US moves naval group closer to Syria

Started by billhilly, August 24, 2013, 02:53:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"The Syrian SA-17 and 22 are supposed to be effective short to medium range AD systems. Last year the Ruskies announced a successful test of a SA-22 shooting down a low flying cruise missile in a live fire test. The SA-22 is the same system that shot down the Turkish F4 a while back. It is both mobile and effective. But as Joseph has pointed out the weakness will be their early detection systems. Any air defense system needs early warning to get things spun up before they can shoot anything. Most of their early warning radars are fixed assets and as such shouldn't be too difficult to take out. I do however find it hard to believe the Syrians won't be using a layered defense with the short range stuff between us and the early warning radars. While taking down the Syrian AD systems is far from undoable, it may not be a cake walk either. We could see some loses in the early part of any such operation.

Well, yeah, we'll definitely see some shootdowns.  The question is, how efficient is that system?  The rebels control swathes of countryside which may or may not contain parts of the integrated system, thereby rendering it less effective.  And because the rebels lack airpower, I have to wonder if the Assad regime has continued to draw on what are quite limited resources to maintain an AD system, even as it fights for its life against an enemy not using airpower.

Should be noted that the F-4 is an obsolete plane, too.
<insert witty aphorism here>

Fidel_Castronaut

Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"It seems likely from the anecdotal evidence that chemical weapons in some form were used, but that's about it. Not even the UN inspectors, the people tasked with trying to investigate the context of the attacks, know much more than the media reporting do. All we have is eye-witness accounts of the results of the attack(s), not who used them or even why.

There is clearly not enough evidence at this moment in time to commit to an offensive strike (against what is still unclear!), but we're going to do it anyway.
Thanks, I didn't know where the inspections teams were currently at.  How about manufacturing plants that make chemical weapons?  The gas had to come from somewhere.  Have they identified specific sites that could be targeted?

No problem.

The UN inspection teams have been attempting to gain access to the sites where the weapons hit I think and not where the weapons are supposedly stored. They were hampered by government checkpoints as well as sniper fire apparently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23880060

FWIW, a UK cabinet committee has produced a report (3 pages long...) assessing the 'evidence' that Assad was the one that fired the weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427

I and many others here are extremely skeptical of the claims, especially because the report gives no evidence whatsoever aside anecdote and "It must have been Assad!".

What a debacle. I really hope we steer clear.
lol, marquee. HTML ROOLZ!

Smartmarzipan

Quote from: "billhilly"
Quote from: "Poison Tree"
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops.
While it has obvious draw backs (massive civilian suffering, increasing risk of drawing neighboring countries (especially Lebanon & Iraq) into  the war, risk of further radicalization, moderates being pushed out, ect), I wish people were at least willing to discus the idea that the best coarse of action maybe to hope for (perhaps even facilitate) a prolonged Hezbollah/Syria/Iran vs Al-Qaeda war, which weakens both sides and eventually end in a crippled Assad (devil you know) clinging to power.

However, if they (US/NATO) have good intelligence as to where chemical weapons are stored, they would be smart to attempt to destroy them or their means of delivery (preferably with missile strikes, but CIA/special forces may be needed), with preventing their use in Syria being only a secondary goal to preventing them from being smuggled out of the country for use by terrorist or a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.


Going in to a middle eastern country looking for weapons of mass destruction again?  "We have intelligence on where they are and we can't risk them getting into the hands of terrorists."  Sound at all familiar???

THANK YOU.

I find this sudden interest in Syria really dubious. And why the fuck would the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people? What does that accomplish?

Okay, I really hate sounding like a conspiracy nut, but the US government has been making it really hard for me to trust *anything* they say to us. They've been doing underhanded shit for years (including this shit with chemical weapons), and now we're ready to invade another Middle Eastern country?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pretext-to ... lf/5347176

[spoil:1g4xny1p]
QuoteThe Syrian stance

The Syrian government has repeatedly and unambiguously stated that it would never use weapons of mass destruction, if such weapons exist in Syria, against its own population. Not only because it makes no strategic sense but because of the unethical nature of the use of these kind of weapons by any government against its own population.

The Syrian government also immediately called for an international and scientific investigation backed by the United Nations of the facts and accusations towards it proving that is has nothing to hide.

No military strategic logic in the use of weapons of mass destruction  

The Syrian national army has for the last couple of months been on the offensive and made huge gains on the battle field against the terrorist groups and foreign infiltrators all over the country. The Syrian army also made huge progress in Damascus countryside and the Eastern Ghouta and cleared large parts of it from these terrorist groups. From a military point of view it makes no sense to use weapons of mass destruction because the Syrian army proved for the last two years and a half that it doesn't have to use such weapons to successfully counter the aggression against it and the use of chemical weapons in such an environment would not only affect the civilian population but would also endanger its own troops.

Political suicide

The Syrian government repeatedly stated that it would never use such weapons, if they exist, against its own population. The Syrian government also backed any international initiative to find a political way out of the crisis. It gave its full support for the Geneva II Conference while the foreign opposition in the same time boycotted participation in this Conference as well as every other political initiative to find a peaceful way out of the crisis. It is in this context of political goodwill and constructiveness that the Syrian government got the backing and support of many countries, not the least Russia and China, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. If, hypothetically speaking, the Syrian government would act against its own principles on which its international relations are build on, it would immediately lose this support and commit political suicide. So also from a political point of view it makes no sense at all to even think that the Syrian government would use weapons of mass destruction against its own population.

The timing : Visit of UN chemical weapons inspectors team to Damascus  

It is of course no coincidence that the current crisis coincides with the visit of a UN chemical weapons inspectors team to Damascus as the whole world's attention is now focused on Syria. The team of inspectors arrived in Syria to investigate another incident involving chemical weapons, the chemical weapons strike in the village of Khan al-Assal near Aleppo on March 19 in which dozens of people were killed. Also in this attack unfounded and baseless accusations were directed against the Syrian government without any investigations being made.

Turning the situation into a window of opportunity, the Syrian government made use of the visit of the chemical weapons inspectors team and, in an expression of openness and goodwill, agreed immediately to let the inspectors visit the site of the attack to make the necessary investigations. Unfortunately, on their way to the site, the inspectors teams came under a fierce attack by snipers belonging to the terrorists groups and had to return to their hotel in Damascus. These acts of violence and hostilities make it very clear which side wants to sabotage the work of the inspection team and has things to hide.
[/spoil:1g4xny1p]

Without immediately dismissing this, it makes a good point.

And where is this "evidence" that the US claims to have that proves the Syrian government attacked it's own people? Kind of reminiscent of that "evidence" they had for WMDs in Iraq....

State Dept Admits It Doesn't Know Who Ordered Syria's Chemical Strike
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... cal_strike

QuoteIn a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead.

In effect, Harf was left arguing that because no one else could have carried out the attack, it must have been the Syrian government. "The world doesn't need a classified U.S. intelligence assessment to see the photos and the videos of these people and to know that the only possible entity in Syria that could do this to their own people is the regime," she said.

Given that U.N. inspectors with a mandate to investigate chemical weapons use were on the ground when the attack happened, the decision to deploy what appears to have been a nerve agent in a suburb east of Damascus has puzzled many observers. Why would Syria do such a thing when it is fully aware that the mass use of chemical weapons is the one thing that might require the United States to take military action against it? That's a question U.S. intelligence analysts are puzzling over as well. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official said. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."

I mean, come on......

The rich and powerful are playing games and lining up chess pieces and we're being told we should go to war/get involved with yet another country. And I don't trust a single mainstream media outlet to report this accurately....does anyone remember "Syria Danny" from CNN? A bunch of "Wag the Dog" bullshit, right there.
Legi, Intellexi, Condemnavi.

"Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die." ~Anon

Inter arma enim silent leges

Valigarmander


Shiranu

On the other side of the pond, Obama is saying, "Regardless of what the UN finds, we have evidence it was Al-Asad and that's good enough for us.".

He is also considering a solo strike on Syria as well as finding ways to legally justify invading.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Poison Tree

After this much talk and saber rattling about attacking, I think not attacking would send the clear message that the world (US/NATO in particular) doesn't give a shit about WMD use or dead civilians (which it may well not)
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

Thumpalumpacus

I'm writing my representative, and I hope everyone reading this thread does as well.
<insert witty aphorism here>

josephpalazzo

No intervention would mean that every dictator would see this as a green light to use chemical weapons... a long lasting legacy that every peacenik should be proud.

Youssuf Ramadan

Ethics are bought and sold.  Both Britain and US have a long history of backing tin pot dictatorships and sponsoring massacres for their own benefit.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry when our politicians try and take the moral high ground.

SGOS

Quote from: "Shiranu"On the other side of the pond, Obama is saying, "Regardless of what the UN finds, we have evidence it was Al-Asad and that's good enough for us."
Politicians said that exact same thing in the case of Saddam, even though inspection teams could find no evidence.  The public doesn't care about evidence.  They're quick to trust a politician, even one that can produce no evidence as long as he says he "knows".

You have UN inspections teams, who know how to look, scouring for evidence.  And you have politicians apparently getting information from anonymous cab drivers.  What the fuck is wrong with people?  Why would they believe a politician rather than a skilled investigator?  Why even bother sending investigators if you have no intention of listening to anything they say?

Smartmarzipan

Quote from: "Shiranu"On the other side of the pond, Obama is saying, "Regardless of what the UN finds, we have evidence it was Al-Asad and that's good enough for us.".

He is also considering a solo strike on Syria as well as finding ways to legally justify invading.

I guess France is right there with the US, though.

France's Hollande backs US on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775

QuoteFrancois Hollande said all options were being considered, and that a strike within days was not ruled out.

His comments came after US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Washington would continue to seek a coalition for possible military action.

However, Germany said it would not participate in military action.

QuoteChinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said there should be no rush to force action against Syria until UN chemical weapons inspectors have reported on their findings.

Washington accuses Damascus of using chemical weapons - which it denies.

The inspectors visited a hospital in a government-controlled area of Damascus.

The experts are due to finish their work later on Friday and give their preliminary findings to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Saturday.

I am interested in learning how these UN experts can find evidence of the guilty party within a matter of days. That seems like too little time, doesn't it? 'Course, I don't know much about chemical weapons investigations. But I would like to see their findings....

QuoteIn an interview with Le Monde newspaper, Mr Hollande said the UK vote made no difference to his support for action against the Syrian government.

"Each country is sovereign to participate or not in an operation. That is valid for Britain as it is for France," he said.

He said that if the UN Security Council was unable to act because two of its permanent members, Russia and China, were in opposition, a coalition would form including the Arab League and European countries.

"But there are few countries which can have the capacity of enforcing any sanction through the appropriate measures," he added.

"France will be part of it. France is ready."

Mr Hollande added that while all options for intervention were on the table, no decision would be taken without the conditions to justify it.

He ruled out strikes while the UN inspectors were in Syria. However, he did not rule out the possibility that military action could be taken before next Wednesday, when the French parliament is due to debate the issue.

Yeah, so, France and America, all ready to go into Syria. :|
Legi, Intellexi, Condemnavi.

"Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die." ~Anon

Inter arma enim silent leges

Smartmarzipan

So more information:

Obama Striking Assad Risks International Law Conflict
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-0 ... tional-law

QuoteThe United Nations Security Council would need to authorize military action or the U.S. would have to be acting in self-defense for a strike to be legal under international law even if it may be justified, according to lawyers including Philip Carter.

"The bottom line is that under hard international law, there is no good legal argument" for a U.S. or allied strike on Syria without UN authorization, Carter, a former Pentagon official, said in an interview.

QuoteHaving decided they can bypass the UN, where Russia has made clear it would veto a resolution authorizing force against Syria, U.S. administration officials are asserting a moral case. Much as President Bill Clinton's administration justified the 1999 bombing of Serbia as necessary to defend Kosovo, Obama and his aides are saying Syria violated international standards by gassing its own people.

President Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, said in an Aug. 28 PBS interview that Syria's use of chemical weapons violated "an international norm." Failing to respond could indirectly threaten the U.S. and its allies in the Mideast, and the U.S. must act "to make sure" that chemical weapons are not "loose in a way that ultimately could affect our security," he said.

QuoteThere's a humanitarian argument that the international community has "a right and sometimes the duty to intervene in cases of slaughter and genocide," as it did in Kosovo, according to Carter, a senior fellow and counsel at the Center for a New American Security in Washington. That "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine hasn't been accepted as international law.

"There's no case for individual self-defense and a shaky case for collective self-defense" on behalf of the citizens of another country under existing law, Carter said.
Legi, Intellexi, Condemnavi.

"Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die." ~Anon

Inter arma enim silent leges

SilentFutility

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I'm not sure what your position is.

(1) Do you mean that if there are fires, the US should extinguish all of them or none of them? Otherwise they are hypocrites.

(2) And if they only extinguish some of them, then they are cherrypicking only those for self-interest.

IOW, the US can only do bad???
My position is that shooting a few missiles at chemical weapons facilities and doing nothing else will do absolutely nothing to change the situation in the country and the violence and killing will not stop nor slow down one jot, but at the same time it does risk intensifying it.

Humanitarian intervention is humanitarian intervention ie. going there and protecting and helping people and providing massive amounts of aid.

The US has the power to do good, more so than any other country on earth, but the world has sat and watched and largely yawned and changed channel when people were being herded into rooms followed by a grenade and the door slammed behind them, and tortured and maimed and raped and killed en masse for a very long time. There is something on the agenda other than humanitarian causes.

Quote from: "Poison Tree"After this much talk and saber rattling about attacking, I think not attacking would send the clear message that the world (US/NATO in particular) doesn't give a shit about WMD use or dead civilians (which it may well not)
NATO is for self-defence, it is not a lobbying committee useful for forcing other member states to gang up and attack someone against their better judgement, despite its (ab)use as such in the past.

The US doesn't if they're brown people, and in terms of civillian deaths and WMD and chemical weapons use I wouldn't say the US is setting a high moral standard either.

Shooting missiles and taking the opportunity to destroy some of Assad's military stockpiles and reducing his capacity to attack western nations and Israel and totally ignoring actually helping anyone also doesn't show a great interest in protecting the Syrian people.

Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Ethics are bought and sold.  Both Britain and US have a long history of backing tin pot dictatorships and sponsoring massacres for their own benefit.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry when our politicians try and take the moral high ground.
Agreed. Human rights violations being the motivation are the official line and nothing more.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "SilentFutility"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I'm not sure what your position is.

(1) Do you mean that if there are fires, the US should extinguish all of them or none of them? Otherwise they are hypocrites.

(2) And if they only extinguish some of them, then they are cherrypicking only those for self-interest.

IOW, the US can only do bad???
My position is that shooting a few missiles at chemical weapons facilities and doing nothing else will do absolutely nothing to change the situation in the country and the violence and killing will not stop nor slow down one jot, but at the same time it does risk intensifying it.

Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.

Fidel_Castronaut

Quote from: "Valigarmander"The UK parliament has voted against military action in Syria.

Nonbinding, but still a blow to Cameron.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898551

Looks like it's only going to be France that gets involved in military action with the US.

The UK parliament last night voted against any sort of involvement in military intervention.

All I can say is that finally the UK parliament has refused to kowtow to US pressure and actually listened to what the UK people are saying.  =D>
lol, marquee. HTML ROOLZ!