Syria Gas Attack- What Now?

[RetPara]

I do wonder if the chems are such an issue, Israel haven't fired off some missiles. They're not normally reluctant to act.

Cousin Bashir is not stupid enough to threaten the Israeli's with NBC. The result would probably be mushrooms sprouting. The Israelis did not hesitate to level the Syrian nuke program a few years back. (Odd... I don't recall Syria having a nuke program up through the 90's. I wonder where they got it from....)

 

[pardus]

“Dear Colleague,

“the Assad regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks against innocent Syrians, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children."

best regards,
NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader”

Good job Nancy you demented fuck.

 

[RetPara]

“Dear Colleague,

“the Assad regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks against innocent Syrians, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children."

best regards,
NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader”

Good job Nancy you demented fuck.

They were probably Christians.

 

[SpitfireV]

Cousin Bashir is not stupid enough to threaten the Israeli's with NBC. The result would probably be mushrooms sprouting. The Israelis did not hesitate to level the Syrian nuke program a few years back. (Odd... I don't recall Syria having a nuke program up through the 90's. I wonder where they got it from....)

I was thinking about who- if anyone- that might come into power after him, either through defeat to abdication.

 

[Rapid]

Syria's President Assad referred to President Obama as weak. Obama is so angry he plans to ask Congress for permission to come up with a good comeback.

 

[Scotth]

Why does hurting Russia help us?

The Russians have been far stauncher opponents of Islamic terrorism than we have.
What do republicans gain from kicking a lame duck president? They are assholes anyway.

Your logic is really flawed IMO.
You want to weaken the person, who is under attack from the people, that want his weapons, who are the people, that you dont want the weapons to fall to????????

Assad is winning. Assad will not attack us. Assad is a known factor, leave the cunt alone, at least for now.

@Scotth you are advocating supporting the very enemy WE have been fighting! Al Qaeda! Why don't you get that!?


Add to that, there is NO way we can destroy Assad's chem weapons.

What do you think Putin was trying to do when he said he was going to send ships to the region? Do think he wanted to help us or try to show us down? Russia will continue to go after Islamic Terrorist regardless of what happens in Syria. Better to make the Russian look weak then it is for the US to look weak in any potential confrontations between Russia and the US.

The only thing I have advocated is getting rid of chemical weapons. Yes Assad is an enemy we know and better than the rebels to be in control. I also agree he is winning at this point. Things could change though and even if they don't a chemical weaponless Assad is still a good thing.

Nothing is ever a 100% but just because you can't make something a 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Going after the chemical weapons stock piles isn't going to change the dynamics of the combat between Assad and the rebels.

Again, you overestimate the AMAZING targeting power of airpower alone, with out boots on the ground guidance or target damage assessment. So you want to bomb known sites and forces, degrading both the physical site security and degrade the abilities of the forces guarding the sites, increasing the freedom of movement of terrorist aligned forces in that country. This makes us safer again how @Scotth?

You don't need to put boots on the ground to laze targets. Cruise missiles don't require it and as far as BDA we have a lot of other options for doing that and it doesn't require putting the military on the ground in that country. What is your solution if the circumstance on the ground changes and the rebels start to win and gain control of those sites? What if we do nothing and it was the Assad fighters who used the chemical weapons and because nobody intervened they decide they have the green light to start using chemical weapons even more because the international community won't intervene?

 

[RetPara]

I was thinking about who- if anyone- that might come into power after him, either through defeat to abdication.

I don't know. Bashir only got the job by default. Abdication or defeat would pretty much mean exile for any/the few surviving Assads... Whoever it would be though would NOT be a US ally most likely.

 

[galafinaster]

Woke up to this video in my messages this morning and just thought it would be a good one to share. Makes sense to me.

 

[pardus]

What do you think Putin was trying to do when he said he was going to send ships to the region? Do think he wanted to help us or try to show us down? Russia will continue to go after Islamic Terrorist regardless of what happens in Syria. Better to make the Russian look weak then it is for the US to look weak in any potential confrontations between Russia and the US.

The only thing I have advocated is getting rid of chemical weapons. Yes Assad is an enemy we know and better than the rebels to be in control. I also agree he is winning at this point. Things could change though and even if they don't a chemical weaponless Assad is still a good thing.

Nothing is ever a 100% but just because you can't make something a 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Going after the chemical weapons stock piles isn't going to change the dynamics of the combat between Assad and the rebels.



You don't need to put boots on the ground to laze targets. Cruise missiles don't require it and as far as BDA we have a lot of other options for doing that and it doesn't require putting the military on the ground in that country. What is your solution if the circumstance on the ground changes and the rebels start to win and gain control of those sites? What if we do nothing and it was the Assad fighters who used the chemical weapons and because nobody intervened they decide they have the green light to start using chemical weapons even more because the international community won't intervene?

First of all, Russia has defense treaties with Syrian (IIRC), what do you expect them to do? Hell If I was Putin I'd put Russian boots on the ground at every target the US designates. Have a prepared mini documentary on every Soldier there, so he can show the world the nice loving family man the USA murdered.
I don't understand why you think we have the capability to destroy Assad's stockpiles of chemical weapons.
We announced how long ago that we were going to blow them up so unless every single person in the Syrian govt is a moron, I'm pretty sure they moved them.
So what will we achieve?

We will launch an illegal attack, that will piss off the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, the UN etc...
We won't destroy what we were trying to destroy.
We'll encourage our new besties Al Qaeda.
We'll open ourselves up to years of ridicule/hate.
This will be just like when Clinton used cruise missiles to destroy a dangerous goat in the Sudan and a pile of prime grade camel shit floored tenting in Afghanistan.

 

[DA SWO]

Statement:

You don't need to put boots on the ground to laze targets.

Question: Where does the laser originate from then?

Ans: someone on the ground, or in a plane nearly overhead, which means they are vulnerable to SAM's/AAA.

Cruise missiles don't require it and as far as BDA we have a lot of other options for doing that and it doesn't require putting the military on the ground in that country.

Overhead BDA can be pretty worthless, we will need someone (US or Foreign Agent) going inside the cave/structure to verify. WMD BDA has to be verified by an American or trust worthy ally, do you really want Rebel fighters letting you know if you hit the target?

What is your solution if the circumstance on the ground changes and the rebels start to win and gain control of those sites?

If the Rebels are so nasty, then why assist them at all?

What if we do nothing and it was the Assad fighters who used the chemical weapons and because nobody intervened they decide they have the green light to start using chemical weapons even more because the international community won't intervene?

Let Israel clean house, let the International Community do something. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and I can't recall you advocating an invasion of Iraq, did I miss one of your posts? Should we only invade when a Democrat occupies the White House?

 

[surgicalcric]

What if we do nothing and it was the Assad fighters who used the chemical weapons and because nobody intervened they decide they have the green light to start using chemical weapons even more because the international community won't intervene?

Why are we now concerned with chemical weapon use? The Kurds were gassed for years and no one cared. Honestly I don't give two shits now. Let him gas his people - what difference does it make, outside of someone saying its bad, that Assad kills them with gas or bombs? The "international" community can kiss my Jewish ass. Where is the international community, the one that said its so wrong, when it comes to enforcing it? Why must it be us?

I am still not convinced our intel is any better than it was when the left claimed Iraq didn't have WMDs after the right said they did. Where is the proof the rebels didn't do it?

Furthermore, I don't buy the reasoning that it sends a message to Iran. We let NK have nuclear arms - that was a stronger message than us lobbing missiles into crowded neighborhoods will be. Impotent is what the presidents response is going to be...shot over the bow my butt. Want to send Iran a message, then send Iran a message.

This is about Obama trying poorly to save face.

 

[Marauder06]

G20 begins soon & Syria is a minor item.

Minor to whom? It's the #1 issue in the United States, to the point where it's the lead story on the front page of major periodicals such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Even stories about the G20 talk about Syria "looming over" the conference. There are a lot of people trying to flex their muscles over this, and there are some major, long-term implications for all of us, no matter what is decided.

 

[CQB]

Minor to whom? It's the #1 issue in the United States, to the point where it's the lead story on the front page of major periodicals such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Even stories about the G20 talk about Syria "looming over" the conference. There are a lot of people trying to flex their muscles over this, and there are some major, long-term implications for all of us, no matter what is decided.

It's not so much an issue here, it's being reported & I get why it's the hot topic in the US. Overall the G20 is concerned with economics. Just changing tack slightly, there doesn't seem to be a legal justification.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/05/obamas-plan-for-intervention-in-syria-is-illegal/

 

[CDG]

You don't need to put boots on the ground to laze targets. Cruise missiles don't require it and as far as BDA we have a lot of other options for doing that and it doesn't require putting the military on the ground in that country.

You don't need to, but pilots aren't going to be thrilled about having to sit there and laze a target when there is a legitimate SAM threat. I don't really want to get into specific capabilities on the Net, but there are some pretty amazing things that can be done by a dude lazing on the ground and an aircraft a long ways away from the target area. Cruise missiles are not the answer. Roughly $1M apiece for a TLAM, and it may or may not shack the target. What avenues for good BDA do we have beyond dudes on the ground?

 

[SpitfireV]

I don't know. Bashir only got the job by default. Abdication or defeat would pretty much mean exile for any/the few surviving Assads... Whoever it would be though would NOT be a US ally most likely.

That's exactly what I'm saying. IMO it would be more likely that any stockpiles would be used on Israel rather than the US in a terrorist attack.

 

[Scotth]

Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and I can't recall you advocating an invasion of Iraq, did I miss one of your posts? Should we only invade when a Democrat occupies the White House?

I'm pissing people off and don't want to argue back and forth anymore.

I will address the last part because your starting to go over the top now. You didn't miss my post about the gassing of the Kurds because it happened in '88 and I didn't join the site until '07. But since you raised the issue. Maybe things would have ended differently for the Kurds had the Reagan administration not given Iraq the political cover and the intelligence to help them gas Iranian troops during that war. Remember those picture from back in '83-'84 or so of Dumsfeld going to Iraq in support of Sadaam while he was gassing Iranians? Maybe Sadaam wouldn't have felt the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted had he not known that he had the US in the bag. What was the response to the gassing of the Kurds? Nothing and I wonder how much that response had in Sadaam's belief that he could invade a neighbor without reprisal? Maybe if we would have reined in Sadaam a little more the first Persian Gulf war wouldn't have happened as well as the second one. Who knows what could have been? Maybe we avoid two wars and the lives that were lost. Sadaam would still be an isolated leader and Iraq wouldn't be a proxy for Iran now. We would have a couple trillion dollars less in national debt as well.

If you want to talk hypocrisy we can do that as well. If we go back to my early adult live let me ask you. How many conservatives complained about Grenada or Panama or Somalia when Bush sent the troops in? When Clinton takes office we hear nothing but conservatives complaining about being the worlds police through much of the 90's. Bush comes along and has the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive war and not a peep is heard out of the conservatives mouth in opposition, No WMD in Iraq so we switch our mission to establishing democracy and nation building in the region and not a conservative complaint is heard. Now Obama is in office and conservatives are complaining about a bombing campaign when 5 years ago they didn't have a problem with preemptive war strategy.


Nobody is suggesting invading Syria.

 

[Chopstick]

Hmmm.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...2-75-000-ground-troops-secure-facilities.html

Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.

That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.

'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

'DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn't a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.'

The War Powers Resolution, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late Wednesday on a bipartisan 10-7 vote, includes text noting that it 'does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.'

If President Obama were to deploy ground forces in Syria, the final words of that phrase – 'for the purpose of combat operations' – could become a loophole large enough to drive a Humvee through.

Speaking to the committee on Tuesday as he made the case for a congressional authorization to bomb critical Syrian military sites, Kerry seemed to leave open the possibility that 'boots on the ground' could be marshaled specifically to secure chemical weapons stockpiles 'in the event Syria imploded, for instance.'

 

[Marauder06]

It's not so much an issue here, it's being reported & I get why it's the hot topic in the US. Overall the G20 is concerned with economics. Just changing tack slightly, there doesn't seem to be a legal justification.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/05/obamas-plan-for-intervention-in-syria-is-illegal/

I don't know man, it seems to me like it's being covered pretty well by your media as well. And that story I just linked to, about the G20 summit? Yeah, all it talked about was Syria, not a single word about economics.

But hey, if Syria is NBD in Australia, maybe you guys could go ahead and head up the world's response to the chem weapons thing, and we'll just sit this one out.

 

[CQB]

I don't know man, it seems to me like it's being covered pretty well by your media as well. And that story I just linked to, about the G20 summit? Yeah, all it talked about was Syria, not a single word about economics.

But hey, if Syria is NBD in Australia, maybe you guys could go ahead and head up the world's response to the chem weapons thing, and we'll just sit this one out.

I think everyone should sit it out.

 

[pardus]

China getting involved now?

http://www.examiner.com/article/chinese-russian-warships-and-marines-heading-to-syrian-waters