hollander will lose anyhow.
If they do engage in military action without full UN backing they should be arrested and charged with war crimes.
Kerry has said more will be revealed in the next day or so.
Suspect the NSA will already know exactly what the inspectors et al have found - and there'll be other intel as well.
Syrian Foreign Minister now live on BBC World saying we didn't do it.
I would have thought they wouldn't want to wait until the end of the week to go in though - Syrian forces and other targets would be too widely dispersed?
R.e outcomes or exit plans - wars aren't like off the shelf products.
"After 90 days, guaranteed to revert to stable two party democracy, or your money back."
Ambiguity/instability is inevitable afterwards.
Suspect the NSA will already know exactly what the inspectors et al have found - and there'll be other intel as well.
Syrian Foreign Minister now live on BBC World saying we didn't do it.
I would have thought they wouldn't want to wait until the end of the week to go in though - Syrian forces and other targets would be too widely dispersed?
R.e outcomes or exit plans - wars aren't like off the shelf products.
"After 90 days, guaranteed to revert to stable two party democracy, or your money back."
Ambiguity/instability is inevitable afterwards.
Last edited by tartare; 27th Aug 2013 at 10:42.
Suspect the NSA will already know exactly what the inspectors et al have found - and there'll be other intel as well.
I doubt that Assad ordered this - he would have far more to lose than to gain. It is possible that some element of Syrian army carried out the attack without authorisation, but it seems that their command and control is still more or less functional so this seems unlikely. I can easily believe, however, that some elements of the opposition may have made this attack in the hope of drawing in western air-strikes on Assad...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alba
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what anyone can do. War is a dirty business, and whoever takes action, people are going to die, that's the nature of the beast. The Arab League won't take any action, Russia is supporting Assad, and arming him, Russia, and China will veto any UN resolution, which leaves the world unable to act. Should the UN manage to pass a resolution, which I think highly improbable, the UK should definitely stay out of it, there are other countries closer to the problem that should be tackling it. I would also say the US and UK do not want to get involved in another war, especially in the Middle East. The cost in human terms, financially, and politically, (both domestically, and internationally),are too much to bear.
As for what kind of military intervention, should this actually go ahead, a difficult question. Syria is not Iraq, and they have a capable air defence network, (though Israel managed to get through it), modern weapons, (supplied by Russia), and motivated troops. Troops on the ground with an invasion would be a very bloody affair, and almost certainly won't happen. A no fly zone enforced by manned aircraft would also be very costly. The only viable solution is using stand off weapons, like the TLAM. You may have noticed in the news recently HMS Tireless surfacing off Gibraltar. Some have commented on it being related to the dispute we're involved with Spain over Gibraltar, I suspect it's more to do with Syria, and showing Assad one of our assets.
Whatever happens, one thing that's guaranteed to happen is innocent Syrians getting killed, by one side or the other, but mainly by Assad.
As for what kind of military intervention, should this actually go ahead, a difficult question. Syria is not Iraq, and they have a capable air defence network, (though Israel managed to get through it), modern weapons, (supplied by Russia), and motivated troops. Troops on the ground with an invasion would be a very bloody affair, and almost certainly won't happen. A no fly zone enforced by manned aircraft would also be very costly. The only viable solution is using stand off weapons, like the TLAM. You may have noticed in the news recently HMS Tireless surfacing off Gibraltar. Some have commented on it being related to the dispute we're involved with Spain over Gibraltar, I suspect it's more to do with Syria, and showing Assad one of our assets.
Whatever happens, one thing that's guaranteed to happen is innocent Syrians getting killed, by one side or the other, but mainly by Assad.
Last edited by Dunky; 27th Aug 2013 at 13:55.
I can't help but feel we are deliberately being drawn into this. The Syrian opposition have been pleading for some form of substantive help for months now, but their confused C2 and hopelessly tangled relationships with various extremist elements have put many western governments off becoming involved. Afterall, nobody wants to spend time hunting down extremists in Afghanistan and other locations around the Middle East only to find you have actually been backing them in Syria.
With that in mind, I do hope the politicians have / will pause for a moment and take a deep breath before committing more military resources we can scarcely afford. If Obama et al have publically put down a very clear red line about the use of CW etc, Assad would have to be daft to do something he knows will attract a response option. He may be a psychopathic dictator, but stupid he isn't. So just who would benefit from a massive CW attack and associated publicity? I'm sure the more extremist elements, along with the exasperated moderate elements wouldn't dream of carrying out such an attack for the good of the cause. Right???
All the press reporting suggests that our Intel agencies have been keeing an eye on Assad's CW stores. But if the opposition includes foreign fighters and AQ linked extremists (Al Nusrah Front / Bde) what is to stop them sourcing a number of CW devices externally and bringing them in country? Who's to say that any CW attack wasn't launced by a renegade commander or possibly one that has defected fomr the Regime?
Trying to apportion blame by finding evidence that can be substantiated to the level of proof likely required to get any form of UN backing will be damn nigh impossible to find. Even if you could find it, there are far too many questions that cast a degree of doubt that need answering.
And assuming, as looks likely from the press reporting today, that a strike goes ahead, to what end? IF a CW attack was carried out by Assad's forces, what will a few TLAMs achieve? On their own, nothing. It won't stop the Air Force flying and even if it did, it won't stop the Army using CW should they decide to do so. To achieve the degree of "protection of the innocents" being demanded by our liberal politicians will require more than a TLAM salvo; it will require a long term commitment to becoming involved in Syria and the losses that will entail. And I don't think the politicians will have the stomach for that once the body count starts mounting. And I don't think they will have the stomach to deal with whatever regime replaces Assad's mob if they topple him.
On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that the various single Service Chiefs, who have seen their Forces slashed in recent years, will be quite happy to argue the case for going in. It shows they are relevant and timely and therefore shouldn't be slashed any further, whilst a few losses, which will probably be deemed acceptable and manageable behind closed doors can be used to justify why they need additional spending.
I had to study a Philosophy module as part of General Studies all those years ago, and in it was described a school of Philosophy (I forget which) that suggested human beings only act out of their own self interest. If you help a little old lady with her bags of shopping across the road, you aren't doing it because it's the right thing to do, you do it because it will make you feel good knowing you have helped, whilst walking on by will make you feel guilty for not assisting. Either way, you help her across the road ultimately for your own emotional benefit. I'm sorry to say that the Syrian opposition is that little old lady. The calls for active involvement in Syria are coming loud and clear from the liberal elements of the political world, those who like to feel good - or should I say don't want to feel guilty. Syria is a mess. Until they want to get round the table and talk the fighting will continue with or without our involvement. We would do well not to be drawn into another military conflict in the Middle East; I can't be alone in sensing that this is all a bit too convenient and elements are trying to draw us in for their own neffarious reasons.
With that in mind, I do hope the politicians have / will pause for a moment and take a deep breath before committing more military resources we can scarcely afford. If Obama et al have publically put down a very clear red line about the use of CW etc, Assad would have to be daft to do something he knows will attract a response option. He may be a psychopathic dictator, but stupid he isn't. So just who would benefit from a massive CW attack and associated publicity? I'm sure the more extremist elements, along with the exasperated moderate elements wouldn't dream of carrying out such an attack for the good of the cause. Right???
All the press reporting suggests that our Intel agencies have been keeing an eye on Assad's CW stores. But if the opposition includes foreign fighters and AQ linked extremists (Al Nusrah Front / Bde) what is to stop them sourcing a number of CW devices externally and bringing them in country? Who's to say that any CW attack wasn't launced by a renegade commander or possibly one that has defected fomr the Regime?
Trying to apportion blame by finding evidence that can be substantiated to the level of proof likely required to get any form of UN backing will be damn nigh impossible to find. Even if you could find it, there are far too many questions that cast a degree of doubt that need answering.
And assuming, as looks likely from the press reporting today, that a strike goes ahead, to what end? IF a CW attack was carried out by Assad's forces, what will a few TLAMs achieve? On their own, nothing. It won't stop the Air Force flying and even if it did, it won't stop the Army using CW should they decide to do so. To achieve the degree of "protection of the innocents" being demanded by our liberal politicians will require more than a TLAM salvo; it will require a long term commitment to becoming involved in Syria and the losses that will entail. And I don't think the politicians will have the stomach for that once the body count starts mounting. And I don't think they will have the stomach to deal with whatever regime replaces Assad's mob if they topple him.
On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that the various single Service Chiefs, who have seen their Forces slashed in recent years, will be quite happy to argue the case for going in. It shows they are relevant and timely and therefore shouldn't be slashed any further, whilst a few losses, which will probably be deemed acceptable and manageable behind closed doors can be used to justify why they need additional spending.
I had to study a Philosophy module as part of General Studies all those years ago, and in it was described a school of Philosophy (I forget which) that suggested human beings only act out of their own self interest. If you help a little old lady with her bags of shopping across the road, you aren't doing it because it's the right thing to do, you do it because it will make you feel good knowing you have helped, whilst walking on by will make you feel guilty for not assisting. Either way, you help her across the road ultimately for your own emotional benefit. I'm sorry to say that the Syrian opposition is that little old lady. The calls for active involvement in Syria are coming loud and clear from the liberal elements of the political world, those who like to feel good - or should I say don't want to feel guilty. Syria is a mess. Until they want to get round the table and talk the fighting will continue with or without our involvement. We would do well not to be drawn into another military conflict in the Middle East; I can't be alone in sensing that this is all a bit too convenient and elements are trying to draw us in for their own neffarious reasons.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No longer a hot and sandy place....but back to the UK for an indefinite period
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well stated Melchett. You have put into some eloquent words exactly what I was thinking!
It seems that the vast majority of the people on this forum totally disagree with any military action by the US or UK.
It seems that the vast majority of the people on this forum totally disagree with any military action by the US or UK.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A letter in the FT from a Mr KN Al-Sabah neatly sums up the problem:
"Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!
Iran is pro-Hamas. But Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!
Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day."
"Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!
Iran is pro-Hamas. But Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!
Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day."
1. Regime member families have been leaving Syria for safe haven in Lebanon.
2. Assad has been dispersing his forces to reduce their vulnerability to attack.
3. Greece has made bases and facilities available to USA forces.
4. Israel preparing for gas attack.
5. The simple fact is that Assad has been using Sarin, white phosphorous and Scud missiles against civilians since March. All illegal.
2. Assad has been dispersing his forces to reduce their vulnerability to attack.
3. Greece has made bases and facilities available to USA forces.
4. Israel preparing for gas attack.
5. The simple fact is that Assad has been using Sarin, white phosphorous and Scud missiles against civilians since March. All illegal.
Point 1. Rats, sinking ship, leaving.
Point 2. He's not stupid.
Point 3. This is not news. There's an organization called NATO.
Point 4. Aren't they always?
Your credibility isn't all that strong. Deliberate use of WP on a civilian concentration ... is that the red line President Obama was talking about? I doubt it, as that hasn't entered the public noise machine ... yet.
VINROUGE:
Can I ask, what is the difference between kids getting gassed to death by either party and kids being shelled to death by either party? Its the same outcome, why the moralistic line in the sand just because chemical weapons have been used?
Seems a little bit timely all of this, the West stepping in just as Assad is taking the upper hand. All we will end up doing is delaying the stalemate. More death, more suffering.
Trim Stab:
I doubt that Assad ordered this - he would have far more to lose than to gain. It is possible that some element of Syrian army carried out the attack without authorisation, but it seems that their command and control is still more or less functional so this seems unlikely. I can easily believe, however, that some elements of the opposition may have made this attack in the hope of drawing in western air-strikes on Assad.
It is not out of the realm of possibility that Assad had one of his local guys do this to send a message to the opposition, the message being: "we have top cover from Russia, we can do what we like, the West won't help you ... so suck on this one." Or words to that effect.
I don't know how realistic that assessment is.
I do think he's getting some under the table support from Putin and his friends, who do like sticking a finger in the eye of Obama. For all of the Americans who dislike Obama, it seems to me that the Russians in general dislike him even more ... and not just because he's the US president. For one, he's seen as soft on Islamist radicals. For two, they don't like his complexion. For three, they've seen him back down when pushed.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 27th Aug 2013 at 13:55.