Should Obama kill Bashar Assad?

Be like Nutella

clairefontaine wrote: »

I am so sick of this tiny part of the world causing so much trouble for everyone.

well Claire the west has been meddling in the Mid East for a long time and it's clearly been about the oil as you know so you can't just view the Mid East on its own and hate it... if you hate it then you hate what the west has done to it and you hate our absolute dependence on oil.

About the EU jumping in instead of the US. I agree actually, that would essentially mean France and Britain obviously but they could do it. It would be a lot easier for the US though as they have so many assets in the mid east already and their entire war machine out there is just better equipped and set up for an operation like this. Basically they know how to do it and they're virtually locked and loaded as it is right now.

About the US putting out every fire, well, that's a complicated one and ranges from the heroics of WW2 to the unforgivable decision not to intervene in Rwanda to the utter lies of Iraq 2 to the late entry into Kosovo to the sit back and watch a massacre unfold in Syria.... so I'm not so sure its healthy to view the US as the worlds trustworthy firemen... history tells a different story... however they have done it on a number of occasions and I always believed in the overly simplistic mantra 'Evil happens when good people do nothing'.... I wouldn't mind but American media and movies and general position tell us constantly that 'they' are such a power for good in the world and spread freedom and democracy out of the good of their heroic hearts : ).... which is far too sickeningly sweet to be true as we both know.

I would recommend you read a highly respected book called "A Problem from Hell' America and the age of genocide (by Pulitzer prize winning journalist/author/historian Samantha Power)

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

well Claire the west has been meddling in the Mid East for a long time and it's clearly been about the oil as you know so you can't just view the Mid East on its own and hate it... if you hate it then you hate what the west has done to it and you hate our absolute dependence on oil.

About the EU jumping in instead of the US. I agree actually, that would essentially mean France and Britain obviously but they could do it. It would be a lot easier for the US though as they have so many assets in the mid east already and their entire war machine out there is just better equipped and set up for an operation like this. Basically they know how to do it and they're virtually locked and loaded as it is right now.

About the US putting out every fire, well, that's a complicated one and ranges from the heroics of WW2 to the unforgivable decision not to intervene in Rwanda to the utter lies of Iraq 2 to the late entry into Kosovo to the sit back and watch a massacre unfold in Syria.... so I'm not so sure its healthy to view the US as the worlds trustworthy firemen... history tells a different story... however they have done it on a number of occasions and I always believed in the overly simplistic mantra 'Evil happens when good people do nothing'.... I wouldn't mind but American media and movies and general position is that they are such a power for good in the world and spread freedom and democracy out of the good of their heroic hearts : ).... which is far too sickeningly sweet to be true as we both know.

I would recommend you read a highly respected book called "A Problem from Hell' America and the age of genocide (by Pulitzer prize winning journalist/author/historian Samantha Power)

I would agree with you about the oil dependency, but you cant pin all the mid east troubles on the US.

I am as sick and tired of the American heroic model as you probably are but for more complicated reasons than what you state. Yes they always yadda yadda on about WW2 and chances are we would all still be speaking German had they not pulled in eventually, and it is glamourised in the US and often used to validate further global nation building. [On the other hand, when I see them wanting to have more armed guards at schools etc, I feel, "You fought the Nazis for this?!!" Someone posted a Michael Moore rant and the thread was closed. I read the rant and I agree with everything he said and I don't normally agree with Michael Moore about much but I believe the US military is a sucker's nightmare, sucking in young boys to fight wars that make a lot of money for old men who don't give a crap about them. Every memorial day the tv screens are filled with glorious war movies and flags flying referring to our "heroes." They are not heroes, they are victims and I wish the rhetoric would change, but I know it wont, because there is money in war for certain parties. If I had an adult child who told me s/he was going to join the military, I would quote PT Barnum to him/her "There is a sucker born every minute" and then beg him or her not to be such a moron/victim of a con job.

I apologise for the digression but it is part of a wider context for how I feel about US military intervention at every drop of the hat to the extent that I feel it would be better for the US if it went back to its isolationism as the founding fathers advised, stayed out of it and stopped nation building, but we both know that is never going to happen .

Europe has had a long history with the middle east, geographically they are closer, and they are just better at dealing with this, and really it's their turn. Let them clean it up rather than sit back and watch it. It's their turn.

SoulandForm

Problem is mate that after the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq following the lies about the baby incubators in the first Gulf war its hard not to be scepticial about the mainstream media. We have seen what happened in Libya when similar forces to these rebels took over.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Off you go then

www.bbc.co.uk/news
www.guardian.co.uk
www.spiegel.de/international/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

Can you highlight the specific lies and misreporting.. with evidence, in regards the Syrian situation, from let's say the last week.

I'm not claiming the information is 100% accurate, but then again, I don't see many media outlets that are, they constantly add disclaimers that the information is from a particular source, e.g. Syrian state television, or the rebels or the SOHOR.

"Friends of Syria" on the other hand is not a news site, it is not subject to any accountability, any watchdogs, etc, they can write what they want.

clairefontaine

SoulandForm wrote: »

Problem is mate that after the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq following the lies about the baby incubators in the first Gulf war its hard not to be scepticial about the mainstream media. We have seen what happened in Libya when similar forces to these rebels took over.

The WMDs are still a mystery. . Everyone was duped. Theory is they got moved to guess where....

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/did-syria-receive-its-chemical-weapons-saddam/55142/

and

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html

That's what makes these things so impossible to judge- the information is fluid, unreliable, and changes quickly.

Jonny7

SoulandForm wrote: »

Problem is mate that after the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

The Bush administration lied, the media reported it. Kinda like the way they reported Bill Clinton "not having sexual relations" with that woman.

following the lies about the baby incubators in the first Gulf war its hard not to be scepticial about the mainstream media. We have seen what happened in Libya when similar forces to these rebels took over.

I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you somehow think that thousands of outlets from Finland to Canada to Singapore are all universally controlled. If they are, show us how it's done.

Be like Nutella

"...Surveillance satellites in late November showed signs that sarin precursor materials were being combined and loaded into aerial munitions for a possible airstrike. After Israel took this information to the United States, President Obama publicly threatened that Assad would be "held accountable" for any chemical weapons use against the opposition forces that since 2011 have fought to topple his regime..."

http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/intl-outcry-over-feared-syrian-chemical-strike-seen-avert-nov-crisis/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1

I never thought the Chem attack was this real or so close. Unless this is propaganda type bull**** which it could well be, by either the writer or org themselves, or by a wider state dept effort to play some games with Assad in the news.... the point being to show people that the US has flexed muscle at Assad and he has reacted and stood down a bit. On the other hand if its real then holy fuk the guy was going to do some chem attacks with fukin Sarin!!!!! in which case my case rests - he's gotta be toppled soon! Best of bad options is the one which costs 50,000 less dead Syrian civilians!

clairefontaine

Well if he is going to be toppled it will have to be from other people. Until he aims one at the US, for the US to carry out political assassination is an act of terror legally speaking.


I would love to know what "held accountable" means.

Be like Nutella

.....ok you're right in the context of just taking Assad out right now with a strike - yes unrealistic and an act of terror I agree.... I'd still do it if the chance arose but that's me and the fact I'm convinced even more so since his speech on Sunday that HE WILL turn large weapons on his own people and the victims will be his Syrian population we could easily see 100,000 more people die before he's toppled. And yes it will require outside Intl forces... which are active already to a degree. Not to enough of a degree is my point ...and my problem.

A no fly zone is absolutely required now and it will take US assistance to achieve that, that is a fact IMO.

Securing those Chemical stockpiles is a necessity now and that will also require US/UK/French assistance.

The essential action is:
After they do all of this... and I feel they will have to WHEN he turns up the massacre exponentially... What actions can be taken TO PAUSE (at least...) the almost guaranteed fight for power which will occur straight after his fall ?
Can an outside body come in and sit as many groups involved down as possible and marginalize the rest to a sufficient degree to produce a 'path' towards a new government? I don't know, it's easy to say NO absolutely not because of X,Y,Z, but that is defeatist and serves no purpose, even if it is likely. That position or opinion still doesn't change the fact he WILL massacre at greatly increased levels ...and the US/UK/FRANCE/GULF PARTNERS WILL HAVE TO STEP IN ON SOME LEVEL AND END HIS LEADERSHIP TO PREVENT THAT GENOCIDE.

The likelihood is that Turkey and Saudi Arabia IMO will use their Air Forces to maintain a No Fly Zone once air defenses are suppressed which will require US/UK/French help initially. There will need to be a coming together of countries in a partnership to deal with the humanitarian crisis which has now reached tipping point and chaos in places like Jordan with 500,000 dislocated people and groups causing trouble as well in neighboring countries.

The knock on effects are hitting Lebanon and Jordan and Turkey and creating a very serious Kurdish hmmm problem is not the right word... let's call it a Kurdish issue.... in Northern Iraq, Turkey and Syria. This is likely to result in a vague form of semi autonomous state being formed in Syria between Assad and the future-post-Assad leadership. There's a lot of balls in the air WHEN ASSAD IS TOPPLED but all of that is crystal ball bullsh1t, for now, the main thing is that Assad is not willing to step down and has said so in no uncertain terms. His speech on Sunday was completely disconnected (by ALL expert accounts) to reality and his intention is 100% to dig in and fight using all the power he has at his disposal... which for safety purposes SHOULD NOT in peoples heads EXCLUDE his Chem weapons. From what I understand he has actually used chem weapons already to a very small degree but that will need further clarification and is not important as it didn't kill anyone in the instances reported on which I refer to here.

The feeling is that within 72 hours a No Fly Zone could be established. That is the outside estimate as reported think tanks and journalists and analysts right now. This says to me that, although he has a functional state military at his disposal, his actual ability to withstand a foreign NFZ enforcement is almost non existent, hence the Intl Community MAY IN FACT BE WILLING TO RISK THEIR PEOPLE TRYING TO EXECUTE SUCH AN INTERVENTION WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT DEDUCTION.

Once a NFZ was established, the disparate Rebel forces would be encouraged by the Intl community to come together in as strong an alliance as possible and push for Damascus amid the massacre Assad will try and inflict. And depending on how severe that massacre proves to be (because he can do anything he wants really when you think about it when push comes to shove and he's finally cornered with a NFZ in place he will turn to heavy weapons and artillery and roll out against these forces in great number and attempt to crush them)... so depending on how Assad uses his forces, and how many of them remain on side and don't defect, then you could see a boots on the ground intervention led by the US being voted on in Congress! (I'm talking if he literally begins to annihilate his own people en masse as the FSA roll into Damascus) but with the absolute assurance from Obama's joint chiefs that their role will be to suppress Assads forces and give them every opportunity to defect along the way OR be accountable for their actions after the dust settles.
This moment is assured to come at some point in my opinion. At this point his soldiers still loyal to him will feel they have no choice but to imbed themselves within the Damascus population where they are right now so as to use the Syrians as a shield against International force missile strikes which will attempt to quickly destroy their heavy weapon sites and break their resolve. If this happens (and I don't think it will because I think his forces will defect and dispel and/or run) then we are in for a bloody and long assault on Damascus which may require the Intl Community to publicly or secretly arm up the rebels to the hilt, giving them a better chance at finishing the job on the ground.

All of that is bad. There's no good end to this thing. But that's exactly why I think rhetoric needs to be stepped up and he needs threats with teeth behind them.

"stop massacring your people immediately, do not use heavy weapons against an outgunned rebel force or we will take the first step and that is to impose a swift and vicious no fly zone and every one of your planes will be grounded forcing you into a long drawn out ground battle which ends in your death"

...would be the gist of the thing.

He won't listen to that - he feels his fate is absolutely cemented and he will kill to the end. Hence - it's time to rock. It's time to argue for action in Congress and ask the troops do they want in? Why troops would get involved in something that may escalate from a NFZ which puts a 100 pilots at risk to possibly special forces assaults which put a further 1000 guys at risk right up to boots on the ground which may put 20-50,000 guys at risk I don't know. That's for Obama to work out and the joint chiefs to debate. The legacy of good will it will create in the region if done properly and if they get the **** out of there ASAP (ie <6 months) after its done no matter what the situation on the ground will resound in history and all the Syrian civilians will remember is when the US stopped Assad killing them, fuk the terrorist groups scratching for power and followers in the mix - they're gona be there anyway no matter what happens... just keep the advanced weapons out of their hands best you can.

Hearts and minds are already on board, the average Syrian wants Assad to step down and for a new Syria where they have a say in their lives to take form... even if there's bloodshed.. there's no going back now. The tide is coming and it's just a question of how many 100's of thousands of Syrian civilians the Intl Community and primarily Obama is willing to witness get massacred JUST AS CLINTON WATCHED 1 MILLION RWANDANS GET HACKED TO DEATH BY MACHETES IN 3 MONTHS.

I don't see the choice as a complicated one now, 1 year ago yes, 6 months ago maybe but since 6 months ago 5000 have died every single month and is now increasing day by day right now. The information is there enough now to know the limited set of futures that lies before us.. all of them suck.... but one of them is clearly THE worst for Syrians and the region and IMO the Intl community... and that is the future where we sit back and debate while 100,000 or 200,000 Syrians get massacred by a state military with Assad at the helm diggin in and ready to die and those numbers are a real logical projected estimate seeing as the battle for Damascus has not begun, yet.

Damascus is the center of a large metropolitan area of 2.6 million people. It is the absolute capital in all meanings of the word. Everything and everyone is there. 100's died during the initial protests which kicked this thing off 2 years ago so there is massive anti-government sentiment JUST BENEATH the surface and these people will come out to play very very quickly should rebel tanks or cars or SUVs roll down the road beeping and shouting. The Shabia who control check points in the now locked down Damascus will have to group together as the war approaches Damascus city limits and at this point they will stick with Assad or flee or defect. They have a ruthless system of preventing or finding defectors or possible defectors by paying or forcing members to pretend to defect or to plan to defect and if the trap is successful they execute the soldier there and then in front of the others and so forth and as the war continues the ranks become more and more concentrated. The trick is to get the officers to defect which would allow whole squads to defect. This will only come towards the end if at all. They are trained by Iranians, nice of Iran to do that isn't it : ) assholes.

He 's gotta go... whats' wrong with my prediction ... the only thing which prevents the bloodshed I pessimistically predict is if Assad just magically either shoots himself or steps down publicly under the agreement of being taken abroad and escaping eventual execution which ain't gona happen less they evac him by black hawk with special forces with a signed agreement from the US state dept and all of that ain't gona happen either... this thing is going south.. and fast.

He needs to go - that requires the US's help - that requires political support - that requires an event of horrific massacre and that is coming, mark my pessimistic words it's 100% guaranteed! and if it comes I hope it's sooner than later so less Syrians die at Assads hands.

Depressing sh1t. But if I'm so wrong tell me where and how?

asherbassad

Be like Nutella wrote: »

actually I can't disagree with much of that... but the thing is I just see this Assad gang continuing to kill more and more people every day and week and month until there's 100,000... 150,000 dead.... and that is not something that should be acceptable to an Intl Community which has the physical capsity to stop it.... intervene... on some level...

-Give Assad a deadline to 'give it up'
-Impose No Fly Zone by whatever means
-Secure the chem weapons
-Arrest everyone for war crimes that be needin arrestin
-Find some reasonable people to deal with
-do your best to stop weapons gettin into AQ or Jihadist group hands
-Roll the dice, basically give them a chance
-help them set up or try to set up a democracy..
-try and keep the institutions that remotely work intact
-Get a kitty goin to rebuild the gaf
-Secure oil deals etc to get some money goin in the right direction
-ask the new crowd what you can do to help
-then get your troops out of dodge before you fuk it up like you did in Iraq

and to be honest all that could be a load of crap I don't have the answers I just think the US and Obama does NOT want to watch another Rwanda unfold and do nothing because history will only forget a LIMITED number of genocides under America's watch!

It took 4 Stealth bombers and 72 hours, essentially, to stop Milosevic

Clinton could've intervened in Rwanda and chose not to and 1 million people died in 3 months and he says it is his greatest regret of his life.

Most Syrians want out from under Assad.... some of them stood up and fought for that... the rest chose not to or can't or are scared or would be massacred if they did. Assad firmly believes that the chaos of Syria without an Assad at the helm is worth massacring a few hundred thousand Syrians. He is facing life in jail right now already. He now only sees one end to this and that is all out genocide and the international community rubs its thumbs while a desperate man plays the numbers game and by attrition kills 5000 Syrians (not all of them fuking terrorists by the way its mostly old people, kids, women, bloody civilians) per month every month since and including last July... 5000/5000/5000/5000/5000/5000... and counting. He knows that the number he kills every day with Barrel bombs fuilled with nails and Gatling guns from helicopter gun ships and missiles fires at gas stations and bakery queues has not 'prompted' the Intl community to jump in and kick his evil ass yet. This is all a game of numbers. Here's a few important ones to consider.

1. 200,000 - is 200,000 massacred Syrian civilians enough to promt Obama to do something.
2. 296 - That's how many congressmen voted YES to Iraq in 2003... and that was based on maaaaaaajor bullsh1t - this is real and happening on CNN right in front of their eyes.
3 3000-7000 Libyans died and we all jumped in there over 50 cal machine guns being used on the streets - There's between 45-55 thousand dead in Syria in the last 22 months, 30,000 in the last 5 months alone....this MF is willing to carpet bomb entire areas of housing - wait and see.... he feels he has no other fate.

His choice is binary... he dies for what he believes in, an ordered Syria which his father and himself (by chance he was never meant to lead - it was to his brother but he died in a feckin car accident and Assad who was in London at the time training to be a feckin eye doctor got the call - few years later he's running the show with absolutely no experience in government whatsoever )... he dies for that or... he's a flip of a coin away from execution by whoever/whatever replaces his lot... or life in jail courtesy of the Hague.

TBH as I've mentioned a few times the thread title was just to focus minds here.... I could've just said Should Obama get into Syria and do whatever is necessary to stop Assad in his increasing massacre of Syrians including everything up to taking him out if necessary.... which is a ploy which the US has employed to attempted to employ in other situations many many times before eg. Iraq - Saddam.. which incidentally didn't work but you get the drift.

Because I KNOW FOR CERTAIN from the way I read this thing that Assad's crowd (who ALLL by the way are responsible and in the same shoes as him less they defect, which many have and many have died trying and many rot in tortuous jails for thinking about trying)... because I know all these dudes are stuck between a fate of jail/execution/attempted defection/attempted escape/Hague courtrooms for 10 years/or status quo for as long as they can hold out and fuk the 100,000 that need to die in the mean time - that is exactly what they will do.

This thing is an out of control locomotive and it's left the station and the only way to stop it is to stop it...in its tracks... and let the chips fall where they land.

It's easier to argue about doing nothing right up to the day when he kills 25,000 in some bombing or chem weapon attack or slaughters an entire Crowd in Damascus which is where this all ends... and then do something... when it's too late.

The US CANNOT allow that to happen... they will be blamed by the Syrians afterwards and by us all at home watching it on sky news. The US cannot absorb that blow internationally. So it's gona come down to the wire. I'm merely saying if I were Obama I would sell the humanitarian disaster of it to Americans and raise a posse and do something righteous and fuk the IR bullsh1t we're all talking about here - if Assad is not stopped hes not stopped that's all that will matter in history. It's very easy to argue that the aftermath may result in civil war and that minority extreme caliphate seeking Islamists will grab for power with or without mandate and that terrorist attacks will be common as these groups try and consolidate power and that there's no natural resources to be invading about anyway or that Russia wont vote for it or China.... who gives a monkeys... WHEN not IF... WHEN Assad massacres 100,000 THE INTL COMMUNITY WILL 100% 'HAVE' TO DO IT ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES!!!

Let's look at some very simple facts:

1.4 million Iraqis dead and 4 million refugees.

Iraqi woman terrified to get pregnant because of the appalling birth defects as a result of chemical weapons, Charming stuff:

http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

Kinda reminds me of the freaks with heads like cones and born with no anuses as a result of Agent Orange on little rice people in the 60's and 70's



But that was all to get a few barrels of WMD.


Now let's move on to the screaming toddlers in Pakistan who deficate the moment they hear a drone overhead.....even though Osama is dead and those WMDs have been found:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/killing-civilians-obamas-drone-war-in-pakistan/5315661



SO,

Once again....the FCUKING US can't allow something to happen??

Maybe an apology and some trials before you go slaughtering some people in yet another country that you couldn't even spell let alone find on a map?

CollardGreens

Yikes, you folks are sure tuff on the Americans! As a citizen born and raised in America, please allow me to speak...ahem....

#1, Yo, Cork Boy...friend, obama DOES NOT speak for over half of the Americans. I'd love to see that joker that is running Syria blown to pieces as many of Americans would. Assad needs kill'en, period!

#2, Why is it that everybody expects the Americans to fix things? Folks, we are so flipping broke we can't pay attention. This knuckle head impostor trying to be an American (which I really don't believe he is) obama is spending us into the poor house. Just today it's reported he is appointing a man that not only hates Israel and the Jews to head up our military, and that joker wants to DISMANTLE the military!!!! (No I'm not kidding, wish I were). I have family in the military, their pay checks and medical got cut Jan 1st and the gov is just beginning to break them down.

#3, as to "why", from what I'm reading it is that if we go to war with Syria then Russia will get involved. Do I agree, heck no. IMO we need to grow our military and we should have taken that Assad dude out a loooong time ago.

Friends, the American people are in a great unrest and not happy would be putting it lightly. Most think obama got in with stolen votes. The people that voted for him were three groups, the people that do not want to work and expect handouts (i.e. lazy worthless), the liberals that hate Jesus and want control, and the millions of illegals that cross our borders from Mexico that obama gave a free pass right before the election to make sure he would steal this election.

Last but deff not least, two words....GEORGE SOROS! That is whom is running things now. obama is his puppet, he hates America, he hates Jews, he is one of the richest men in the world and HE BOUGHT THE COMPANY THAT COUNTED THE VOTES IN AMERICA.

I'm done, Thank you.....I'm off the soapbox now

clairefontaine

Ok, something needs to be done, but Nutella, surely you could be in the European politics section demanding that Europe do something? It's not as if the Brits, the Germans and the French don't have a military.

It's not as if the Brits and the French haven't been all over the Middle East and half of them living in their countries!

Be like Nutella

Actually I wish it were the Germans and French leading the effort... there would be less blow back afterwards.... but they haven't got the gear or the people to carry it out between them in a manner which would put their pilots at minimal risk as the American's have. Like I said it would be played as if the Europeans were leading it and then a NFZ could be maintained by gulf partners and Turkey but it would require a lot of US help/work in the background and as a (large) supporting role. If there was anything above the expected level of resistance then the US would step in and strike necessary targets from its platforms out there. The US can send 20 F22s off carrier groups from the gulf or Indian Ocean or Mediterranean or fly B2 stealths from Trieste or non-stop from Missouri or even use Reapers to a certain extent to take out hardware.

62% of Americans in a Wash Post survey said they'd favor the US getting a NFZ going (but 72% don't want any boots on ground) and McCain and his two amigos in the Senate demanded a US enforced NFZ on 30th September in an Op Ed in the Wash Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-descent-into-hell/2012/12/30/abc244bc-511f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

Jonny7

The Libyan approach was consensus and a "simple" (less complex) military plan.

The consensus was pushed by France, UK and the US with heavy influence and support from the Arab League. Was validated by the UN and broad support across the world. The Chinese and Russian abstained from the vote but crucially didn't veto.

The geography of Libya and the large open gaps between towns and cities meant that NATO could be effective in catching Gadaffi armour en-route between population centres. The Libyan military was dated, weak, less morale and well known about.

Yet Gadaffi held off for 6 months.

And the rebels needed a huge amount of luck and quite a bit of "grey area" in the UN mandate to make a final successful push.

Even more amazing is that the peace has held considering the tribal nature of the country and the vicious spate of reprisals that civil war and decades of dictatorship can trigger.



Syria, on the other hand, has the geography from hell, even after almost 2 years of civil war the military is very powerful, has good tech, and is also being prepared for the eventually of outside intervention.
The whole area is a tinderbox.
Russia and China will veto, they don't have public opinion to worry about (when do they ever)


What the US, UK, France, Turkey and other countries are doing is tacitly supporting the rebels, ranging from vocal support all the way to indirect military support (Saudi, Qatar) whilst putting all pressure possible on Assad.

Without support from Russia and China, even the most basic peaceful UN resolutions are virtually impossible (as so far proved) and military is completely off the cards.

Unilateral military action would be extremely unpopular (mirrors of Iraq) and would be exceptionally difficult.. what is the aim? how long would it take to achieve? how well prepared are Assad's forces for this? - would almost definitely be a quagmire.

The most logical way forward is to keep putting pressure on Assad, keep tacitly supporting the rebels, keep bribing and enticing Assad's inner circle to berak away from the dynasty and to keep up negotiations with and recognition of the opposition representatives (who are a little more disjointed than the NTC were in Libya)

Syria is now reaching a crucial phase with two years of civil war taking a huge toll on basic food supplies, infrastructure, and the mass exodus of refugee's..

The most likely outcome is that all this pressure will force Assad to conceed and make a deal with the int. community to step down. This surrender would be much more desirable and lessen the chances of a bloody showdown in the capital or wherever

Be like Nutella

well I hope that happens

but the general opinion thus far and even more so since his speech on Sunday is that he won't give in or make a deal or do anything but increase his killing. He will not deal with the fighting rebels. I actually think he believes all the mental sh1t he's saying. From his perspective literally everyone fighting is a terrorist and an enemy of the Syrian nation and needs to be beaten militarily WHILE he offers things like a new constitution and more say to the non fighting groups who have remained at the table. He feels the world is against him and all the gulf states are helping these 'terrorists' dethrone him. He wont back down to international pressure especially if there's virtually no teeth to the threats of being 'held accountable' which means fuk all to him because he knows this all ends in bloodshed in Damascus. In the meantime all these obvious reasons why the Intl community CANNOT make a difference will just be repeated in the media day in day out as expert after expert appears on news shows saying how this is going to be a quagmire if we jump in and so forth right up to the point when Assad feels he is forced to rain down some serious death on these rebels using much greater force than we've seen. And at that point the Intl community and Congress and the UN will vote for imposing a No Fly Zone but not before the massacre happens. This is my gut feeling based on Assad's clever killing thus far in numbers each day, week and month which simply test the boundaries of what the Intl community will accept which seems to be a lot.

Right here's a black and white question for ya Johnny...

If Assad killed massive numbers starting tomorrow say, 2-3000 people in some area of Aleppo for instance with a massive air raid do you think we'd be looking at a No Fly Zone within weeks? and if so how soon could he be toppled after that? and what would it take in your opinion to invite an international ground force of some sort? How many dead? what's you take on this?

Forget the military complications about what to do after for the moment.

Be like Nutella

"...If we remain on the current course, future historians are likely to record the slaughter of innocent Syrians, and the resulting harm done to America’s national interests and moral standing, as a shameful failure of U.S. leadership and one of the darker chapters in our history...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-descent-into-hell/2012/12/30/abc244bc-511f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Right here's a black and white question for ya Johnny...

If Assad killed massive numbers starting tomorrow say, 2-3000 people in some area of Aleppo for instance with a massive air raid do you think we'd be looking at a No Fly Zone within weeks? and if so how soon could he be toppled after that? and what would it take in your opinion to invite an international ground force of some sort? How many dead? what's you take on this?

Forget the military complications about what to do after for the moment.

Very very unlikely, but hypothetically, perhaps a massacre of women and children caught clearly on tape or the likes..

Then I think the Russia and China could be then pressured into passing a tough resolution.

The strictest I'd imagine would be a pure nofly zone with less bite than the one passed on Libya, just to keep Assad's jets out of the skies.

Obviously much more would go on in the background such as passing intel and info to the rebels and facilitating more arms.

In these conflicts.. the key rule from history, a very slow lesson, is that the opposition or rebels must be seen to achieve victory.

The US, NATO, Eurocpean countries, Arab League, etc should only ever play a supporting role. They couldn't roll tanks into Damascus.

They must also always have the higher moral ground, and world opinion on their side.. the success of intervention is highly dependant on this.

Be like Nutella

Is there a risk a Rebel group may enact such a slaughter and blame it on Assad given the media blackout in Syria?

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Is there a risk a Rebel group may enact such a slaughter and blame it on Assad given the media blackout in Syria?

Absolutely, the more desparate and depraved and vicious the fighting gets, the more screwed up things get.

There are still quite a few reporters in Syria, they all generally paint the same picture, the rebels are still mainly Syrian, however the foreign fighters are increasing. The atrocities on both sides are also increasing. No side is immune to revenge and retribution.

These foreign fighters (and some domestic) have a huge range of motives.

Some are expatriates who fight in solidarity to overthrow Assad. Others fight because they believe it is their duty to support Sunni against Shia oppression. Some are a range of mild to extreme fundamentalists who want to see an Islamic Syria emerge from the ashes.

There are those from the many headed and splintered Al Qaeda who have operated against the US in Iraq and elsewhere, are absolutely fearless and very good at what they do.

Two years of civil war does terrible things to a country.

Just look at the high levels of PTSD and suicides in the professional US army, volunteers for it. It is unimaginable the effects on the unprepared populace of Syria.

CollardGreens

Whatever happened to the "James Bonds"? Do any of you think it would be possible to send in someone like a loan wolf to take him out?

Money talks, couldn't somebody in assad's force be paid off to kill him?

Just tossing out ideas, seems to me that they would be looking for a large force to take over but wouldn't expect one person to do the job.

btw, Nutella I like the way you think, but the title of this thread gets under my skin (nothing personal of course). Asking obama to kill assad to me would be like asking a hungry lion to watch your chickens ~ I personally believe as many do that obama is destroying America on purpose. Really, seriously...YES WE DO! Why you may ask? Because he was raised by a communist mom & grandparents according to his bio, and he believes that America is too powerful and wants to "put us in our place" and I must admit, a bunch of mislead ppl are seeing that he gets what he wants.

Cork boy 55

http://www.understandingwar.org/press-media/graphsandstat/syrian-air-force-air-defense-overview

Syrian Air Force & Air Defense Overview from Institute for the Study of War

A few months old

Cork boy 55

http://www.understandingwar.org/press-media/graphsandstat/syrian-air-force-air-defense-overview

Syrian Air Force & Air Defense Overview from Institute for the Study of War

A few months old

Lightbulb Sun

Is it the fallout afterwards preventing the West from getting involved?

I think Assad needs to be dealt with but imagine the shitstorm that could follow if he is removed.

Extreme fundamentalists and terrorist cells battling for power in Syria. I don't think anyone would want to have to sort out that mess.

Thing about this civil war is that on the rebel side there are people just as bad as Assad. Both sides have committed terrible acts.

Jonny7

The people had no free and fair vote, they could only protest, and when they did, Assad had them shot.

The beginning of the conflict bears no resemblance to what we see now. It was very one-sided.

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Actually I wish it were the Germans and French leading the effort... there would be less blow back afterwards.... but they haven't got the gear or the people to carry it out between them in a manner which would put their pilots at minimal risk as the American's have. Like I said it would be played as if the Europeans were leading it and then a NFZ could be maintained by gulf partners and Turkey but it would require a lot of US help/work in the background and as a (large) supporting role. If there was anything above the expected level of resistance then the US would step in and strike necessary targets from its platforms out there. The US can send 20 F22s off carrier groups from the gulf or Indian Ocean or Mediterranean or fly B2 stealths from Trieste or non-stop from Missouri or even use Reapers to a certain extent to take out hardware.

62% of Americans in a Wash Post survey said they'd favor the US getting a NFZ going (but 72% don't want any boots on ground) and McCain and his two amigos in the Senate demanded a US enforced NFZ on 30th September in an Op Ed in the Wash Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-descent-into-hell/2012/12/30/abc244bc-511f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

And NO one else can do that? Isreal and the European nations collectively can't do something? So it will go down in history that America didn't do anything? And what about the rest of the world?

Maybe they shouldnt do anything, I might force the ever expanding EU to build up its own military and stop relying on the US. Every complaining about the US being the bully on the playground and yet calling for it to be the global police officer.

I doubt the majority of Americans want any more soldiers sent out to die or come back destroyed. But I doubt you favor a drone strike or an assassination either?

It looks ridiculous. Fighting Al Q in one country and then arming them in another.

Be like Nutella

This Brooking/Saban Ctr Report lays out the options as they see it. The writers are very highly respected ME/Military Analysts. In order of severity this is how they view the options for the end of Assad.

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy;
2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic
isolation;
3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow
the regime;
4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to
help an opposition army gain victory;
5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling
the regime directly; and
6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort
to oust Assad and rebuild Syria.

I believe we are currently between no.3 and 4.

100's of US special forces are currently in Turkey and Jordan right now training with British and Jordanian and Turkish forces there in case they are called upon under a cover of 'training local forces to deal with the humanitarian crisis'.... as is the opinion of various journalists which I agree with.

Here is the report (only 15 pages)

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/3/15%20syria%20saban/0315_syria_saban.pdf

I like this bit.. makes sense BUT would prob fail at first... yet is still probably the way to go IMO... worth trying first before any further action.

p7 bottom right

"...arming the opposition offers many advantages.
First, because the opposition represents the majority
of Syrians, numbers are on their side, in terms
of manpower. Second, if Syrians were to liberate their
own country it would be beneficial for the post-Asad
era, giving a replacement regime legitimacy. Third,
this approach does not require intervention by the
armed forces of a neighboring country (at least in
theory), thereby limiting the chance of a proxy war
in the struggle to oust Asad or determine his replacement.
As a result, it also eliminates the risk of an
embarrassing defeat that might foster instability in
the neighboring country. Finally, America’s cost and
risk would be low: no U.S. forces would be on the
ground and providing arms to the opposition would
cost millions, not billions. U.S. allies would do much
of the heavy lifting in any event. In addition, even if
the option fails, the United States might score points
with democratic forces in the region that are looking
for proof that Washington is backing the foes of
dictatorship...."

p9 bottom left

"...the hope is that the
United States could fight a “clean” war from 10,000
feet and leave the dirty work on the ground to the
FSA, perhaps even obviating a massive commitment
to Iraq-style nation-building. Because of the much
greater cost and lengthy duration of post-war reconstruction,
as well as the obvious unpleasant experiences
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential to relieve
the United States from this task appears to be a key
selling point for some of this policy’s advocates...."

p10 bottom right

"...Washington would likely prefer to commit only
one, or at most two, carriers to a Syrian intervention.
The U.S. could also fly heavy bombers from the United
States to help out, but even the combination of
long-range bombers and one to two aircraft carriers
would likely be inadequate for the requirements of
this kind of operation. In order to be able to provide
round-the-clock and across-the-country support to
the FSA and be able to meet any regime counterattack
quickly, the United States would need a significant
number of shorter-range strike aircraft on hand
and overhead at all times, and that would mean air
bases for U.S. Air Force fighter-bombers nearby...."

problem is: IF the US convince Turkey to let them use their bases and Jordan (which will be easier) and use 2 carrier groups and a whole lot of F22's and absolutely comprehensively dismantle Syrian anti-aircraft defense thus grounding every Syrian jet over anything from 72 hours to maybe 2 weeks or more then fine... great... BUT the risk is that the effects of doing that are not great enough and do not HELP the FSA enough. In for a penny in for a pound means that if the US go for this strategy they will look weak if they then don't back it up with a boots on the ground offensive to take Damascus, if needs be, and that is what will make selling this plan of a NFZ so difficult domestically AND Internationally.

A NFZ plan has to be air tight and guaranteed to work and work fast and cost little or no Syrian civilian lives WHILE doing your best to let the Turks and Gulf partners do the lifting.... with the US in support (either in actuality or as far as is reported it's all the same really, diplomatically)

p12 mid left

"...Syria
is smaller than Iraq and it lacks the oil reserves that
make Iraq so important to the global economy. But
it is an ally of Iran and does border Turkey, Jordan,
Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq—all countries where the
United States has strong or even vital interests...."

last thought p15 bottom right

"...As a final thought, it is always important to keep in
mind that failing to act—even failing to decide—is
an action and a decision. Not choosing to intervene
is the same as choosing not to intervene, and it would
be far better that whatever course the United States
follows, that it be the product of a conscious decision
so that we can pursue it properly, rather than the outcome
of a paralyzing indecision that prevents Washington
from doing anything to protect this country’s
many interests affected by the bloodshed of Syria...."


As far as how this situation will effect the USA's position and prestige diplomatically and in terms of its effects on domestic politics (which I care far less about than the bloodshed of the 100-200,000 Syrian civilians which is on the table right now) I agree totally with the last point of the Saban report.

Cork boy 55

The bulk of the civilian killing is now(last few weeks) being done by pro-regime Militia's(by rifle)
and artillery fire, rockets(grads), and tactical ballistic missiles
In fact it probably always was, as dramatic as air strikes are, most of the civilian killing where field executions by riflemen nearly everyday there is a multiple reports of these type of events during government raids or at checkpoints
6 civilians shot at checkpoint here 13 shot there and so on.

The SAAF is severely depleted and is managing only 15 fixed wing combat sorties a day on average in last few weeks my intelligence sources tell me
The Majority(60%) of his transport helicopters are lost(main heli base overrun yesterday 23 wreaked machines on site)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4C8LOfS3I
and only a handful of operational Attack helicopters are left.
They have lost scores of planes in air and in mortar and rocket attacks on airstrips
Scores others have been lost to maintenance(many where elderly to begin with (Mig 21 Mig 23))
In addition many pilots are exhausted both mentally and psychically
More and more pilots are being grounded as defection risks as the war has gone on
Morale has collapsed.
Due to the nature , intensity and duration of campaign
Less than 30% of the pre-war jet plane pilots are available for combat sorties
the rest deserted, defected(usually on foot) or have imprisioned or groudned as defections risk

Also they even have a shortage of certain types of bombs
The SAAF is not being resupplied with enough fresh pilots, planes and bombs
to keep pace with war if its getting any at all.
Of course it's possible after a rest and some major resupply(Iran maybe) the SAAF could increase tempo again
That's why they started using Tactical ballistic missiles and recently they have begun dropping naval mines and even at least one unexploded torpedo and as well as home made bomb
Naval mines
I am saying that a pure no-fly zone will only have a marginal effect at this point
on Regimes killing power.
I am just saying that a NFZ-lite now i.e. just smashing his airbases
won't be decisive or save lives.
Too little Too late
As I said earlier it's best to get the most desired outcome
end the war, peace and something that resembles a stable nice government
We want the government to surrender conditional to the SNC/FSA
not collapse in total defeat chaos and sectarian war
We don't want the rebels to win outright
Destroying the government COULD result in 100,000 deaths plus.
Implementing the Libya scenario could kill huge numbers of people depending on what way the dogs of war go or it might not.

How to get the Government to ditch Assad family and "surrender"

(1) bluff an intervention
(2) give arms and money to the good rebels (LOL)
(3) try and stop the gulf arab money going to the baddie rebels
(4) offer a way out to bulk of regime
(5) convince regime that they have lost and if they keep fighting they are going down big time
(6) give just enough aid to rebels so they win a major victory on the battlefield fall of Aleppo international airport or end the siege at Deir Ezzor jet base for example Give the rebels A dien bien phu moment
i.e. Just give the rebs enough heavy gear to smash some of the remote besieged garrison, the blow to morale should be enough to trigger surrender or a July 1944 style plot against the Assad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Be like Nutella

So the Rebels have made some decent gains and the SAAF is much weaker than I previously thought. Nice one.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I am saying that a pure no-fly zone will only have a marginal effect at this point

I don't know man I reckon it would be a great restriction and show solidarity between the Intl partners and the Rebel movement and it would at least stop Assad bombing civilians in air raids like the Bakery queue event. I'm talkin Helicopters as well. Grounding gun ships and Migs would help I reckon... great for Rebel morale too and the simple act of imposing a NFZ would show Assad who's got the power as opposed to mere words while he continues to slaughter.

I know what you're saying and I'm glad the air threat isn't all it's assumed to be but I still think that it would send a powerful message and possibly cause more defections which can only be good.

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

So the Rebels have made some decent gains and the SAAF is much weaker than I previously thought. Nice one.



I don't know man I reckon it would be a great restriction and show solidarity between the Intl partners and the Rebel movement and it would at least stop Assad bombing civilians in air raids like the Bakery queue event. I'm talkin Helicopters as well. Grounding gun ships and Migs would help I reckon... great for Rebel morale too and the simple act of imposing a NFZ would show Assad who's got the power as opposed to mere words while he continues to slaughter.

I know what you're saying and I'm glad the air threat isn't all it's assumed to be but I still think that it would send a powerful message and possibly cause more defections which can only be good.

I forgot to mention that the SAAF conducts extensive recon by Iranian made drones and a great deal of resupply by Air so a NFZ would have a big impact there on Assads resupply and recon capabilities.

Regrading A no fly zone, NFZ, ya you could be right it could well be a tipping point but even in best estimates
the war will go on and the regime killing will go on and could get worse.
Of course it is also possible it could end the war in a day I doubt it thou.
It would cost the west an another fortune and could go on for two years or more. It could have unforeseen consequences for example it could rally a lot of the population to the ASSAD that's not inconceivable, war is a strange animal and can do strange things, As I said before Assad has options to hit back He can hit the NATO bases in Cyprus and Turkey with Scuds with VX gas
if he wants for example. Who knows?

The SAAF is in a download spiral is not designed for a long war of this nature.
An alternative much cheaper and more desirable outcome is to supply the more moderate elements of the insurgency with the means to greatly accelerate this download spiral to the point where the SAAF becomes irrelevant and the regime starts to suffer a string of local tactical defeats causing it to ditch Assad clan and sue for peace.

Supplying the rebels with a modest amount of
(A) long range rockets, mortars and field guns and ammo so they can knock out all of Assads airbases they can get within range of.
(B) a ammunition for the extensive collection of AAA cannon and machine guns they have captured (12.7mm ,14.5mm , 23mm, 57mm)
+ a few more of the S-60 57mm gun type to threw up a crude but effective air defense with no risk of SAM missile proliferation.

For a modest arms shipment the rebels can degrade the SAAF to the point of collapse. I would stress only supplying weapons to the FSA not the indo Islamic brigades and only enough for them to look like they are winning not to actually win.

The whole thing is big mess.

SAAF
The SAAF campaign peaked in October they where flying about
60 Fixed wing and 40 Helo combat sorties average per day approx
now they are down to
15 FW and 20 Helo combat sorties average per day approx

In terms of airbases the SAAF
they have
5 helicopter airbases (3 captured)
2 training/auxiliary airbases ( both under siege and knocked out will fall soon)
2 Major international airports/major logistics hubs for the war both under partial siege and under threat
13 fighter jet bases (2 under siege several others under threat or vulnerable to sporadic guerrilla type attacks.




34 minute FSA walking tour of the Taftanaz airbase captured last week

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

Be like Nutella

nice one thanks for info.

Cutting off that drone surveillance is key. The FSA need some fancy gear from the outside partners to drop those drones. That university in the US last year took control of a predator with an invention that cost them about a grand as far as I remember... it was a mission given to them by the CIA to see how vulnerable drones are. They need to send some of that gear the FSA's way.

I agree with you completely that ideally you want the rebels to make gains until it looks like they can win and then stop the conflict and begin talks and maintain some semblance of government and institutions etc for the new Syria but I just feel you gotta do the NFZ at some point coz Assad could use his limited SAAF capability and gun ships and kill thousands before that point so better sooner than later and as you say - supply and surveillance would be depleted with no access to airspace.

I don't think the population would side with Assad if a NFZ was done right with enough transparency... once they trusted the Intl partners and their motivations which can only be achieved by sufficient planning and working closely with the FSA's 'good core'.

Morale-wise it would be a game changer and would commit the Intl partners to an 'ideal' outcome which would focus efforts towards achieving that outcome... hopefully without any US boots on the ground which is not going to help anything here in the long term.

Time is a major element in all this though.
How long can the regime fight for?
How long can the rebels take the punishment Assad is dishing out?
How long will it take before major top defections start rolling?
How long would a NFZ really take to impose?
How long AFTER a NFZ was imposed would Assads supplies delpetion and lack of surveillance and air power take enough of a tole on his ability to fight that we see the FSA start to win?

I assume that IF a NFZ was imposed that we would see a lot of weapons really start to flow to the rebels from everyone with an interest in seeing Assad step down.

Be like Nutella

"..Syria Has Fired More Than 20 Ballistic Missiles: NATO.."

http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/new-syrian-ordnance-strikes-turkish-territory/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

"..Syria Has Fired More Than 20 Ballistic Missiles: NATO.."

http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/new-syrian-ordnance-strikes-turkish-territory/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1

If one of those missiles malfunctioned and hit Turkey or elsewhere!!!!
Syria actually hit Turkey by accident with a scud in 2005 during a failed launch.

The patriot systems in Turkey will be fully operational by end of January
Once in Place Turkey will have protection from short range/tactical ballistic missiles.

It's possible Turkey is waiting on this shield before it commits to large scale military assistance to the FSA.

Assads has all sorts of missiles
Russian , Iranian, North Korean, Chinese, home made.
no-one knows for sure exact quantites wiki says 86 ??!!??!
see link

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/delivery-systems/

Be like Nutella

I wouldn't trust the exact number either and I wonder what they mean by

"..We've detected the launch of several unguided short-range ballistic missiles this month, including one on Sunday..."

?

Does that simply mean they are programmed for distance and direction only? That is not something you want to be allowing Assad to be doing....

Question: I assume imposing a NFZ does mean shooting down everything that flies including Ballistic A-B missiles? What would be shooting these down? .... surely it 'could' only be the NATO Turkish Patriot Batteries?

and if so I would agree with you that any efforts towards a NFZ couldn't happen without these batteries set up and ready to rock.

If all that is true... then Assad will use his missiles now before they can be shot down.... NTI says 20 so far.... I expect more in coming days so.

He'll try use what he can while he has access to the airspace and has the surveillance ability of those drones... which will also be grounded or shot down I assume in a NFZ scenario?

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the exact number either and I wonder what they mean by

"..We've detected the launch of several unguided short-range ballistic missiles this month, including one on Sunday..."

?

Does that simply mean they are programmed for distance and direction only? That is not something you want to be allowing Assad to be doing....

Question: I assume imposing a NFZ does mean shooting down everything that flies including Ballistic A-B missiles? What would be shooting these down? .... surely it 'could' only be the NATO Turkish Patriot Batteries?

and if so I would agree with you that any efforts towards a NFZ couldn't happen without these batteries set up and ready to rock.

If all that is true... then Assad will use his missiles now before they can be shot down.... NTI says 20 so far.... I expect more in coming days so.

He'll try use what he can while he has access to the airspace and has the surveillance ability of those drones... which will also be grounded or shot down I assume in a NFZ scenario?

Different NFZ in history have had different rules depending on how they are set up. I don't think we are going to see a NFZ unless something huge happens, something to do with Chemical weapons or Turkey
The world does not care, Obama does not want to be involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone

Regarding the guidance of Syria's missiles some are guided some are not and some are more accurate than others also some of these missiles differ greatly in payload and range. Some of the newer ones are very accurate the older ones would be only good for hitting a large town at best.
Syria has quite a few different types.

The unguided ones are going to be the old ones or cheap ones.
So if NATO is correct there that would suggest the regime is firing off his old ones and cheap missiles.
This video uploaded by activist contains footage purporting to show two Scud missiles being fired by Syrian forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4kwfSjexWA

Be like Nutella

looking at previous reports of Scud attacks it seems they are not that accurate but can kill quite a few people if they hit the right place

wiki

"...Scuds were responsible for most of the coalition deaths outside of Iraq and Kuwait. 42 Scud missiles in total were fired into Israel.[29] They killed one Israeli directly and one Saudi security guard. Twenty-eight members of the Pennsylvania National Guard were killed when one struck a United States Army barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.[30]..."

I wonder even if Assad fired quite a few of his old Scuds at Rebel areas and killed 100 say in one day would it motivate Intl partners towards a NFZ vote? Seems unlikely.

Assad will have to kill 1000+ in one days work if we're going to see a serious argument for a NFZ.

The news coverage of Syria at the moment seems to be very poor quality and journalists are thin on the ground.

I know Obama has no interest in doing anything but his hand will be forced sooner or later if Assad keeps escalating his killing.

Cork boy 55

On the 23rd of December in Homs there was some sort of chemical incident
in Homs. The USA investigated and

A secret State Department cable has concluded that the Syrian military likely used chemical weapons against its own people in a deadly attack last month, The Cable has learned.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria

Be like Nutella

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

On the 23rd of December in Homs there was some sort of chemical incident
in Homs. The USA investigated and



http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria

I heard about this alright and I referred to it before but I don't think there were casualties and I don't think there is solid evidence or physical evidence from the attack except maybe that the shell in question could've theoretically done the job... I;m not sayin I don't believe it.... I kinda do but the data on the event is thin so not worth basing large conjectures upon.. is what I originally thought.

I suppose most info comin out of Syria including phone vids have to be classed as secondary evidence at best and decision are hard to make based on that type of info but that's all there is to work with most of the time.

What type of person would use chemical weapons upon their own countrymen even in a situation of revolution. Reminds me of who directed the chem massacre of 5000+ Kurdish in Iraq at the end of the Iran Iraq war.... Saddam's half brother 'Chemical Ali' from back in Tikrit ... and similarly it's Assad's younger brother in Syria now who runs the revolutionary guard and similarly it was Qaddafi's dikhead son who ordered the heavy guns on the Libyans and now awaits trial in the Hague. This family business in the ME doesn't ever end well!

Be like Nutella

Washington Post

U.N. rules and Syrian intervention
By John B. Bellinger III, Friday, January 18, 1:14 AM

"...But when the Security Council is blocked from protecting civilians against the most egregious atrocities, the United States should be prepared to intervene when other avenues have been exhausted and there is sufficient international consensus to support intervention. If Assad’s attacks on Syrian civilians continue, the United States and other governments may soon conclude that intervention is morally, if not legally, justified. ..."

SOONER THAN LATER I HOPE !!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/un-rules-and-syrian-intervention/2013/01/17/4e8661bc-6000-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_print.html

Jonny7

Another massacre

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21095192

Even when they manage to get rid of Assad, this country is going to have some terrible demons.

Be like Nutella

disgusting.

Time to get the ball rolling on international intervention. Real intervention.

I am well aware of the complexities involved - but doing nothing is a shame when there are things that can be done by those with the power to do it.

The Shabiha need to be stopped.

Shabiha wiki

"...sectarian Alawite militia or criminal gang that supports the government of Bashar al-Assad.[6][7][8] However, "shabiha" operating in Aleppo have been reported to be Sunni Muslims.[9] According to the Arab Organization for Human Rights, those identified as Shabiha include not only local criminal gangs, but "members of the security forces in civilian clothes, informants or simply unemployed and impoverished youths.”[5] The Shabiha have been active in efforts to repress the opposition in the Syrian civil war and compared to ‘Baltagiya‘ thugs in Egypt, the ‘Balatija‘ thugs in Yemen and the ‘Basiji‘ in Iran—gangs to which regimes "outsourced" repression during the mass demonstrations of the Arab Spring.[5][10] Some sources claim they have performed ethnic cleansing...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabiha

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I heard about this alright and I referred to it before but I don't think there were casualties and I don't think there is solid evidence or physical evidence from the attack except maybe that the shell in question could've theoretically done the job... I;m not sayin I don't believe it.... I kinda do but the data on the event is thin so not worth basing large conjectures upon.. is what I originally thought.

I suppose most info comin out of Syria including phone vids have to be classed as secondary evidence at best and decision are hard to make based on that type of info but that's all there is to work with most of the time.

Another update from foreign policy magazine on the Homs Xmas chemical incident

Not sure if the link can be seen I went in to it from twitter
i.e. if you follow foreign policy magazine on twitter(@ForeignPolicy) you get free access to every link they tweet to which is most of it, all the good stuff anyway, good magazine.

Cut a long story short it still inconclusive but very likely
some contradictory reports casting doubt
An chemical incident happened what exactly happened is not clear
7 dead where reported and 50 sickened,

"A secret State Department cable has concluded that the Syrian military likely used chemical weapons against its own people in a deadly attack last month," The Cable wrote. A U.S. official further told The Cable that the document made a "compelling case" that lethal poison gas was used.

The State Department and the White House disputed that contention, and the cable itself, signed by the U.S. consul general in Istanbul, Scott Frederic Kilner, notes that the consulate staff could not say definitively if chemical weapons were used in Homs last month.

It does, however, say that after their own investigation, State Department officers were able to confirm the basic facts of the deadly attack in Homs.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/22/secret_syria_chemical_weapons_cable_revealed

---

Also on the SCUDS reports of Tactical ballistic missiles landing on/near rural villages behind FSA lines. The villagers are reporting they come without warning
which is the MO of these weapons as they just scream out of sky at MACH speed whatever. This more than likely confirms he is just blasting off his crap unguided ones and they are landing at random parts of countryside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I10rT7FBeVw

Be like Nutella

Today

"That is why I believe the Security Council simply cannot continue to say: 'We are in disagreement, therefore let's wait for better times.' I think they have to grapple with this problem now."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21255536

That's UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi himself basically saying: I give up there's fuk all we can do simply talking to these guys - let's just get together those willing to do something and do something before all infrastructure and institutions and any semblance of a state is destroyed in genocidal carnage.... forget China and Russia's sitting on the fence.


Personally at this point I would jump in with massive arms support and a no fly zone and secure the chem weapons and form an alliance of those willing to act and get it done even it meant limited boots on ground because there is already an extremist islamic issue going to continue with various groups and AQ in this area for the next few years at least anyway - whether people jump in now or not. The innocent non-combatant population of Syria deserve international help. There's already 700,000 having left Syria - they may never return unless there's movement even towards a conclusion to this thing soon.

It's only complicated if you believe that nothing should be done. At the end of the day the Assad Alawite leadership needs to fall and the country needs a new government... what happens after that is better than what is happening and unfolding right now... this can jump up at least two more levels in magnitude before there's an end in sight - it's not too late to have a determining impact on this situation... and it is quickly becoming an international moral imperative from which Russia and the US and France and the UK will NEVER recover from in the history books, ever... just like Rwanda.

International order - the whole project towards order and grouping for good reason and post world war internationalism is dependent on certain moral imperatives and the prime example is World War 2 itself. It has to be. There has to be an overarching 'unwritten rule of humanity' amongst the worlds nations that when something this blatantly horrific unfolds that between the world greatest nations there will be help - through power - or else power is worthless and that these nations represent nothing but empty promise and lies and that everything else they say about freedom and development has no basis - no value when not supported by action in the real world. A measure of how far we've come as humanity. Hitler took a global effort to beat down and defeat and it was in everyone's interest. This Syria thing could ignite so much chaos in such a wide region and may take so little material help (in comparison to things like Desert Storm) and offer so much opportunity - it's a no brainer in a lot of ways. Waiting for the next jump in severity of horror is immoral and does not serve the US's best interests. It is becoming a binary choice.

"...The United States can’t afford to stay on the sidelines. A failed state in Syria is likely to spill over into Iraq and Lebanon and spur debilitating refugee flows to Turkey and other neighbors. It will intensify a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, its Gulf allies and Iran. A Syrian collapse would create a fundamentalist threat to Israel’s sense of security and heighten the danger of miscalculation or conflict...."

"...The administration must play a more active role in coordinating arms deliveries from third countries to ensure they reach secular elements of the opposition who will not turn on us after they win. The United States should also provide its own arms, training and intelligence, helping to ensure that we become a sought-after partner, with commensurate influence...."


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-13/opinions/35487304_1_syrian-opposition-syrian-army-assad-regime


"...First, American intervention would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world. Iran has showered aid on Syria and even sent advisers from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to assist Mr. Assad. Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. ..."

"...a more muscular American policy could keep the conflict from spreading. Syria’s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq — and the Turkish government has accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in order to inflame tensions between the Kurds and Turkey. ..."

"...American leadership on Syria could improve relations with key allies like Turkey and Qatar. Both the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Qatari counterpart have criticized the United States for offering only nonlethal support to the rebellion. Both favor establishing a no-fly zone and “safe zones” for civilians in Syrian territory. ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/opinion/5-reasons-to-intervene-in-syria-now.html?_r=0

OBAMA

"...Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. Our security is affected when masses of civilians are slaughtered, refugees flow across borders, and murderers wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods. America's reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide. Unfortunately, history has taught us that our pursuit of a world where states do not systematically slaughter civilians will not come to fruition without concerted and coordinated effort...."

WELL THEN - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/fact-sheet-comprehensive-strategy-and-new-tools-prevent-and-respond-atro

Cork boy 55

Clinton and Petraeus presented a plan to arm rebels last summer to the white house but Obama was more worried about getting re-elected and shot it down.
according got reports in the NYT.

WASHINGTON — Last summer, as the fighting in Syria raged and questions about the United States’ inaction grew, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred privately with David H. Petraeus, the director of the C.I.A. The two officials were joining forces on a plan to arm the Syrian resistance.

The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House, according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they were rebuffed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html?_r=0

clairefontaine

Nutella,

In 2011 Obama killed a 16 year old boy in a drone strike. His recent policy seems to say that he can kill whomever he likes when he feels like it. This is so anti-everything America is about and quite frankly nuts.

Do not expect reason from a crazy person. Obama has lost his mind if he ever had one in the first place.

Honestly, Id want Obama out of it. Ask the Europeans to do it, seriously, they don't have this new crazy policy.

Cork boy 55

Major development
In the last month someone has been arming the FSA with Yugoslav weapons
in large amounts Mainly in the south.
Up to now the vast bulk of weapons came from Defectors, victories, neighboring countries black market and homemade stuff.
The stuff is going towards the more moderate elements as well.



EA WorldView - Home Syria Analysis: Someone is Arming the Insurgents...and It's Working
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/2/6/syria-analysis-someone-is-arming-the-insurgentsand-its-worki.html

Brown Moses Blog
Foreign Smuggled Weapons Spread Northwards Into Syria
http://brown-moses.blogspot.ie/2013/02/foreign-smuggled-weapons-spread.html

CollardGreens

Do not expect reason from a crazy person. Obama has lost his mind if he ever had one in the first place.

Honestly, Id want Obama out of it. Ask the Europeans to do it, seriously, they don't have this new crazy policy.

AMEN! That is the truest statement I have seen all year on the internet! TY Clair

Y'all she is right, O just got a go ahead to kill Americans on our soil if he thinks they may be of harm without any court date or anything. This is crazy and needs to stop. We need help in this country to stop the tyrants we got running the US.

CollardGreens

Note: Just off the news as I'm typing this 4:45p est, 11 states are fighting to stop the drones via legality reasons.


States are also working around obamacare to stop that mess and they are finding loopholes. It is getting to be The States vs The Federal Government.

clairefontaine

CollardGreens wrote: »

Note: Just off the news as I'm typing this 4:45p est, 11 states are fighting to stop the drones via legality reasons.


States are also working around obamacare to stop that mess and they are finding loopholes. It is getting to be The States vs The Federal Government.

Good! The one thing they have going for them is that the IRS Gestapo is full of idiots.

I cannot believe what he gets away with. Its just shocking.

You know who is going to help the US stop the tyranny? NO ONE. Because the whole world expects the US to do the saving.

Ozymandius2011

No. Experience in the M.E. is that what comes next could be even worse, in terms of suppression of personal freedoms (not least of women, gays and non-Muslims).

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

In 2011 Obama killed a 16 year old boy in a drone strike. His recent policy seems to say that he can kill whomever he likes when he feels like it. This is so anti-everything America is about and quite frankly nuts.

Many innocents have died in drone strikes, however the number of Pakistani's killed by militants and Pashtun militia's far exceeds those killed by drones. Pakistan allows these drones strikes to continue because it is part of an on-going war in the region, one in which the Pakistan army is not making much headway.

Once the drone strikes stop, Pakistan knows that the militias will only gain in strength and that they will have lost their only scapegoat for the region.

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

Many innocents have died in drone strikes, however the number of Pakistani's killed by militants and Pashtun militia's far exceeds those killed by drones. Pakistan allows these drones strikes to continue because it is part of an on-going war in the region, one in which the Pakistan army is not making much headway.

Once the drone strikes stop, Pakistan knows that the militias will only gain in strength and that they will have lost their only scapegoat for the region.

Obama's drone strikes are an extension of his now official policy of an active defiance of the rule of law.