The Coming War With Syria

WakeUp

gurramok wrote: »

Israel managed to bomb a few Syrian sites in 2007 with no resistance, not much air defences there.http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/12/us-israel-syria-idUSN1228366420070912

That was five years ago. Admittedly the Israelis totally out thought the Syrians. Before they launched the air assault Israel sent in commandos to take out the command and control centers. Then they sent their unmaned drones to map and identify SAM sights well most of them. Then they sent more drones in bigger numbers to trick the Syrians into turning on the targeting systems of their SAMS and in turn give there position away. Using electronic jamming and they ensuing nobody knows wtf is going on chaos in the Syrian ranks- they bombed the sites to pieces and flew home. At the time there was a lot of surprise as to how badly the Syrian AD performed as it was Russian kit and their early warning radar failed completely not just a little but completely.

Since then the Syrians have redesigned their AD upgraded and intergrated their radars with the Russians. I personally believe they have the S300 SAM which they didnt have in 07. S300 is to be feared and more than a match for any 4th generation fighter plane. The US have the f-22 their only fifth generation fighter though production has stopped and they only have something like 180 I cant see them risking in any fight. The Syrian air defense would not be able to stop a combined US/NATO attack but they most certainly would be able to take down plenty of planes I would think. US general James Mattis believes Syrian AD would be a problem in trying to open a "humanitarian" corridor..
wiki page lists the Syrian kit some formidable stuff no doubt about it..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57391574/u.s-general-syrian-air-defense-may-be-problem/

If the Syrians have this system and they know how to use it properly they will most certainly knock out many planes dropping bombs on them in their airspace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLBQW5c3q1Q

Killer Wench

Unless they implement the draft, we aren't going into war anytime soon. Why? Because Syria is still protected by Russia and Iran, so if we took a more aggressive stance in that direction, Russia will get its back up and Iran will be threatening total and complete war.

mintoffdom

I notice that some of the MSM are starting to campaign for the draft to be reintroduced.

Articles appearing in TIME and a few other places.

I guess they just need to perfect a method of keeping rich kids out of harms way!

SafeSurfer

ejmaztec wrote: »

Two reasons for the hesitancy of the US going on an all expenses paid trip to Syria, China and Russia don't want them to.

Russia and China are reluctant to sanction UN backed military intervention in Syria because of the way UN resolution 1973 was exploited to effect regime change when its intention was to protect civilians.

The military intervention's real purpose soon became apparent despite repeated assurances that regime change was not the objective.

US secretary of state Hilary Clinton's reaction to Gadaffi's death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

discus

I personally can't wait. Should be a laugh.

gurramok

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Russia and China are reluctant to sanction UN backed military intervention in Syria because of the way UN resolution 1973 was exploited to effect regime change when its intention was to protect civilians

Russia supplies arms to Syria and has a military base there, thats why.

Canis Lupus

They'll just keep bombing them with 'condemnation' whilst loadsa people die.

superluck

If you want to know if an attack on Syria is a certainty, watch the defense stocks.

ATK for example supply the US army with all it's ammunition for shooting people.
It's down from high of $62 in Jan 2012 to $48 but after US election could be up over $62 again easily.

Another good buy is Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman

Wars are started to make money much more than they are for ideological reasons, war is business, death and destruction of people and countries is business and are just opportunities to make money.

If you disbelief that, ask yourselves why the UK government can find billions of pounds to spend on the military and overseas military operations but can't find it to spend on health or education for British people?

Killer Wench

mintoffdom wrote: »

I notice that some of the MSM are starting to campaign for the draft to be reintroduced.

Articles appearing in TIME and a few other places.

I guess they just need to perfect a method of keeping rich kids out of harms way!

Talk of reinstating the draft isn't new. Presently, only 1% of our population has carried the burden of serving in the military during these conflicts, but the current system carries too many advantages/disadvantages/realities that would have to be revisited if the draft was implemented.

First, as the military loosens its long held beliefs about females in combat roles, would implementing the draft mean that women would also be eligible for the draft? Theories of equality demand that this be the case, but our society is too uncomfortable with the notion of forcing a female to face combat if she doesn't want to.

Second, members of the military receive hella good benefits including free or vastly subsidized housing for them and their families, free or reduced health care for them and their families, access to scholarships, hiring preferences and requirements, and the general respect of the population for their service, even when on an individual level, they don't deserve it.

Third, with the acknowledgement of conditions such as TBI and PTSD, would we strain our already strained VA system and health care system with an influx of injured veterans.

Fourth, and most painful to admit, most Americans cannot meet the standards to enlist in the military due to obesity and health conditions. So, if a draft was implemented, standards would have to decrease to meet the needs, and that raises questions of having the best force that we can afford. This happened during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, people who would usually not be eligible were granted waivers, and many of these same people are now being discharged from the military.

mongdesade

MaxSteele wrote: »

We're a small, neutral nation on the fringes of Europe, thousands of miles away from these middle eastern conflicts, which have no real impact on us.

Welcome to the United States of Europe...

We may all start to learn French & German so we can communicate with our EU overlords after the Fiscal treaty debacle.

Europe / UN will decide eventually whether / if Irish troops will enter the fray for us

Run_to_da_hills

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Its funny that everytime there is a massacre in Syria the opposition to the government claim the victims were mostly women and children. No men fighting i guess.

That's called NATO propaganda.

Tym

Originally Posted by 141_Oscar_Mike
Its funny that everytime there is a massacre in Syria the opposition to the government claim the victims were mostly women and children. No men fighting i guess.
That's called NATO propaganda.

Or it's a common method used by totalitareab regimes, attacking armies, occupying armies, etc to keep down the local population.

af_thefragile

I know many of ye don't agree with what he says but this guy makes sense to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTuZeHYABaY

SafeSurfer

The Syrian government eliminate those perceived to be a threat to their regime through extrajudicial killings.
The American government eliminate those perceived to be a threat to their regime through extrajudicial killings.

Is there really any difference apart from the sophistication of the technology that does the killing?

Fratton Fred

superluck wrote: »

If you want to know if an attack on Syria is a certainty, watch the defense stocks.

ATK for example supply the US army with all it's ammunition for shooting people.
It's down from high of $62 in Jan 2012 to $48 but after US election could be up over $62 again easily.

Another good buy is Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman

Wars are started to make money much more than they are for ideological reasons, war is business, death and destruction of people and countries is business and are just opportunities to make money.

If you disbelief that, ask yourselves why the UK government can find billions of pounds to spend on the military and overseas military operations but can't find it to spend on health or education for British people?

Yes, you're right.

Let's stand back and watch hundreds of innocent people die, that show those dasterdly capitalists.

hmmm

I'm confused why I'm not seeing a bunch of rich kids from D4 taking part in a convoy to assist the people of Syria? Instead it seems they come on here and use the murder of civilians by the Syrian government as a justification to indulge in their knee jerk anti-West rants. And doing all this from the comfort of a Western system (which they hate) that allows them post online without the threat of being arrested and tortured because the glorious leader disagrees with them.

Nothingbetter2d

its all part of merkel's plan to rule the world

micropig

China and Russia to block any military intervention in Syria
China and Russia have said that they willl veto any UN mandate for military action in Syria.

The two countries - both allies to the Syrian government - said that they are against any move that would bring about regime change.

Their comments come after peace envoy Kofi Annan said it was time to threaten consequences if Bashar Al-Assad's forces do not stop killing civilians.






This could get interesting

SafeSurfer

hmmm wrote: »

I'm confused why I'm not seeing a bunch of rich kids from D4 taking part in a convoy to assist the people of Syria? Instead it seems they come on here and use the murder of civilians by the Syrian government as a justification to indulge in their knee jerk anti-West rants. And doing all this from the comfort of a Western system (which they hate) that allows them post online without the threat of being arrested and tortured because the glorious leader disagrees with them.

I think you must be confused alright.

You are wrong on just about every level of your post.

Maybe you could question for just a moment why Syria is being targeted.

If you want to believe the fairytale that the just and right "West" just cannot bear to stand by and watch harm come to innocent civilians and is compelled to intervene to prevent further bloodshed then you really are truly deluded.

The same countries that want to intervene militarily in Syria have backed regimes that killed more of their civilians in the past and continue to support murderous regimes that are still useful to them. To paraphrase Roosevelt as long as he is our son of a bitch we support him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-west-is-horrified-by-childrens-slaughter-now-soon-well-forget-7794149.html

How many people were killed in Algeria with the full backing of western powers?

You seem to believe that the west is doing the Syrian people a favour. They are not. They are escalating a rebellion in the hope of seeing the outbreak of civil war in order to topple a regime that is no longer useful to them

The divide and conquer has been the American foreign policy of choice since the backing of the Northern Alliance was successful in toppling the Taliban.

But carry on and dismiss anyone who criticises the duplicity, cynicism and hypocrisy of some western powers as the rantings of privileged anti-westerners.

uncle_sam_ie

Alex Thomsen reports for the British Channel 4.
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/hostile-territory/1863

"I’m quite clear the rebels deliberately set us up to be shot by the Syrian Army. Dead journos are bad for Damascus."

"In a war where they slit the throats of toddlers back to the spine, what’s the big deal in sending a van full of journalists into the killing zone?

It was nothing personal."

And the confused here still believe that Syrian government forces are committing those massacres.

Tym

And the confused here still believe that Syrian government forces are committing those massacres.

That doesn't prove that the syrian government isn't commiting these massacres. If your watching people in your country being massacred, while the West does nothing, wouldn't certain people be driven to radicalism.

SafeSurfer

Tym wrote: »

That doesn't prove that the syrian government isn't commiting these massacres. If your watching people in your country being massacred, while the West does nothing, wouldn't certain people be driven to radicalism.

You have to wonder who gains most from the massacre of innocent civilians.
The armed groups who desperately seek outside military intervention or a regime trying to hold on to power under the spotlight of the international media, UN and the current focus of outside powers waiting to seize a chance to sell the need for intervention to their own electorate.

It just doesn't add up.

tigger123

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You have to wonder who gains most from the massacre of innocent civilians.
The armed groups who desperately seek outside military intervention or a regime trying to hold on to power under the spotlight of the international media, UN and the current focus of outside powers waiting to seize a chance to sell the need for intervention to their own electorate.

It just doesn't add up.

Well thank God* you're here to lead us through the fog of war

:pac:





*I apologise for the religous reference.

Tym

You have to wonder who gains most from the massacre of innocent civilians.
The armed groups who desperately seek outside military intervention or a regime trying to hold on to power under the spotlight of the international media, UN and the current focus of outside powers waiting to seize a chance to sell the need for intervention to their own electorate.

It just doesn't add up.

If two very powerful nations were vetoing international intervention and you had definite internal trouble (regardles of source or morality of rebels) and the chance of intervention in the future, most psycopatic people would put down any opposition in their own nation first. If you put the opposition down brutally enough you could avoid the division of a civil war (western backed or not) that would severely weaken your nation for future, or joint, attacks.

And, sad to say, killing women and children has proven a very effective method of quelling uprisings. Yes, it would radicalise many people, but it would also limit their support as men and women would be fearful of reprisals on their family or freinds. Would you go to war and leave your family, or community, defenseless?

SafeSurfer

Tym wrote: »

If two very powerful nations were vetoing international intervention and you had definite internal trouble (regardles of source or morality of rebels) and the chance of intervention in the future, most psycopatic people would put down any opposition in their own nation first. If you put the opposition down brutally enough you could avoid the division of a civil war (western backed or not) that would severely weaken your nation for future, or joint, attacks.

And, sad to say, killing women and children has proven a very effective method of quelling uprisings. Yes, it would radicalise many people, but it would also limit their support as men and women would be fearful of reprisals on their family or freinds. Would you go to war and leave your family, or community, defenseless?

History tells us that you are mistaken, your example could be used to describe the situation in Israel for generations.

What examples of the effectiveness of killing women and children in quelling uprisings can you give?

kraggy

Biggins wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap" Isaiah 17:1

...And thats after Justin Beiber visits! :eek:

And Isaiah Baby Baby Baby Oh!

SafeSurfer

tigger123 wrote: »

Well thank God* you're here to lead us through the fog of war

:pac:





*I apologise for the religous reference.

FOX NEWS CHANNEL>>>>

golden lane

ejmaztec wrote: »

<listens>






<still listening















Nah, still haven't heard of a cowardly hero.

you are not listening in the right place.....go further north....

Tym

What examples of the effectiveness of killing women and children in quelling uprisings can you give?

The collasal amount of state adminastrated terror during the United Irishmen Rebellion and the red terror instigated by Stalin and Lenin.

True, the Irish State didn't go out to kill children and women, instead used torture, rape and murder. And true, Stalin and Lenin sent the political opponents and dissidents and their families to Gualag camps, but the aim of terror, while not the method, is still the same.