Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Father Goose]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Just another case of big men in back room smoking cigars deciding how to spin it politically, then send poor men to die if it fits. All these wars are costing our future, trillions better spent.

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

[mapuc]

I had many thoughts when I heard that Russia was sending to more Warship to Mediterranean. Why did they send them, what could be their purpose

Have just been reading an article in a Swedish newspaper. According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by mapuc

According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

.....

President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.

Of course can we believe an ex-KGB?

The navy later indicated a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but gave no details except to say it would be part of a long-planned rotation and suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.
"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," an highly-placed navy official who was not identified told state-run RIA news agency.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0GU1B420130829

[mapuc]

We are getting lots of information and disinformation from several sources

It's very difficult to see what's correct and what's not correct among all this information we get.

I guess the only way to find out what the purpose is regarding these two russian warship, we will first find out the day USA attack Syria.

Markus

[Vince82]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I had many thoughts when I heard that Russia was sending to more Warship to Mediterranean. Why did they send them, what could be their purpose

Have just been reading an article in a Swedish newspaper. According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

Early warning will be usefull to the Assad forces in two ways:

-they will be able to move their mobile forces
-and to get ready to eliminate incoming missiles


It's possible that the Russians will try to defend Syria against cruise missiles in a more active way aswell.

[Armistead]

My guess is Obama wants to shoot a 100 Tomahawks, but any action will cost billions. I think right now with assets there, it's a billion a month. The problem is any action could cost much more. You've got to have all the assets in case they attack Israel, take out air, radar, command.

A mere missle prick will solve nothing and would be a political punch that solves nothing. I don't think Assad would attack Israel over missles, but if they start launching scuds, then it will be a war that we will have to get involved.

Again, stay the hell out, let the muslims go back to killing each other in mass like the old days, instead of fighting us.

[TLAM Strike]

Curious... anyone know what the legality would be if say a Russian warship shot down a US cruise missile in international waters?

A cruise missile is basically an unmanned aircraft, so it's more an act of destroying property.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

A cruise missile is basically an unmanned aircraft, so it's more an act of destroying property.

And war is a bad joke where the laughing just got out of hand.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And war is a bad joke where the laughing just got out of hand.

It was a serious question, we just saw Iran force down one drone and shoot down another with little other than a protest from the US.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Curious... anyone know what the legality would be if say a Russian warship shot down a US cruise missile in international waters?

That is a most interesting question.

I don't think there are any international laws that prohibit one country from interfering with the attack by another country. The worst that can happen is that the attacking country could declare war on the intercepting country.

Would the US risk going to war with Russia over this if it happened?

If the POTUS gets statutory authorization, from Congress, to launch missiles, Russia is in no way bound by such an authorization. Now if the UNSC authorizes action through the Military Staff, then Russia would be in violation of several treaties.

A most interesting question.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Vince82

Early warning will be usefull to the Assad forces in two ways:

-they will be able to move their mobile forces
-and to get ready to eliminate incoming missiles


It's possible that the Russians will try to defend Syria against cruise missiles in a more active way aswell.

We won't be going afer mobile foces, nor can they stop our missles and the Russians won't get involved.........nor should we.

But damn gas will go up, already is just with the talk....another money maker

[Catfish]

And
- sry if i repeat myself -
despite a lot of speeches, desinformation and propaganda:

Still no evidence about chemical weapons.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That is a most interesting question.

I don't think there are any international laws that prohibit one country from interfering with the attack by another country. The worst that can happen is that the attacking country could declare war on the intercepting country.

Would the US risk going to war with Russia over this if it happened?

If the POTUS gets statutory authorization, from Congress, to launch missiles, Russia is in no way bound by such an authorization. Now if the UNSC authorizes action through the Military Staff, then Russia would be in violation of several treaties.

A most interesting question.

A most interesting question indeed and an excellent answer

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Father Goose

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

What a load of political BS!! You should be Assads PR Manager

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Father Goose

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

War is hell, there's been about 120,000 overall deaths, chemical weapons may acount for about 1000, but many medical issues in others.
Dying from severe burns from a bomb or a chemical....what's it matter. Syria has been torturing 1000's of innocent civilians before they execute them, but we need to attack because chemical weapons MAY have been used. Sort of like how we nuked Japan, hell that was gentle compared to Lemay fire bombing cities.

The laws from chemical weapons came from the mass use and killing, so the law is there, but the moral and motive is questionable. We certainly didn't care about the millions dying in Africa from war.

You're right, Obama is setting up the blame game. His attack speech was laughable, totally political. Reagan, Clinton, Bush all took actions without congress.