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

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!

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.

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:

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.

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

There are many rebel groups: Syrian opposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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-en...g-rpts/members

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

This is now all shaping up rather nicely...

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

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.

Broadsword:

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:

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:

So more pieces to the puzzle.

BBC News - UK has new Syria chemical evidence - David Cameron

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.

Funnily enough, I don't have access to US classified intelligence material, but clearly it was good enough for Obama's most implacable opponents on the Hill.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll all see it soon enough, once one of your loyal compatriots has slapped it all over Wikileaks.

Broadsword:

Firstly, do try to keep up... I'm English...

It was??? Bugger me... I missed that... I thought America's great leaders are still on holiday and haven't expressed their opinion by vote yet.

You're all a bit out of your depth here aren't you... Don't worry, this is difficult stuff... Sit and watch for a while, you'll get the hang of it... :ok:

I can actually understand why the USA is a bit reticent about handing over their intel, no point letting the world know your capabilities, or they will know where to close those breaches.

The whole thing just seems now to be becoming a willy waving contest to see who's got the biggest without fixing the problem.

Nutloose:

Google "Obama baseball pitch"... Watch him throw a ball and you'll know who will not win the contest you suggest...

Then I can only apologise, to the Americans, for assuming you were one of them.

Strange. I must have dreamt all those news reports of Boehner (the most senior Republican politician in America) and Cantor (the 3rd most senior Republican politician in America) stating they supported Obama's call for military action against Syria.

(Inane smiley goes here.)