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

[Publicus]

In the best of all worlds that might happen, but it won't happen there. Just for a starter, nobody is going to let the Kurds get a foothold anywhere. Turkey won't stand for, Iran won't tolerate and Iraq will be against it.

I believe most Syrians are Arab and the Turks are Turkish.

It will be a big, big mess.

I'm not a WASP but I married one.

What's wrong with those people over there?

Fear not, your point is well taken - I just wanted to remind us of a stark contrast of culture, society, civilization, which in large part accounts for the abyss we call the Middle/Near East.

[Credo]

@hawker9000: Consulting congress is the right thing to do for the USA, not necessarily for Syria. I don't think there is a right think to do for Syria, by the way.

I don't really care which way congress goes on the issue, at least the evidence will be presented and a debate will be had and a decision will be made.

Personally, I am about 50-50 on the issue.

[hawker9000]

@hawker9000: Consulting congress is the right thing to do for the USA, not necessarily for Syria. I don't think there is a right think to do for Syria, by the way.

I don't really care which way congress goes on the issue, at least the evidence will be presented and a debate will be had and a decision will be made.

Personally, I am about 50-50 on the issue.

Yeah - me, too! I don't see how much good can come of it (but can see the possibility of quite a lot of bad...), but have trouble rationalizing away dictators murdering innocent people. 'Hate thugs & gangsters - big-time or small-time. Are they simply an inescapable fact-of-life and just a regional issue, even today, or something the "civilized world" has an obligation to step in & deal with?

If Obama really thought consulting Congress was the "right thing to do", then he should've done it, or at least initiated it before engaging the mouth gear. Not after he, his VP, and his SoS had Damascans fleeing the city, and the rest of the whole world expecting a missile strike within the next few hours or days...

[Publicus]

Syria without Assad is a Syria in anarchy and chaos with no one able to be an effective government and perhaps no one group able to exist as a government either for very long or at all.

Syria without Assad is a Syria that is not aligned with Moscow and Tehran.

Syria without Assad effectively dissolves into endless infighting and a long period of internal conflict.

Syria without Assad would remove a negative player in the Middle East and In the world.

Syria without Assad disappears as a player in the Middle East.

I'll buy that.

*Deleted post edited out*

Oh I see no stability or peace in a post Assad Syria should Assad be deposed or otherwise be out as leader. I thought I'd been clear on that point - more than clear.

In a post Assad Syria there would be only chaos and mayhem among all the murdering Islamic extremist groups vying for power, and it would go on for some extended period of time even if one of the competing extremist Muslim groups did manage to create a new national government, which would be a national government in name only.

No matter who might claim to be the successor government, the fighting throughout Syria would continue because, as we well know, those maniacs just can't quit or accept defeat or find some way to establish and enjoy peace and prosperity.

I'm confident that establishing a national government in a post Assad Syria would be like the kid's game of king of the mountain, except, unlike the kid's game, people would be dying and suffering, the various Muslim extremists and civilians alike.

Terrible but likely to be true.

[Scott]

A baiting post has been deleted. Please stay on topic.

[Scott]

Thailand Condemns Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/665089-thailand-live-monday-2-sep-2013/?p=6781547

[giggles]

the yanks are now seen as weak and ineffectual and now being mocked .

they will come under increasing attacks in various places now

[jpinx]

I wonder if the mods would consider closing all the Syria-associated threads except one - maybe the most recent one. Lots of posts in so many places has become a pita to follow...

[Publicus]

the yanks are now seen as weak and ineffectual and now being mocked .

they will come under increasing attacks in various places now

It's called democracy.

Assad is gonna get what's coming to him, fear not.

It's the vote in Commons that's making the world a more dangerous place for all of us.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Publicus

[Scott]

I wonder if the mods would consider closing all the Syria-associated threads except one - maybe the most recent one. Lots of posts in so many places has become a pita to follow...

It's under consideration. Thanks

[Chicog]

In the best of all worlds that might happen, but it won't happen there. Just for a starter, nobody is going to let the Kurds get a foothold anywhere. Turkey won't stand for, Iran won't tolerate and Iraq will be against it.

I believe most Syrians are Arab and the Turks are Turkish.

It will be a big, big mess.

If only it were that simple.....

I won't post the pic because it's too big but the link will open it.

Looks to me like the Kurds already have quite a foothold...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/Levant_Ethnicity_lg-smaller1-zoom.jpg

[midas]

Tables turn: Syria asks the United Nations to stop U.S. strike

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-letter-idUSBRE98105G20130902

[transam]

Tables turn: Syria asks the United Nations to stop U.S. strike

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-letter-idUSBRE98105G20130902

, the guys swimming pool has just been renovated. Memories of SH perhaps.

[Credo]

In the best of all worlds that might happen, but it won't happen there. Just for a starter, nobody is going to let the Kurds get a foothold anywhere. Turkey won't stand for, Iran won't tolerate and Iraq will be against it.

I believe most Syrians are Arab and the Turks are Turkish.

It will be a big, big mess.

If only it were that simple.....

I won't post the pic because it's too big but the link will open it.

Looks to me like the Kurds already have quite a foothold...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/Levant_Ethnicity_lg-smaller1-zoom.jpg

The number of Kurds is significant (I believe they are the largest ethnic group in the world without a country of their own). My point is that politically, no one is going to want them to be able to establish a country.

Years ago, Assad Senior was taking away the land that the Kurds had by not allowing it to be transferred to anyone other than an Arab (or something to that affect). I don't have a link, but they are not a particularly popular ethnic group in the region.

[boomerangutang]

From elsewhere :

And simply because he made a foolish statement last year, he is considering a unilateral attack on Syria just to save face.

So what is it going to do if he does (against we are told against the wishes of the majority of the American people,) go ahead and bomb Libya other than show that he has acted against the use of chemical weapons as he said he would.

Well it will kill more people to start with.

From what I read the rebel forces in Libya include groups from other countries who have stepped in to 'help' including al-Qaeda.

Even if Obama did manage to get rid of the Assad Govt what would take their place?

An al-Qaeda backed govt that would start a purge.

Does it not seem strange that the US is supposed to be fighting al-Qaeda in one, or 2, other countries and backing and arming them to fight a Govt in another?

US gov't agencies understand that a Syria with Assad is 'the devil we know' and a Syria without his brood can be 'the devil we don't yet know.' The US is not focused on taking out Assad, not primarily anyway. And the US doesn't have illusions that missile strikes would do that (because they won't). The strikes would be mainly to punish his regime for using chemi weapons - and hopefully preclude anyone there (or elsewhere) from doing it again.

Russia, for its part, should at least call for adept investigations. It appears the Ruskies are just taking sides with Assad no matter what (Syria is one of their best customers for buying weapons). The Chinese don't really care, because their main interest is developing sources for raw materials. Regardless of who comes out on top in Syria, and regardless of how they go about it, ....the Chinese will be among the first on the scene with handshakes, broad smiles, and contracts to sign.

Also, lack of active support from other countries (for a missile strike) is not indicative of a negative vote for that. Most countries are angry about chemical strikes, but don't want to stick their necks out to show active support of US intentions. Plus there are future economic ties with Syria to consider, and no one, at this point, knows who's going to prevail there.

Edited September 2, 2013 by boomerangutang

[F430murci]

A couple of things Congress should do IMHO is

1- Wait till UN investigators have conclusive evidence as to who used the chems

2- poll their districts & ask their constituents what they want/think should be done if anything.

In a functional democracy Governments are representatives of the people

who voted them in. Not dictators off to do as they see fit on their own & later sending the bill

in $$$ & lives back to the citizens.

From the start, UN and everyone has made it abundantly clear that UN's sole role is to investigate what was released. UN and everyone has said it is not investigating and will not opine who released the chemical weapons. So why does it benefit some to keep saying wait for a UN report that will never come.

[F430murci]

Tables turn: Syria asks the United Nations to stop U.S. strike

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-letter-idUSBRE98105G20130902

Haha, this post is like a dog finding its tail or a retarded guy finding his penis. Duh, it's always been there.

Do you think those rat bastards called the Syrian government are going to say please come take out our key military installations so the rebels can over throw us?

This dude and his daughter who I believe works for Assad are just mouth pieces for Assad. Really revelational!

[F430murci]

Just heard report on TV here that lawmakers ate saying intel showing Assad did this is pretty conclusive (satellite, witnesses and etc.) and that congressmen are apparently on their way to capital hill.

British and US intelligence say they know of have evidence of 14 other recent chemical attacks by Assad in more remote areas against rebel forces. The August 21 release just got too big and too much attention.

Pub, I am with you. I cannot believe all of the animosity toward US when we have innocent civilians getting gassed and school yards being napalmed. It is like people have completely lost all humanity because they are so angry at and obsessed with Bama. Sad.

Yes Hawker. You are correct. I have heard 4 star general say that in less than 3 days would take out air and delivery capabilities perhaps resulting in downfall of Assad. Seems like even though Bama may want Assad gone, the bigger concern is what happens and who replaces him when he is gone.

Candidly, no matter what US does Syria will remain a disaster and US will get blamed for either doing nothing or causing Assad to fall leading to further instability and continued fighting.

These guys are going to continue to fight and kill no matter what anyone does and no matter the outcome. Perhaps just pull civilians out and later them kill each other.

These two posts confuse me. I can't tell what you want.

As a non-hating American, I just can't see any advantage in taking out Assad and leaving what may be worse.

If there were obvious good guys in white hats struggling against obvious bad guys in black hats, and I knew for sure that the black hats were using chemical weapons on the white hats, then I'd support a strike.

As it is, I don't see a good outcome as a result of a strike. You do realize that the US and allies have interfered in a lot of places without a good outcome?

What's the objective here? You can't fire missiles at chemical weapons depots. You can only spank the perps if you know for sure who they are.

And then what?

I would like to see something done to protect the innocent civilians. I don't have an agenda. I thought Bama should have attacked, without warning, Assad's air and delivery capabilities last week. Firing at chemical weapon stock piles is too risky.

The delay and Bama tipping his hand has only given Assad time to put human shields in place and move items where US cannot attack with collateral damage.

Not sure attack is prudent now because it will now be very difficult to take out what needs to be taken out and some warning shot across the bow is beyond stupid and will make us look even weaker.

I think Bama should keep his mouth shut if has no inclination or ability to follow through. But for his imaginary line and his grand standing, most, including myself, would have never been looking for military intervention and we would not have lost so much face in the international community.

A U.S., British and French naval joint task force gathering in the eastern Mediterranean would be impossible not to notice. Assad would have a very early, quick, clear awareness beforehand of any impending bombardment. Consequently, the same would have been happening then as has happened now, just more quickly.

Remember, you're talking about trying to do this by stealth, before Cameron had to go before the Commons or Obama or Hollande decided they needed to go to their respective national legislature on this.

A stealth strike would have been impossible to pull off. Absolutely so.

You're trying to criticize the failure of an operations that would have been a guaranteed failure to begin with.

Best stick to your day job because you're not a naval or military strategist, tactician, planner or operations officer.

Not my military strategy. This came from lips of retired 4 star general, Kern I believe, that actually seemed to be one of the very few calm, unbiased and objective people I have seen interviewed. He managed to completely stay out and not be baited into political fray and simply state what can and should be done. He said could have been done easily in less than 3 days. This was 4 or 5 days ago and things may have changed now given Assad having time to move assets and install human shields.

Dude, not giving in to anything that could possibly be construed as criticism toward Bama just undermines your credibility. No one is correct 100% of the time on everything and the buz is that a lot of Bama's own internal people even hink he screwed this one up.

[boomerangutang]

Here are two of the many possible headlines we may be seeing, if a strike takes place. Brace yourselves.

>>> As happened in the war to free Kuwait: At least two Brit fighter pilots were caught and displayed as propaganda tools to the world media. Not likely in this immediate scenario, because cruise (and other types of) missiles are all that's been mentioned, but there are other ways of getting a-hold of US pilots. If that's not do-able, then there are always farang tourists or office workers or other 'soft targets' to either kill or kidnap.

>>> As happened when US prez Clinton authorized the bombing of a suspected terrorist hang-out in Sudan: The next day, the Sudanese authorities claimed it was a pharmaceutical company, and that scores of civilians were killed.

For any place in Syria that gets bombed: it would be easy for Assad's people to trot out dead/maimed civilians and kids, and claim it was a hospital or school.

[Tanis]

Yes Hawker. You are correct. I have heard 4 star general say that in less than 3 days would take out air and delivery capabilities perhaps resulting in downfall of Assad. Seems like even though Bama may want Assad gone, the bigger concern is what happens and who replaces him when he is gone.

Candidly, no matter what US does Syria will remain a disaster and US will get blamed for either doing nothing or causing Assad to fall leading to further instability and continued fighting.

These guys are going to continue to fight and kill no matter what anyone does and no matter the outcome. Perhaps just pull civilians out and later them kill each other.

These two posts confuse me. I can't tell what you want.

As a non-hating American, I just can't see any advantage in taking out Assad and leaving what may be worse.

If there were obvious good guys in white hats struggling against obvious bad guys in black hats, and I knew for sure that the black hats were using chemical weapons on the white hats, then I'd support a strike.

As it is, I don't see a good outcome as a result of a strike. You do realize that the US and allies have interfered in a lot of places without a good outcome?

What's the objective here? You can't fire missiles at chemical weapons depots. You can only spank the perps if you know for sure who they are.

And then what?

I would like to see something done to protect the innocent civilians. I don't have an agenda. I thought Bama should have attacked, without warning, Assad's air and delivery capabilities last week. Firing at chemical weapon stock piles is too risky.

The delay and Bama tipping his hand has only given Assad time to put human shields in place and move items where US cannot attack with collateral damage.

Not sure attack is prudent now because it will now be very difficult to take out what needs to be taken out and some warning shot across the bow is beyond stupid and will make us look even weaker.

I think Bama should keep his mouth shut if has no inclination or ability to follow through. But for his imaginary line and his grand standing, most, including myself, would have never been looking for military intervention and we would not have lost so much face in the international community.

A stealth strike would have been impossible to pull off. Absolutely so.

You're trying to criticize the failure of an operations that would have been a guaranteed failure to begin with.

Best stick to your day job because you're not a naval or military strategist, tactician, planner or operations officer.

How many times did Israel attack Syria to deny them advanced weaponry from Russia? Last time I checked they did it by stealth. If little ole Israel can do it with f16e's then what can America do with the f22 and f35? The failure is not the American millitary but rather, the manchild who likes to play President.

[F430murci]

Yes Tanis.

Isreal recently bombed positions in Syria and . . . No rain of fire from the heavens and World War III.

More reality in Syria.

-----

Amina Kamel will never forget her last day of school. In January, the 20-year-old pharmacy student was at Aleppo University preparing for an exam when two explosions rocked the campus, killing more than 50 people. Kamel recalls the cries of her classmates, and the pandemonium that erupted as the students tried to flee their classrooms.

We didnt even know which way to run because of our panic, but when we reached the door to get outside thats when I saw the bloodand the bodies, she recalls, shaking her head and clenching her teeth. One of her friends was among the dead. The explosion had left his body unrecognizable even to his family. It makes me so angry, just sick, she says. I remember thinking no, this is a university. This is our place. [The students are] not on either side of the war.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/02/a-dark-future-for-syria-s-children.html

[Publicus]

@Tanis

You misread and misunderstand my post. Consequently, you misrepresent my post.

Read the whole of it again please.

I'm referring to a joint naval task force in the eastern Mediterranean of warships from the U.S., UK and France and another poster saying they should have made a sudden quick unannounced missile bombardment. I said that kind of stealth or suddenness is impossible.

I'm not talking about stealth aircraft. Try to read for comprehension please, and the same applies to those who ticked they like your wrongheaded post.

[F430murci]

Haha, okay. They like us so much as it is I would hate to all of sudden make them not like us or want to kill us.

-----

Syria: Strikes would "tarnish" U.S. image in Mideast

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=cbsthismorning&catid=57600948&feed_id=30

[NeverSure]

A U.S., British and French naval joint task force gathering in the eastern Mediterranean would be impossible not to notice. Assad would have a very early, quick, clear awareness beforehand of any impending bombardment. Consequently, the same would have been happening then as has happened now, just more quickly.

Remember, you're talking about trying to do this by stealth, before Cameron had to go before the Commons or Obama or Hollande decided they needed to go to their respective national legislature on this.

A stealth strike would have been impossible to pull off. Absolutely so.

You're trying to criticize the failure of an operations that would have been a guaranteed failure to begin with.

Best stick to your day job because you're not a naval or military strategist, tactician, planner or operations officer.

"A stealth strike would have been impossible to pull off. Absolutely so."

I don't think anyone was willing to say exactly how the strikes would be made, and any statements or hardware placement might in fact have been misdirection.

How about the stealth B-2 Bomber, which can fly at an altitude of 50,000 feet and has a range of 10,000 miles, and has mid-air refueling capabilities? How about ten of them with 800 500 lb JDAM GPS-guided bombs?

"The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber, is an American strategic bomber, featuring low observable stealth technology designed for penetrating dense anti-aircraft defenses; it is able to deploy both conventional and nuclear weapons. The bomber has a crew of two and can drop up to eighty 500 lb (230 kg)-class JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration." (Emphasis mine.)

LINK

[Tanis]

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.

t is

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and members of his family are in Tehran, after they arrived at Homeini Airport in the presidential plane Tuesday night, sources in Iran's foreign ministry told the website of Lebanese newsaper a-Nahar. The news did not receive confirmation from other official sources.

According to the a-Nahar report, Assad was also accompanied by senior members of his government. They are to hold discussions with senior Iranians regarding the Syrian response to a possible U.S. strike on Syria, which is expected to take place soon. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171367

C(onflict) R(ates) A(sia) S(pectulation) H(ousing)

[Publicus]

A U.S., British and French naval joint task force gathering in the eastern Mediterranean would be impossible not to notice. Assad would have a very early, quick, clear awareness beforehand of any impending bombardment. Consequently, the same would have been happening then as has happened now, just more quickly.

Remember, you're talking about trying to do this by stealth, before Cameron had to go before the Commons or Obama or Hollande decided they needed to go to their respective national legislature on this.

A stealth strike would have been impossible to pull off. Absolutely so.

You're trying to criticize the failure of an operations that would have been a guaranteed failure to begin with.

Best stick to your day job because you're not a naval or military strategist, tactician, planner or operations officer.

"A stealth strike would have been impossible to pull off. Absolutely so."

I don't think anyone was willing to say exactly how the strikes would be made, and any statements or hardware placement might in fact have been misdirection.

How about the stealth B-2 Bomber, which can fly at an altitude of 50,000 feet and has a range of 10,000 miles, and has mid-air refueling capabilities? How about ten of them with 800 500 lb JDAM GPS-guided bombs?

"The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber, is an American strategic bomber, featuring low observable stealth technology designed for penetrating dense anti-aircraft defenses; it is able to deploy both conventional and nuclear weapons. The bomber has a crew of two and can drop up to eighty 500 lb (230 kg)-class JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration." (Emphasis mine.)

LINK

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

I'm NOT talking about stealth AIRCRAFT, WARPLANES, AIRPLANES - NOT.

I'm talking about a sudden, surprise attack of missiles by a naval joint task force showing up UNOTICED in the eastern Mediterranean consisting of warships from the US, UK and France, as one poster said Obama should have done in the first place.

The joint naval task force OF SHIPS could not have STEALTHILY arrived, assembled, and launched a stealth style of missile attack that would have surprised Assad, thus making it impossible for him to shift his forces to protect them or to gather and put in place human shields.

Your post is yet another post that misreads my post by misunderstanding my use of the word STEALTH.

I'M REFERRING TO A STEALTH APPEARANCE OF A JOINT NAVAL TASK FORCE OF WARSHIPS FROM THE US, UK, FRANCE, STEALTHILY SHOWING UP IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN UNOTICED, ABLE TO SECRETLY LAUNCH A SUDDEN SURPRISE MISSILE ATTACK AGAINST ASSAD AS ADVOCATED BY A POSTER.

I AM NOT REFERRING TO STEALTH AIRCRAFT THAT MAKE STEALTH ATTACKS.

I am not referring to STEALTH AIRCRAFT, AIRPLANES, WARPLANES - THOSE MACHINES THAT FLY IN THE SKY, STEALTHILY, WITH STEALTH.

NOT.

[Scott]

Topic here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/665348-syrias-assad-says-western-strike-could-trigger-regional-war/

//Closed//