Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Skybird]

UN. claims Assad agreed to let inspectors go to the site in question.

Should I trust my ears here?

Question is, when.

If it is true, than somebody must have had the means to put a whole lot of pressure onto him.

That's got weird.
After all the shouting for access, now they are getting it they say they don't want the evidence.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If it is true, than somebody must have had the means to put a whole lot of pressure onto him.

Its been five days.
Enough time to put on some little show like this Saudis supplied chemicals for example . "made in S.A" lol.
Who ever wants evidence already has it the rest is just a show.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by MH

Its been five days.
Enough time to put on some little show like this Saudis supplied chemicals for example . "made in S.A" lol.
Who ever wants evidence already has it the rest is just a show.

I suspect you may well be right

[Skybird]

I miss a clear definition of what should be achieved by a military strike, what the military objective is, and how to pull out of the situation once the objective has been achieved or can no longer be achieved.

I see only one objective that could justify to invest tens and hundreds of millions and more of our taxes and to put our warriors at risk: destroying as many of Syria'S chemical weapons arsenals (and biological weapons if they have them) as well as destroying their means to produce them, as well as destroying Iran's weapons deliveries and Hezbollah's stockpiles of missiles, because both actors could assist Assad by turning against Israel.

Obviously that is a relatively advanced and complex, longer lasting air campaign I am talking about. Sending some dozen Tomahawks over one or two days and leave it to that, is just a useless symbolic act achieving not much. It serves the calming of western bad consciousnesses. In other words: it is "Gefühlsduselei".

But some may feel great when the loud Booms! and bright lights start again. "Look, at least we did something, we tried!" - Who cares for what the attempt is worth, as long as it is the shine only that counts!?

BTW, the majority, a very robust majority of Syrians wanmt a Sharia-.based state and support racism, antisemitism and medieval punsihement for crimes. What do we owe them to help them bringing these wonderful things into power in Syria, eh? We owe them nothing.

Syria itself is not worth a single Western soldier's life. Take the chemical and biological weapons out, for that is our interest indeed, and leave it to that. Once the objective has been accomplished, get out.

And send the bill to Saudi Arabia. The money you save them from paying is money they are free to pump into the missionising of Europe. Tell them to stop that and help their precious beloved wonderful Muslim brothers and female halflings instead.

[August]

Forget your commando raids.

To eliminate Syria's chemical weapons capability would require a full scale invasion and thorough search of the country. We're not talking about a single building that can be destroyed by a cruise missile or two.

It is munitions dumps and research facilities and assembly plants, many widely flung and probably no more pinpointed than Saddam's stockpiles were. It ain't like they advertize where they keep all off this stuff.

No this would have to be on the scale of the Iraq war to be successful. Anything less would be just useless posturing.

[Skybird]

Not often that August and me agree on something so completely.

[Mittelwaechter]

During the first Gulf War - Iraq vs. Iran - the US backed the Tabun and Sarin attacks of Saddam Hussein and even showed him - provided satellite data - where to drop the stuff, to hinder an Iranian counterattack in 1987 or 1988.

At least 70% of the Syrian people back Assad, 20% are neutral and 10% back the aggressors - according to NATO data. Who do we want to believe, if not our own side?

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/...rts-and-minds/

So what do we do over there? We simply want to hit Iran again. Syria is just a piece of the puzzle. We (US/NATO/Mossad/Arabian Sunni States) are responsible for the 'revolts' against Assad. We would like to see a Sunni administration, to isolate Iran. That's in the favour of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Quatar - who support the revolts, because they don't even accept Assad's Alewites religion as Islammic, and because they want to weaken Iran.

Iran turned evil when the Iranian people got rid of their dictator, who was a reliable partner in western oil business. Carter's Teheran drama is still not forgiven and Iran sells oil for Rubel and Yuan. They break the rules to use the US-Dollar as world key currency - formerly accepted by the OPEC as the only valid payment. It was the ultimate advantage of the US, because all the world needed US-Dollars to pay their oil. They sold their stuff cheaply to the US, providing a comfortable American Way of Life.

Iraq and Libya wanted to end the Dollar dominance and use Euro or Gold. We know what happend. And the US attacks the Euro - greetings from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s und Fitch.

US fracking is a symtom of the loss of the US-Dollar superiority. What if not weapons or genfood could the US sell, to get some foreign currency for their oil demand? The green papers are worthless and the world gets out of US control.

But the US military is a mighty tool for politics, so Iran is next - and Syria just an obstacle to progress.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not often that August and me agree on something so completely.

omg, the Mayans were right. The end is near.

So where are the cries "no blood for Syrian oil?"

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Forget your commando raids.

To eliminate Syria's chemical weapons capability would require a full scale invasion and thorough search of the country. We're not talking about a single building that can be destroyed by a cruise missile or two.

It is munitions dumps and research facilities and assembly plants, many widely flung and probably no more pinpointed than Saddam's stockpiles were. It ain't like they advertize where they keep all off this stuff.

No this would have to be on the scale of the Iraq war to be successful. Anything less would be just useless posturing.

You are right. (edit: This cannot be solved with a few airstrikes and a commando strike)
But that Iraq thing worked out really well.

I say let them kill each other, takes the attention off trying to kill us, and if we do invade, it will just be more of us dying, and endearing them towards harsher ideals.

Let them be, no one helped America break free from Britain (Shut up French, you jumped in at the end, after we started winning)

Let them discover their own independance.

Forcing it breeds contempt, and gives them something to unify against.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Let them be, no one helped America break free from Britain (Shut up French, you jumped in at the end, after we started winning)

seems like someone has to re-take a few lessons of history.
Kosciuszko, Pulaski - do these names sound familiar?

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by August

Forget your commando raids.

To eliminate Syria's chemical weapons capability would require a full scale invasion and thorough search of the country. We're not talking about a single building that can be destroyed by a cruise missile or two.

It is munitions dumps and research facilities and assembly plants, many widely flung and probably no more pinpointed than Saddam's stockpiles were. It ain't like they advertize where they keep all off this stuff.

No this would have to be on the scale of the Iraq war to be successful. Anything less would be just useless posturing.

No, I don't agree ... as a presidential advisor (of course neither one of is)
I would say go for it ... for the peoples sake alone. You know the ones they keep showing on TV being buried in white cloths with dirt being shoveled over them.

Who will interceded for them ...?

They, the peoples of Syria, say they don't want the US to inter the war they just want the war to stop.

Firing a few tomahawk missiles is not going to win any war in Afghanistan or Libya, because it didn't ... plus it cost 1.4 million dollars per missile and the US fired over two hundred in the Libyan conflict alone.

Just go in a get the chemical weapons out of harms way no matter what it takes ...

it won't be like Iraq I'm sure of this.

Boots on the ground yes, but not to stay ... keep them moving make a highway to the Med and control it on both sides to escort the weapons out of the country.

Number one priority is not to stay ... no fortresses ... no Alamo's.

Let them finish their war hasn't this been going on for years now ... someone said Assad's father killed ten's of thousands.

Remember Bush wanted to go to war and Obama doesn't ...
he's sort of being forced into this, but as everyone says,
look who's watching us go for it or back down.

Iran

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Firing a few tomahawk missiles is not going to win any war in Afghanistan or Libya, because it didn't ... plus it cost 1.4 million dollars per missile and the US fired over two hundred in the Libyan conflict alone.

Just go in a get the chemical weapons out of harms way no matter what it takes ...

it won't be like Iraq I'm sure of this.

Boots on the ground yes, but not to stay ... keep them moving make a highway to the Med and control it on both sides to escort the weapons out of the country.

Number one priority is not to stay ... no fortresses ... no Alamo's.

You see it too rosy. You do not go into a hostile country which already is a battlezone, guard a few highways without being engaged in heavy combat, know where their chemicals are, role them out of the country, and get out.

It is simplifications like these that has caused - and costed - the Iraq and Afghanistan war already.

---

I assume the Mossad has some pretty good estimations on some weapons storage sites. Take them out from the air. Maybe US satellites can contribute a couple of ideas - if so, take their considered targets out, too.

More objectives probably cannot be achieved without a full scale ground invasion - and that would be madness, and not supported by any people in the West, no matter the nationality.

Let's be realistic.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Skybird

UN. claims Assad agreed to let inspectors go to the site in question.

Should I trust my ears here?

Question is, when.

If it is true, than somebody must have had the means to put a whole lot of pressure onto him.

I also just heard this news a few hours ago, that Assad at first said "no" to going into the claimed chemical war zone and has now reversed his decision to a "yes".

Very strange indeed

I would personally like to see US special forces be air dropped into the middle of the conflict on to the air field that these chemical weapons are being stored to secure them ... bring in the big air transports using fighter air cover ... off load bullet proof 18 wheelers to transport them via land across to Jordan or even Lebanon to safe guard these weapons for disposal later.

Sounds too Hollywood though ... like the "A team" movie, uh?

I would code name it with signs on the back of the trucks;
"Kiss my ass with a RPG and we all die"

but they have been training for something like this:

• US training Syrian opposition forces in Jordan for months, …
  
  
  www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/25/us-training-syrian-opposition...
  American Special Operations forces and Special Force troops
• tasked to work with U.S. intelligence
• agents are training small groups of Syrian …
  
  

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Should I trust my ears here?

You should:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23833912


As for your qstn of when: Monday. Source above.