• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria crisis: UK to put forward UN resolution

Sure, just as well as we "confirmed" Assad carried out a chemical attack. Let me ask you, who has to say that the rebels fired on the UN inspectors in order for YOU to accept it as confirmed?

I would need actual evidence.


" Hey guys the UN inspectors are coming if they find evidence of our chemical weapons attack the US and her allies will join the war and my decades of rule will be over. Let the UN inspectors in but have one of our men pose as a rebel and shoot at them from afar".......

See how easy that is. You guys need to get a grip and realise the man you are supporting is a dictator who is responsible for thousands of deaths and will do anything to hold onto power.
 
and here was me thinking the civil war broke out on the back of the Arab spring with protesters demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has held the presidency in Syria since 1971.....

Well.....ya should have looked who was behind the protest and funneling money and weapons to the Sunni Rebels. While calling for Assad to step down. Any reason the Christians and the Kurds weren't calling for Assad to step down?
 
Well.....ya should have looked who was behind the protest and funneling money and weapons to the Sunni Rebels. While calling for Assad to step down. Any reason the Christians and the Kurds weren't calling for Assad to step down?

and the gov are supported by Hezbollah, Iran and Russia...Charming bunch I hear.
 
I would need actual evidence.


" Hey guys the UN inspectors are coming if they find evidence of our chemical weapons attack the US and her allies will join the war and my decades of rule will be over. Let the UN inspectors in but have one of our men pose as a rebel and shoot at them from afar".......

See how easy that is. You guys need to get a grip and realise the man you are supporting is a dictator who is responsible for thousands of deaths and will do anything to hold onto power.

Yeah, I would say the same thing to our feckless leaders about having actual evidence that Assad used the Chems. If they can't produce it......shouldn't they have to present their asses to the American people so all can give them a good kick Right where.....the Sun don't shine.
 
and the gov are supported by Hezbollah, Iran and Russia...Charming bunch I hear.

Yeah and the Rebels are supported by the MB.....terrorists. Then AQ.....terrorists. Then Al Nusra.....Terrorists. Then the Islamic Kurds.....Terrorists. Then some Traitors. Then the Sunni Muslims who kill Christians and push to expand that Sectarian Divide.

Plus they in return are Supported by the Salafists and 29 Civilian Committees that want Sharia Law under governance.

Looks like the Rebels have the Real Charmers. Including the Snake Charmers.
 
Yeah and the Rebels are supported by the MB.....terrorists. Then AQ.....terrorists. Then Al Nusra.....Terrorists. Then the Islamic Kurds.....Terrorists. Then some Traitors. Then the Sunni Muslims who kill Christians and push to expand that Sectarian Divide.

Plus they in return are Supported by the Salafists and 29 Civilian Committees that want Sharia Law under governance.

Looks like the Rebels have the Real Charmers. Including the Snake Charmers.


the Syrian Muslim brotherhood are not terrorists.
 
Well here is what this professor is saying. Still how does Obama justify 820k per tomahawk with the military already being depleted. Which he will then have to replace what he fires. Hows that help us economically in that area. This is a big mistake. Syria or Russia can start **** elsewhere. But one thing is for certain. Russia is just luving getting us into this Proxy war. We lose credibility if we do something and if we don't.

Yet we need to know who all the players are and who wont be round. Which we can't stop Syria from splitting into 3 separate regions. As they are already doing.

Local Expert: Firing Cruise Missiles At Syria Would Be ‘Drive-By Shooting’

We’re merely gonna to what I would call a drive-by shooting and will do some damage to the Syrian forces but it won’t shift the balance of power on the ground at all,” said Mearsheimer.

So he’s suggesting retaliatory strikes by the U.S. be delayed, perhaps permanently.....snip~

Local Expert: Firing Cruise Missiles At Syria Would Be

Obama knows that this is simply a distraction, but the hawks get a bone and "the deal" will be to allow keeping "needed" military spending but in exchange to agree to back off on the demand for any "harsh" cuts to Obama's precious income redistirbution programs. The classic political win/win for everyone now (unless you are one of those folks that actually cares about the national debt).

All of our congress critters get to say that they "saved" their district/state from the effects of "drastic" spending cuts, were tough on terrorism/genocide and Obama gets his debt "ceiling" raise and keeps PPACA from getting chopped back (more that he already did) as well. Besides, this also lets Obama "dis" Putin for obstructing the UNSC resolution (and his accepting of Snowden's asylum request) and lets the Nobel Peace Prize president end genocide in Syria by killing "bad folks" and getting rid of WMDs - all via remote control with no "boots on the ground". ;)
 
You don't expect either Russia or China to veto?

Not the point.. he is playing domestic politics. He has recalled Parliament to get approval, and one of the demands would be to attempt to get UN approval. In fact I would not be surprised one bit if the UK did not contribute, because Parliament said no.
 
the Syrian Muslim brotherhood are not terrorists.

25obama_siriya.jpg


ALL the Muslim Brotherhood.....are terrorists, and any that follow them. Try telling that to the Christians living in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. :roll:
 
Last edited:
I came on here wondering why this current Syria mess is not a UN problem, as opposed to a US problem, given the supposed strong evidence that Assad used chemical weapons in violation of the Convention agreement (although I don't think Syria signed off on it).

In any event, what should the US role really be?

Should we act as just another UN member state? Or independent of the UN?

If the UN doesn't act, or at least pretend to, despite (or maybe because of) members like Russia or China, does that confirm the UN's uselessness?

On the other hand, if we're entitled to act independently, should we consider something more selective ... and deniable ... like, oh, say, a bullet with a prearranged replacement waiting?

Then we'll be surprised to find out our chosen replacement has their own baggage.

Those Libyan & Egyptian adventures worked out well, huh.
 
Obama knows that this is simply a distraction, but the hawks get a bone and "the deal" will be to allow keeping "needed" military spending but in exchange to agree to back off on the demand for any "harsh" cuts to Obama's precious income redistirbution programs. The classic political win/win for everyone now (unless you are one of those folks that actually cares about the national debt).

All of our congress critters get to say that they "saved" their district/state from the effects of "drastic" spending cuts, were tough on terrorism/genocide and Obama gets his debt "ceiling" raise and keeps PPACA from getting chopped back (more that he already did) as well. Besides, this also lets Obama "dis" Putin for obstructing the UNSC resolution (and his accepting of Snowden's asylum request) and lets the Nobel Peace Prize president end genocide in Syria by killing "bad folks" and getting rid of WMDs - all via remote control with no "boots on the ground". ;)

Well Ttwtt.....he best be prepared for what the Russians will do. Here are a few things. Plus Moscow.....is talking War!!!!!

Russia warns of Mideast suffering if U.S. strikes Syria

As U.S. ships and British warplanes neared the shores of its last remaining ally in the Middle East, Russia warned again Tuesday that any military intervention in Syria would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said that launching a military strike without seeking approval from the United Nations Security Council would cause "new suffering and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," according to the Russian TV station RT.

Russia has vowed to veto any Security Council attempts to approve a military attack on Syria, and it is arming Syria as well, which is why the United States is considering a unilateral attack with the help of the United Kingdom and other nations.

"The Russians are extremely mad and there's sort of pre-war frenzy in Moscow," Cohen said. "I think in reality their options are limited but dangerous."

While the Russians are unlikely to oppose U.S. forces in the fields, Cohen listed other things they can do:

- The Russians could also send Assad their supersonic P800 long-range anti-ship missile, which is capable of sinking NATO ships with a single strike. U.S. officials reported that Israel attempted to destroy such missiles in Latakia during a July 5 air strike, though it was unclear if the strike was successful, according to the Guardian newspaper.

- The Russians could expand sales to Iran of weapons and nuclear technology that has both nuclear and civilian functions. Iran's nuclear program is considered a threat by Iran's rivals Israel and Gulf Arab states.

- Russian could pursue plans to deploy a large permanent naval task force and expand its number of bases in the Mediterranean.

The Egyptian military has offered Russia a military base in recent months, and is seeking expanded relations with Russia for weapons and wheat sales, Cohen said.....snip~

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/russia-warns-against-us-strike-on-syria/2706861/
 
Anyone else got anything to say about France Rules
rulez.gif
of we will protect other populations? Everyone alright with France or another being able to say they could come into the US at anytime all to protect the people of a certain state if needed?

That's whats going on here.

Where has Syria attacked a US interest in this conflict?
 
Well Ttwtt.....he best be prepared for what the Russians will do. Here are a few things. Plus Moscow.....is talking War!!!!!

Russia warns of Mideast suffering if U.S. strikes Syria

As U.S. ships and British warplanes neared the shores of its last remaining ally in the Middle East, Russia warned again Tuesday that any military intervention in Syria would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said that launching a military strike without seeking approval from the United Nations Security Council would cause "new suffering and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," according to the Russian TV station RT.

Russia has vowed to veto any Security Council attempts to approve a military attack on Syria, and it is arming Syria as well, which is why the United States is considering a unilateral attack with the help of the United Kingdom and other nations.

"The Russians are extremely mad and there's sort of pre-war frenzy in Moscow," Cohen said. "I think in reality their options are limited but dangerous."

While the Russians are unlikely to oppose U.S. forces in the fields, Cohen listed other things they can do:

- The Russians could also send Assad their supersonic P800 long-range anti-ship missile, which is capable of sinking NATO ships with a single strike. U.S. officials reported that Israel attempted to destroy such missiles in Latakia during a July 5 air strike, though it was unclear if the strike was successful, according to the Guardian newspaper.

- The Russians could expand sales to Iran of weapons and nuclear technology that has both nuclear and civilian functions. Iran's nuclear program is considered a threat by Iran's rivals Israel and Gulf Arab states.

- Russian could pursue plans to deploy a large permanent naval task force and expand its number of bases in the Mediterranean.

The Egyptian military has offered Russia a military base in recent months, and is seeking expanded relations with Russia for weapons and wheat sales, Cohen said.....snip~

Russia warns of Mideast suffering if U.S. strikes Syria

What makes you think that Russia would not do most of these things even if we don't "mess with" Syria? Russia's opportunities for arms sales/deals in ME will only be enhanced by more U.S. involvement in the region. Assad/Syria are small time players compared to what Russia can get from other nations in the region, like Iran and the new "independent" Iraq. By pointing to U.S. "aggression" in ME, Russia can get more customers for its arms/nuclear aid. The only thing that could make Russia suffer is if they were foolish enough to promise to use their own military personnel to help those "valued customers" (like Assad) if attacked by U.S./allied forces. How much money that the U.S. gives to Palestinians (and other enemies of Israel) to "keep the peace" ends up buying Russian arms? The more hate for the U.S. "intervention" in the ME then the more oppotunity for Russia to help them arm them to fight the "great satan".
 
and here was me thinking the civil war broke out on the back of the Arab spring with protesters demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has held the presidency in Syria since 1971.....

Capitalising on the Arab spring movement, that was the west and the Arab leagues intention. For you to believe this was the Arab spring spreading. But no, much as you'd like to believe that it's not the case. And NATO has said that Assad enjoys a very secure 70% approval rating amongst syrian civilians. STOP, buying the propaganda of the states that want regime change in Syria.
 
I would need actual evidence.


" Hey guys the UN inspectors are coming if they find evidence of our chemical weapons attack the US and her allies will join the war and my decades of rule will be over. Let the UN inspectors in but have one of our men pose as a rebel and shoot at them from afar".......

See how easy that is. You guys need to get a grip and realise the man you are supporting is a dictator who is responsible for thousands of deaths and will do anything to hold onto power.


What an apologist for western propaganda.
 
and the gov are supported by Hezbollah, Iran and Russia...Charming bunch I hear.

And what is wrong with Russia, China and Iran. Is that all you do is listen to western propaganda.
 
What makes you think that Russia would not do most of these things even if we don't "mess with" Syria? Russia's opportunities for arms sales/deals in ME will only be enhanced by more U.S. involvement in the region. Assad/Syria are small time players compared to what Russia can get from other nations in the region, like Iran and the new "independent" Iraq. By pointing to U.S. "aggression" in ME, Russia can get more customers for its arms/nuclear aid. The only thing that could make Russia suffer is if they were foolish enough to promise to use their own military personnel to help those "valued customers" (like Assad) if attacked by U.S./allied forces. How much money that the U.S. gives to Palestinians (and other enemies of Israel) to "keep the peace" ends up buying Russian arms? The more hate for the U.S. "intervention" in the ME then the more oppotunity for Russia to help them arm them to fight the "great satan".

Well, the setting up of bases before was almost out of the question due to the Russian economy. Things have been good since Obama took office for The Grumpy Bear. Iran has had to pay for things in Pure gold and Platinum. Syria has been a good customer. The War Games with China have all worked out plus their accepting of each others currency over US Dollars. Plus the Russians have puffed up their chests. Now they are themselves are getting a bit edgy on wanting to move out. They could end up with more bases in Club Med to top it off.

But now within months of the problem with MB in Egypt then this issue in Syria. The Egyptians themselves have Offered the Russians a military base in Egypt. Now does that speak volumes to our fearless leaders? Not Since when, has the Egyptians even thought.....of such an idea.

How about that deal coming around should the Russians lose Tartus?
 
This is why as President you don't telegraph your moves so far in advance. It may have felt good to Obama to announce his line in the sand. I'm sure he felt it sounded tough while at the same time being so outlandish that he'd never be called to follow through. Unfortunately all he did was either give the militants the best path to getting US support, or given Assad the opportunity to show how little he actually respects the US President's warnings. Either way the announcement has had little effect on the conditions in Syria and has forced the administration into a few equally bad choices.

An air campaign in Syria will be disastrous diplomatically. Syria is no doubt prepping for this by stationing mobile AA batteries in densely populated areas, turning the US campaign into one giant catch 22. I would be surprised if any such air campaign would result in fewer civilian deaths than the gas attacks that were used to justify it.

That on top of the fact that Russia is ready to draw it's own line in the sand over Syria.

Those canceled anti-ICBM batteries in Poland would be a real comfort right now....
 
At this point in time, there appears to be strong evidence that chemical weapons (possibly a nerve agent) were used. Real questions exist as to who was responsible.

Nevertheless, it appears that the U.S. and some others are inclined to carry out a military operation. The seemingly likely military strikes may be, at least in part and perhaps even the largest part, the result of an emotional response to "do something" on the humanitarian end. General Anthony Zinni spoke about that scenario. From The Washington Post:

“When there is a humanitarian disaster, people want to see something happen,” Zinni said. “You’ll knee-jerk into the first option, blowing something up, without thinking through what this could lead to.”

Imminent U.S. strike on Syria could draw nation into civil war - The Washington Post

As for Russia's warnings, they likely have to do with unintended and negative consequences that could follow. In the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. has not exactly demonstrated a strong capacity for contingency planning, with the result that the U.S. was unprepared for likely insurgencies in both countries. Russia is not in a position to block U.S. military intervention, though it could speed up arms deliveries to Syria and provide Syria with upgraded weapons in the aftermath. It might also conclude weapons deals with Iran to make any U.S. strikes potentially more costly.

The reality is that U.S. military action against Syria, in which Russia has far greater interests than the U.S., is a major problem for Russia. It would further illustrate Russia's inability to protect its allies, much less shape world affairs. It would also exacerbate Russia's worries about its own growing weaknesses.

Russia, including President Putin, seem quite insecure in a changing world. Russia's population is declining, its life expectancy is falling, ethnic unrest persists along parts of its periphery and in some of its Central Asian territory. Although Russia remains a great power (largely military and largely on account of its nuclear arsenal--that latter point is probably the most likely explanation for Russia's current refusal to pursue further reductions in nuclear arms), it is having difficulty reconciling the reality that it is not a superpower with its self-perceptions/ambitions. The West's unilaterally expanding the limited no-fly zone authority in Libya from a civilian protection mission to one of regime change not only eroded Russia's trust in U.S. reliability, but painfully brought home the realities of its impotence to influence such events. I suspect that the combination of its present and historic fears, its weakness, and U.S. policy choices have fueled an increasing tit-for-tat dynamic with the U.S.

Russia's leaders might believe that such a strategy conveys strength. To outsiders, it illustrates weakness. Those decisions have little meaningful impact both on the trajectory of world affairs and the global balance of power. Concrete results, not words or threats, provide foreign policy currency. Failures of deterrence, in this case dissuading the U.S. from launching military action against a Russian ally, undermine such currency.

To be sure, Russia can still create problems for the U.S. beyond Syria. For example, should it suspend cooperation with regard to Iran or even ship more advanced weapons systems to Tehran, that would complicate things for the U.S. Nevertheless, that wouldn't create insurmountable problems for the U.S. The U.S. still possesses the power to prevent a shift in the region's balance of power, to protect vital U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and regional strategic allies, and to deter Iran from using/sharing nuclear weapons technology should it develop that capacity.

In sum, Russia has much to lose should the U.S. carry out military strikes against Syria. Any outcome other than its dissuading the U.S. from launching military strikes could inflict "losses" on Russia. It can't support those strikes, even if credible evidence revealed the Assad government were responsible for the chemical weapons attack (not yet available), as that would demonstrate that Russia is not a reliable partner to its allies and prospective allies. Thus, it can only oppose military action. However, it is essentially powerless to stop it and that weakness would be exposed should any military action be taken. Such military action would demonstrate Russia's lack of ability to protect is allies from attack.

Therefore, Russia could try to make Syria a litmus test of sorts. It did so with Libya, albeit on a smaller scale, in resolving not to support UN Security Council Resolutions that could authorize the use of force for the foreseeable future. In this case, Russia's interests are greater. Hence, it could try to link policy choices to the outcome in Syria in a bid to create substantive rather than symbolic problems for the U.S. Logical choices would include increased weapons deliveries to Syria, perhaps on a scale to turn the sectarian conflict decidedly in Assad's favor. It could withdraw cooperation with the U.S. in some parts of the world where U.S. and Russian interests are not well-aligned. It could suspend or even with draw from the international nuclear talks with Iran. It could conclude new arms deals with Iran that grant Iran access to some of Russia's most sophisticated defense systems. It likely won't respond with military action of its own, though covert action in Syria can't be ruled out.
 
This is why as President you don't telegraph your moves so far in advance. It may have felt good to Obama to announce his line in the sand. I'm sure he felt it sounded tough while at the same time being so outlandish that he'd never be called to follow through. Unfortunately all he did was either give the militants the best path to getting US support, or given Assad the opportunity to show how little he actually respects the US President's warnings. Either way the announcement has had little effect on the conditions in Syria and has forced the administration into a few equally bad choices.

An air campaign in Syria will be disastrous diplomatically. Syria is no doubt prepping for this by stationing mobile AA batteries in densely populated areas, turning the US campaign into one giant catch 22. I would be surprised if any such air campaign would result in fewer civilian deaths than the gas attacks that were used to justify it.

That on top of the fact that Russia is ready to draw it's own line in the sand over Syria.

Those canceled anti-ICBM batteries in Poland would be a real comfort right now....



Mornin JM. :2wave: For some reason.....they keep saying for low flying Tomahawks. That they think they can take out the multilayered protections of Assads Air Defense. What did they say 355 they think dead from the Chem attack? We will end up killing way more than that. This will be a bloody nightmare for us. Like you say. They will have people dedicated to go and putting themselves Right there by any facilities. All around it. We wont be able to get away with minor deaths.

Not to mention the majors Like the S300 can take out Multiple Tomahawks. Which they already will have 24/7 mobile air defense. Circling around the S 300s.

Syria’s Air-Defense Arsenal: The Russian Missiles Keeping Assad in Power

While they agree that the S-300s are more accurate and have greater range than Assad’s current weapons systems, they say the Syrian leader is far from powerless without them. “We have seen over the past few years Russia supplying several different air-defense systems,” says Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher in the arms-transfer program of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks weapons flows worldwide. “They [Syrian government] have really increased their capability. The missiles are both short and long range. If the S-300s do arrive, that would top it all off.” <<<<< Which we know they arrived.

Among the missiles already in place are two regiments of S-200 surface-to-air missiles, which have a range of about 150 miles, “with no less than 240 missiles ready to be fired in a matter of minutes,” says Igor Sutyagin, a Russian military scientist and senior researcher at the London think tank, Royal United Services Institute. Sutyagin, who was jailed in Russia on charges of spying for the U.S. and freed as part of a spy-prisoner swap in 2010, says Assad “has a lot” of air-defense systems acquired from Russia, including between 12 and 20 short-range missile systems called Pantsyr-S, which have a range of about 7.5 miles and which can be mounted on vehicles. Those were delivered to Syria about a year ago, in what he believes is the latest confirmed arms shipment from Moscow. In addition, Assad has 1,200 air-defense guns and between 4,000 and 8,000 Strela portable shoulder-fired missiles. “That IS the GREAT stockpile of Russian air defense weaponry.

Since Syrian rebels have no airplanes for Syrian forces to shoot down, Assad’s impressive air-defense arsenal has little bearing on the grueling war that has ravaged large parts of the country and killed an estimated 90,000 Syrians. But the antiaircraft weapons would be crucial if the U.N. voted to impose a no-fly zone over Syria or if Israel expands its sporadic strikes on Syria into a sustained bombing campaign. At that point, the S-300 missiles, which have a longer range and greater accuracy than Assad’s current weaponry, could inflict bigger losses and strike deep into Israel in retaliation — hence, Israel’s fury over the arms deal. With the S-300s in place, says Wezeman, “If Israel starts an air campaign, they would maybe lose a few more planes than they have until now. It is not a system which cannot be destroyed, but it would be a bigger campaign,” he says.

Syria’s military arsenal presents the West with a far different calculus, in part explaining why no Western country has intervened militarily so far. While Gaddafi had huge stocks of weaponry, including Russian and Chinese antiaircraft missiles, much of it was discovered after Gaddafi was killed in October 2011, lying unused in warehouses. That suggested that the Libyan military did not know how to install the new weapon systems or had not had time to do so, according to military analysts. And Assad could also have learned some lessons from Gaddafi’s spectacular defeat. Gaddafi lacked long-range missiles capable of combating the high-altitude bombing strikes that NATO fighter jets conducted over Libya. “It’s against these types of operations that, for example, the S-300s or other SAMs [surface-to-air missiles] could be used with some efficiency,” Wezeman says. “In Libya the systems were old and out of date, and the Libyans did not really know how to operate them. It would be much more difficult for outsiders to intervene in Syria, in the way that took place in Libya.”.....snip~

Syria's Air-Defense Arsenal: Russian Missiles Keeping Assad in Power | TIME.com

Plus, this isn't even counting any Chinese Anti Air Missiles.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else got anything to say about France Rules
rulez.gif
of we will protect other populations? Everyone alright with France or another being able to say they could come into the US at anytime all to protect the people of a certain state if needed?

That's whats going on here.

Where has Syria attacked a US interest in this conflict?

Morning MMC !!

France needs to STFU and do it themselves!
The last thing we need to do is waste time or treasure
in the ME.

I'm thinking let them take each other out & pickup the pieces.
 
This is probably the US/UK escape clause. Of course Russia and China vote it down. Then both the US and UK leaders can go on camera and talk about how lucky Syria is and how they were about to get an ass whoopin...
 
Morning MMC !!

France needs to STFU and do it themselves!
The last thing we need to do is waste time or treasure
in the ME.

I'm thinking let them take each other out & pickup the pieces.



Mornin' Penn. :2wave: Yeah.....I don't see the Neo Cons and the Neo Libs all to excited nows, huh? Wonder how that works out with Texas or NY? :shock:

The French <<<<< You are violating your people Rights. We have the Right to come and Protect them. You will be punished. :roll:

What is up with the West thinking they can just fire missiles on anyone. Its grounds for War. WTF do ya think we would do if someone fired missiles on us? Oh Wait. :shock:

Uhm lets just stick with its grounds for War. Mmmkay. :lol:
 
Mornin JM. :2wave: For some reason.....they keep saying for low flying Tomahawks. That they think they can take out the multilayered protections of Assads Air Defense. What did they say 355 they think dead from the Chem attack? We will end up killing way more than that. This will be a bloody nightmare for us. Like you say. They will have people dedicated to go and putting themselves Right there by any facilities. All around it. We wont be able to get away with minor deaths.

Not to mention the majors Like the S300 can take out Multiple Tomahawks. Which they already will have 24/7 mobile air defense. Circling around the S 300s.



Morning MMC :2wave:

Yeah, the Syrian defense are very hardened and you won't be able to break them without a rather massive bombing campaign. I have no doubt that the US forces would untangle that knot, but not without a massive loss of life on the ground.

Or, to put it another way: Either Assad wasn't the one using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians and the war is a farce, or Assad did use chemical weapons on civilians and therefor would therefor have no reservations in parking his S300s on school playgrounds and daring the US to bomb them.

Also, the campaigns in Iraq are a good example of what to expect in a Syrian air campaign. To take out Iraqi air defenses the US air power had to target civilian infrastructure (phones, power) that were also being used by the military. To win an air campaign in Syria we will have to do the same. Destroy their infrastructure. The loss of life as a side effect to taking out the country's power grid alone will exceed that of the gas attacks.
 
Back
Top Bottom