Damascus preparing for Western military strike: people flee country, military commands relocated

[nong38]

Whether proof of the chemical attack is found or not just sending in some missiles because we can is not the answer, some may argue its the right thing to do and to gain the moral high ground but really how it will it change the situation? A few military instalations might be knocked over but how will that help stop the war? It looks basically to be Shia against sunni muslims, whatever is done you will ailienate one of them.

Stay out, save the money, let them get on with it, its a muslim problem let them sort it out, we have nothing in the west to gain and a lot to lose.

It is sad for the people caught up in it all.

Edited August 29, 2013 by nong38

[Credo]

One of the main reasons for using poison gas is to prevent the destruction of property. Destroying property will tell the Syrian gov't that using chemicals won't work (provided they are the guilty party).

It is to strongly discourage the use of chemical weapons.

Assad probably doesn't have any good reason to wish to kill so many civilians. I don't know who/what the target was, but the collateral damage appears to be significant.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Credo

[mania]

I don't think there's any plan to liberate anyone. I think the plan is to punish someone for using chemical weapons.

The US has very little, if any, interests in Syria. Business connections are nil.

There is no plan for troops.

It's quite sad, too, I spent considerable time in Syria and I found the people to be lovely. Very sad for them.

Punish someone for chems?

But who is the guilty party

The end result of destroying the governments military defenses will be for the elected govt to lose the civil war against rebels.

The rebels will be in charge same as Libya

Not too mention the hypocrisy of the one to issue the punishment?

[transam]

One of the main reasons for using poison gas is to prevent the destruction of property. Destroying property will tell the Syrian gov't that using chemicals won't work (provided they are the guilty party).

It is to strongly discourage the use of chemical weapons.

Assad probably doesn't have any good reason to wish to kill so many civilians. I don't know who/what the target was, but the collateral damage appears to be significant.

Poison gas is to take folk out wherever they are hiding without loss of troops. Germans used it in WW1. Both my grandfathers were a witness to that, sadly.

[Credo]

Perhaps you missed the 'provided they are the guilty party'.

Assad will never be able to effectively control the country, even if he wins. It will be a blood bath and the refugee problem will be enormous. If the rebels win, it will be a long protracted battle of various factions, none particularly palatable.

There will be no winner in this conflict, only losers.

[Chicog]

Gotta love Bama . . . Nothing like telling the enemy when and where you are about to attack. Targets will now move and use human shields as much as possible. Brilliant guy!

Aren't you a lawyer? If so, are you familiar with the requirement to give advance warning to civilians in such an event?

Have you considered that perhaps the warning is intended to discourage further use of poison gas and to make life difficult for Assad?

President Obama isn't the one pushing for the intervention. Rather it is coming from the likes of McCain and others in the GOP who have long demanded intervention. Why blame the POTUS?

Kind of like his line drawing and threatening force that has worked so well! No one takes him seriously any more.

In fairness, you and several others have always "not taken him seriously".

[mania]

Perhaps you missed the 'provided they are the guilty party'.

Yes I did miss it because it was not in the post I replied to

I don't think there's any plan to liberate anyone. I think the plan is to punish someone for using chemical weapons.

The US has very little, if any, interests in Syria. Business connections are nil.

There is no plan for troops.

It's quite sad, too, I spent considerable time in Syria and I found the people to be lovely. Very sad for them.

Edited August 29, 2013 by mania

[Chicog]

Sexual violence has been used by President Bashar al-Assads forces against boys to obtain information or confessions, the special representative said.

Child detainees as young as 14 were tortured like adults including electric shock, beatings, stress positions and threats and acts of sexual torture.

Let's not forget that this whole conflict started when the Syrian authorities tortured (and killed one of) several Daraa kids for the heinous crime of copying anti-regime graffiti they'd seen on TV from Tunisia.

[F430murci]

Obviously, Assad wants US to stay out. Duh. What do the civilians want or need maybe the bigger question. News flash to you . . . It ain't going so well over there now and conditions couldn't get much worse for those poor people.

Obviously so do the majority of Americans want the US to bud out

News flash for you........It aint going all that well for any place the US already bombed to *supposedly* liberate folks either

Yes, I want to stay out for selfish reasons. I am truly curious what these people need. US can get the blame for mess in Iraq, but other countries are a mess on their own.

How could it get worse for Syria. People have had to flee their homes, children are being tortured, sexually abused and used as human shields by the Syrian army, people are getting gassed, and their is heavy combat in the streets. The selfish US response is to sit back and let them kill each other as both sides are perhaps our enemy, but the humane thing to do is see if anything can be done to stop the human suffering.

You say let them suffer. I ask what do they want and need?

[mania]

You say let them suffer. I ask what do they want and need?

Oh I did?

where?

But glad to hear your going to get over there & pitch in.

All I say is the same as I always did.

In regards to the country to which I hold citizenship.

I agree with the old saying from John Quincy Adams

We should not go abroad in search of monsters

Each sovereign nation has their own ways & means to sort their own problems.

The US like much of the world is not doing too well these days. They should sort the vast array of problems they

themselves have before threatening others to solve theirs

Edited August 29, 2013 by mania

[Scott]

Troll posts have been removed.

If you want to make personal comments, then you may use the PM function.

[F430murci]

I don't think there's any plan to liberate anyone. I think the plan is to punish someone for using chemical weapons.

The US has very little, if any, interests in Syria. Business connections are nil.

There is no plan for troops.

It's quite sad, too, I spent considerable time in Syria and I found the people to be lovely. Very sad for them.

I totally get this and respect this. I was anti-US involvement to the max. I then heard those interviews where reporters were saying that Syrians were begging for US to intervene and help out. This actually made sense to or resonated with me. I cannot imagine what it is like there. I, however, would think that those under constant fire with loved ones and friends around them being killed daily would be desperate for help, any help, as there is no sign of this letting up anytime soon.

I have to say seeing those children suffer from being gassed also made me think we or SOMEONE needs to do something. Russia and China are blow-hards on these issues and vote the way they do just because they are expected to so the UN may never really be the solution.

[chuckd]

Haha, this is what happens when we get a world educated by Google. I swear the Internet has removed 20 points from people's IQs . . .

Here is one of the interviews you said don't exist.

http://www.today.com/video/today/52845511#transcript

haha is right as that is the same basically unauthenticated amateur vid report you already posted

It still has zero weight

As for google the only reason it was mentioned was in context to a sensationalized claim.

Anyway enough but carry on

So now you are saying that Richard Engle is an amateur making videos at the Turkey Syrian border. Maybe you should let NBC know that their chief foreign correspondent is an imposter.

--------

Richard Engel (born September 16, 1973) is an American journalist and author who is NBC News's chief foreign correspondent.[1] He was assigned to that position on April 18, 2008 after being the network's Middle East correspondent and Beirut Bureau chief. Engel was the first broadcast journalist recipient of the Medill Medal for Courage in Journalism for his report "War Zone Diary".[2]

Prior to joining NBC News in May 2003, he covered the start of the 2003 war in Iraq from Baghdad for ABC News as a freelance journalist. He speaks and reads Arabic fluently and is also fluent in Italian and Spanish. Engel wrote the book A Fist in the Hornet's Nest, published in 2004, about his experience covering the Iraq War from Baghdad. His newest book, War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq, published in June 2008, picks up where his last book left off.

Engel is known for having covered the Iraq War, the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war.[3]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Engel

I'd bet you got that education about Engel off the internet.

[Publicus]

I don't think there's any plan to liberate anyone. I think the plan is to punish someone for using chemical weapons.

The US has very little, if any, interests in Syria. Business connections are nil.

There is no plan for troops.

It's quite sad, too, I spent considerable time in Syria and I found the people to be lovely. Very sad for them.

I totally get this and respect this. I was anti-US involvement to the max. I then heard those interviews where reporters were saying that Syrians were begging for US to intervene and help out. This actually made sense to or resonated with me. I cannot imagine what it is like there. I, however, would think that those under constant fire with loved ones and friends around them being killed daily would be desperate for help, any help, as there is no sign of this letting up anytime soon.

I have to say seeing those children suffer from being gassed also made me think we or SOMEONE needs to do something. Russia and China are blow-hards on these issues and vote the way they do just because they are expected to so the UN may never really be the solution.

It's good to see you changed your mind again.

It's always good to remain open minded all the time.

Very open minded.

[F430murci]

Haha, this is what happens when we get a world educated by Google. I swear the Internet has removed 20 points from people's IQs . . .

Here is one of the interviews you said don't exist.

http://www.today.com/video/today/52845511#transcript

haha is right as that is the same basically unauthenticated amateur vid report you already posted

It still has zero weight

As for google the only reason it was mentioned was in context to a sensationalized claim.

Anyway enough but carry on

So now you are saying that Richard Engle is an amateur making videos at the Turkey Syrian border. Maybe you should let NBC know that their chief foreign correspondent is an imposter.

--------

Richard Engel (born September 16, 1973) is an American journalist and author who is NBC News's chief foreign correspondent.[1] He was assigned to that position on April 18, 2008 after being the network's Middle East correspondent and Beirut Bureau chief. Engel was the first broadcast journalist recipient of the Medill Medal for Courage in Journalism for his report "War Zone Diary".[2]

Prior to joining NBC News in May 2003, he covered the start of the 2003 war in Iraq from Baghdad for ABC News as a freelance journalist. He speaks and reads Arabic fluently and is also fluent in Italian and Spanish. Engel wrote the book A Fist in the Hornet's Nest, published in 2004, about his experience covering the Iraq War from Baghdad. His newest book, War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq, published in June 2008, picks up where his last book left off.

Engel is known for having covered the Iraq War, the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war.[3]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Engel

I'd bet you got that education about Engel off the internet.

Fer sure and I be startin to feel pert near dummer already.

[Bagwan]

The US will only act in their own best interests. Always have, always will. They were tipped into fighting the Nazis when U-boats attacked American shipping, and then US warships, and came out with a lot of guff about defending the cause of freedom for European countries. Pearl Harbour sent their actions global.

[F430murci]

The US will only act in their own best interests. Always have, always will. They were tipped into fighting the Nazis when U-boats attacked American shipping, and then US warships, and came out with a lot of guff about defending the cause of freedom for European countries. Pearl Harbour sent their actions global.

Please . . . We do more for other countries than anyone. When natural disasters and crisis occur (2004 tsunami, aid to Haiti), who steps up more than US and US citizens. We are constantly doing more crap for people like you who do nothing but bitch, but yet hold your hand out . . .

Perhaps if you could get over your own issues, you would see that ALL countries act in their own best interests. They should as they first have a duty first to its own people.

When has Russia or China or even Thailand really gone out of its way to help other countries in a big way during time of need. US is constantly dishing out money and aide to everyone and it kind of suck for tax payers like me to hear people like you bitch when you do nothing and we do everything.

Americans have it good and it pains most of us to see so much suffering. We have the means and ability to help. I actually think our intentions are honorable. Iraq is the one big exception. That was a personal bs agenda for Jr. and wrong from day one. Just easy to con Americans into buying into that bs so soon after 911.

Unlike Iraq IMO, Libya was a mess and full of whack jobs before we or UN did anything there and US bears NO fault in that matter.

[giggles]

the command and control centres cant be moved and the missile sites and chemo stockpiles sites are known and prime targets.

and the airforce sites will be pounded .

theyre sure to have drones keeping a watch on all movements of hardware and of course the satellites and U2 planes are still in service

[hawker9000]

Gotta love Bama . . . Nothing like telling the enemy when and where you are about to attack. Targets will now move and use human shields as much as possible. Brilliant guy!

Gotta' almost feel a bit sorry for him, too - with airheads and dance queens like Susan Rice advising him. I hope people aren't confusing the military saying "they're ready" (as it's their job to be) with any idea that they're recommending this action - they're not. I genuinely feel sorry for Damascans. Years of these atrocities from Assad and being in the middle of fighting between his forces and different rebel factions, and now the fear of missiles raining down, courtesy of His Ineptness, the "leader of the free world".

Oh, BTW, for giggles, according to the media and "senior white house officials" at least, chemical storage sites are NOT among the potential strike targets. Not sure if that's because we're not sure of where they are, or the fear of a missile hit actually dispersing them unintentionally, or what.

Edited August 29, 2013 by hawker9000

[Publicus]

Gotta love Bama . . . Nothing like telling the enemy when and where you are about to attack. Targets will now move and use human shields as much as possible. Brilliant guy!

Gotta' almost feel a bit sorry for him, too - with airheads and dance queens like Susan Rice advising him. I hope people aren't confusing the military saying "they're ready" (as it's their job to be) with any idea that they're recommending this action - they're not. I genuinely feel sorry for Damascans. Years of these atrocities from Assad and being in the middle of fighting between his forces and different rebel factions, and now the fear of missiles raining down, courtesy of His Ineptness, the "leader of the free world".

Oh, BTW, for giggles, according to the media and "senior white house officials" at least, chemical storage sites are NOT among the potential strike targets. Not sure if that's because we're not sure of where they are, or the fear of a missile hit actually dispersing them unintentionally, or what.

Destroying chemical storage sites is easily enough done by hitting them with explosives that are so powerful that the heat and fire immediately destroy the chemicals.

Still, it's a risky operation so it may not be on the U.S. target list for this reason. The launch units of chemical explosive bombs are on the target list.

Syria's chemical storage facilities may be too close to concentrations of population to be hitting them with such powerful high explosive bombs.

[Publicus]

This comes from John Schindler PhD who is a Professor at the U.S. Naval War College where officers on track to have major naval commands spend one year of concentrated and intense study.

10 Things Everyone Needs To Understand About A Military Strike In Syria

The strategy of the Syrian nightmare merits a book in itself, not a mere blog post, but I will share some strategic insights in no particular order, based on my experiences with America’s post-Cold War military adventures.

1. The enemy gets a vote. Always. He will react in ways you cannot accurately predict. Israel is close-by: hint.

2. When your enemy is on “death ground” – as Assad and his Alawi and Christian supporters surely are – they care a lot more about this fight than you do, or ever will.

3. “Surgical strikes” belong in PowerPoints by greedy defense contractors, not the real world of warfare.

4. When all belligerents in a conflict are morally repugnant, you ought to choose sides carefully (better yet: don’t).

5. Proxy wars will last far longer, and turn out far nastier, than seems logical, especially when the stakes seem high for one or more outside players.

6. If you want to seriously effect change you will wind up putting boots on the ground. Period. If you ignore this reality – or worse, guess wrong about how many troops you need – you may create a firestorm (see: Iraq 2003).

7. Putting Western boots on the ground in cultures where we and our values are hated is a bad idea unless you are willing to play by their rules, ie be highly brutal on a grand scale towards even civilians. Better not to do it.

8. Never, ever stop thinking about the value of the object, ie what do we really want here? Negative aims are fine, but not having clear, achievable aims is a good way to lose quick.

9. Certain cultures are not impressed by “surgical strikes.” They use mass brutality and think anything less is weak, even effeminate.

10. US and NATO are very good at ISR and precision strike, we have learned an enormous amount about the tactics of hi-tech killing over the last dozen years of war in CENTCOM. But this is not the same thing as strategic wisdom or political insight. Strategy trumps tactics in the long run, always.

More as it happens … and you can bet a lot more will be happening soon.

Read more: http://20committee.com/2013/08/27/thinking-strategically-about-syria/#ixzz2dO0SCLWt

Edited August 29, 2013 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

Destroying chemical storage sites is easily enough done by hitting them with explosives that are so powerful that the heat and fire immediately destroy the chemicals.

Still, it's a risky operation so it may not be on the U.S. target list for this reason. The launch units of chemical explosive bombs are on the target list.

Syria's chemical storage facilities may be too close to concentrations of population to be hitting them with such powerful high explosive bombs.

I think the idea is to send a message saying don't use them or there's more where this came from. I'm not sure how that requires destroying them if there's too much danger in doing so.

Sometimes what seems like the second best option is actually the only option?

This comes from John Schindler PhD who is a Professor at the U.S. Naval War College where officers on track to have major naval commands spend one year of concentrated and intense study.

10 Things Everyone Needs To Understand About A Military Strike In Syria

The strategy of the Syrian nightmare merits a book in itself, not a mere blog post, but I will share some strategic insights in no particular order, based on my experiences with America’s post-Cold War military adventures.

1. The enemy gets a vote. Always. He will react in ways you cannot accurately predict. Israel is close-by: hint.

2. When your enemy is on “death ground” – as Assad and his Alawi and Christian supporters surely are – they care a lot more about this fight than you do, or ever will.

3. “Surgical strikes” belong in PowerPoints by greedy defense contractors, not the real world of warfare.

4. When all belligerents in a conflict are morally repugnant, you ought to choose sides carefully (better yet: don’t).

5. Proxy wars will last far longer, and turn out far nastier, than seems logical, especially when the stakes seem high for one or more outside players.

6. If you want to seriously effect change you will wind up putting boots on the ground. Period. If you ignore this reality – or worse, guess wrong about how many troops you need – you may create a firestorm (see: Iraq 2003).

7. Putting Western boots on the ground in cultures where we and our values are hated is a bad idea unless you are willing to play by their rules, ie be highly brutal on a grand scale towards even civilians. Better not to do it.

8. Never, ever stop thinking about the value of the object, ie what do we really want here? Negative aims are fine, but not having clear, achievable aims is a good way to lose quick.

9. Certain cultures are not impressed by “surgical strikes.” They use mass brutality and think anything less is weak, even effeminate.

10. US and NATO are very good at ISR and precision strike, we have learned an enormous amount about the tactics of hi-tech killing over the last dozen years of war in CENTCOM. But this is not the same thing as strategic wisdom or political insight. Strategy trumps tactics in the long run, always.

More as it happens … and you can bet a lot more will be happening soon.

Read more: http://20committee.com/2013/08/27/thinking-strategically-about-syria/#ixzz2dO0SCLWt

Again, I think the guy misses the whole point. While I've made it clear that I disagree with a strike on Syria, my belief is that Obama:

1. Said about a year ago that use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.

2. Maybe he feels that by not striking, no one will take him seriously again.

3. If 1 and 2 are correct, then the objective isn't to win or control anything. It's simply to make a statement for everyone watching that Obama, and therefore the US, is to be taken seriously.

4. If I had to guess, I'd wonder if the 4 carrier groups on sight are a message to Russia to stand back. Of course the groups also have plenty of missiles of all kinds on board if needed.

I don't like Obama. Never did. But danged if I'd want to be in his shoes right now. This is "exhibit A" of "The buck stops here."

Edited August 29, 2013 by NeverSure

[hawker9000]

Ref #52: All valid points. But the conflict is threatening to spill out over the Syrian border into Lebanon and Israel as it is. If we wait for that to metasticise, then what? Wait for Israel to retaliate? Then what? Iran? An intensified global wave of terror? Obama put us in a very hard place, as is his wont, with that stupid playground "red line" of his. Now, NOT doing anything invites Assad to further scorn western resolve and to more domestic violence. And taking the relatively impotent step of a missile strike practically incites him, and possibly the Iranians, to escalation and/or a widening of the conflict to include Lebanon & Israel - possibly even Turkey. I actually don't believe anything more than the missile strike is even on the table. As I said before, Obama has backed himself into a corner and his only hope is that the UN will save his bacon. And Russia is not going to overlook another opportunity to poke Obama in the eye by ever agreeing to a UN intervention.

Maybe Banghazi Sue will come up with something... If it's a "peace mission to Syria", those chosen better make sure their life insurance is paid up!

Edited August 29, 2013 by hawker9000

[hawker9000]

Destroying chemical storage sites is easily enough done by hitting them with explosives that are so powerful that the heat and fire immediately destroy the chemicals.

Still, it's a risky operation so it may not be on the U.S. target list for this reason. The launch units of chemical explosive bombs are on the target list.

Syria's chemical storage facilities may be too close to concentrations of population to be hitting them with such powerful high explosive bombs.

I think the idea is to send a message saying don't use them or there's more where this came from. I'm not sure how that requires destroying them if there's too much danger in doing so.

Sometimes what seems like the second best option is actually the only option?

This comes from John Schindler PhD who is a Professor at the U.S. Naval War College where officers on track to have major naval commands spend one year of concentrated and intense study.

10 Things Everyone Needs To Understand About A Military Strike In Syria

The strategy of the Syrian nightmare merits a book in itself, not a mere blog post, but I will share some strategic insights in no particular order, based on my experiences with America’s post-Cold War military adventures.

1. The enemy gets a vote. Always. He will react in ways you cannot accurately predict. Israel is close-by: hint.

2. When your enemy is on “death ground” – as Assad and his Alawi and Christian supporters surely are – they care a lot more about this fight than you do, or ever will.

3. “Surgical strikes” belong in PowerPoints by greedy defense contractors, not the real world of warfare.

4. When all belligerents in a conflict are morally repugnant, you ought to choose sides carefully (better yet: don’t).

5. Proxy wars will last far longer, and turn out far nastier, than seems logical, especially when the stakes seem high for one or more outside players.

6. If you want to seriously effect change you will wind up putting boots on the ground. Period. If you ignore this reality – or worse, guess wrong about how many troops you need – you may create a firestorm (see: Iraq 2003).

7. Putting Western boots on the ground in cultures where we and our values are hated is a bad idea unless you are willing to play by their rules, ie be highly brutal on a grand scale towards even civilians. Better not to do it.

8. Never, ever stop thinking about the value of the object, ie what do we really want here? Negative aims are fine, but not having clear, achievable aims is a good way to lose quick.

9. Certain cultures are not impressed by “surgical strikes.” They use mass brutality and think anything less is weak, even effeminate.

10. US and NATO are very good at ISR and precision strike, we have learned an enormous amount about the tactics of hi-tech killing over the last dozen years of war in CENTCOM. But this is not the same thing as strategic wisdom or political insight. Strategy trumps tactics in the long run, always.

More as it happens … and you can bet a lot more will be happening soon.

Read more: http://20committee.com/2013/08/27/thinking-strategically-about-syria/#ixzz2dO0SCLWt

Again, I think the guy misses the whole point. While I've made it clear that I disagree with a strike on Syria, my belief is that Obama:

1. Said about a year ago that use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.

2. Maybe he feels that by not striking, no one will take him seriously again.

3. If 1 and 2 are correct, then the objective isn't to win or control anything. It's simply to make a statement for everyone watching that Obama, and therefore the US, is to be taken seriously.

4. If I had to guess, I'd wonder if the 4 carrier groups on sight are a message to Russia to stand back. Of course the groups also have plenty of missiles of all kinds on board if needed.

I don't like Obama. Never did. But danged if I'd want to be in his shoes right now. This is "exhibit A" of "The buck stops here."

Four carrier groups?! Last I heard it was 4 missile destroyers (with a 5th on the way). Where'd all the carriers come from all of a sudden? 4 carrier groups in the mix and we're way beyond missile strikes.

[Thai at Heart]

Presumably the absolute vast majority if the targets will be military.

[hawker9000]

Presumably the absolute vast majority if the targets will be military.

Oh, I'm sure. Just not chemical storage. The artillery and aviation units that DELIVER chemical weapons hopefully for sure.

[Mosha]

UK Parliament in session on bombing Syria. At least one resignation from the shadow cabinet. Debate in uk msn.

[dighambara]

Gotta love Bama . . . Nothing like telling the enemy when and where you are about to attack. Targets will now move and use human shields as much as possible. Brilliant guy!

Although I agree with the world view that Obama is as dumb as a rock, there is value in telegraphing an attack on a major city - the military moves out and can be attacked at their new location - assuming they care remotely about their citizens, which does not seem to be the case.

Remember, Hitler and Uncle HO did the opposite. When they saw that civilian targets were being avoided, they moved military units inside cities, forcing the bombing of cities.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[Mosha]

BBC - UK votes against intervention