that Syrian Civil War is NO JOKE VOL. over 1300 dead after alleged Nerve gas attack

[importfan90000]

when did Assad go from secular to moderate though. Like what was the exact transition. It seems so sudden. Like Ghadaffi's fate.

Assad when he first assumed power in 2000 after the death of his father Hafez Al-Assad. The Western educated and influenced son was seen as a moderate and secular ruler he begin to allow freedom of travel, freedom of press but when the Alawite minority saw that if was effecting the way the old regime had kept an iron grip on its power Assad was influenced to rule with a heavier hand causing him to rule like a dictator so the Alawites could maintain their grip on power. 

 

[wr]

Assad when he first assumed power in 2000 after the death of his father Hafez Al-Assad. The Western educated and influenced son was seen as a moderate and secular ruler he begin to allow freedom of travel, freedom of press but when the Alawite minority saw that if was effecting the way the old regime had kept an iron grip on its power Assad was influenced to rule with a heavier hand causing him to rule like a dictator so the Alawites could maintain their grip on power. 

Could you expand on this a little bit more? I would like to gain more insight on the actual Syrian civil struggle.

 

[tkthafm]

Since when was the FSA made up of secularists ? FSA commanders have stated in countless interviews that they want an Islamic State/Shariah law. FSA is already implementing a "soft" style Sharia in many places in Syria (ex: in/around Aleppo). It's true FSA has had some clashes/disagreements with ISIS/JN and maybe are more 'moderate' than them, but that doesn't mean they are secularist. The only true secularists against Assad are people like the SNC who are a complete joke with no influence on the ground in Syria.

 

[sundoobie]

What will happen when Islamic groups take complete control of the rebellion and overthrow Assad?

What if the US is dragged into another 10 year war?

What if boots are required to secure the country after the American bombing campaign?

What if the FSA disbands and become just another radical Islamic extremist organization whom will impose Sharia law?

What if AQ were the ones that launch the chemical weapons?

What if Iran/Hezbollah attack US interest world wide with suicide bombers in response to the attack on Syria?

What if Black Water type security organizations get kidnapped/beheaded because they were hired by the US to provide security for Halliburton type Corporations there in Syria to rebuild the infrastructure?

What if one of our military jets get shot down due to anti aircraft systems Syria received from Russia?

I can go on and on...

Did you even read the resolution and how vague the objective is?

"change the momentum on the battlefield''

What does that mean? If the momentum doesn't change after 60 days then what? A 30 day extension? After another 30 days... another extension? In Libya, bombing campaigns still required "boots" in the form of Special Operation forces on the ground so I know damn well this Administration is lying about deploying ground troops.

I mean just last year... The Pentagon released a report that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure all the chemical weapons in Syria.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-over-75000-troops-needed-secure-syria-s-chem

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...roops-needed-to-secure-syrian-chemical-sites/

But yah let's just believe that after dropping bombs it's...

View media item 568486

 

[jordanxi45]

What if the US is dragged into another 10 year war?

What if boots are required to secure the country after the American bombing campaign?

What if the FSA disbands and become just another radical Islamic extremist organization whom will impose Sharia law?

What if AQ were the ones that launch the chemical weapons?

What if Iran/Hezbollah attack US interest world wide with suicide bombers in response to the attack on Syria?

What if Black Water type security organizations get kidnapped/beheaded because they were hired by the US to provide security for Halliburton type Corporations there in Syria to rebuild the infrastructure?

What if one of our military jets get shot down due to anti aircraft systems Syria received from Russia?

I can go on and on...

Did you even read the resolution and how vague the objective is?
What does that mean? If the momentum doesn't change after 60 days then what? A 30 day extension? After another 30 days... another extension? In Libya, bombing campaigns still required "boots" in the form of Special Operation forces on the ground so I know damn well this Administration is lying about deploying ground troops.

I mean just last year... The Pentagon released a report that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure all the chemical weapons in Syria.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-over-75000-troops-needed-secure-syria-s-chem

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...roops-needed-to-secure-syrian-chemical-sites/

But yah let's just believe that after dropping bombs it's...

View media item 568486

GAME. OVER.

/thread.

Lock this up Mods!

View media item 10351

 

[rillo561]

you play chess? a pawn that just helped you advance in one move, may be the same pawn you have to sacrifice in the next

Right, so it was never about the human rights. Like we're all lead to believe. Or even the use of CW.

 

[createdestroy]

secular = moderates
islamists = extremists

at least in this context.

But Syria was considered pretty secular compared to other states up until the past few days.

Secular dictator being overthrown by secular rebels... who have been infiltrated/joined by islamic extremists.....

I think that's the core issue in Syra.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

you play chess? a pawn that just helped you advance in one move, may be the same pawn you have to sacrifice in the next

Right, so it was never about the human rights. Like we're all lead to believe. Or even the use of CW.

We're in a different age now. Its crazy what 10 years can do. People see right through the smoke and mirrors.

 

[importfan90000]

What if the US is dragged into another 10 year war?

What if boots are required to secure the country after the American bombing campaign?

What if the FSA disbands and become just another radical Islamic extremist organization whom will impose Sharia law?

What if AQ were the ones that launch the chemical weapons?

What if Iran/Hezbollah attack US interest world wide with suicide bombers in response to the attack on Syria?

What if Black Water type security organizations get kidnapped/beheaded because they were hired by the US to provide security for Halliburton type Corporations there in Syria to rebuild the infrastructure?

What if one of our military jets get shot down due to anti aircraft systems Syria received from Russia?

I can go on and on...

Did you even read the resolution and how vague the objective is?
What does that mean? If the momentum doesn't change after 60 days then what? A 30 day extension? After another 30 days... another extension? In Libya, bombing campaigns still required "boots" in the form of Special Operation forces on the ground so I know damn well this Administration is lying about deploying ground troops.

I mean just last year... The Pentagon released a report that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure all the chemical weapons in Syria.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-over-75000-troops-needed-secure-syria-s-chem

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...roops-needed-to-secure-syrian-chemical-sites/

But yah let's just believe that after dropping bombs it's...

 

Doing nothing will virtually guarantee a win for the Islamist militants, it will make sure chemical weapons fall into militant hands, at that point it virtually guarantees a response from world leaders to react militarily leading to your first scenario a long drawn out conflict and private security companies in any rebuilding effort. Failure to aide FSA will virtually guarantee their defections to Islamic groups creating a full fledge Islamic insurgency that is well armed and trained to oust Assad. 

Iran and Hezbollah are not the perpetrators behind any of the suicide attacks in the west, those are all perpetrated by the Sunni supported Al Qaeda affiliates, Hezbollah attacks suicide or otherwise is directed against Israel which have a great anti-terror capacity due to their experience with suicide terrorism. 

As you know the War Power resolutions Act of 1973 limits troop commitment for troops for 60 days and most withdraw in 90 days if Congress does not authorize a resolution or declare war. So at most Obama given Congress disapproval for action can wage war for 90 days. Most sources already say that US covert assets are already on the ground in Syria. 

The Military is constantly updating the attack strategy and we do have the ability to use bombers to fire from standoff ranges well outside of the Syrian Integrated Air Defense Network. As well as VLS launch systems on our ships and subs enable US assets to fire far from ever facing hostile action from regime forces.

In 2003 the Bush Administration using shoddy intelligence declared war on a dictator who rule was ruthless but stable, not understanding  nor planning for the consequences of inciting the sectarian civil war that would ensue to fill the gap left by Saddam. US conventional forces indeed won a tactical victory hence the Cowboy reaction of "Mission Accomplished" but suffered a strategic defeat in that Sunni and Shia elements suppressed for decades by the Hussein regime suddenly begin to compete in the power vaccum left by Saddam with US troops caught in-between the crossfire. 

In Syria the battle lines are already drawn and the forces that will fill the gap left by Assad is already on the field, there are ways to tip the odds without committing ground troops, By striking at Assad War capabilities and covertly using gulf allies to train a well armed and well equipped secular force.

Either way we respond the problem is not going away, it will just get bigger. The administration will launch the missiles strikes but also needs to support indirectly the arming and training of secular forces. There are always what ifs but to do nothing is not an option now. 

 

[deepinthajeep]

^
Well said, sir.

 

[rustlenomics]

the US will do nothing until something happens that threatens israels interests in syria.

 

[Chiron]

 
Doing nothing will virtually guarantee a win for the Islamist militants, it will make sure chemical weapons fall into militant hands, at that point it virtually guarantees a response from world leaders to react militarily leading to your first scenario a long drawn out conflict and private security companies in any rebuilding effort. Failure to aide FSA will virtually guarantee their defections to Islamic groups creating a full fledge Islamic insurgency that is well armed and trained to oust Assad. 

Iran and Hezbollah are not the perpetrators behind any of the suicide attacks in the west, those are all perpetrated by the Sunni supported Al Qaeda affiliates, Hezbollah attacks suicide or otherwise is directed against Israel which have a great anti-terror capacity due to their experience with suicide terrorism. 

As you know the War Power resolutions Act of 1973 limits troop commitment for troops for 60 days and most withdraw in 90 days if Congress does not authorize a resolution or declare war. So at most Obama given Congress disapproval for action can wage war for 90 days. Most sources already say that US covert assets are already on the ground in Syria. 

The Military is constantly updating the attack strategy and we do have the ability to use bombers to fire from standoff ranges well outside of the Syrian Integrated Air Defense Network. As well as VLS launch systems on our ships and subs enable US assets to fire far from ever facing hostile action from regime forces.

In 2003 the Bush Administration using shoddy intelligence declared war on a dictator who rule was ruthless but stable, not understanding  nor planning for the consequences of inciting the sectarian civil war that would ensue to fill the gap left by Saddam. US conventional forces indeed won a tactical victory hence the Cowboy reaction of "Mission Accomplished" but suffered a strategic defeat in that Sunni and Shia elements suppressed for decades by the Hussein regime suddenly begin to compete in the power vaccum left by Saddam with US troops caught in-between the crossfire. 

In Syria the battle lines are already drawn and the forces that will fill the gap left by Assad is already on the field, there are ways to tip the odds without committing ground troops, By striking at Assad War capabilities and covertly using gulf allies to train a well armed and well equipped secular force.

Either way we respond the problem is not going away, it will just get bigger. The administration will launch the missiles strikes but also needs to support indirectly the arming and training of secular forces. There are always what ifs but to do nothing is not an option now. 

First we don't know that islamist militants don't already have access to chemical weapons. If they do... Now what? Who cares!? They kill people with them, they kill people without em. 

If WORLD leaders want to take action over that. that's fine. Let the WORLD handle it, lets not have the US leading the charge all the time. Oh wait.. Russia and China aren't interested. That statistic that get's thrown around so often, "The US spends more than the next 10 -14 to countries combined" is laughable at this point. It might an intimidating statistic but the other countries can laugh at it because our economy is still in shambles and when something goes wrong abroad they all play the "I left might wallet at home. You got me?" card.  (While they enjoy socialized health care and free post secondary education.) 

Doing nothing is very much an option, considering the financial situation we're in. We don't have money to blow.... up. Missiles ain't free B.

 

[createdestroy]

What if the US is dragged into another 10 year war?


What if boots are required to secure the country after the American bombing campaign?


What if the FSA disbands and become just another radical Islamic extremist organization whom will impose Sharia law?


What if AQ were the ones that launch the chemical weapons?


What if Iran/Hezbollah attack US interest world wide with suicide bombers in response to the attack on Syria?


What if Black Water type security organizations get kidnapped/beheaded because they were hired by the US to provide security for Halliburton type Corporations there in Syria to rebuild the infrastructure?


What if one of our military jets get shot down due to anti aircraft systems Syria received from Russia?


I can go on and on...


Did you even read the resolution and how vague the objective is?

What does that mean? If the momentum doesn't change after 60 days then what? A 30 day extension? After another 30 days... another extension? In Libya, bombing campaigns still required "boots" in the form of Special Operation forces on the ground so I know damn well this Administration is lying about deploying ground troops.


I mean just last year... The Pentagon released a report that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure all the chemical weapons in Syria.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-over-75000-troops-needed-secure-syria-s-chem

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...roops-needed-to-secure-syrian-chemical-sites/


But yah let's just believe that after dropping bombs it's...


 

Doing nothing will virtually guarantee a win for the Islamist militants, it will make sure chemical weapons fall into militant hands, at that point it virtually guarantees a response from world leaders to react militarily leading to your first scenario a long drawn out conflict and private security companies in any rebuilding effort. Failure to aide FSA will virtually guarantee their defections to Islamic groups creating a full fledge Islamic insurgency that is well armed and trained to oust Assad. 

Iran and Hezbollah are not the perpetrators behind any of the suicide attacks in the west, those are all perpetrated by the Sunni supported Al Qaeda affiliates, Hezbollah attacks suicide or otherwise is directed against Israel which have a great anti-terror capacity due to their experience with suicide terrorism. 

As you know the War Power resolutions Act of 1973 limits troop commitment for troops for 60 days and most withdraw in 90 days if Congress does not authorize a resolution or declare war. So at most Obama given Congress disapproval for action can wage war for 90 days. Most sources already say that US covert assets are already on the ground in Syria. 

The Military is constantly updating the attack strategy and we do have the ability to use bombers to fire from standoff ranges well outside of the Syrian Integrated Air Defense Network. As well as VLS launch systems on our ships and subs enable US assets to fire far from ever facing hostile action from regime forces.

In 2003 the Bush Administration using shoddy intelligence declared war on a dictator who rule was ruthless but stable, not understanding  nor planning for the consequences of inciting the sectarian civil war that would ensue to fill the gap left by Saddam. US conventional forces indeed won a tactical victory hence the Cowboy reaction of "Mission Accomplished" but suffered a strategic defeat in that Sunni and Shia elements suppressed for decades by the Hussein regime suddenly begin to compete in the power vaccum left by Saddam with US troops caught in-between the crossfire. 

In Syria the battle lines are already drawn and the forces that will fill the gap left by Assad is already on the field, there are ways to tip the odds without committing ground troops, By striking at Assad War capabilities and covertly using gulf allies to train a well armed and well equipped secular force.

Either way we respond the problem is not going away, it will just get bigger. The administration will launch the missiles strikes but also needs to support indirectly the arming and training of secular forces. There are always what ifs but to do nothing is not an option now. 

 

[wr]

average pricetag on a tomahwk missile is 1.5million. That's per missile.

 

[importfan90000]

average pricetag on a tomahwk missile is 1.5million. That's per missile.

Total inventory for all Tomahawk variants 3,500 total cost of Tomahawk Program 2.6 billion US Total Defense Budget for 2012 695.7 billion. Navy Budget 2012 161 billion.

When you look at relative cost and the capabilities of those missiles esp. the tlam-e block IV to hit targets with pinpoint accuracy using live data fed  from UAVs and satellites, to find it target and send data on it flight to these sources. The missile can also loiter and be redirected inflight to hit an alternative target that give the weapon a huge tactical advantage against moving targets. That a pretty good relative cost for that kind of capability. 

 

[wr]

^that's some hi tech killing

 

[Nike Jordan]

We're not going to war.

 

[rillo561]

average pricetag on a tomahwk missile is 1.5million. That's per missile.

Crazy, money that could be used here.

 

[wr]

We're not going to war.

President Obama Urges Congress to Vote Conscience on Syria, Even If Public Opposed
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...lic-opposed/story?id=20178022&singlePage=true

President Obama today conceded that he could fail to convince the American public to back proposed U.S. military strikes against Syria, but said that members of Congress should vote to approve the action anyway.

"It's conceivable that, at the end of the day, I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," Obama said in response to a question from ABC News during a solo press conference at the conclusion of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

But, Obama said, members of Congress need to consider the lessons of World War II and their own consciences and vote 'yes' to authorize the use of force, even if it means going against the opinion of the majority of their constituents.

"Each member of Congress is going to have to decide if [they] think it's the right thing to do for America's national security and the world's national security," Obama said. "Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you've got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America."

FULL COVERAGE OF THE CRISIS IN SYRIA

A deeply skeptical public remains Obama's biggest hurdle to winning authorization from Congress to use military force against President Bashar al-Assad after he allegedly used chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds nearly six in ten Americans oppose military intervention in Syria, even if chemical weapons were used by the Bashar al-Assad regime.

Obama said he will make his case directly to the American people about the need to act during a televised national address on Tuesday evening from the White House.

SYRIA SCORECARD: WHERE THE HOUSE STANDS

"When there's a breach this brazen of a norm this important, and the international community is paralyzed and frozen and doesn't act, then that norm begins to unravel," Obama said of the longstanding international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons.

"If that norm unravels, then other norms and prohibitions start unraveling, and that makes for a more dangerous world, and that then requires even more difficult choices and more difficult responses in the future," he said.

The U.S. Senate today moved ahead with plans to vote on an authorization for the use of military force, formally putting the measure on the calendar for debate by the full chamber next week. A similar measure has not yet emerged in the House, where aides have said a vote could be delayed several weeks.

Meanwhile, Obama claimed that there was a "unanimous," if private, conclusion among world leaders attending the summit that chemical weapons were used in a Syrian attack on Aug. 21 and that it required an international response. But he said deep division remained over whether any use of force should hinge on United Nations approval.

Russia, which has veto power on the U.N. Security Council, stands staunchly opposed to military intervention in Syria and has blocked all previous attempts at condemnation of Assad's tactics.

Ten countries of the 19 countries participating in the G20 today joined the U.S. in a public statement calling for "strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules." But the signatories, which include Australia, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, stopped short of explicitly approving military force.

"I was elected to end wars and not start them," Obama said. "But what I also know is that there are times where we have to make hard choices if we're going to stand up for the things that we care about. And I believe that this is one of those times."The president said he remains hopeful that public opinion will begin to turn in the coming days, but it remains an uphill climb. Even as White House officials have been making a full-court press to win the support of members of Congress, many lawmakers -- including top Democrats -- point the finger at Obama for not being a better salesman.

"I do think that it would be easier if there was a stronger case being made to the American people," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the L.A. Times today. "People have to really know more about why the president has made this decision."

The White House has asserted the authority to act against Syria even without permission from Congress, and Obama today did not rule out proceeding on his own, disputing comments from deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken, who earlier Friday told NPR that it's "neither his [Obama's] desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him."

"I don't think that's exactly what he said," Obama said in response to a question from ABC's Jonathan Karl.

 

[david bowman]

They keep comparing this to WWII. We didn't go into that war to save Jews. We went in because Japan attacked America. I don't see the comparison.

They ar reaching hard for anything. People are simply against this. Maybe if the economy was good and the lies of Iraq didn't happen... And it was fresh off the gulf war ease. But now? I don't see anything Obama could say.

Plus the rebels aren't exactly pro American. That's probably one of the biggest factors. E

 

[nflowshoe]

The budget already went out for the next fiscal year, and it pretty much looked like a decrease in all military across the board. A lot of contractors/government employees/military members have lost thier jobs due to the cuts. "Work more with less" seems to be the new motto.
If a conflict is about to happen I wonder who is going to fund it?

 

[rillo561]

The budget already went out for the next fiscal year, and it pretty much looked like a decrease in all military across the board. A lot of contractors/government employees/military members have lost thier jobs due to the cuts. "Work more with less" seems to be the new motto.
If a conflict is about to happen I wonder who is going to fund it?

A lot of what these alphabet agencies (CIA, FBI, DEA, etc) run on a 'black budget'. These budgets that are released to the masses are just fodder.

Low level government employees, military member feel the pain, contractors (depending) are fine.

 

[frankmatthews]

Not sure if this has been posted yet but it was a very interesting read imo. Follow the money. Some excerpts:

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government...

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.

Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested? A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.

It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets....The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia.... Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

Up until today, we would have thought that when push comes to shove, Russia would relent. However, with the arrival of a whole lot of submarines in Cyprus, the games just got very serious. After all the vital interests of Gazprom - perhaps the most important "company" in the world - are suddenly at stake.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-16/mystery-sponsor-weapons-and-money-syrian-rebels-revealed

 

[sfc415]

I know I'm making an obvious statement, but it's just @#%@#@ ridiculous how every president is basically the same. This is exactly why I don't vote. Bunch of low lived who don't give a single @#$@ about their own country but will make excuses to "help" others to serve their own interests. The whole voting process is a scam that makes Americans feel like they have a say in how the country conducts its affairs. But hey, Obama wants to invade Syria despite majority of Americans being against it. Who is he serving exactly? Smh

I just know some redneck illiterate NTer will come in and say "then why are you still here? Go move somewhere else"

 

[rocky437]

The president is more informed on foreign affairs issues than the average citizen though